What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Actually since all we have is inter-subjective opinion upon which to agree our objective "facts" the definition is as good as any other.
Clearly, though, not all inter-subjective consensuses are as good as all the others. Ask any church what they think of God - then compare it to what they say in a Mosque, or Temple.

I would suggest that to get a good and reliable objective fact you would have to apply the inter-subjective views of science, or scientific method. Whilst even the scientific community is fraught with argumentation, for the mundane facts such as there is a cup on the table you only need minimal verification. Even the shape of the earth would be easy enough. But even for that there was a time when this was arguable.

However - when it comes to matters of morality - there is simply no scope for ANY morally objective opinion.
It is pointless offering morally objective views in the hope that others on the Forum with agree with the moral point - that is not finding objectivity - that is only getting the agreement of others. For ANY fact to be securely objective it would have to get the agreement of ALL, without any reasonable exception.

This topic drones on and on. It is fruitless. There is no condition where any moral could achieve objectivity. Morals involve values. Values invite opinion. Opinion is subjectivity.

It looks like we're on the same page about morality. What fascinates me is how tenacious moral objectivists are. They just won't let it go. And the fun fact is that people who think morality is objective - that there are moral facts - also think their own moral opinions are facts. I wonder why that is.

You are stuck with the theistic moral objectivists and believe ignorantly I am on the same camp.
As I had stated, what is secular objective absolute moral laws [moral facts] must be justified from empirical evidence and polished with highest level of philosophical critical thinking.

As it happens, I think you're wrong about the definition of objectivity as 'justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus' being as good as any other - because intersubjective consensus can only be consensus of opinion, and objectivity is independence from opinion. If intersubjective consensus is conceded, so is the case against what we call truth and objectivity.

You are so stuck with the concept of 'opinion' despite me providing the dictionary meaning.

Scientific facts are objective and are based on intersubjective consensus leveraged upon the Scientific Method and peer review.
Are you that ignorant of this fact?
You are ignorant of how the Scientific Method and peer review works?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Why get so cross and offensive? I understand scientific method and peer review perfectly well. Scientific theories can only ever be the best explanations we have so far, based on the evidence we have. Scientists don't tend to claim access to the truth, because of the problem of induction.

But that's an epistemological problem - to do with what we believe and know or can know. The truth-value of a factual claim - such as a scientific one - is a completely separate matter. That scientists don't claim their explanations are true doesn't mean that they aren't true - or false.

Your delusion is that moral claims are like factual claims, with a truth-value. You can bang on as much as you like in defence of your argument - and it seems likely that you will to the last breath you take - but it's still an unsound argument with unjustified premises.

[Skepdick]

Why get so cross and offensive? I understand scientific method and peer review perfectly well. Scientific theories can only every be the best explanations we have so far, based on the evidence we have. Scientists don't tend to claim access to the truth, because of the problem of induction.

Peter, who has access to truth?

Who accessed truth in order to assign a truth-value to the sentence "The sky is blue"? How did they access truth?
Who accessed truth in order to assign a truth-value to the sentence "The Earth is oblate"? How did they access truth?

But that's an epistemological problem - to do with what we believe and know or can know. The truth-value of a factual claim - such as a scientific one - is a completely separate matter.

It's not a separate issue - epistemology is the only issue. Assigning truth-values to linguistic expressions/claims is an epistemic problem. It's the question: How do we come to know?

If the scientific/empirical epistemology is not sufficient in determining the factuality of English sentences, then which epistemology is?

Your delusion is that moral claims are like factual claims, with a truth-value

Both moral claims and factual claims are linguistic expressions.

If humans can assign a truth-value to one, then humans can assign truth-value to both.

but it's still an unsound argument with unjustified premises.

That does't mean that the argument is false.

Another classic case of verbalism. Over-indexing on form, while ignoring content. Dumb Philosopher.

[Sculptor]

V A wrote:

'Objective is independent of opinion and beliefs but objectivity is justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus.'

This is a contradiction in terms, and therefore false. Objectivity can't be those two things at the same time.

And the JTB definition of knowledge is a conceptual mess anyway.

If the earth is an oblate spheroid, then the factual assertion 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is true, independent from opinion. Justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus has absolutely nothing to do with the truth-value of the assertion. If the intersubjective consensus was that the earth is flat, that wouldn't matter a flying f**k. You're confusing what people think is true with what is true.

Actually since all we have is inter-subjective opinion upon which to agree our objective "facts" the definition is as good as any other.
Clearly, though, not all inter-subjective consensuses are as good as all the others. Ask any church what they think of God - then compare it to what they say in a Mosque, or Temple.

I would suggest that to get a good and reliable objective fact you would have to apply the inter-subjective views of science, or scientific method. Whilst even the scientific community is fraught with argumentation, for the mundane facts such as there is a cup on the table you only need minimal verification. Even the shape of the earth would be easy enough. But even for that there was a time when this was arguable.

However - when it comes to matters of morality - there is simply no scope for ANY morally objective opinion.
It is pointless offering morally objective views in the hope that others on the Forum with agree with the moral point - that is not finding objectivity - that is only getting the agreement of others. For ANY fact to be securely objective it would have to get the agreement of ALL, without any reasonable exception.

This topic drones on and on. It is fruitless. There is no condition where any moral could achieve objectivity. Morals involve values. Values invite opinion. Opinion is subjectivity.

It looks like we're on the same page about morality. What fascinates me is how tenacious moral objectivists are. They just won't let it go. And the fun fact is that people who think morality is objective - that there are moral facts - also think their own moral opinions are facts. I wonder why that is.

As it happens, I think you're wrong about the definition of objectivity as 'justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus' being as good as any other - because intersubjective consensus can only be consensus of opinion, and objectivity is independence from opinion. If intersubjective consensus is conceded, so is the case against what we call truth and objectivity.

Here's why I said that.
We are all human subjects, and so all our utterances are based on how we subject our perceptions to our reason. This is indelible. One person alone cannot utter an objective fact since that would require the verification of others. In extreme cases we can offer the 'brains in vats', or Descartes extreme skeptical starting point.
All Science has grown with peer review, verification, replicability and falsification. All this requires the labour of the scientific community, who all bring their own views. When these (subjects) are brought together the objectivity can be ironed out with rigorous method. But say it how you will, all evidence is brought about and gathered by subjective perceptions.
This is how inter-subjectivity leads to objective facts. But these facts need to be devoid of opinion and bias. This is JUST possible for matters of concrete and evident matters, but impossible for matters of morality.

Why do objectivity persist? Bad education, a complete lack of reflexivity and self criticism. People are brought up to believe, rather than seek to know.
They are raised with the idea that faith is as good as truth, without understanding what an opinion is. I blame religion whose only chance of survival is to push obvious lies as if they were ultimate truths.

[Skepdick]

One person alone cannot utter an objective fact since that would require the verification of others.

Verification is not a necessary criterion for truth. It's a necessary criterion for certainty.
Certainty is a useful property for broader applicability of an idea - you can be certain that water boils at 100 degrees celsius at see level.
But it doesn't boil at 100 degrees on Everest. Context matters.

I am thirsty. This is an objective truth. Your inability to verify it does not dismiss the objective truth of my thirst.

it only hinders the certainty you attach to my claim. You can be skeptical of my thirst, and I will continue to be thirsty.

[Peter Holmes]

Actually since all we have is inter-subjective opinion upon which to agree our objective "facts" the definition is as good as any other.
Clearly, though, not all inter-subjective consensuses are as good as all the others. Ask any church what they think of God - then compare it to what they say in a Mosque, or Temple.

I would suggest that to get a good and reliable objective fact you would have to apply the inter-subjective views of science, or scientific method. Whilst even the scientific community is fraught with argumentation, for the mundane facts such as there is a cup on the table you only need minimal verification. Even the shape of the earth would be easy enough. But even for that there was a time when this was arguable.

However - when it comes to matters of morality - there is simply no scope for ANY morally objective opinion.
It is pointless offering morally objective views in the hope that others on the Forum with agree with the moral point - that is not finding objectivity - that is only getting the agreement of others. For ANY fact to be securely objective it would have to get the agreement of ALL, without any reasonable exception.

This topic drones on and on. It is fruitless. There is no condition where any moral could achieve objectivity. Morals involve values. Values invite opinion. Opinion is subjectivity.

It looks like we're on the same page about morality. What fascinates me is how tenacious moral objectivists are. They just won't let it go. And the fun fact is that people who think morality is objective - that there are moral facts - also think their own moral opinions are facts. I wonder why that is.

As it happens, I think you're wrong about the definition of objectivity as 'justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus' being as good as any other - because intersubjective consensus can only be consensus of opinion, and objectivity is independence from opinion. If intersubjective consensus is conceded, so is the case against what we call truth and objectivity.

Here's why I said that.
We are all human subjects, and so all our utterances are based on how we subject our perceptions to our reason. This is indelible. One person alone cannot utter an objective fact since that would require the verification of others. In extreme cases we can offer the 'brains in vats', or Descartes extreme skeptical starting point.
All Science has grown with peer review, verification, replicability and falsification. All this requires the labour of the scientific community, who all bring their own views. When these (subjects) are brought together the objectivity can be ironed out with rigorous method. But say it how you will, all evidence is brought about and gathered by subjective perceptions.
This is how inter-subjectivity leads to objective facts. But these facts need to be devoid of opinion and bias. This is JUST possible for matters of concrete and evident matters, but impossible for matters of morality.

Why do objectivity persist? Bad education, a complete lack of reflexivity and self criticism. People are brought up to believe, rather than seek to know.
They are raised with the idea that faith is as good as truth, without understanding what an opinion is. I blame religion whose only chance of survival is to push obvious lies as if they were ultimate truths.

Thanks. Just a clarification of terms. What we call a fact is either a feature of reality or a description making a claim about a feature of reality. And only the second 'fact' has a truth value, which is 'true'. And what we call objectivity is independence from opinion. So the expression 'objective fact' is a tautology.

I do understand the currently fashionable argument for intersubjective consensus. But it's a genetic fallacy. Where a factual assertion comes from - its source - has no bearing whatsoever on its truth-value. Thinking something is so doesn't make it so. And neither does everyone's thinking it's so. If we think there are such things as truth and falsehood - that an assertion can be true or false - then judgements, beliefs or opinions as to the truth-value of an assertion - whether or not the belief that it's true is reached by intersubjective consensus - are irrelevant.

[Skepdick]

I do understand the currently fashionable argument for intersubjective consensus. But it's a genetic fallacy

This is the fallacy fallacy.

Thanks. Just a clarification of terms. What we call a fact is either a feature of reality or a description making a claim about a feature of reality. And only the second 'fact' has a truth value, which is 'true'.

ALL descriptions are linguistic expressions. Who assigns truth-values to linguistic expressions and how?

Where a factual assertion comes from - its source - has no bearing whatsoever on its truth-value.

Of course it does! Linguistic expressions have no truth-value whatsoever until the expression is evaluated and a truth-value is assigned to it.

Thinking something is so doesn't make it so. And neither does everyone's thinking it's so

Thinking that the sky is blue doesn't make it blue. And neither does everybody thinking it's blue.

So how did we assign a truth-value to the linguistic expression "The sky is blue."?

2000+ years of Philosophers have tried to get philosophy off the ground and have failed for exactly the same reason as you are failing.
You keep ignoring the foundational problem in ALL of your arguments: Who decides and how?

I decide for myself.
You decide for yourself.
Every individual decides for themselves.
We decide for ourselves.

The inter-subjective consensus has been "in fashion" since humans have been social animals. Which is always.

[Sculptor]

It looks like we're on the same page about morality. What fascinates me is how tenacious moral objectivists are. They just won't let it go. And the fun fact is that people who think morality is objective - that there are moral facts - also think their own moral opinions are facts. I wonder why that is.

As it happens, I think you're wrong about the definition of objectivity as 'justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus' being as good as any other - because intersubjective consensus can only be consensus of opinion, and objectivity is independence from opinion. If intersubjective consensus is conceded, so is the case against what we call truth and objectivity.

Here's why I said that.
We are all human subjects, and so all our utterances are based on how we subject our perceptions to our reason. This is indelible. One person alone cannot utter an objective fact since that would require the verification of others. In extreme cases we can offer the 'brains in vats', or Descartes extreme skeptical starting point.
All Science has grown with peer review, verification, replicability and falsification. All this requires the labour of the scientific community, who all bring their own views. When these (subjects) are brought together the objectivity can be ironed out with rigorous method. But say it how you will, all evidence is brought about and gathered by subjective perceptions.
This is how inter-subjectivity leads to objective facts. But these facts need to be devoid of opinion and bias. This is JUST possible for matters of concrete and evident matters, but impossible for matters of morality.

Why do objectivity persist? Bad education, a complete lack of reflexivity and self criticism. People are brought up to believe, rather than seek to know.
They are raised with the idea that faith is as good as truth, without understanding what an opinion is. I blame religion whose only chance of survival is to push obvious lies as if they were ultimate truths.

Thanks. Just a clarification of terms. What we call a fact is either a feature of reality or a description making a claim about a feature of reality. And only the second 'fact' has a truth value, which is 'true'. And what we call objectivity is independence from opinion. So the expression 'objective fact' is a tautology.

I do understand the currently fashionable argument for intersubjective consensus. But it's a genetic fallacy. Where a factual assertion comes from - its source - has no bearing whatsoever on its truth-value. Thinking something is so doesn't make it so. And neither does everyone's thinking it's so. If we think there are such things as truth and falsehood - that an assertion can be true or false - then judgements, beliefs or opinions as to the truth-value of an assertion - whether or not the belief that it's true is reached by intersubjective consensus - are irrelevant.

I disagree as there can be no facts without humans interested in taking notice of them; it cannot even said to be disinterested, since that would imply a rejection or negation of interest.
The universe abides without facts or other forms of ideas. A fact is interested. It can never be fully free of that bias.
Even "the sky is blue" cannot be wholly objective since colour exists in the form of qualia and "blue" is a peculiar and human value.

[Peter Holmes]

I do understand the currently fashionable argument for intersubjective consensus. But it's a genetic fallacy. Where a factual assertion comes from - its source - has no bearing whatsoever on its truth-value. Thinking something is so doesn't make it so. And neither does everyone's thinking it's so. If we think there are such things as truth and falsehood - that an assertion can be true or false - then judgements, beliefs or opinions as to the truth-value of an assertion - whether or not the belief that it's true is reached by intersubjective consensus - are irrelevant.

I disagree as there can be no facts without humans interested in taking notice of them; it cannot even said to be disinterested, since that would imply a rejection or negation of interest.
The universe abides without facts or other forms of ideas. A fact is interested. It can never be fully free of that bias.
Even "the sky is blue" cannot be wholly objective since colour exists in the form of qualia and "blue" is a peculiar and human value.

If a fact is a state-of-affairs, then of course facts are independent of opinion, human or otherwise. I assume you can't possibly believe they aren't.

But if fact is a true factual assertion - what philosophers have called a true proposition - then its truth is always 'given the way we use the signs involved' - which is always conventional and contextual. In other words, a truth-claim is always in a context and for a purpose.

And given that, 'the sky is blue' can be true, if what we call the sky is what we call blue. If you reject that account of truth, this conversation is over, because I have no reason to take anything you say seriously.

[Sculptor]

I do understand the currently fashionable argument for intersubjective consensus. But it's a genetic fallacy. Where a factual assertion comes from - its source - has no bearing whatsoever on its truth-value. Thinking something is so doesn't make it so. And neither does everyone's thinking it's so. If we think there are such things as truth and falsehood - that an assertion can be true or false - then judgements, beliefs or opinions as to the truth-value of an assertion - whether or not the belief that it's true is reached by intersubjective consensus - are irrelevant.

I disagree as there can be no facts without humans interested in taking notice of them; it cannot even said to be disinterested, since that would imply a rejection or negation of interest.
The universe abides without facts or other forms of ideas. A fact is interested. It can never be fully free of that bias.
Even "the sky is blue" cannot be wholly objective since colour exists in the form of qualia and "blue" is a peculiar and human value.

If a fact is a state-of-affairs, then of course facts are independent of opinion, human or otherwise. I assume you can't possibly believe they aren't.

But if fact is a true factual assertion - what philosophers have called a true proposition - then its truth is always 'given the way we use the signs involved' - which is always conventional and contextual. In other words, a truth-claim is always in a context and for a purpose.

And given that, 'the sky is blue' can be true, if what we call the sky is what we call blue. If you reject that account of truth, this conversation is over, because I have no reason to take anything you say seriously.

Fine I suggest you keep your mind closed since that makes you more happy.
In effect you are little different from the moral objectivists because you fail to see that what you like to call "facts" are things in which you are interested and you are vested in your human perceptions, are covered in the accretions of your personal experience.
You cannot avoid "this is an apple" without seeing this thing in front of you in terms of your purely subjective ideas about how it tastes and what you can get out of it. All facts are much like that - selected for their utility and human interested biases.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It looks like we're on the same page about morality. What fascinates me is how tenacious moral objectivists are. They just won't let it go. And the fun fact is that people who think morality is objective - that there are moral facts - also think their own moral opinions are facts. I wonder why that is.

You are stuck with the theistic moral objectivists and believe ignorantly I am on the same camp.
As I had stated, what is secular objective absolute moral laws [moral facts] must be justified from empirical evidence and polished with highest level of philosophical critical thinking.

As it happens, I think you're wrong about the definition of objectivity as 'justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus' being as good as any other - because intersubjective consensus can only be consensus of opinion, and objectivity is independence from opinion. If intersubjective consensus is conceded, so is the case against what we call truth and objectivity.

You are so stuck with the concept of 'opinion' despite me providing the dictionary meaning.

Scientific facts are objective and are based on intersubjective consensus leveraged upon the Scientific Method and peer review.
Are you that ignorant of this fact?
You are ignorant of how the Scientific Method and peer review works?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Why get so cross and offensive? I understand scientific method and peer review perfectly well. Scientific theories can only ever be the best explanations we have so far, based on the evidence we have. Scientists don't tend to claim access to the truth, because of the problem of induction.

But that's an epistemological problem - to do with what we believe and know or can know. The truth-value of a factual claim - such as a scientific one - is a completely separate matter. That scientists don't claim their explanations are true doesn't mean that they aren't true - or false.

Cross? I am merely emphasizing facts and arguments.
Note scientists never claim there is a "truth" or Truth that is independent of their participation. Note the Observers' Effect and Wave Collapse Function. Newtonian scientists merely ASSUMED there is such a truth as a matter of convenience to proceed with their research.
What counts with Scientific Knowledge is repeatability of tests independent of anyone's personal view and that the results are as expected as claimed.

What is scientifically true is conditioned upon the Scientific Method's requirements and peer review.
When scientists do not claim their explanation are absolutely True independent of anyone's view because of induction, then which other humans can claim they are absolutely and independently True or False?
I need answers for the above question.

The above contention is reduced to the notable philosophical dichotomy between the claims of Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Do you understand the contended issues between the above two philosophical groups?
I have raised this many times already but you missed this '500 pound gorilla' in the room.

Your views are those of Philosophical Realism. If you can argue for Philosophical Realism and dismiss the claims of Philosophical Anti-Realism [especially of Kant's] then I will concede what you claim is true.

Your delusion is that moral claims are like factual claims, with a truth-value. You can bang on as much as you like in defence of your argument - and it seems likely that you will to the last breath you take - but it's still an unsound argument with unjustified premises.

The above is a straw man.
I have never claimed secular objective absolute moral laws has a truth-value as in the Philosophical Realism's perspective, i.e. a TRUTH that is independent of the human conditions and intersubjective consensus.

You cannot understand my argument as justified because you are on the wrong footing, i.e. on Philosophical Realism.
Suggest you master the topic of Philosophical Realism and understand [not necessary agree] the claims of the Philosophical Anti-Realist [esp Kant's] else you will always be stepping on your own toes and kicking your own ass.

The point is despite all your shooting, so far they are all blanks against my justified argument.
All you are doing is merely blabbering my argument is unjustified and unsound, but you do not show which premise is false.

What I see is you have a personal issue with theism's objective absolute moral laws commanded from an illusory God, thus no others can claim objective absolute moral laws are tenable and useful for humanity in a non-theistic perspective.

Also I believe you are very ignorant of the fundamental issues and contentions between the claims of the Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism [esp of Kant's]. If you are familiar with it, you would have brought up this very relevant point.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Fine I suggest you keep your mind closed since that makes you more happy.
In effect you are little different from the moral objectivists because you fail to see that what you like to call "facts" are things in which you are interested and you are vested in your human perceptions, are covered in the accretions of your personal experience.

Peter Holmes is trapped inside the Philosophical Realism Silo, thus not able to understand reality in relation to intersubjective consensus at the meta-level. This is why he is unable to understand the secular objective absolute moral laws that are derived and justified from empirical evidence of human nature and nature.

His inability to accept a empirical and philosophically justified secular objective absolute moral laws is basically due to some personal bias and and issue with theism.
What I see is he has a very personal issue with theism's objective absolute moral laws commanded from an illusory God, thus no others can claim secular objective absolute moral laws are tenable and useful for humanity in a non-theistic perspective, no matter, they are justified and sound.

You cannot avoid "this is an apple" without seeing this thing in front of you in terms of your purely subjective ideas about how it tastes and what you can get out of it. All facts are much like that - selected for their utility and human interested biases.

Nope, nope, no. The above point is too superficial.

"This is an apple" is not directly dependent the person's direct experiences of an apple.

The concept of intersubjective consensus is leveraged and grounded upon the collective experiences of all human subjects of the past and present and linked to what is inherited from our one-celled ancestors from 4 billion years ago.
What is objective fact cannot be independent of the above intersubjective consensus from the range of subjects to the present that has been built over 4 billion years ago.
It is this subjects collectively that are critical to "objectivity is intersubjectivity", thus fundamentally subjective.

As usual, you are blabbering without philosophical substance, depth and width.

[Peter Holmes]

What is scientifically true is conditioned upon the Scientific Method's requirements and peer review.
When scientists do not claim their explanation are absolutely True independent of anyone's view because of induction, then which other humans can claim they are absolutely and independently True or False?

Again, you're mistaking what we know or claim to know - and therefore which factual assertions we think are true - with which factual assertions actually are true, because they describe features of reality that exist - given the way we use the signs involved.

Do you believe features of reality exist independently from humans, and that true assertions can be made about them? Natural scientists do, because their work depends on those beliefs. What could scientific data - let alone scientific theories - mean or be worth otherwise? I need answers to these questions.

The above contention is reduced to the notable philosophical dichotomy between the claims of Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Do you understand the contended issues between the above two philosophical groups?
I have raised this many times already but you missed this '500 pound gorilla' in the room.

Your views are those of Philosophical Realism. If you can argue for Philosophical Realism and dismiss the claims of Philosophical Anti-Realism [especially of Kant's] then I will concede what you claim is true.

I may have missed your defence of anti-realism, for which I apologise. But as you know, there are many forms of realism and anti-realism. And for that reason, I think labels can cause confusion. It's the claims and arguments that matter. In weaker moments, I call myself a methodological naturalist, as it happens - and I think most natural scientists are methodological naturalists, though many may not recognise or accept the label.

If you can do it extremely briefly and clearly, please set out the main claims of your version of anti-realism, and I'll show you if and where I disagree with them. Perhaps then we can see how this relates to your case for moral objectivism.

The point is despite all your shooting, so far they are all blanks against my justified argument.
All you are doing is merely blabbering my argument is unjustified and unsound, but you do not show which premise is false.

I think I and others have demonstrated that they're false or at least not shown to be true - and that you've ignored those demonstrations, or failed to understand them. But both of us seem to be living in hope.

Can I suggest you resist the urge to rant, repeat your argument ad nauseam, and call the rest of us ignorant? After all, you claim to value rational skepticism - critical thinking. Do you ever stop to consider that you may be mistaken - that a fixed idea of yours is wrong or misleading?

[Sculptor]

Fine I suggest you keep your mind closed since that makes you more happy.
In effect you are little different from the moral objectivists because you fail to see that what you like to call "facts" are things in which you are interested and you are vested in your human perceptions, are covered in the accretions of your personal experience.

Peter Holmes is trapped inside the Philosophical Realism Silo, thus not able to understand reality in relation to intersubjective consensus at the meta-level. This is why he is unable to understand the secular objective absolute moral laws that are derived and justified from empirical evidence of human nature and nature.

You mean he can't accept your bullshit and so you are trying to recruit me to your ridiculous ideas.
No thanks.
He's way ahead of you, matey.

[Peter Holmes]

Fine I suggest you keep your mind closed since that makes you more happy.
In effect you are little different from the moral objectivists because you fail to see that what you like to call "facts" are things in which you are interested and you are vested in your human perceptions, are covered in the accretions of your personal experience.

Peter Holmes is trapped inside the Philosophical Realism Silo, thus not able to understand reality in relation to intersubjective consensus at the meta-level. This is why he is unable to understand the secular objective absolute moral laws that are derived and justified from empirical evidence of human nature and nature.

You mean he can't accept your bullshit and so you are trying to recruit me to your ridiculous ideas.
No thanks.
He's way ahead of you, matey.

- But way behind you, what with my closed mind, nearly as deluded as those benighted moral objectivists. Poor old VA, down there in the gutter - with you, an enlightened one, up in the stars.

He's been suckered by Kant. But you've been suckered by postmodern truth-relativist bs, as mired in metaphysics as philosophy's always been.

[Skepdick]

He's way ahead of you, matey.

Moral relativism is "ahead" of moral objectivism?

I am dying to hear what yardstick for measuring "aheadness" you are using! In fact, I am dying to hear what yardstick you are using for measuring anything when you determine that X is "better" than Y.

I'll grab popcorn.