What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter Holmes,
Any response to my post?

.............
Yes, your fact "that stick is 1 meter long" is independent of individuals' beliefs and opinion, but it is not independent of the collective opinion of those subjects who set and agree to what one meter is to be as the STANDARD METER.

Therefore what you think is an objective fact with truth-value independent of individuals opinions and belief, is fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective with the consensus of subjects.
............

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes,
Any response to my post?

.............
Yes, your fact "that stick is 1 meter long" is independent of individuals' beliefs and opinion, but it is not independent of the collective opinion of those subjects who set and agree to what one meter is to be as the STANDARD METER.

Therefore what you think is an objective fact with truth-value independent of individuals opinions and belief, is fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective with the consensus of subjects.
............

The length (indeed, the existence) of the stick is independent from any description. But a factual assertion - and therefore a linguitic fact - can be produced only within a description - a descriptive context.

So we have two different things: the feature of reality being described (the stick); and the way of describing it. Having agreed - by intersubjcetive consensus - how to describe things - the signs and criteria - we are then confronted with the thing we want to describe - the stick.

And at that point the subjectivity of the means of description is no longer what matters. What matters is the actual stick and its actual length. And that's where opinion is irrelevant. The stick either is or isn't 1m long. Its length isn't fundamentally subjective. (That's fashionable, post-modern, post-truth claptrap.)

Now, show why eating animals either is or isn't morally wrong - and why - in the way that the stick either is or isn't 1m long. Is the moral rightness or wrongness of slavery a feature of reality independent from opinion, in the way the length of the stick is a feature of reality independent from opinion?

Fact: people need to breathe. Opinion: people should be allowed to breathe; people ought not to be deprived of air. And so on.

Now, SHOW the logical connection, the entailment, between the fact and the opinion. Just blathering about a moral framework in which there are moral facts WON'T DO. SHOW why denying the opinion produces a logical contradiction: people need to breathe; people should not be allowed to breathe. Why is that a contradiction?

[Atla]

Whoa
The answer to "What could make morality objective?" is "nothing", as morality is never objective. Yet 243 pages weren't enough to get there apparently.

[Peter Holmes]

Whoa
The answer to "What could make morality objective?" is "nothing", as morality is never objective. Yet 243 pages weren't enough to get there apparently.

Hey. It's fascinating, in my opinion. Like any faith-commitment, moral objectivism has its faithful whom no amount of reason and sound argument can shift.

I believe in my deepest heart's core that X is morally wrong. So it must be a fact that X is morally wrong, never mind what anyone believes. I know that X is morally wrong - and anyone who doesn't know it is ignorant.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whoa
The answer to "What could make morality objective?" is "nothing", as morality is never objective. Yet 243 pages weren't enough to get there apparently.

Your hastiness here is exposing your philosophical ignorance.
There are two types of 'objectivity' to be considered, i.e.

• 1. absolute objectivity
  2. relative objectivity

There is no absolute objective morality [by itself or from a God], but morality can be relatively objective as justified from empirical evidences within the Moral Framework and System as in Science.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter Holmes,
Any response to my post?

.............
Yes, your fact "that stick is 1 meter long" is independent of individuals' beliefs and opinion, but it is not independent of the collective opinion of those subjects who set and agree to what one meter is to be as the STANDARD METER.

Therefore what you think is an objective fact with truth-value independent of individuals opinions and belief, is fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective with the consensus of subjects.
............

The length (indeed, the existence) of the stick is independent from any description. But a factual assertion - and therefore a linguistic fact - can be produced only within a description - a descriptive context.

So we have two different things: the feature of reality being described (the stick); and the way of describing it. Having agreed - by intersubjcetive consensus - how to describe things - the signs and criteria - we are then confronted with the thing we want to describe - the stick.

And at that point the subjectivity of the means of description is no longer what matters. What matters is the actual stick and its actual length. And that's where opinion is irrelevant. The stick either is or isn't 1m long. Its length isn't fundamentally subjective. (That's fashionable, post-modern, post-truth claptrap.)

Don't simply throw labels at me. I belong to none of those but in this case I rely heavily on evidence and rational critical thinking.

I have already explained to you, "that the stick is 1m long" is conditioned upon the Framework of the Metric System, where upon the metre is a standard pre-agreed by subjects intersubjectively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre
Yes, it is independent of individuals' opinions and belief but "that the stick is 1m long" is grounded on the collective agreements of subjects, thus it's length whilst objective to the standard pre-agreed must be ultimately subjective.

Is there really "an actual length" of the stick in the absolute sense?
It's objective length can be measured relatively by subjects in meter [metric system] or inches/feet [imperial system]. In this sense, what is the actual length is independent of opinions but yet fundamentally it is subjective.

To measure length, one must determine which is one end and which is the other end, the medium to measure on and what tools of measurement to use. The easiest is to use some kind of ruler or measuring tape but is this the true length? The length would different if we measure the outermost electrons [always moving around] at both ends that belongs to the stick and this will pose a problem.

Therefore there is no absolute "actual length" of a stick except it depend on the context [Framework and System of measurements] which the subjects agreed upon, thus 'what is length of the stick' is ultimately conditions upon subjects.

Is there really "an actual stick" in the absolute sense?
Again what is the actual stick is relative to the perspective the subject[s] agree upon, either it is upon the common sense, the conventional, or the scientific sense [classical, Einsteinian or QM].
Conventionally and common sense, a stick in this case, I presume a part of a tree. But to be more truthful that stick is a cluster of cellulose, or can be defined in term of the structure and number of atoms, electrons or protons.

So my point, whatever you insist is an objective 'fact' and its referent is conditioned upon subjects, i.e. intersubjective.
In addition, I content there is no pre-existing reference to be factualized but rather whatever is the referent of the fact is an emergence that co-emerged with subjects.

Prove [with evidence and critical thinking] I am wrong on the above?

Now, show why eating animals either is or isn't morally wrong - and why - in the way that the stick either is or isn't 1m long. Is the moral rightness or wrongness of slavery a feature of reality independent from opinion, in the way the length of the stick is a feature of reality independent from opinion?

That the stick is or isn't 1m long is dependent of a Framework and System of Measurements.

Similarly, that eating animals either is or isn't morally wrong is dependent of a Framework and System of Morality.

Fact: people need to breathe. Opinion: people should be allowed to breathe; people ought not to be deprived of air. And so on.

Now, SHOW the logical connection, the entailment, between the fact and the opinion. Just blathering about a moral framework in which there are moral facts WON'T DO. SHOW why denying the opinion produces a logical contradiction: people need to breathe; people should not be allowed to breathe. Why is that a contradiction?

Where a fact is determined exclusively from the Scientific Framework and System, by default there is no entailment or relation to values. This is because the Scientific Framework by definition do not deal with values.

However with the Framework and System of Morality, moral facts of values are justified from other facts [scientific and others] and supported with philosophical reasoning.
What you are ignorant is a Framework and System of Morality do exists just like Framework and System of Knowledge for Legal, political, astronomy, Science, Physics [.. I have explained this before - even op up OP to get into the details] but you just ignore them without offering any counter arguments.
In addition, you are ignorant of 'what is morality-proper'.

[Atla]

Whoa
The answer to "What could make morality objective?" is "nothing", as morality is never objective. Yet 243 pages weren't enough to get there apparently.

Your hastiness here is exposing your philosophical ignorance.
There are two types of 'objectivity' to be considered, i.e.

• 1. absolute objectivity
  2. relative objectivity

There is no absolute objective morality [by itself or from a God], but morality can be relatively objective as justified from empirical evidences within the Moral Framework and System as in Science.

If you weren't so philosophically ignorant, you would know that "objective" here refers to absolute objectivity. You are unaware that that is the default context in which this topic is discussed.
Relative objectivities will clash with each other.

[Skepdick]

So what??
It is very critical.
My point is to counter Peter Holmes' 'what is fact' which he take to be absolute and unconditional.
My point is 'what is fact' is always conditioned upon the Framework and System of Knowledge.

Yeah, but I understand your point even if Peter doesn't.

What's critical is realising that different practices/purposes produce different sets of techniques/instruments/rituals etc. for achieving whatever it is the practitioner is trying to achieve.

What it boils down to is different practitioners speak different languages - they use language differently and for different purposes. That's how "tribes" are formed. The Philosopher tribe. The Scientist tribe. The logician tribe. The Doctor tribe.

And so the facts (truths) across different tribes may not be reconcilable with each other.

When I used 'Framework' it is always accompanied with the term 'system'.
It is just that I am lazy to type in the additional word.

I understand that they are synonymous. I am trying to get you to develop the language of systemising about systems. Theorising about theories.

My point is this (repeating): facts (truths) across different frameworks may not be reconcilable with each other.

It's what Atla told you. Relative facts will always clash which is why you need one overarching framework for unification. The framework that reconciles other frameworks. That's is what ethics is for.

The way out of this mess is not a common language - it's common purpose.
Because we invent and use languages to suit our purposes.

[AlexW]

... "objective" here refers to absolute objectivity ...
Relative objectivities will clash with each other.

Yes, true, but "absolute objectivity" arises only from pure subjectivity.
It is, as such not a value system, not a set of rules and preferences - it is rather the "intuitive"/natural mode of being.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's what Atla told you. Relative facts will always clash which is why you need one overarching framework for unification. The framework that reconciles other frameworks. That's is what ethics is for.

The way out of this mess is not a common language - it's common purpose.
Because we invent and use languages to suit our purposes.

Yes relative objective facts from different Framework of Knowledge will clash but their respective contexts, conditions, assumptions are always explicitly [it has to be] stated.

Elements of Morality and Ethics can be used as one of the feature of an overarching framework and system that is established to assess the veracity and degree of confidence level it will provide for users of the facts.

For example a Framework and System of Rating for veracity and degree of confidence level can be established based on the following weighted criteria, e.g.

• 1. The efficiency of the infrastructure of the Framework [& system].
  2. The features of of each frameworks, e.g.
  • 3. Testability
    4. Repeatability of results
    5. Falsifiability
    6. Ease of testing,
    7. Peer review
  8. Moral and ethical compliances
  9. Whatever other necessary criteria to be included

Each of the criteria must be given its appropriate weightage.

From the above, we will note [.. I believe] the Scientific Framework will be rated the highest at the present, given that Science among other features, promised, for most* of its truths - repeatability of results by anyone who test using the Scientific Method. * there are some exceptions, i.e. BB is not repeatable.

Legal Facts would not be as high as Science because legal facts are conditioned upon various circumstances and will not give a high degree of repeatability if a different jury or judge make the judgment.

Thus from the above Framework and System of Rating the Veracity and confidence level, we can obtain the fact of the degree of confidence for each specific Framework and System to assist users in making various judgments.

[Peter Holmes]

Honestly - it's stupefying. Calling moral objectivists.

Please demonstrate the entailment of a moral assertion from a factual assertion: 'if A, then B' - or 'in any situation in which A is the case, then B is the case', or 'if A is true, then B is true' - and so on.

Hint: if what you propose is supposed to be a factual entailment, then denying the consequent must produce a contradiction.

For example, here's a dud: People need to breathe; therefore it's morally wrong to prevent people from breathing.

But if you like it, please demonstrate the entailment.

[Atla]

... "objective" here refers to absolute objectivity ...
Relative objectivities will clash with each other.

Yes, true, but "absolute objectivity" arises only from pure subjectivity.
It is, as such not a value system, not a set of rules and preferences - it is rather the "intuitive"/natural mode of being.

"Absolute objectivity" in the context of morality probably doesn't exist at all, so it probably doesn't arise out of anything.

[Skepdick]

Yes relative objective facts from different Framework of Knowledge will clash but their respective contexts, conditions, assumptions are always explicitly [it has to be] stated.

You are demanding too much. Within a community the "assumptions" are almost always implicit not explicit. They are born from shared experiences.
The narrative/language itself is secondary.

There's a whole lot more that happens in the social sphere than can be captured in a linguistic framework.

Elements of Morality and Ethics can be used as one of the feature of an overarching framework and system that is established to assess the veracity and degree of confidence level it will provide for users of the facts.

That gets us nowhere if you have competing Ethical/Moral frameworks with different goals. You will end up with different languages.

For example a Framework and System of Rating for veracity and degree of confidence level can be established based on the following weighted criteria, e.g.

Veracity and degree of confidence of what? Knowledge? Facts? What are the knowledge and facts produced by your framework used for?

• 1. The efficiency of the infrastructure of the Framework [& system].
  2. The features of of each frameworks, e.g.
  • 3. Testability
    4. Repeatability of results
    5. Falsifiability
    6. Ease of testing,
    7. Peer review
  8. Moral and ethical compliances
  9. Whatever other necessary criteria to be included

Each of the criteria must be given its appropriate weightage.

What purpose do all of those things serve?

From the above, we will note [.. I believe] the Scientific Framework will be rated the highest at the present, given that Science among other features, promised, for most* of its truths - repeatability of results by anyone who test using the Scientific Method. * there are some exceptions, i.e. BB is not repeatable.

Legal Facts would not be as high as Science because legal facts are conditioned upon various circumstances and will not give a high degree of repeatability if a different jury or judge make the judgment.

Thus from the above Framework and System of Rating the Veracity and confidence level, we can obtain the fact of the degree of confidence for each specific Framework and System to assist users in making various judgments.

The knowledge/facts with the highest veracity/confidence/certainty is useless to the person who doesn't need it.

What do you need facts for?

[Skepdick]

"Absolute objectivity" in the context of morality probably doesn't exist at all, so it probably doesn't arise out of anything.

That's entirely moot if morality exists from the context of "absolute objectivity".

[surreptitious57]

Scientific or mathematical truth is more rigorous than personal truth for example

They are both axiomatic systems - they are all the same

There is nothing axiomatic about bigotry or prejudice or ignorance that may be characteristics of someones personal truth
Of course not everyones personal truth has these characteristics but the fact some do means it is not by default axiomatic