What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

First, no it isn't. Second, I'm a society? Or are you saying something about respective societies we live in?

Justification is a social norm amongst Philosophers. A tribe to which you apparently belong.

You asked me to justify something. Why?

Why not?

When I ask you to justify I am merely asking you to practice the social norms you've already accepted for yourself.

When you ask me to justify you are asking me to practice your social norms.

Awkward.... Since you can't even convince me to join your society.

Aspie no likey sarcasm.

My bad. I'll try being less sarcastic around you, but I make no promises.

[Terrapin Station]

Justification is a social norm amongst Philosophers. A tribe to which you apparently belong.

So if I'm a philosopher I'm required to agree with some statistically common view?

You asked me to justify something. Why?

Why not?

Would you accept that as an answer to why justification is necessary in the case at hand? "Why not?"

When I ask you to justify I am merely asking you to practice the social norms you've already accepted for yourself.

You know what they say about assumptions.

[Skepdick]

So if I'm a philosopher I'm required to agree with some statistically common view?

If you don't agree with it, then why are you prescribing it?

Would you accept that as an answer to why justification is necessary in the case at hand? Why not?

I am not interested in the case at hand.

I am interested in why you think justification is necessary in general.

You know what they say about assumptions.

I am not assuming. You are actually asking for justification. In accord with the social norms of your people.

It sure confirms the statistical norm.

[Terrapin Station]

If you don't agree with it, then why are you prescribing it?

What was the explanation I gave in this specific case?

I am not interested in the case at hand.

I'm not saying anything about it in any broader context. Good thing you're asking so many questions about something you're not interested in then.

I am interested in why you think justification is necessary in general.

What did I say about that above?

[Skepdick]

What was the explanation I gave in this specific case?

Why are you asking me questions to which you have the answer?

I'm not saying anything about it in any broader context.

I know! That's why I am asking the questions that I am asking you.

Good thing you're asking so many questions about something you're not interested in then.

Seems to me you are confused. Let me help you out.

I am not asking any questions about the thing I am not interested in (justification in particular).
I am asking questions about the thing I am interested in (justification in general).

What did I say about that above?

You said that it isn't.

But you also said that you practice logic.

If justification is not necessary in general, then it is a valid deduction, and a true conclusion
that justification is not necessary in particular.

That's a performative contradiction.

[Terrapin Station]

What was the explanation I gave in this specific case?

Why are you asking me questions to which you have the answer?

To see if you have an answer I typed already. Do you?

[Skepdick]

To see if you have an answer I typed already. Do you?

I have all the answers you typed already.

That's how forums work. You shouldn't have to ask that!

The reason I am asking you questions is for the answers you haven't typed.

[Terrapin Station]

To see if you have an answer I typed already. Do you?

I have all the answers you typed already.

Sure. So what did I say?

[Skepdick]

Sure. So what did I say?

You have that answer too!

You shouldn't have to ask!

WHY are you asking?

[Terrapin Station]

Sure. So what did I say?

You have that answer too!

You shouldn't have to ask!

WHY are you asking?

If you're not paying attention I'm not going to bother. So show you were paying attention. What did I say?

[Skepdick]

If you're not paying attention I'm not going to bother. So show you were paying attention.

Obviously I am paying attention. How else do you think I am engaging you?

What did I say?

Dude. 3rd time....

WHY do you keep asking questions to which you have the answer to.

[Terrapin Station]

If you're not paying attention I'm not going to bother. So show you were paying attention.

Obviously I am paying attention. How else do you think I am engaging you?

What did I say?

Dude. 3rd time....

WHY do you keep asking questions to which you have the answer to.

Yep. Not gonna bother then. Maybe Age/evolution/creation will think you're worth interacting with. Have fun with him.

[Skepdick]

Yep. Not gonna bother then.

Looks like you lied about your necessary conditions for not-bothering...

TS: If you're not paying attention I'm not going to bother.
Skepdick: I am paying attention.
TS: Not gonna bother then.

Do you even understand how if-statements work?

[Age]

Is there a 'thought' or 'view' that exits "independently of person"?

Obviously not,

Great.

Is this the FIRST time that we have agreed on some 'thing'?

hence why if one agrees that moral stances are judgments or something similar--some sort of view or thought, then it should be obvious to one that morality isn't objective.

But just because one has a 'moral stance' or a 'moral judgement' then does this necessarily mean that 'morality', itself, is 'objective'?

What do you mean by 'objective' here?

People who believe that morality is objective need to explain what a moral stance would amount to independent of persons.

But what a person has, or people have, as a 'moral stance' actually got to do with whether 'morality', itself, is 'objective' or not?

They need to explain just how that would obtain, what would it be instantiated as or in, what would it be a property of, etc.

But a personal 'moral stance' is just a personal or subjective judgment or viewpoint.

Again, what has this got to do with 'moral objectivity'?

Or, with a 'moral objective'?

Otherwise they're stuck trying to equate "objectivity" with some sort of normative, but that doesn't work, because there's no way around that reducing to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

But adding some 'thing' like "argumentum ad populum fallacy" into the thinking/reasoning here is faulty thinking in and of itself, and thus just a fallacy in and of itself as well.

Also, and before I forget, are you 'trying to' imply/infer that a 'moral stance' could NOT be a 'fact'?

If yes, then how do 'you' define the word 'fact' here?

[DPMartin]

It seems to me this question - which has emerged from discussion of my post 'Is morality objective or subjective?' - is the crux in the disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists.

An objection to moral subjectivism is that, if moral values and judgements are matters of opinion, we can't know if they're correct. For example, we can't know if slavery is right or wrong, and can't therefore morally condemn those who think slavery is justifiable. That's just their opinion, and we can't say which opinion is correct or true.

But this assumes that there is indeed something to be known: an object of some kind that verifies the assertion slavery is wrong and falsifies the assertion slavery is right - or, perhaps, vice versa. But what is the object that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?

It can't be slavery itself, because that would also be the object of the assertion slavery is right - so we're back to square one. And it can't be the wrongness of slavery. To say the assertion slavery is wrong is justified (shown to be true) by the objective wrongness of slavery is circular, and so no justification at all.

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent of judgement, belief or opinion?

Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?

(The claim that objective moral values and judgements come from a god's commands or a god's nature begs the question: what makes a god's commands or a god's nature objectively morally good?)

for some reason objective or subjective morals is the box no one can get out of.

its simple morals are relative to those in the agreement that is the set of rules called morals. you are not bound or obligated to follow a set of rules or morals agreed to in a nation you are not from or in. but the nation you are in or from you are bound or obligated to honor that set of rules or morals.


morals are relative to those in the agreement or law or covenant or contract or constitution so on and so forth.