What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

And you offer no justification for the metaphysical (and therefore deluded) claim that there's such a thing as 'objectivity-proper' - and merely quote someone else's list of its properties or conditions. Doubly-laughable.

My presentation of the 7 dimensions is not a conclusively claim but rather an indication that there are more to objectivity-proper than you envisaged and exposing your ignorance. The intention is to inhibit the arrogance of your view till you have understood what Kramer is talking about.
The points are presented in 360 pages, surely that is too much to expect me to explain the whole thing to you.
If I were you and upon being informed on my lack of such knowledge I will surely download the book to read to either refute or agree with the points highlighted.

https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Realism-Do ... 1405194022

What we call objectivity can only be what we say it is. So the claim that there's such an abstract thing as 'objectivity-proper' is an example of metaphysical delusion as its most pretentiously ridiculous. Instead of regurgitating the latest piece of pseudo-intellectual-looking tripe that you've come across, try some genuinely critical thinking.

As usual you are making noises and you are running of bullets to counter my views against your superficial idea 'morality is not objective'.
Where is the indication the 'objectivity-proper' I point to is has any metaphysical [woo woo] elements?

[Peter Holmes]

My presentation of the 7 dimensions is not a conclusively claim but rather an indication that there are more to objectivity-proper than you envisaged and exposing your ignorance. The intention is to inhibit the arrogance of your view till you have understood what Kramer is talking about.
The points are presented in 360 pages, surely that is too much to expect me to explain the whole thing to you.
If I were you and upon being informed on my lack of such knowledge I will surely download the book to read to either refute or agree with the points highlighted.

https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Realism-Do ... 1405194022

What we call objectivity can only be what we say it is. So the claim that there's such an abstract thing as 'objectivity-proper' is an example of metaphysical delusion as its most pretentiously ridiculous. Instead of regurgitating the latest piece of pseudo-intellectual-looking tripe that you've come across, try some genuinely critical thinking.

As usual you are making noises and you are running of bullets to counter my views against your superficial idea 'morality is not objective'.
Where is the indication the 'objectivity-proper' I point to is has any metaphysical [woo woo] elements?

1 Please demonstrate the existence and nature of your invention 'objectivity-proper'.

2 Please cite one putative moral fact (state-of-affairs) that meets all the criteria or conditions for your invention 'objectivity-proper'.

3 When you fail to do both of these, ask yourself why.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What we call objectivity can only be what we say it is. So the claim that there's such an abstract thing as 'objectivity-proper' is an example of metaphysical delusion as its most pretentiously ridiculous. Instead of regurgitating the latest piece of pseudo-intellectual-looking tripe that you've come across, try some genuinely critical thinking.

As usual you are making noises and you are running of bullets to counter my views against your superficial idea 'morality is not objective'.
Where is the indication the 'objectivity-proper' I point to is has any metaphysical [woo woo] elements?

1 Please demonstrate the existence and nature of your invention 'objectivity-proper'.

2 Please cite one putative moral fact (state-of-affairs) that meets all the criteria or conditions for your invention 'objectivity-proper'.

3 When you fail to do both of these, ask yourself why.

As stated for a moral fact to be objective it must fulfil the following 7 Dimensions of Objective or do not have any elements of plain subjectivity;

• Ontological Dimensions are
  1. mind-independence,
  2. determinate correctness,
  3. uniform applicability, and
  4. invariance;
  the epistemic dimensions are
  5. transindividual concurrence and
  6. impartiality; and
  the semantic dimension is
  7. truth-aptitude.

The moral fact,
"no human ought to kill another"
as represented by its specific neural algorithm meets the requirements of all the above 7 dimensions of objectivity.

For example, since the the above moral fact is generated via a Moral Framework and System -similar to the Scientific FSK - it is mind-independent, i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and beliefs.

Kramer explained what is meant by mind-independence in 63 pages which is very detailed and in depth.

Example;

These two fundamental distinctions,
between weak mind-independence and strong mind-independence, and
between existential mind-independence and observational mind-independence,
yield four combinations

I will not go through justifying the other dimensions as one will have to bring in the whole book.

[Peter Holmes]

As usual you are making noises and you are running of bullets to counter my views against your superficial idea 'morality is not objective'.
Where is the indication the 'objectivity-proper' I point to is has any metaphysical [woo woo] elements?

1 Please demonstrate the existence and nature of your invention 'objectivity-proper'.

2 Please cite one putative moral fact (state-of-affairs) that meets all the criteria or conditions for your invention 'objectivity-proper'.

3 When you fail to do both of these, ask yourself why.

As stated for a moral fact to be objective it must fulfil the following 7 Dimensions of Objective or do not have any elements of plain subjectivity;

• Ontological Dimensions are
  1. mind-independence,
  2. determinate correctness,
  3. uniform applicability, and
  4. invariance;
  the epistemic dimensions are
  5. transindividual concurrence and
  6. impartiality; and
  the semantic dimension is
  7. truth-aptitude.

The moral fact,
"no human ought to kill another"
as represented by its specific neural algorithm meets the requirements of all the above 7 dimensions of objectivity.

For example, since the the above moral fact is generated via a Moral Framework and System -similar to the Scientific FSK - it is mind-independent, i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and beliefs.

The claim 'no human ought to kill another' doesn't conclusively satisfy even one of Kramer's criteria for objectivity - not even the mind-independence criterion. Fail.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 Please demonstrate the existence and nature of your invention 'objectivity-proper'.

2 Please cite one putative moral fact (state-of-affairs) that meets all the criteria or conditions for your invention 'objectivity-proper'.

3 When you fail to do both of these, ask yourself why.

As stated for a moral fact to be objective it must fulfil the following 7 Dimensions of Objective or do not have any elements of plain subjectivity;

• Ontological Dimensions are
  1. mind-independence,
  2. determinate correctness,
  3. uniform applicability, and
  4. invariance;
  the epistemic dimensions are
  5. transindividual concurrence and
  6. impartiality; and
  the semantic dimension is
  7. truth-aptitude.

The moral fact,
"no human ought to kill another"
as represented by its specific neural algorithm meets the requirements of all the above 7 dimensions of objectivity.

For example, since the the above moral fact is generated via a Moral Framework and System -similar to the Scientific FSK - it is mind-independent, i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and beliefs.

The claim 'no human ought to kill another' doesn't conclusively satisfy even one of Kramer's criteria for objectivity - not even the mind-independence criterion. Fail.

The above of simply waving off an argument of rigor merely exposed your lack of intellectual capacity, integrity and honesty.
Kramer had 63 pages on mind-independence to explain his point how a moral principle would qualify as mind-independent in all possible worlds.

Btw, Kramer's approach is from the Analytic Philosophy perspective and since you're also of the Analytic tradition, all of Kramer's arguments trounced all of your "Morality is Not Objective" argument [very flimsy].

[Peter Holmes]

As stated for a moral fact to be objective it must fulfil the following 7 Dimensions of Objective or do not have any elements of plain subjectivity;

• Ontological Dimensions are
  1. mind-independence,
  2. determinate correctness,
  3. uniform applicability, and
  4. invariance;
  the epistemic dimensions are
  5. transindividual concurrence and
  6. impartiality; and
  the semantic dimension is
  7. truth-aptitude.

The moral fact,
"no human ought to kill another"
as represented by its specific neural algorithm meets the requirements of all the above 7 dimensions of objectivity.

For example, since the the above moral fact is generated via a Moral Framework and System -similar to the Scientific FSK - it is mind-independent, i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and beliefs.

The claim 'no human ought to kill another' doesn't conclusively satisfy even one of Kramer's criteria for objectivity - not even the mind-independence criterion. Fail.

The above of simply waving off an argument of rigor merely exposed your lack of intellectual capacity, integrity and honesty.
Kramer had 63 pages on mind-independence to explain his point how a moral principle would qualify as mind-independent in all possible worlds.

Btw, Kramer's approach is from the Analytic Philosophy perspective and since you're also of the Analytic tradition, all of Kramer's arguments trounced all of your "Morality is Not Objective" argument [very flimsy].

You are profoundly and, it seems, irremediably confused.

A fact is a state-of-affairs, or a description of a state-of-affairs, that is or was the case. If it's a state-of-affairs, then Kramer's criteria - such as determinate correctness, uniform applicability, invariance, transindividual concurrence, impartiality and truth-aptitude - are inapplicable. A state-of-affairs is none of those, and the claim that it can be is a massive category error.

Kramer claims to specify supposed conditions, criteria or properties for objectivity. ('Dimensions' is an absurdly pompous and mysterious word.) But all he's doing is explaining the way we use the word 'objective' - and getting that wrong. To be objective is to be independent from opinion when considering the facts. That's all. Conceptual analysis of an invented thing - objectivity - is nothing but furkling down a rabbit hole.

When you say this - 'for a moral fact to be objective it must fulfil the following 7 Dimensions of Objective' - that reveals the chasmic depth of your misunderstanding. A fact - a state-of-affairs or a description of one - can't be objective. It just either does or doesn't exist. And, along with all other moral realists, you have failed to demonstrate the existence of any moral fact - any moral state-of-affairs. And pending evidence for those, the case for moral objectivism is dead in the water.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The claim 'no human ought to kill another' doesn't conclusively satisfy even one of Kramer's criteria for objectivity - not even the mind-independence criterion. Fail.

The above of simply waving off an argument of rigor merely exposed your lack of intellectual capacity, integrity and honesty.
Kramer had 63 pages on mind-independence to explain his point how a moral principle would qualify as mind-independent in all possible worlds.

Btw, Kramer's approach is from the Analytic Philosophy perspective and since you're also of the Analytic tradition, all of Kramer's arguments trounced all of your "Morality is Not Objective" argument [very flimsy].

You are profoundly and, it seems, irremediably confused.

A fact is a state-of-affairs, or a description of a state-of-affairs, that is or was the case. If it's a state-of-affairs, then Kramer's criteria - such as determinate correctness, uniform applicability, invariance, transindividual concurrence, impartiality and truth-aptitude - are inapplicable. A state-of-affairs is none of those, and the claim that it can be is a massive category error.

Kramer claims to specify supposed conditions, criteria or properties for objectivity. ('Dimensions' is an absurdly pompous and mysterious word.) But all he's doing is explaining the way we use the word 'objective' - and getting that wrong. To be objective is to be independent from opinion when considering the facts. That's all. Conceptual analysis of an invented thing - objectivity - is nothing but furkling down a rabbit hole.

When you say this - 'for a moral fact to be objective it must fulfil the following 7 Dimensions of Objective' - that reveals the chasmic depth of your misunderstanding.

A fact - a state-of-affairs or a description of one - can't be objective.

It just either does or doesn't exist. And, along with all other moral realists, you have failed to demonstrate the existence of any moral fact - any moral state-of-affairs. And pending evidence for those, the case for moral objectivism is dead in the water.

You are the one who is confused and ignorant.

• Whatever your definition of fact in the semantic sense, the most credible facts are Scientific facts, truth and knowledge. What other credible facts can there be which is more credible than scientific facts?
  Scientific facts are objective, i.e. mind-independent and independent of individuals' opinions and belief.
  Therefore facts [scientific and others] are objective.

Btw, your sense of 'what is fact' is handed down from the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists who abused the concept of Scientific facts since the LPs believed the scientific facts are the most credible and objective. Note the Verification Principle by Carnap.
Whatever are your fact as state-of-affairs they are reducible and grounded to scientific facts, whatever else to the LPs are nonsense.
And how can you be so ignorant not to know that scientific facts are objective as generated from the Scientific FSK.

As I had stated, the more you try to counter Kramer's perspective of what is objectivity, the more it will exposed your lack of intelligence [aka stupidity].

"Determinate correctness" meant there is only one answer to what is the fact. Indeterminacy i.e. many answers would be subjectivity, i.e. depending on individuals opinions and beliefs.

"Invariance" meant the basic property of a fact remained unchanged - independent from the variations in external conditions. Else there would be subjectivity of the so-called 'fact'.

Kramer added 4 other criteria to his main 7 dimensions, i.e.

• i. Rational Requisiteness;
  ii. Corrigibility;
  iii. Non-Illusiveness - not illusory;
  iv. Susceptibility to Reasons

I won't bother to explain the others dimensions which if contrary to them would lead to subjectivity.

Suggest you read Kramer's book to make you smarter and not less smart.

Btw, re morality, have you ever checked your back which is full of shit?
If you think morality cannot be objective, then morality to you is subjective or relative. Have you ever read the critiques and condemnations of moral subjectivism and moral relativism which are full of shit?
When I have the time I will compile a post to show that moral subjectivism and moral relativism are full of shit.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It's Objective because no one wants to die.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's Objective because no one wants to die.

Yes, that is one basis leading to why morality is objective.

[Peter Holmes]

The above of simply waving off an argument of rigor merely exposed your lack of intellectual capacity, integrity and honesty.
Kramer had 63 pages on mind-independence to explain his point how a moral principle would qualify as mind-independent in all possible worlds.

Btw, Kramer's approach is from the Analytic Philosophy perspective and since you're also of the Analytic tradition, all of Kramer's arguments trounced all of your "Morality is Not Objective" argument [very flimsy].

You are profoundly and, it seems, irremediably confused.

A fact is a state-of-affairs, or a description of a state-of-affairs, that is or was the case. If it's a state-of-affairs, then Kramer's criteria - such as determinate correctness, uniform applicability, invariance, transindividual concurrence, impartiality and truth-aptitude - are inapplicable. A state-of-affairs is none of those, and the claim that it can be is a massive category error.

Kramer claims to specify supposed conditions, criteria or properties for objectivity. ('Dimensions' is an absurdly pompous and mysterious word.) But all he's doing is explaining the way we use the word 'objective' - and getting that wrong. To be objective is to be independent from opinion when considering the facts. That's all. Conceptual analysis of an invented thing - objectivity - is nothing but furkling down a rabbit hole.

When you say this - 'for a moral fact to be objective it must fulfil the following 7 Dimensions of Objective' - that reveals the chasmic depth of your misunderstanding.

A fact - a state-of-affairs or a description of one - can't be objective.

It just either does or doesn't exist. And, along with all other moral realists, you have failed to demonstrate the existence of any moral fact - any moral state-of-affairs. And pending evidence for those, the case for moral objectivism is dead in the water.

You are the one who is confused and ignorant.

• Whatever your definition of fact in the semantic sense, the most credible facts are Scientific facts, truth and knowledge. What other credible facts can there be which is more credible than scientific facts?
  Scientific facts are objective, i.e. mind-independent and independent of individuals' opinions and belief.
  Therefore facts [scientific and others] are objective.

Btw, your sense of 'what is fact' is handed down from the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists who abused the concept of Scientific facts since the LPs believed the scientific facts are the most credible and objective. Note the Verification Principle by Carnap.
Whatever are your fact as state-of-affairs they are reducible and grounded to scientific facts, whatever else to the LPs are nonsense.
And how can you be so ignorant not to know that scientific facts are objective as generated from the Scientific FSK.

As I had stated, the more you try to counter Kramer's perspective of what is objectivity, the more it will exposed your lack of intelligence [aka stupidity].

"Determinate correctness" meant there is only one answer to what is the fact. Indeterminacy i.e. many answers would be subjectivity, i.e. depending on individuals opinions and beliefs.

"Invariance" meant the basic property of a fact remained unchanged - independent from the variations in external conditions. Else there would be subjectivity of the so-called 'fact'.

Kramer added 4 other criteria to his main 7 dimensions, i.e.

• i. Rational Requisiteness;
  ii. Corrigibility;
  iii. Non-Illusiveness - not illusory;
  iv. Susceptibility to Reasons

I won't bother to explain the others dimensions which if contrary to them would lead to subjectivity.

Suggest you read Kramer's book to make you smarter and not less smart.

Btw, re morality, have you ever checked your back which is full of shit?
If you think morality cannot be objective, then morality to you is subjective or relative. Have you ever read the critiques and condemnations of moral subjectivism and moral relativism which are full of shit?
When I have the time I will compile a post to show that moral subjectivism and moral relativism are full of shit.

Oh good. Looking forward to that.

It may be a good idea to make sure you understand the difference between moral subjectivism and the various kinds of moral relativism. After all, you wouldn't want to get it horribly wrong. Again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are profoundly and, it seems, irremediably confused.

A fact is a state-of-affairs, or a description of a state-of-affairs, that is or was the case. If it's a state-of-affairs, then Kramer's criteria - such as determinate correctness, uniform applicability, invariance, transindividual concurrence, impartiality and truth-aptitude - are inapplicable. A state-of-affairs is none of those, and the claim that it can be is a massive category error.

Kramer claims to specify supposed conditions, criteria or properties for objectivity. ('Dimensions' is an absurdly pompous and mysterious word.) But all he's doing is explaining the way we use the word 'objective' - and getting that wrong. To be objective is to be independent from opinion when considering the facts. That's all. Conceptual analysis of an invented thing - objectivity - is nothing but furkling down a rabbit hole.

When you say this - 'for a moral fact to be objective it must fulfil the following 7 Dimensions of Objective' - that reveals the chasmic depth of your misunderstanding.

A fact - a state-of-affairs or a description of one - can't be objective.

It just either does or doesn't exist. And, along with all other moral realists, you have failed to demonstrate the existence of any moral fact - any moral state-of-affairs. And pending evidence for those, the case for moral objectivism is dead in the water.

You are the one who is confused and ignorant.

• Whatever your definition of fact in the semantic sense, the most credible facts are Scientific facts, truth and knowledge. What other credible facts can there be which is more credible than scientific facts?
  Scientific facts are objective, i.e. mind-independent and independent of individuals' opinions and belief.
  Therefore facts [scientific and others] are objective.

Btw, your sense of 'what is fact' is handed down from the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists who abused the concept of Scientific facts since the LPs believed the scientific facts are the most credible and objective. Note the Verification Principle by Carnap.
Whatever are your fact as state-of-affairs they are reducible and grounded to scientific facts, whatever else to the LPs are nonsense.
And how can you be so ignorant not to know that scientific facts are objective as generated from the Scientific FSK.

As I had stated, the more you try to counter Kramer's perspective of what is objectivity, the more it will exposed your lack of intelligence [aka stupidity].

"Determinate correctness" meant there is only one answer to what is the fact. Indeterminacy i.e. many answers would be subjectivity, i.e. depending on individuals opinions and beliefs.

"Invariance" meant the basic property of a fact remained unchanged - independent from the variations in external conditions. Else there would be subjectivity of the so-called 'fact'.

Kramer added 4 other criteria to his main 7 dimensions, i.e.

• i. Rational Requisiteness;
  ii. Corrigibility;
  iii. Non-Illusiveness - not illusory;
  iv. Susceptibility to Reasons

I won't bother to explain the others dimensions which if contrary to them would lead to subjectivity.

Suggest you read Kramer's book to make you smarter and not less smart.

Btw, re morality, have you ever checked your back which is full of shit?
If you think morality cannot be objective, then morality to you is subjective or relative. Have you ever read the critiques and condemnations of moral subjectivism and moral relativism which are full of shit?
When I have the time I will compile a post to show that moral subjectivism and moral relativism are full of shit.

Oh good. Looking forward to that.

It may be a good idea to make sure you understand the difference between moral subjectivism and the various kinds of moral relativism. After all, you wouldn't want to get it horribly wrong. Again.

I made a mistake in labelling you are a relativist [group] or subjectivist [individual subject] from the sense that you opposed moral objectivism.
Actually Relativists and subjectivists are cognitivists.
Moral objectivists are also cogntivists.

Where you belong is that of non-cognitivism, i.e. a non-cognitivist.
NonCognitivism & Expressivism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30047

Non-Cognitivists are also full of shit morally.
I will post when I have compiled them.

[Peter Holmes]

You are the one who is confused and ignorant.

• Whatever your definition of fact in the semantic sense, the most credible facts are Scientific facts, truth and knowledge. What other credible facts can there be which is more credible than scientific facts?
  Scientific facts are objective, i.e. mind-independent and independent of individuals' opinions and belief.
  Therefore facts [scientific and others] are objective.

Btw, your sense of 'what is fact' is handed down from the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists who abused the concept of Scientific facts since the LPs believed the scientific facts are the most credible and objective. Note the Verification Principle by Carnap.
Whatever are your fact as state-of-affairs they are reducible and grounded to scientific facts, whatever else to the LPs are nonsense.
And how can you be so ignorant not to know that scientific facts are objective as generated from the Scientific FSK.

As I had stated, the more you try to counter Kramer's perspective of what is objectivity, the more it will exposed your lack of intelligence [aka stupidity].

"Determinate correctness" meant there is only one answer to what is the fact. Indeterminacy i.e. many answers would be subjectivity, i.e. depending on individuals opinions and beliefs.

"Invariance" meant the basic property of a fact remained unchanged - independent from the variations in external conditions. Else there would be subjectivity of the so-called 'fact'.

Kramer added 4 other criteria to his main 7 dimensions, i.e.

• i. Rational Requisiteness;
  ii. Corrigibility;
  iii. Non-Illusiveness - not illusory;
  iv. Susceptibility to Reasons

I won't bother to explain the others dimensions which if contrary to them would lead to subjectivity.

Suggest you read Kramer's book to make you smarter and not less smart.

Btw, re morality, have you ever checked your back which is full of shit?
If you think morality cannot be objective, then morality to you is subjective or relative. Have you ever read the critiques and condemnations of moral subjectivism and moral relativism which are full of shit?
When I have the time I will compile a post to show that moral subjectivism and moral relativism are full of shit.

Oh good. Looking forward to that.

It may be a good idea to make sure you understand the difference between moral subjectivism and the various kinds of moral relativism. After all, you wouldn't want to get it horribly wrong. Again.

I made a mistake in labelling you are a relativist [group] or subjectivist [individual subject] from the sense that you opposed moral objectivism.
Actually Relativists and subjectivists are cognitivists.
Moral objectivists are also cogntivists.

Where you belong is that of non-cognitivism, i.e. a non-cognitivist.
NonCognitivism & Expressivism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30047

Non-Cognitivists are also full of shit morally.
I will post when I have compiled them.

Moral relativism isn't necessarily to do with groups. And moral subjectivism isn't necessarily to do with individuals.

And I've explained why the cognitivist/non-cognitivist distinction can confuse the issue with regard to moral objectivism.

But, hey. Why bother with the actual facts and argument, when boxing and labelling is so reassuring?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I made a mistake in labelling you are a relativist [group] or subjectivist [individual subject] from the sense that you opposed moral objectivism.
Actually Relativists and subjectivists are cognitivists.
Moral objectivists are also cogntivists.

Where you belong is that of non-cognitivism, i.e. a non-cognitivist.
NonCognitivism & Expressivism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30047

Non-Cognitivists are also full of shit morally.
I will post when I have compiled them.

Moral relativism isn't necessarily to do with groups. And moral subjectivism isn't necessarily to do with individuals.

And I've explained why the cognitivist/non-cognitivist distinction can confuse the issue with regard to moral objectivism.

But, hey. Why bother with the actual facts and argument, when boxing and labelling is so reassuring?

I have produced a whole 'taxonomy' encompassing everything Moral and Ethics where Moral Relativism [groups] and Moral Subjectivism [individuals] as defined has their rightful place. So it is a question of how one defined one's term.

If you don't agree, what is your definition for moral relativism and moral subjectivism?

As far as your position is concerned, you are definitely a moral non-cognitivist holding the following views, i.e.

Moral Judgments and moral statements are;

• 1. not moral facts
  2. not state-of-affairs
  3. not propositions
  4. not truth-apt, cannot neither be true or false
  5. expressing desires, opinions and beliefs
  6. Prescriptive not descriptive
  7. Not mind independent

There are other features of a non-cognitivists and the above is sufficient to place you within the nonCognitivist's label in opposition to the cognitivist's views.
Advise if your position is any different from the above nonCognitive criteria?

I don't see the problem with moral objectivism since objectivity has its own criteria, note the 7 dimensions and other criteria proposed by Kramer.

The onus is thus on the moral agent to define his framework of morality, in my case, it is Empirical Moral Realism and then justify such is objective.

Justifying labelling & boxing plus the justification of moral facts are imperative to the process and discussion.

[Peter Holmes]

I made a mistake in labelling you are a relativist [group] or subjectivist [individual subject] from the sense that you opposed moral objectivism.
Actually Relativists and subjectivists are cognitivists.
Moral objectivists are also cogntivists.

Where you belong is that of non-cognitivism, i.e. a non-cognitivist.
NonCognitivism & Expressivism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30047

Non-Cognitivists are also full of shit morally.
I will post when I have compiled them.

Moral relativism isn't necessarily to do with groups. And moral subjectivism isn't necessarily to do with individuals.

And I've explained why the cognitivist/non-cognitivist distinction can confuse the issue with regard to moral objectivism.

But, hey. Why bother with the actual facts and argument, when boxing and labelling is so reassuring?

I have produced a whole 'taxonomy' encompassing everything Moral and Ethics where Moral Relativism [groups] and Moral Subjectivism [individuals] as defined has their rightful place. So it is a question of how one defined one's term.

If you don't agree, what is your definition for moral relativism and moral subjectivism?

As far as your position is concerned, you are definitely a moral non-cognitivist holding the following views, i.e.

Moral Judgments and moral statements are;

• 1. not moral facts
  2. not state-of-affairs
  3. not propositions
  4. not truth-apt, cannot neither be true or false
  5. expressing desires, opinions and beliefs
  6. Prescriptive not descriptive
  7. Not mind independent

There are other features of a non-cognitivists and the above is sufficient to place you within the nonCognitivist's label in opposition to the cognitivist's views.
Advise if your position is any different from the above nonCognitive criteria?

I don't see the problem with moral objectivism since objectivity has its own criteria, note the 7 dimensions and other criteria proposed by Kramer.

The onus is thus on the moral agent to define his framework of morality, in my case, it is Empirical Moral Realism and then justify such is objective.

Justifying labelling & boxing plus the justification of moral facts are imperative to the process and discussion.

1 I reject the implication that moral subjectivism is irrational / non-rational - that moral non-cognitivism implies no-thought or no-reason with regard to moral judgement.

2 I reject the descriptive / prescriptive dichotomy with regard to the function of moral assertions.

3 You claim that moral subjectivism and moral relativism are 'shit'. So yours is the task of defining terms and demonstrating the truth of those claims, while avoiding the fallacy of arguing from undesirable consequences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Moral relativism isn't necessarily to do with groups. And moral subjectivism isn't necessarily to do with individuals.

And I've explained why the cognitivist/non-cognitivist distinction can confuse the issue with regard to moral objectivism.

But, hey. Why bother with the actual facts and argument, when boxing and labelling is so reassuring?

I have produced a whole 'taxonomy' encompassing everything Moral and Ethics where Moral Relativism [groups] and Moral Subjectivism [individuals] as defined has their rightful place. So it is a question of how one defined one's term.

If you don't agree, what is your definition for moral relativism and moral subjectivism?

As far as your position is concerned, you are definitely a moral non-cognitivist holding the following views, i.e.

Moral Judgments and moral statements are;

• 1. not moral facts
  2. not state-of-affairs
  3. not propositions
  4. not truth-apt, cannot neither be true or false
  5. expressing desires, opinions and beliefs
  6. Prescriptive not descriptive
  7. Not mind independent

There are other features of a non-cognitivists and the above is sufficient to place you within the nonCognitivist's label in opposition to the cognitivist's views.
Advise if your position is any different from the above nonCognitive criteria?

I don't see the problem with moral objectivism since objectivity has its own criteria, note the 7 dimensions and other criteria proposed by Kramer.

The onus is thus on the moral agent to define his framework of morality, in my case, it is Empirical Moral Realism and then justify such is objective.

Justifying labelling & boxing plus the justification of moral facts are imperative to the process and discussion.

1 I reject the implication that moral subjectivism is irrational / non-rational - that moral non-cognitivism implies no-thought or no-reason with regard to moral judgement.

Moral Subjectivism leads to irrationality. I will justify that later.
"no-thought or no-reason " is not listed above as non-cognitivism, so this point is irrelevant.

2 I reject the descriptive / prescriptive dichotomy with regard to the function of moral assertions.

I thought you agree with Hume's "no is from ought" maxim where 'descriptive' relate to "is" and 'prescriptive' is where 'ought' is a prescription.
As you implying you now accept 'ought' [prescriptive] can be derived from 'is' [descriptive]?
Or should you withdraw your above rejection?

3 You claim that moral subjectivism and moral relativism are 'shit'. So yours is the task of defining terms and demonstrating the truth of those claims, while avoiding the fallacy of arguing from undesirable consequences.

Yes, I will compile the proper arguments which I have only surveyed but not grasp fully yet from various sources.

Crudely, moral subjectivism and moral relativism do not have justified moral standards, i.e. universal objective standards. As such anything goes in accordance to the subjective and relative feel of the individuals and groups, thus resulting in Nazism, evil Islamic ideology, fascism, and other evil ideologies which insist they are morally good relatively and where no one can insist they are morally wrong. This is what is going on at present with relativists and subjectivists.

The above are crude points but there are loads of very solid arguments [which I will gather] against moral subjectivism and moral relativism which enable shit to emerge from such practices.

In any case, you are are not a moral relativists nor moral subjectivists who believe there are some moral facts, propositions which are truth-apt [either true or false] except their beliefs are mind-dependent on the individual or groups.

Can you tick off what you believe based on the below;

Moral Judgments and moral statements are;

• 1. not moral facts
  2. not state-of-affairs
  3. not propositions
  4. not truth-apt, cannot neither be true or false
  5. expressing desires, opinions and beliefs
  6. Prescriptive not descriptive
  7. Not mind independent

or add what is not listed above.
It is most likely you will be within the nonCognitive label in general.

Within the nonCognitivism, there are the following sub-categories;

• 1. Emotivism - Ayer
  2. Prescriptivism - Carnap
  3. Universal Prescriptivism - RM Hare
  4. Expressivism
  5. Irrealism
  6. Quasi-Realism
  7. Norm-Expressivism
  8. Moral Fictionalism - Hermeneutic, Revolutionary.

Depending on any other extra elements you have,
you are likely to fall within one or two of the above sub-noncognitivism categories.

It is possible some of the opposite category could be mixed as in Quasi-Moral-Realism.