Why get so cross and offensive? I understand scientific method and peer review perfectly well. Scientific theories can only ever be the best explanations we have so far, based on the evidence we have. Scientists don't tend to claim access to the truth, because of the problem of induction.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:55 amYou are stuck with the theistic moral objectivists and believe ignorantly I am on the same camp.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:29 amIt looks like we're on the same page about morality. What fascinates me is how tenacious moral objectivists are. They just won't let it go. And the fun fact is that people who think morality is objective - that there are moral facts - also think their own moral opinions are facts. I wonder why that is.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:44 am
Actually since all we have is inter-subjective opinion upon which to agree our objective "facts" the definition is as good as any other.
Clearly, though, not all inter-subjective consensuses are as good as all the others. Ask any church what they think of God - then compare it to what they say in a Mosque, or Temple.
I would suggest that to get a good and reliable objective fact you would have to apply the inter-subjective views of science, or scientific method. Whilst even the scientific community is fraught with argumentation, for the mundane facts such as there is a cup on the table you only need minimal verification. Even the shape of the earth would be easy enough. But even for that there was a time when this was arguable.
However - when it comes to matters of morality - there is simply no scope for ANY morally objective opinion.
It is pointless offering morally objective views in the hope that others on the Forum with agree with the moral point - that is not finding objectivity - that is only getting the agreement of others. For ANY fact to be securely objective it would have to get the agreement of ALL, without any reasonable exception.
This topic drones on and on. It is fruitless. There is no condition where any moral could achieve objectivity. Morals involve values. Values invite opinion. Opinion is subjectivity.
As I had stated, what is secular objective absolute moral laws [moral facts] must be justified from empirical evidence and polished with highest level of philosophical critical thinking.
You are so stuck with the concept of 'opinion' despite me providing the dictionary meaning.As it happens, I think you're wrong about the definition of objectivity as 'justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus' being as good as any other - because intersubjective consensus can only be consensus of opinion, and objectivity is independence from opinion. If intersubjective consensus is conceded, so is the case against what we call truth and objectivity.
Scientific facts are objective and are based on intersubjective consensus leveraged upon the Scientific Method and peer review.
Are you that ignorant of this fact?
You are ignorant of how the Scientific Method and peer review works?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
But that's an epistemological problem - to do with what we believe and know or can know. The truth-value of a factual claim - such as a scientific one - is a completely separate matter. That scientists don't claim their explanations are true doesn't mean that they aren't true - or false.
Your delusion is that moral claims are like factual claims, with a truth-value. You can bang on as much as you like in defence of your argument - and it seems likely that you will to the last breath you take - but it's still an unsound argument with unjustified premises.