What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

And the moral rightness or wrongness of, say, capital punishment simply can't be a thing that exists or be true. There can be no such thing as a moral fact.

Then how are you using the English adjectives "right" and "wrong" (and their derivative nouns "rightness" and "wrongness") if they have no existents?

How are you using any adjective?

Are your words as empty as you insist they are?

[Atla]

You're the moron and stupid ignorant idiot.
The brain is organic thus has chemicals.
But NOT every methodology adopted and practiced change the brain chemistry significantly but rather it alters the neural connections between different neurons contrastingly from previous state.

When one changes one's state from not knowing how to swim to be an average swimmer there are significant changes within the motor neuron connections and also to other parts of the brain.

The brain chemistry changes significantly when one take drugs to enhance performance.

That's what they thought 50 years ago. An ignorant mouthbreather like you wouldn't know that the brain can also significantly change thanks to drug-free methods. For example brain changes induced by antidepressants and cognitive therapy are usually similar, as studies keep showing. There's far more to this than neuron connections.

But no worries. Obviously there's no one more qualified, to plan the future fine-tuning of people's heads, than you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You're the moron and stupid ignorant idiot.
The brain is organic thus has chemicals.
But NOT every methodology adopted and practiced change the brain chemistry significantly but rather it alters the neural connections between different neurons contrastingly from previous state.

When one changes one's state from not knowing how to swim to be an average swimmer there are significant changes within the motor neuron connections and also to other parts of the brain.

The brain chemistry changes significantly when one take drugs to enhance performance.

That's what they thought 50 years ago. An ignorant mouthbreather like you wouldn't know that the brain can also significantly change thanks to drug-free methods. For example brain changes induced by antidepressants and cognitive therapy are usually similar, as studies keep showing. There's far more to this than neuron connections.

But no worries. Obviously there's no one more qualified, to plan the future fine-tuning of people's heads, than you.

What you are talking about?
As far as what I had recommended they do not entail significant changes in brain chemistry.

[Peter Holmes]

You're the moron and stupid ignorant idiot.
The brain is organic thus has chemicals.
But NOT every methodology adopted and practiced change the brain chemistry significantly but rather it alters the neural connections between different neurons contrastingly from previous state.

When one changes one's state from not knowing how to swim to be an average swimmer there are significant changes within the motor neuron connections and also to other parts of the brain.

The brain chemistry changes significantly when one take drugs to enhance performance.

That's what they thought 50 years ago. An ignorant mouthbreather like you wouldn't know that the brain can also significantly change thanks to drug-free methods. For example brain changes induced by antidepressants and cognitive therapy are usually similar, as studies keep showing. There's far more to this than neuron connections.

But no worries. Obviously there's no one more qualified, to plan the future fine-tuning of people's heads, than you.

What you are talking about?
As far as what I had recommended they do not entail significant changes in brain chemistry.

The reasons for why we do what we do - whatever they are - have no bearing on the question as to whether there are moral facts, and therefore whether morality is objective.

For example, suppose brain chemistry is at the heart of it. Suppose the 'ought-not-to-kill-people' disposition is a consequence of brain chemistry. It wouldn't follow that it's a fact that killing people is morally wrong. That conclusion doesn't follow. It's an importation from a different discourse.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's what they thought 50 years ago. An ignorant mouthbreather like you wouldn't know that the brain can also significantly change thanks to drug-free methods. For example brain changes induced by antidepressants and cognitive therapy are usually similar, as studies keep showing. There's far more to this than neuron connections.

But no worries. Obviously there's no one more qualified, to plan the future fine-tuning of people's heads, than you.

What you are talking about?
As far as what I had recommended they do not entail significant changes in brain chemistry.

The reasons for why we do what we do - whatever they are - have no bearing on the question as to whether there are moral facts, and therefore whether morality is objective.

For example, suppose brain chemistry is at the heart of it. Suppose the 'ought-not-to-kill-people' disposition is a consequence of brain chemistry. It wouldn't follow that it's a fact that killing people is morally wrong. That conclusion doesn't follow. It's an importation from a different discourse.

Note my thread on 'what is moral facts'

• There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Why Morally Wrong?

• P1. people don't want to be enslaved - a moral issue;
  P2. "Don't want" = undesirable = wrong [see dictionary];
  C1. therefore slavery is morally wrong.
  viewtopic.php?p=476157#p476157

Refer to the details in the above post;
viewtopic.php?p=476157#p476157

[Peter Holmes]

What you are talking about?
As far as what I had recommended they do not entail significant changes in brain chemistry.

The reasons for why we do what we do - whatever they are - have no bearing on the question as to whether there are moral facts, and therefore whether morality is objective.

For example, suppose brain chemistry is at the heart of it. Suppose the 'ought-not-to-kill-people' disposition is a consequence of brain chemistry. It wouldn't follow that it's a fact that killing people is morally wrong. That conclusion doesn't follow. It's an importation from a different discourse.

Note my thread on 'what is moral facts'

• There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Why Morally Wrong?

• P1. people don't want to be enslaved - a moral issue;
  P2. "Don't want" = undesirable = wrong [see dictionary];
  C1. therefore slavery is morally wrong.
  viewtopic.php?p=476157#p476157

Refer to the details in the above post;
viewtopic.php?p=476157#p476157

So, what people want is morally right, and what they don't want is morally wrong. And you call this moral objectivity?

[Skepdick]

So, what people want is morally right, and what they don't want is morally wrong. And you call this moral objectivity?

It's predictable. Testable and falsifiable.

Why wouldn't you call it objective ?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The reasons for why we do what we do - whatever they are - have no bearing on the question as to whether there are moral facts, and therefore whether morality is objective.

For example, suppose brain chemistry is at the heart of it. Suppose the 'ought-not-to-kill-people' disposition is a consequence of brain chemistry. It wouldn't follow that it's a fact that killing people is morally wrong. That conclusion doesn't follow. It's an importation from a different discourse.

Note my thread on 'what is moral facts'

• There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Why Morally Wrong?

• P1. people don't want to be enslaved - a moral issue;
  P2. "Don't want" = undesirable = wrong [see dictionary];
  C1. therefore slavery is morally wrong.
  viewtopic.php?p=476157#p476157

Refer to the details in the above post;
viewtopic.php?p=476157#p476157

So, what people want is morally right, and what they don't want is morally wrong. And you call this moral objectivity?

With the empirical knowledge of "what is slavery" and its consequences show me evidence where any normal person would want to be enslaved by another?

Yes the above is justifiable, verifiable, testable, repeatable and which all 'normal' human beings would give their consensus. Thus this is a collective judgment and not a personal subjective opinion nor belief, therefore it is objective.

[Peter Holmes]

Note my thread on 'what is moral facts'

• There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Why Morally Wrong?

• P1. people don't want to be enslaved - a moral issue;
  P2. "Don't want" = undesirable = wrong [see dictionary];
  C1. therefore slavery is morally wrong.
  viewtopic.php?p=476157#p476157

Refer to the details in the above post;
viewtopic.php?p=476157#p476157

So, what people want is morally right, and what they don't want is morally wrong. And you call this moral objectivity?

With the empirical knowledge of "what is slavery" and its consequences show me evidence where any normal person would want to be enslaved by another?

Yes the above is justifiable, verifiable, testable, repeatable and which all 'normal' human beings would give their consensus. Thus this is a collective judgment and not a personal subjective opinion nor belief, therefore it is objective.

Face palm. What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts, which has nothing to do with how many people are involved. One person can be objective, or some, or many, or everyone. And in the same way, subjectivity isn't tied to the number of people involved. Collective opinion in disregard of the facts - theistic belief, for example - is still subjective.

[KLewchuk]

Late to the game, but the answer is easy:

Reject pomo (i.e post modernism) and accept Aristotle's general definition of morality.

If you accept that morality concerns what is "good" and that what is good can be known objectively... game over.

hashtag/boring

[SpheresOfBalance]

You're the moron and stupid ignorant idiot.
The brain is organic thus has chemicals.
But NOT every methodology adopted and practiced change the brain chemistry significantly but rather it alters the neural connections between different neurons contrastingly from previous state.

When one changes one's state from not knowing how to swim to be an average swimmer there are significant changes within the motor neuron connections and also to other parts of the brain.

The brain chemistry changes significantly when one take drugs to enhance performance.

That's what they thought 50 years ago. An ignorant mouthbreather like you wouldn't know that the brain can also significantly change thanks to drug-free methods. For example brain changes induced by antidepressants and cognitive therapy are usually similar, as studies keep showing. There's far more to this than neuron connections.

But no worries. Obviously there's no one more qualified, to plan the future fine-tuning of people's heads, than you.

You should watch what you say. People that breath through their mouths are usually handicapped in some way. They breath that way because they have low blood oxygen levels, which is important for all functions of the body but especially important for the brain. It's not a good idea to pick on the handicapped.

FYI: All competition swimmers are also, so called, mouthbreathers, want to race? It'll look like you're swimming backwards, breathing through your nose! I'll blow your goggles off.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, what people want is morally right, and what they don't want is morally wrong. And you call this moral objectivity?

With the empirical knowledge of "what is slavery" and its consequences show me evidence where any normal person would want to be enslaved by another?

Yes the above is justifiable, verifiable, testable, repeatable and which all 'normal' human beings would give their consensus. Thus this is a collective judgment and not a personal subjective opinion nor belief, therefore it is objective.

Face palm. What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts, which has nothing to do with how many people are involved. One person can be objective, or some, or many, or everyone. And in the same way, subjectivity isn't tied to the number of people involved. Collective opinion in disregard of the facts - theistic belief, for example - is still subjective.

You should "face palm" yourself for your ignorance, shallowness and narrowness of knowledge.

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
Therefore one person [a sentient subject] cannot generate objectivity.

I have also discussed the 7-Dimension of Objectivity [moral perspective] by Mathew Kramer.

YOUR VIEW is that of Philosophical Realism which is not tenable at all but it is very immature bastardized philosophical view, i.e.

• In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
  -wiki

What is objectivity is generated from within a Framework and System of Knowledge which is maintained via the collective consciousness of humans.
This is what is going on with Science wherein whatever is objectivity is intersubjective. This same intersubjectivity [independent of individual opinion] is applicable to all Framework and System of Knowledge that claim objectivity for its knowledge.

On the above basis, there are degrees of objectivity to any type of objective knowledge as claimed which is dependent on the features of justifications. Scientific objectivity is the standard bearer at 99.99/100.

Here is something on the Moral Objectivity;

MORAL OBJECTIVITY
By Nicholas Rescher

The aim of this essay is to set out an argument for moral objectivity. A
brief sketch of the considerations at issue should help make it possible to
keep sight of the forest amid the profusion of trees. Overall, then, the line
of thought that is being set out here runs as follows:

• • To validate moral objectivity, it must be shown that an impersonal
  matter of fact (rather than a personal opinion or feeling) is at issue.
  • A key step in this direction emerges from the consideration that
  morality is a functional enterprise whose aim is to channel people’s actions toward realizing the best interests of everyone.
  • This makes morality into something quite different from mere
  mores geared toward communal uniformity and predictability.
  (After all, morality is not a matter of anthropology; it addresses
  what people should do rather than what they actually do.)
  • The inherent generality of moral principles means that they operate at a level of universality that transcends the limits of societal
  variation.
  • This circumstance militates decisively against moral relativism.
  • Nevertheless, general moral principles can (and should) lend some
  degree of support to the characteristic (and potentially idiosyncratic) claims of our own community.
  • In consequence, morality is rooted in the very nature of rationality
  and thereby provides the moral enterprise with an objectively cogent
  rationale.

So much for the general line of

What, then, of moral objectivity? Let us go back to basics.
What is it that makes something objective?
The objectivity of an issue lies in its being a matter of fact that, in principle, can be determined to be so by anyone, because what is at issue is not a matter of opinion or of custom but rather obtains impersonally, independently of what individual people may think
or prefer.

Objective matters do no lie in the eyes of the beholder but pivot on the actual facts.
This being so, consider the salient question that arises in regard to morality:
Would the prevalence of such-and-such a way of behaving among
the members of the community at large effectively conduce to people’s best interests in making their lives more secure, more pleasant,
and/or more rewarding and satisfying?

The matter at issue here is not a matter of what I like or what would
please me; it is not my attitude or my reaction or my own personal
interests that are at issue—or indeed yours or anybody’s. The question is
inherently general, relating to the reaction of people at large, and it relates
not to what they want but rather to what makes them better off by way
of being conducive to their well-being. The question concerns the condition of people in general, not on the basis of what you or I or some group
or other do think about this, but on the basis of what people should, and
sensible people would, think. Specifically, it is a question of what makes
someone better off in terms of their real or true interest—what conduces
to their health and well-being, their security and safety, their opportunities for self-development and self-expression. All these issues, and others
like them, are substantially matters of objective fact.

Accordingly, what renders morality objective is the fact that moral
evaluations can—and should—be validated as cogent through consideration of how the practices being evaluated advance the aims of the enterprise for whose sake morality is instantiated in human affairs. Morality as
such consists in the pursuit, through variable and context-relative means,
of invariant and objectively implementable ends that are rooted in a
commitment to the best interests of people in general. To claim that someone ought (or ought not) to act in a certain way is thereby to commit
oneself to the availability of a good reason why one should or should not

408 NICHOLAS RESCHER
do so—and a reason that is not only good but good in a certain mode, the
moral mode, in showing that this sort of action is bound up with due care
for the interests of others. Whether an action exhibits due care for the
interests of others is something open to general view, something that can
be investigated by other people as readily as by the agent himself. Since
people’s (real or true) interests are rooted in their needs, the morally
crucial circumstance that certain modes of action are conducive (and
others harmful) to the best interests of people is something that can be
investigated and sensibly assessed by the standards generally prevalent
in rational discussion. These matters are not questions of feeling or taste,
but represent something objective about which one can deliberate and
argue in a sensible way on the basis of reasons whose cogency is, or
should be, accessible to anyone. The modes of behavior of people that
render life in their communities “nasty, brutish, and short” (or even merely
more difficult and less pleasant than need be) generally admit of straightforward and unproblematic discernment.

The fact that thievery, vandalism, boorishness, arrogance, and rudeness
are ethically inappropriate is not rooted in some individual’s or group’s
dislike of such things, but rather in the (perfectly objective) fact that such
modes of behavior will, as they become more prevalent, increasingly
degrade the quality of life of the community by creating circumstances in
which the pursuit by individuals of their life-plans and objectives becomes
increasingly difficult.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Late to the game, but the answer is easy:

Reject pomo (i.e post modernism) and accept Aristotle's general definition of morality.

If you accept that morality concerns what is "good" and that what is good can be known objectively... game over.

hashtag/boring

There are weaknesses and limitations to the original Aristotle's Virtue Ethics.
This is why we have the emergence of the neo-Aristotelean Virtue Ethics which In my views has its own weaknesses, limitations, narrowness and shallowness.

[Atla]

You're the moron and stupid ignorant idiot.
The brain is organic thus has chemicals.
But NOT every methodology adopted and practiced change the brain chemistry significantly but rather it alters the neural connections between different neurons contrastingly from previous state.

When one changes one's state from not knowing how to swim to be an average swimmer there are significant changes within the motor neuron connections and also to other parts of the brain.

The brain chemistry changes significantly when one take drugs to enhance performance.

That's what they thought 50 years ago. An ignorant mouthbreather like you wouldn't know that the brain can also significantly change thanks to drug-free methods. For example brain changes induced by antidepressants and cognitive therapy are usually similar, as studies keep showing. There's far more to this than neuron connections.

But no worries. Obviously there's no one more qualified, to plan the future fine-tuning of people's heads, than you.

You should watch what you say. People that breath through their mouths are usually handicapped in some way. They breath that way because they have low blood oxygen levels, which is important for all functions of the body but especially important for the brain. It's not a good idea to pick on the handicapped.

FYI: All competition swimmers are also, so called, mouthbreathers, want to race? It'll look like you're swimming backwards, breathing through your nose! I'll blow your goggles off.

Aren't you a funny one

[Peter Holmes]

With the empirical knowledge of "what is slavery" and its consequences show me evidence where any normal person would want to be enslaved by another?

Yes the above is justifiable, verifiable, testable, repeatable and which all 'normal' human beings would give their consensus. Thus this is a collective judgment and not a personal subjective opinion nor belief, therefore it is objective.

Face palm. What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts, which has nothing to do with how many people are involved. One person can be objective, or some, or many, or everyone. And in the same way, subjectivity isn't tied to the number of people involved. Collective opinion in disregard of the facts - theistic belief, for example - is still subjective.

You should "face palm" yourself for your ignorance, shallowness and narrowness of knowledge.

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
Therefore one person [a sentient subject] cannot generate objectivity.

I have also discussed the 7-Dimension of Objectivity [moral perspective] by Mathew Kramer.

YOUR VIEW is that of Philosophical Realism which is not tenable at all but it is very immature bastardized philosophical view, i.e.

• In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
  -wiki

What is objectivity is generated from within a Framework and System of Knowledge which is maintained via the collective consciousness of humans.
This is what is going on with Science wherein whatever is objectivity is intersubjective. This same intersubjectivity [independent of individual opinion] is applicable to all Framework and System of Knowledge that claim objectivity for its knowledge.

On the above basis, there are degrees of objectivity to any type of objective knowledge as claimed which is dependent on the features of justifications. Scientific objectivity is the standard bearer at 99.99/100.

Here is something on the Moral Objectivity;

MORAL OBJECTIVITY
By Nicholas Rescher

The aim of this essay is to set out an argument for moral objectivity. A
brief sketch of the considerations at issue should help make it possible to
keep sight of the forest amid the profusion of trees. Overall, then, the line
of thought that is being set out here runs as follows:

• • To validate moral objectivity, it must be shown that an impersonal
  matter of fact (rather than a personal opinion or feeling) is at issue.
  • A key step in this direction emerges from the consideration that
  morality is a functional enterprise whose aim is to channel people’s actions toward realizing the best interests of everyone.
  • This makes morality into something quite different from mere
  mores geared toward communal uniformity and predictability.
  (After all, morality is not a matter of anthropology; it addresses
  what people should do rather than what they actually do.)
  • The inherent generality of moral principles means that they operate at a level of universality that transcends the limits of societal
  variation.
  • This circumstance militates decisively against moral relativism.
  • Nevertheless, general moral principles can (and should) lend some
  degree of support to the characteristic (and potentially idiosyncratic) claims of our own community.
  • In consequence, morality is rooted in the very nature of rationality
  and thereby provides the moral enterprise with an objectively cogent
  rationale.

So much for the general line of

What, then, of moral objectivity? Let us go back to basics.
What is it that makes something objective?
The objectivity of an issue lies in its being a matter of fact that, in principle, can be determined to be so by anyone, because what is at issue is not a matter of opinion or of custom but rather obtains impersonally, independently of what individual people may think
or prefer.

Objective matters do no lie in the eyes of the beholder but pivot on the actual facts.
This being so, consider the salient question that arises in regard to morality:
Would the prevalence of such-and-such a way of behaving among
the members of the community at large effectively conduce to people’s best interests in making their lives more secure, more pleasant,
and/or more rewarding and satisfying?

The matter at issue here is not a matter of what I like or what would
please me; it is not my attitude or my reaction or my own personal
interests that are at issue—or indeed yours or anybody’s. The question is
inherently general, relating to the reaction of people at large, and it relates
not to what they want but rather to what makes them better off by way
of being conducive to their well-being. The question concerns the condition of people in general, not on the basis of what you or I or some group
or other do think about this, but on the basis of what people should, and
sensible people would, think. Specifically, it is a question of what makes
someone better off in terms of their real or true interest—what conduces
to their health and well-being, their security and safety, their opportunities for self-development and self-expression. All these issues, and others
like them, are substantially matters of objective fact.

Accordingly, what renders morality objective is the fact that moral
evaluations can—and should—be validated as cogent through consideration of how the practices being evaluated advance the aims of the enterprise for whose sake morality is instantiated in human affairs. Morality as
such consists in the pursuit, through variable and context-relative means,
of invariant and objectively implementable ends that are rooted in a
commitment to the best interests of people in general. To claim that someone ought (or ought not) to act in a certain way is thereby to commit
oneself to the availability of a good reason why one should or should not

408 NICHOLAS RESCHER
do so—and a reason that is not only good but good in a certain mode, the
moral mode, in showing that this sort of action is bound up with due care
for the interests of others. Whether an action exhibits due care for the
interests of others is something open to general view, something that can
be investigated by other people as readily as by the agent himself. Since
people’s (real or true) interests are rooted in their needs, the morally
crucial circumstance that certain modes of action are conducive (and
others harmful) to the best interests of people is something that can be
investigated and sensibly assessed by the standards generally prevalent
in rational discussion. These matters are not questions of feeling or taste,
but represent something objective about which one can deliberate and
argue in a sensible way on the basis of reasons whose cogency is, or
should be, accessible to anyone. The modes of behavior of people that
render life in their communities “nasty, brutish, and short” (or even merely
more difficult and less pleasant than need be) generally admit of straightforward and unproblematic discernment.

The fact that thievery, vandalism, boorishness, arrogance, and rudeness
are ethically inappropriate is not rooted in some individual’s or group’s
dislike of such things, but rather in the (perfectly objective) fact that such
modes of behavior will, as they become more prevalent, increasingly
degrade the quality of life of the community by creating circumstances in
which the pursuit by individuals of their life-plans and objectives becomes
increasingly difficult.

Rescher's argument here recapitulates the standard mistake that objectivists always make. Here's a key statement from early on.

'morality is a functional enterprise whose aim is to channel people’s actions toward realizing the best interests of everyone.'

This is similar to the 'well-being' goal pushed by Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty and others. And here are some objections.

1 The choice of goal is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective - even if even if everyone chooses it.
2 That well-being should be the goal of morality is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective, etc.
3 The scope of our moral concerns - whose well-being? - is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective, etc.
4 What constitutes well-being or 'the best interests of everyone' is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective, etc.
5 Objectively verifiable consistency with a given goal doesn't confer objectivity ('factuality') on a moral assertion.

Like all moral objectivists, Rescher (at least here) offers a factual explanation for why we have developed and are developing moral values and rules - but then fallaciously assumes those moral values and rules are themselves facts. The fact that we have a moral value doesn't mean that that moral value is a fact - a state-of-affairs that exists independently from opinion, or a description of such a state-of-affairs.