The above in one perspective is true, but to be more rigorous we should not accept the above [religious and legal] as 'morality-proper'. Otherwise, as what is happening currently, that has led to confusions and hindered the progress of morality-proper.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:52 pmPeter,Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:34 pmI know what the OP subject is. And you seem confused about the subject/object distinction. And I have no idea why you think I don't understand these terms.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:11 pm Peter,
The subject is what could make MORALITY objective. The physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, it is the conscious subject that bestows meaning upon a meaningless world. If you do not understand the terms do not respond.
The words 'object', 'objective' and 'objectivity' refer precisely to the 'meaningless' physical reality consisting of what we call facts. And moral rightness and wrongness are not independent features of that physical reality - they aren't properties of things and events. And that's why morality isn't and can't be objective.
It would seem we've found some common ground. Morality is first subjective as are the sentiments involved but thoughs sentiments are made manifest objectively in the forms of norms, morals, laws, and institutions both religious and legal. They are a biological extensions into the outer world manifestations of human nature.
The theists are insisting theirs are moral facts from a real God [in reality an illusion] and thus all human ought to obey them without questions.
The prevention of crimes and evil acts on a legal basis is not morality but rather that is politics subsuming elements of what is good and what is evil with threats of penalties to the extent of capital punishments.
The other so-called morality i.e. secular consequentialism, utilitarianism, deontology, etc. are merely groping around without understand the roots of morality thus unable to progress with the related potential of evil.
Peter Holmes being ignorant and stuck dogmatically with the above obviously cannot accept there are moral facts which I would agree if on the above perspective.
However, to some extent the theists, politicians and others do have some intuitive sense of moral facts that are inherent within all humans.
There are moral facts when we dig into the biological and psychological roots of the above manifestations.
Potentials such a potential energy are justifiable physical facts.The only ways morality has objectivity are as biological expressions made manifest.
In physics, a potential may refer to the scalar potential or to the vector potential. In either case, it is a field defined in space, from which many important physical properties may be derived.
The above is the path we should direct our attention to search for moral facts represented within the inherent moral potential.Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability. The term is used in a wide variety of fields, from physics to the social sciences to indicate things that are in a state where they are able to change in ways ranging from the simple release of energy by objects to the realization of abilities in people.
The philosopher Aristotle incorporated this concept into his theory of potentiality and actuality,[1] a pair of closely connected principles which he used to analyze motion, causality, ethics, and physiology in his Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and De Anima, which is about the human psyche.[2]
That which is potential can theoretically be made actual by taking the right action; for example, a boulder on the edge of a cliff has potential to fall that could be actualized by pushing it over the edge. Several languages have a potential mood, a grammatical construction that indicates that something is potential. These include Finnish,[3] Japanese,[4] and Sanskrit.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential