What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Thoughts on the supposed illegitimacy of classical normativity.

1 A logic, classical or otherwise, deals with language, not reality. Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences.

2 If a non-classical logic rejects classical true/false polarity, it must also reject the middle - excluded in classical logic - between the poles. And it must reject the 0-1 probability polarity.

3 So a (necessarily) classical truth-claim using such a non-classical logic is self-defeating.

4 And, needless to say, a non-classical argument for moral facts - true moral assertions - is also self-defeating.

You are too entrenched with the current popular views on morality where moral ought[s] are generated upon crude logic and reasoning and imposed on others, e.g.

Erm. I'm pointing out the uselessness of an argument from a non-classical logic to moral objectivity. And I've never said that moral oughts can be 'generated upon crude logic' - whatever that means. My whole point has been that moral conclusions can't be derived logically from non-moral premises.

the most prominent example is probably consequentialism about the moral rightness of acts, which holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same kind.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

This is irrelevant. Consequentialism has no bearing on the main question: what constitutes moral rightness and wrongness per se?

Because God commanded so, if not, Hell awaits..

Divine Command Theory is the view that morality is somehow dependent upon God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands. Divine Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or requires.

On the other hand, I am arguing moral facts exist objectively & empirically as physical referents comprising neural correlates a moral potential which can be verified and justified within the scientific FSK and therefrom the moral FSK.

We know. And we've shown you why this argument is fallacious 'a thousand times'. The fact that humans are programmed (with the potential) to behave in a certain way is NOT A MORAL FACT. Judgement as to the morality - the moral rightness or wrongness - of that behaviour IS A SEPARATE ISSUE.

Such moral facts are independent of personal opinions, beliefs, linguistics, knowledge in one perspective but because they are grounded on FSK which are constructed and sustained by men, they are ultimately not absolute independent but rather entangled with the human conditions.

There are no moral facts. The expression 'moral fact' is incoherent.

The other view of the realists that facts [moral or otherwise] exist absolutely independently alone and by itself in the ultimate realistic sense is a non-starter.

The existence and status of what we call facts is irrelevant in this discussion - because THERE ARE NO MORAL FACTS.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thoughts on the supposed illegitimacy of classical normativity.

1 A logic, classical or otherwise, deals with language, not reality. Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences.

2 If a non-classical logic rejects classical true/false polarity, it must also reject the middle - excluded in classical logic - between the poles. And it must reject the 0-1 probability polarity.

3 So a (necessarily) classical truth-claim using such a non-classical logic is self-defeating.

4 And, needless to say, a non-classical argument for moral facts - true moral assertions - is also self-defeating.

You are too entrenched with the current popular views on morality where moral ought[s] are generated upon crude logic and reasoning and imposed on others, e.g.

Erm. I'm pointing out the uselessness of an argument from a non-classical logic to moral objectivity. And I've never said that moral oughts can be 'generated upon crude logic' - whatever that means. My whole point has been that moral conclusions can't be derived logically from non-moral premises.

the most prominent example is probably consequentialism about the moral rightness of acts, which holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same kind.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

This is irrelevant. Consequentialism has no bearing on the main question: what constitutes moral rightness and wrongness per se?

Because God commanded so, if not, Hell awaits..

Divine Command Theory is the view that morality is somehow dependent upon God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands. Divine Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or requires.

On the other hand, I am arguing moral facts exist objectively & empirically as physical referents comprising neural correlates a moral potential which can be verified and justified within the scientific FSK and therefrom the moral FSK.

We know. And we've shown you why this argument is fallacious 'a thousand times'. The fact that humans are programmed (with the potential) to behave in a certain way is NOT A MORAL FACT. Judgement as to the morality - the moral rightness or wrongness - of that behaviour IS A SEPARATE ISSUE.

Such moral facts are independent of personal opinions, beliefs, linguistics, knowledge in one perspective but because they are grounded on FSK which are constructed and sustained by men, they are ultimately not absolute independent but rather entangled with the human conditions.

There are no moral facts. The expression 'moral fact' is incoherent.

The other view of the realists that facts [moral or otherwise] exist absolutely independently alone and by itself in the ultimate realistic sense is a non-starter.

The existence and status of what we call facts is irrelevant in this discussion - because THERE ARE NO MORAL FACTS.

Note I raised this OP,

Anti-Realists' Fact vs Realists' Fact
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34917

You cannot accept that there are Moral Facts because you are dogmatically stuck in the " Realists' Fact" silo which is unrealistic and untenable.
You have not bothered to review the above thread, perhaps due to fear of the truths??

It is obvious you hold the Philosophical/Metaphysical Realist position with reference to what is fact? Do you deny this?
If not, what is your actual philosophical position regarding 'what is fact' and reality?

Suggest you read this [from SEP] to understand where you stand and why Philosophical/Metaphysical Realist is not realistic and tenable.

Challenges to Metaphysical Realism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/real ... challenge/

Note this OP,
Challenges to Metaphysical Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34934
for your counter views.

[FlashDangerpants]

You cannot accept that there are Moral Facts because you are dogmatically stuck in the " Realists' Fact" silo which is unrealistic and untenable.

If you belive that you are right and that therefore Pete is wrong, then you are right in there with him, proving yourself wrong.

[DPMartin]

It sounds like your misunderstanding of what I am talking about.

that maybe so

It is? What does x=x measure ?

its still a measurement, isn't it?

[Skepdick]

It is? What does x=x measure ?

its still a measurement, isn't it?

I don't know. Is it?

I woulda figured a measurement is a process which reduces one's uncertainty about something.

I am not sure what uncertainty has been reduced by x=x. Heck - I don't even know what x=x means!

[DPMartin]

It is? What does x=x measure ?

its still a measurement, isn't it?

I don't know. Is it?

I woulda figured a measurement is a process which reduces one's uncertainty about something.

I am not sure what uncertainty has been reduced by x=x. Heck - I don't even know what x=x means!

really?
if you don't get 12 inches=12 inches which is a measurement or the result of a measurement that maybe useless in many cases but still a measurement. we are done here.

[Atla]

Anti-realism [Kantian] rely on facts, i.e. if moral facts then from the moral FSK.
As with anti-realist facts, what is critical is whether they have net-positive utilities for mankind, which scientific facts [even as double-sided sword] has done so.

It's over your head, but the very problem is that "being net-positive for mankind" isn't objectively moral. It's just a probably good / commonly used consensus.

[Atla]

Anti-Realists' Fact vs Realists' Fact

The realist vs anti-realist debate was settled like a century ago anyway, both sides were wrong. The case is probably representationalism / indirect realism, which is sort of a mixture of the two positions. But maybe both you and Peter lack the capacity to consider two things at once, so you'll argue forever.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anti-Realists' Fact vs Realists' Fact

The realist vs anti-realist debate was settled like a century ago anyway, both sides were wrong. The case is probably representationalism / indirect realism, which is sort of a mixture of the two positions. But maybe both you and Peter lack the capacity to consider two things at once, so you'll argue forever.

Settled? where are your supporting references.

The problem here is not on my side, Peter et. al. do not even understand [not necessary agree with] the issues involved especially the anti-realists' view [in my case Kantian].

The more realistic view is that of the Kantian anti-realist [with slight tweaks] views. If you cannot understand [not necessary agree with] this view thoroughly you are clinging to something that is delusional.

In the Prolegomena, Kant explained
How Is Pure Mathematics Possible?
How Is The Science Of Nature Possible?

Thus Kantian anti-realist view leverages on the scientific FSK and scientific facts [including mathematical facts] plus rational philosophical reasoning to align with the emerging reality and to avoid scientism.
What is wrong with that?

[Atla]

Anti-Realists' Fact vs Realists' Fact

The realist vs anti-realist debate was settled like a century ago anyway, both sides were wrong. The case is probably representationalism / indirect realism, which is sort of a mixture of the two positions. But maybe both you and Peter lack the capacity to consider two things at once, so you'll argue forever.

Settled? where are your supporting references.

The problem here is not on my side, Peter et. al. do not even understand [not necessary agree with] the issues involved especially the anti-realists' view [in my case Kantian].

The more realistic view is that of the Kantian anti-realist [with slight tweaks] views. If you cannot understand [not necessary agree with] this view thoroughly you are clinging to something that is delusional.

In the Prolegomena, Kant explained
How Is Pure Mathematics Possible?
How Is The Science Of Nature Possible?

Thus Kantian anti-realist view leverages on the scientific FSK and scientific facts [including mathematical facts] plus rational philosophical reasoning to align with the emerging reality and to avoid scientism.
What is wrong with that?

Again, Kant should have admitted that we probably should assume the objective existence of the directly unknowable external world (external to our immediate experiences). Which is the "realist" part.

[FlashDangerpants]

its still a measurement, isn't it?

I don't know. Is it?

I woulda figured a measurement is a process which reduces one's uncertainty about something.

I am not sure what uncertainty has been reduced by x=x. Heck - I don't even know what x=x means!

really?
if you don't get 12 inches=12 inches which is a measurement or the result of a measurement that maybe useless in many cases but still a measurement. we are done here.

This looks like a stupid argument and I can't imagine why you would want to win it. But if you filter Skepdick's posts by the keyword "measurement" and then filter that with "information" you will get plenty of stuff showing him to clearly agree with what you are writing here. It should get you all of his '1 bit of information = measurement' nonsense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, Kant should have admitted that we probably should assume the objective existence of the directly unknowable external world (external to our immediate experiences). Which is the "realist" part.

I am aware from the previous post you have NOT grasp Kant's principles thoroughly.

Kant did state, [paraphrasing],
for any appearance there must be "something that appear" which is unknowable but can be thought only.

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [Bxxvi]

Note this point is in the Preface.
This is merely a concession Kant made in the earlier part of his CPR to enable the flow to the later phases of the CRP.

Ultimately to Kant [@ page B397], at the very later phase of the CPR there is no independent existence the so-claimed "realist" the insisted upon. These "realists" are merely reifying an illusion due to a 'psychological defect'.

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions {transcendental ideas} are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.
They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397

The delusional thinking is repeated by Kant till the end of the CPR [with limited exception re morality].
The psychological problem is implied in "which unceasingly mocks and torments him."

[Atla]

Again, Kant should have admitted that we probably should assume the objective existence of the directly unknowable external world (external to our immediate experiences). Which is the "realist" part.

I am aware from the previous post you have NOT grasp Kant's principles thoroughly.

Kant did state, [paraphrasing],
for any appearance there must be "something that appear" which is unknowable but can be thought only.

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [Bxxvi]

Note this point is in the Preface.
This is merely a concession Kant made in the earlier part of his CPR to enable the flow to the later phases of the CRP.

Ultimately to Kant [@ page B397], at the very later phase of the CPR there is no independent existence the so-claimed "realist" the insisted upon. These "realists" are merely reifying an illusion due to a 'psychological defect'.

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions {transcendental ideas} are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.
They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397

The delusional thinking is repeated by Kant till the end of the CPR [with limited exception re morality].
The psychological problem is implied in "which unceasingly mocks and torments him."

You don't get it. This is all true, and STILL we should buy into this kind of "illusion", we need to imbue it with realism. It's easily the most optimal thing people can do, in order to be as functional and mentally healthy as possible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, Kant should have admitted that we probably should assume the objective existence of the directly unknowable external world (external to our immediate experiences). Which is the "realist" part.

I am aware from the previous post you have NOT grasp Kant's principles thoroughly.

Kant did state, [paraphrasing],
for any appearance there must be "something that appear" which is unknowable but can be thought only.

But our further contention must also be duly borne in mind, namely, that though we cannot know these Objects as Things-in-Themselves, we must yet be in position at least to think them as Things-in-Themselves;*
otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be Appearance without anything that appears. [Bxxvi]

Note this point is in the Preface.
This is merely a concession Kant made in the earlier part of his CPR to enable the flow to the later phases of the CRP.

Ultimately to Kant [@ page B397], at the very later phase of the CPR there is no independent existence the so-claimed "realist" the insisted upon. These "realists" are merely reifying an illusion due to a 'psychological defect'.

There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions {transcendental ideas} are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.
They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397

The delusional thinking is repeated by Kant till the end of the CPR [with limited exception re morality].
The psychological problem is implied in "which unceasingly mocks and torments him."

You don't get it. This is all true, and STILL we should buy into this kind of "illusion", we need to imbue it with realism. It's easily the most optimal thing people can do, in order to be as functional and mentally healthy as possible.

Your thinking is too narrow and shallow!

Yes, the above is optimal for the present condition with 'realism' but like I said, [..I conceded Christianity is the most optimal moral model for the present majority in their current psychological state].
but it will not be optimal for the future, e.g. with the threat of easily available and cheap WMDs.

If everyone were to cling to such an illusion, it will only condone the existence of God [actually illusory] as real and there is no fixed goal post for morality to be guided upon.
As such, there is a potential for the extermination of the human species where SOME [merely] Islamists decide to blast WMDs from a rogue nation [a future state like ISIS]. They have no qualms because they are assured of paradise [with virgins] regardless of what happen to them and others on Earth.

Besides the above, there is a need to expedite the natural morality potential so that human can work together [setting aside personal interests] to resolve global issues like climate change, or the threat of a rogue asteroid that appear suddenly from nowhere and heading Earth.

Your thinking is too narrow and shallow!

[Atla]

Your thinking is too narrow and shallow!

Yes, the above is optimal for the present condition with 'realism' but like I said, [..I conceded Christianity is the most optimal moral model for the present majority in their current psychological state].
but it will not be optimal for the future, e.g. with the threat of easily available and cheap WMDs.

If everyone were to cling to such an illusion, it will only condone the existence of God [actually illusory] as real and there is no fixed goal post for morality to be guided upon.
As such, there is a potential for the extermination of the human species where SOME [merely] Islamists decide to blast WMDs from a rogue nation [a future state like ISIS]. They have no qualms because they are assured of paradise [with virgins] regardless of what happen to them and others on Earth.

Besides the above, there is a need to expedite the natural morality potential so that human can work together [setting aside personal interests] to resolve global issues like climate change, or the threat of a rogue asteroid that appear suddenly from nowhere and heading Earth.

Your thinking is too narrow and shallow!

Wrong as usual. Not positing a real external world is a highly unnatural, dysfunctional, confused way of thinking, which has a much higher chance of leading to all sorts of mental problems, even hallucinations. With no anchor in the "real world", it will also become much harder to get out of these mental problems.

So if people adopt your ideas, "God experiences" etc. will become more common, you'll also hear from Allah more often etc. The world will become a more unstable place.