What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Elsewhere, VA offers this killer syllogism.

P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
P2 Morality is part of human nature
C1 Morality is an objective fact

P1 and P2 are false, or at least not shown to be true - so the argument is unsound, or at least not shown to be sound.

[Peter Holmes]

Elsewhere, VA has posted yet again, this time on the 'sociobiology of morality'.

But VA makes the same mistake every time. To show why humans may think some actions are morally right or wrong is not to show that some actions are morally right or wrong.

Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions.

[Skepdick]

Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions.

That's an imperative statement, so it's not true.

Non-moral premises can and do entail moral conclusions.
It's only an "error" because non-moral premises are not allowed to entail moral conclusions. Or so philosophers insist.

Awkward.

[Sculptor]

Elsewhere, VA offers this killer syllogism.

P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
P2 Morality is part of human nature
C1 Morality is an objective fact

P1 and P2 are false, or at least not shown to be true - so the argument is unsound, or at least not shown to be sound.

P1 is hugely problematic. What is and is not nature and what is and if not nurture, culture and socialisation is hotly debated.

P2 Is hugely debated. WHilst some humans have what we like to call a "moral sense" or a "moral compass" the content of that morality is not universal. It is also questionable to parts of morality is natural, or cultural or due to social nurture and intellectual design.

C1 is not found. And is next to meaningless. It's not as if anyone and I mean ANYONE denies there morality exists

These are the objections that have been raised to VA for what seems like years now, These are objections he studiously avoids,
I think we can only winder at how we ought to categorise his failure as a human being, and specifically which psychological problems could result in this dogged persistence, and failure to see a problem here.
His attitude seems rather Trumpian..
Perhaps we could suggest narcisism?

[popeye1945]

Nothing is objective, as all meaning/s are experiences of subjective biological consciousness. Take away that consciousness and the world ceases to be, SUBJECTIVELY, matter is not made of matter, thus the energies that alter our bodies as experience are forged into apparent reality, subjectively. There are no things, no objects independent of subjective interpretation.

[Peter Holmes]

'Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions' is a declarative clause, not an imperative clause. An imperative usually gives a command, such as 'fuck off'.

And non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions, because that's a rule of deductive logic. But there's no compulsion or moral requirement to play by those rules. One can always fuck off and play on one's own.

[Peter Holmes]

Nothing is objective, as all meaning/s are experiences of subjective biological consciousness. Take away that consciousness and the world ceases to be, SUBJECTIVELY, matter is not made of matter, thus the energies that alter our bodies as experience are forged into apparent reality, subjectively. There are no things, no objects independent of subjective interpretation.

Then what constitutes a conscious subject? What's it made of? Presumably, it can't be physical, because then it would be just another biological read-out.

I suggest your model can't escape either out-and-out substance-dualism or special pleading.

[Skepdick]

'Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions' is a declarative clause, not an imperative clause.

No it isn't. Here's a non-moral premise entailing a moral conclusion: Today is Saturday, therefore murder is wrong.

And non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions, because that's a rule of deductive logic.

All rules are imperatives, not declaratives.

But there's no compulsion or moral requirement to play by those rules.

Then why are you refereeing and enforcing that rule if there's no 'compulsion' to adhere to it?

One can always fuck off and play on one's own.

I agree! If one is unwilling to justify why we ought to play by those particular rules then one should definitely fuck off and play on one's own.

[Peter Holmes]

The assertion of a rule - 'X is the rule' - is not an imperative. It's a declarative, with a truth-value. This is grammar 101. There's no oppressive conspiracy.

For example: 'that chess move is disallowed' is not an imperative. And to say 'non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions' is merely to assert a classical deductive rule. And it's not a justification for the rule.

Heroic rebels can always fuck off and play on their own. Go ahead. Fuck off. Why should anyone else give a shit? Stop whingeing about why the rest of us play by the rules. Just grow up and fuck off. (Those are imperatives.)

[Peter Holmes]

The dick-for-brains has pumped this out:

'Here's a non-moral premise entailing a moral conclusion: Today is Saturday; therefore murder is wrong.'

And here's another gem; Today is Tuesday; therefore water is H2O.

'How deductive entailment works' is probably a chapter the wanker hasn't reached yet.

[Skepdick]

The assertion of a rule - 'X is the rule' - is not an imperative. It's a declarative, with a truth-value. This is grammar 101. There's no oppressive conspiracy.

Q.E.D

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes believes that rules have truth-value.
Therefore moral rules have truth-value.

Like the rule "Murder is not allowed.

For example: 'that chess move is disallowed' is not an imperative.

Settled then!

Murder is not allowed is a declarative with truth-value.

[Skepdick]

'How deductive entailment works' is probably a chapter the wanker hasn't reached yet.

Hi Kettle, I am pot.

If rules have truth values, why is it that moral rules don't have truth-values?

[Peter Holmes]

If the premises are false, the argument is unsound, so validity is irrelevant. And if the argument is invalid, the truth-value of the premises or the conclusion is irrelevant, because the premises don't entail the conclusion.

Why not just fuck off, you nasty, stupid wanker?

[Skepdick]

If the premises are false, the argument is unsound, so validity is irrelevant. And if the argument is invalid, the truth-value of the premises or the conclusion is irrelevant, because the premises don't entail the conclusion.

None of this matters when the conclusion is true.

Why not just fuck off, you nasty, stupid wanker?

After you, Sir!

I refuse to play by the very rules you refuse to follow.

[Peter Holmes]

Fuck off, you nasty, stupid wanker.