What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What you really think is that, because I say there are no moral facts, therefore I can't say anything is morally right or wrong.

actually what I think is you, as you reckon things, have no groundin' for your moral assertions...all you can say is in my opinion...

And that's nonsense. It's perfectly possible to have good, strong reasons - grounds - for our moral opinions, and for opposing some other moral opinions. For example, I think murder is morally wrong - and I'm glad I live with people most of whom agree - for very obvious reasons.

Your denial that those reasons can have any weight or significance comes from the delusion that there are moral facts. Overcome the delusion, and it's all very simple and clear.

Your above don't make sense.

Where you have an opinion, that cannot be based on strong reason and grounds.

• Opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

When you believe murder is wrong, which normal person would oppose your belief?

Where you have strong reasons and grounds, they have to be based [explicitly or implicitly] on some empirical factual evidences why murder is wrong, e.g.
-the facts of sufferings by the victim relatives
-the condemnation by the whole of humanity
-the sufferings of the murdered victim before he died.
-many other facts associated why murder is not acceptable by all humans.

Therefore you cannot deny, why you and all normal people belief murder is not morally acceptable, is grounded on facts via empirical evidences.

Since you keep mentioning and associating 'murder' with morality, you are deliberating the issue within an implied moral framework and system.
Facts are specific to FSK.
Therefore the above is sufficient to justify your moral stance "murder is not morally acceptable" is a moral fact to you regardless that you are in denial of it.

Note, beside the above crude method, I justified moral facts via other more sounder empirical and philosophical approaches.

[Peter Holmes]

What you really think is that, because I say there are no moral facts, therefore I can't say anything is morally right or wrong.

actually what I think is you, as you reckon things, have no groundin' for your moral assertions...all you can say is in my opinion...

And that's nonsense. It's perfectly possible to have good, strong reasons - grounds - for our moral opinions, and for opposing some other moral opinions. For example, I think murder is morally wrong - and I'm glad I live with people most of whom agree - for very obvious reasons.

Your denial that those reasons can have any weight or significance comes from the delusion that there are moral facts. Overcome the delusion, and it's all very simple and clear.

Your above don't make sense.

Where you have an opinion, that cannot be based on strong reason and grounds.

• Opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

When you believe murder is wrong, which normal person would oppose your belief?

Where you have strong reasons and grounds, they have to be based [explicitly or implicitly] on some empirical factual evidences why murder is wrong, e.g.
-the facts of sufferings by the victim relatives
-the condemnation by the whole of humanity
-the sufferings of the murdered victim before he died.
-many other facts associated why murder is not acceptable by all humans.

Therefore you cannot deny, why you and all normal people belief murder is not morally acceptable, is grounded on facts via empirical evidences.

Since you keep mentioning and associating 'murder' with morality, you are deliberating the issue within an implied moral framework and system.
Facts are specific to FSK.
Therefore the above is sufficient to justify your moral stance "murder is not morally acceptable" is a moral fact to you regardless that you are in denial of it.

Note, beside the above crude method, I justified moral facts via other more sounder empirical and philosophical approaches.

All wrong, as usual. The reasons you offer for thinking murder is wrong assume moral judgements - for example, the judgement that causing suffering is morally wrong. And that's an opinion, not a fact of reality.

And you haven't shown that moral facts exist in any way at all.

Nul point.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And that's nonsense. It's perfectly possible to have good, strong reasons - grounds - for our moral opinions, and for opposing some other moral opinions. For example, I think murder is morally wrong - and I'm glad I live with people most of whom agree - for very obvious reasons.

Your denial that those reasons can have any weight or significance comes from the delusion that there are moral facts. Overcome the delusion, and it's all very simple and clear.

Your above don't make sense.

Where you have an opinion, that cannot be based on strong reason and grounds.

• Opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

When you believe murder is wrong, which normal person would oppose your belief?

Where you have strong reasons and grounds, they have to be based [explicitly or implicitly] on some empirical factual evidences why murder is wrong, e.g.
-the facts of sufferings by the victim relatives
-the condemnation by the whole of humanity
-the sufferings of the murdered victim before he died.
-many other facts associated why murder is not acceptable by all humans.

Therefore you cannot deny, why you and all normal people belief murder is not morally acceptable, is grounded on facts via empirical evidences.

Since you keep mentioning and associating 'murder' with morality, you are deliberating the issue within an implied moral framework and system.
Facts are specific to FSK.
Therefore the above is sufficient to justify your moral stance "murder is not morally acceptable" is a moral fact to you regardless that you are in denial of it.

Note, beside the above crude method, I justified moral facts via other more sounder empirical and philosophical approaches.

All wrong, as usual. The reasons you offer for thinking murder is wrong assume moral judgements - for example, the judgement that causing suffering is morally wrong. And that's an opinion, not a fact of reality.

And you haven't shown that moral facts exist in any way at all.

Nul point.

Don't deflect.

What I have shown is when you have strong reasons and grounds to declare 'murder is morally unacceptable' is based on facts, thus culminating as a moral fact within an implied moral FSK.

That you have such a mental and psychological state that drive you to declare 'murder is morally unacceptable' itself is a fact of reality.
It is a feature of reality and state of affairs within your body and brain.
How can you deny this fact?

Henry is right, your views are no different from his which is based on moral intuitionism arising from an inherent moral functions and facts related to morality, e.g. murder is evil.

Prove to me your strong reasons and ground are not based on facts?

Your only option to escape the above is moral skepticism, i.e. there is no such thing as morality.

Moral skepticism (or moral scepticism) is a class of metaethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge. Many moral skeptics also make the stronger, modal claim that moral knowledge is impossible. Moral skepticism is particularly opposed to moral realism: the view that there are knowable and objective moral truths.

or
Moral Nihilism
Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas replied to Peter Holmes:

What I have shown is when you have strong reasons and grounds to declare 'murder is morally unacceptable' is based on facts, thus culminating as a moral fact within an implied moral FSK.

You wrote "FSK " which stands for 'framework of scientific knowledge'. A framework of belief (FSB) is usually called 'social reality' except for people who are considered to be eccentric (sometimes eccentric to the point of madness). Scientific knowledge is more credible than common sense, or superstitious knowledge, however plenty of people, especially these days when scientists and other intellectuals are accused of lying,prefer to base their framework of belief not on a framework of scientific knowledge but on common sense and superstition.

Murder is a recognisable crime and as such is a social belief not a fact of nature.

The only thing that can make a moral tenet true , even if people has never existed, is God. I say 'God' in the sense of pre-existing meaning or pre-existing order.
If 'God' were the only possible ultimate value, then truth and goodness would be indistinguishable one from the other.

[Peter Holmes]

Your above don't make sense.

Where you have an opinion, that cannot be based on strong reason and grounds.

• Opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

When you believe murder is wrong, which normal person would oppose your belief?

Where you have strong reasons and grounds, they have to be based [explicitly or implicitly] on some empirical factual evidences why murder is wrong, e.g.
-the facts of sufferings by the victim relatives
-the condemnation by the whole of humanity
-the sufferings of the murdered victim before he died.
-many other facts associated why murder is not acceptable by all humans.

Therefore you cannot deny, why you and all normal people belief murder is not morally acceptable, is grounded on facts via empirical evidences.

Since you keep mentioning and associating 'murder' with morality, you are deliberating the issue within an implied moral framework and system.
Facts are specific to FSK.
Therefore the above is sufficient to justify your moral stance "murder is not morally acceptable" is a moral fact to you regardless that you are in denial of it.

Note, beside the above crude method, I justified moral facts via other more sounder empirical and philosophical approaches.

All wrong, as usual. The reasons you offer for thinking murder is wrong assume moral judgements - for example, the judgement that causing suffering is morally wrong. And that's an opinion, not a fact of reality.

And you haven't shown that moral facts exist in any way at all.

Nul point.

Don't deflect.

What I have shown is when you have strong reasons and grounds to declare 'murder is morally unacceptable' is based on facts, thus culminating as a moral fact within an implied moral FSK.

That you have such a mental and psychological state that drive you to declare 'murder is morally unacceptable' itself is a fact of reality.
It is a feature of reality and state of affairs within your body and brain.
How can you deny this fact?

Henry is right, your views are no different from his which is based on moral intuitionism arising from an inherent moral functions and facts related to morality, e.g. murder is evil.

Prove to me your strong reasons and ground are not based on facts?

Your only option to escape the above is moral skepticism, i.e. there is no such thing as morality.

Moral skepticism (or moral scepticism) is a class of metaethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge. Many moral skeptics also make the stronger, modal claim that moral knowledge is impossible. Moral skepticism is particularly opposed to moral realism: the view that there are knowable and objective moral truths.

or
Moral Nihilism
Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

Don't be silly. The fact that we make moral judgements, and have reasons for them, doesn't mean those moral judgements are facts. That's a simple misunderstanding. For example, I think abortion is not morally wrong, and I have what I take to be good, strong reasons for thinking it. But I don't claim that what I think about abortion is a fact - a feature of reality that is the case, independent from anyone's opinion. That would be extreme, absolutist moral egotism and fascism.

I'm serious about this. Moral objectivism is barely disguised moral egotism, and moral fascism is its progeny. 'It's a fact that abortion is morally wrong; therefore a woman must be forced to carry a pregnancy to term'. In my opinion (which is all I have), that is morally disgusting.

And the fact that moral realists and objectivists have to retreat into mysticism - because they have no factual evidence - ties in very comfortably with this quasi-religious, totalitarian irrationalism.

[Age]

Could agreement with and by EVERY one be what actually makes morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Could agreement with and by EVERY one be what actually makes morality objective?

No. What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So moral objectivism is the claim that there are moral facts. And if there are moral facts, what people think about them - individually or collectively - is irrelevant.

[Skepdick]

What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So moral objectivism is the claim that there are moral facts. And if there are moral facts, what people think about them - individually or collectively - is irrelevant.

Incoherent nonsense.

What we consider to be facts are social constructions.

You keep warning us about the mistake between what things are and what we say about them, and then you go and make the exact error you point out.

Just because we SAY that objectivity is "independence from opinion when considering the facts" it doesn't mean that objectivity IS "independence from opinion when considering the facts".

[Age]

Could agreement with and by EVERY one be what actually makes morality objective?

No. What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So moral objectivism is the claim that there are moral facts. And if there are moral facts, what people think about them - individually or collectively - is irrelevant.

Well from this definition and explanation there could NEVER be, so called, "moral objectivity", correct?

Independence from opinion when considering facts (or absolutely ANY thing else in fact) would be an IMPOSSIBILITY, correct?

Discovering if there are or are not 'moral facts' could NEVER be obtained without thinking, which obviously includes what people think. So, if what people think is irrelevant to moral facts, then by this claim alone there could NEVER be 'moral facts'. And, if there could NEVER be 'moral fats', then there also could NEVER be 'moral objectivism or objectivity', correct?

By the way who is the 'we' that call 'objectivity' independence from opinion when considering the facts?

I call 'objectivity,' 'that' what is agreed with and accepted by EVERY one, as One. Although this is NOT 'objectivity', in a sense, it is the closest we can get to 'objectivity, itself. And, if Everyone is in acceptance and in agreement with some 'thing', then it is and would have to be an irrefutable fact anyway.

So, if there is an agreement with and an acceptance on and of some fact in regards to some thing 'moral' with and by Everyone, then we have obtained a moral fact, and then it would be this agreement which has made 'morality' objective, or made 'morality' the closest thing to being 'moral objectivity'.

But, because you appear to BELIEVE wholeheartedly otherwise, you will just reject this outright, correct?

[Peter Holmes]

Could agreement with and by EVERY one be what actually makes morality objective?

No. What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So moral objectivism is the claim that there are moral facts. And if there are moral facts, what people think about them - individually or collectively - is irrelevant.

Well from this definition and explanation there could NEVER be, so called, "moral objectivity", correct?

Independence from opinion when considering facts (or absolutely ANY thing else in fact) would be an IMPOSSIBILITY, correct?

Discovering if there are or are not 'moral facts' could NEVER be obtained without thinking, which obviously includes what people think. So, if what people think is irrelevant to moral facts, then by this claim alone there could NEVER be 'moral facts'. And, if there could NEVER be 'moral fats', then there also could NEVER be 'moral objectivism or objectivity', correct?

By the way who is the 'we' that call 'objectivity' independence from opinion when considering the facts?

I call 'objectivity,' 'that' what is agreed with and accepted by EVERY one, as One. Although this is NOT 'objectivity', in a sense, it is the closest we can get to 'objectivity, itself. And, if Everyone is in acceptance and in agreement with some 'thing', then it is and would have to be an irrefutable fact anyway.

So, if there is an agreement with and an acceptance on and of some fact in regards to some thing 'moral' with and by Everyone, then we have obtained a moral fact, and then it would be this agreement which has made 'morality' objective, or made 'morality' the closest thing to being 'moral objectivity'.

But, because you appear to BELIEVE wholeheartedly otherwise, you will just reject this outright, correct?

What we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are - because, how could they be anything else? So what we mean when we talk about factual assertions being true is what constitutes what we call truth - and there's no other court of appeal.

And when we say a factual assertion is true, what we mean is that its truth-value is not a matter of opinion. For example, when we say the assertion 'water is H2O' is true, what we mean is that whether anyone believes water is H2O is irrelevant. It just is H2O. In other words, we don't think that what we call truth is a matter of individual, consensual or universal opinion.

And that's precisely the way moral obectivists use the word 'fact' with reference to moral facts. For example, when they say it's a fact that slavery is morally wrong, what they mean is that it wouldn't matter if everyone on earth thought that slavery isn't morally wrong, because it's just the case (it's a fact) that slavery is morally wrong.

So, yes, I'm arguing that there can be no moral facts, because a moral assertion, such as 'slavery is morally wrong', can only ever express a moral opinion, and does not make a factual claim about reality with a truth-value. There's no way to falsify a moral assertion, simply because it has no truth-value in the first place. That's not its function.

[Skepdick]

So what we mean when we talk about factual assertions being true is what constitutes what we call truth - and there's no other court of appeal.

And if there are moral facts, what people think about them - individually or collectively - is irrelevant.

Apparently truth is what WE call truth; objectivity is what WE call objectivity; and facts are what WE call facts, but that doesn't apply to objective moral facts.

What a fucking idiot. With emphasis on the "fucking idiot".

[Age]

No. What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So moral objectivism is the claim that there are moral facts. And if there are moral facts, what people think about them - individually or collectively - is irrelevant.

Well from this definition and explanation there could NEVER be, so called, "moral objectivity", correct?

Independence from opinion when considering facts (or absolutely ANY thing else in fact) would be an IMPOSSIBILITY, correct?

Discovering if there are or are not 'moral facts' could NEVER be obtained without thinking, which obviously includes what people think. So, if what people think is irrelevant to moral facts, then by this claim alone there could NEVER be 'moral facts'. And, if there could NEVER be 'moral fats', then there also could NEVER be 'moral objectivism or objectivity', correct?

By the way who is the 'we' that call 'objectivity' independence from opinion when considering the facts?

I call 'objectivity,' 'that' what is agreed with and accepted by EVERY one, as One. Although this is NOT 'objectivity', in a sense, it is the closest we can get to 'objectivity, itself. And, if Everyone is in acceptance and in agreement with some 'thing', then it is and would have to be an irrefutable fact anyway.

So, if there is an agreement with and an acceptance on and of some fact in regards to some thing 'moral' with and by Everyone, then we have obtained a moral fact, and then it would be this agreement which has made 'morality' objective, or made 'morality' the closest thing to being 'moral objectivity'.

But, because you appear to BELIEVE wholeheartedly otherwise, you will just reject this outright, correct?

To me, you appear to completely contradict "yourself" here.

Admittedly I have not read this whole thread and thus all of your responses but even from the very outset by starting a thread and asking the question: What could make morality objective? But then by completely denying that it could even be a possibility, and so being completely closed, you are contradicting your apparent openness by asking a seemingly OPEN question in the beginning.

What we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are - because, how could they be anything else?

You have written a statement of claim but added a question mark at the end of it. Was this done for some apparent deception of openness, or for something else?

If it was for something else, then what was 'that' exactly?

And if this claim of yours is true, then I/we say what is a 'moral fact' is what Everyone agrees on as being what is morally Right in Life and/or what is morally Wrong in Life. So, when Everyone says what 'moral truths' ARE, then 'that' is what makes 'morality' objective.

Now, according to your CLAIM just here, this is not just how 'morality' COULD be objective but actually how 'morality' IS objective - because, according to your OWN logic here, they could NOT be ANY thing else.

Unless, of course, you REALLY are being OPEN and are just asking me an OPEN CLARIFYING question, of which if you are, then my answer IS; What 'I', 'you', or 'we' say things are, then that is EXACTLY what they are, to 'us'.

So, this takes us back to what I am pointing out, and 'saying', which is; when Everyone/we agree on some 'thing', then although that obviously comes from just another subjective viewpoint, but because it is coming from 'absolutely' EVERY one and not just some, then from that viewpoint there could not be ANY thing closer to being an objective viewpoint, nor a more objective viewpoint to be LOOKING FROM.

Which takes me back to the fact that I asked 'you' to CLARIFY who the 'we' is when you use that word here, which, by the way, you NEVER clarified, which reminds me to remind you that you have avoided and NEVER actually answered ANY of my five openly asked clarifying questions posed to you.

Also, what you wrote here apparently completely opposes and thus completely contradicts what you wrote in the previous reply to me.

What you said then was:
What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts.

But what you say now is:
What we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are

To me, this is a True sign that you were challenged by my question you will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to back up and support your currently held BELIEFS.

You are aware that what 'we' say some 'thing' is or say 'they' are is, essentially, 'just an opinion', right?

If no, then tell 'us' how the word 'we' use and say are NOT, essentially, just our OWN opinion?

So what we mean when we talk about factual assertions being true is what constitutes what we call truth - and there's no other court of appeal.

Which only contradicts what you have previously said, and actually backs up and supports what I have previously said and am now still saying.

Also, to me, it appears you are using the 'we' word again, and numerous times, in an attempt to sound more convincing and as though this gives what you say and claim more weight. But, if you do NOT clarify who the 'we' is, exactly, then what it might all come down to is that actually it is just 'you' and 'you' alone.

And when we say a factual assertion is true, what we mean is that its truth-value is not a matter of opinion.

Again, who is the 'we' who 'you' are 'trying' to use, to back up and support your claim here?

By the way, would ANY one, or could it even be logically possible for ANY one, to 'say' a 'factual' assertion is 'false'. The words 'factual' and 'true' here just go together, without the need for even 'saying'.

By the way, how is 'truth-value' actually obtained without an opinion? In fact, how could a 'truth-value' be obtained without an opinion?

Where does some 'thing's' 'truth-value' come from if not from opinion?

See, to me ALL 'truth-value' lays in one's 'opinion'.

WHERE do 'you' suggest 'truth-value' actually come from, if not from within human being thinking, which is what 'opinions' are and where opinions come from?

For example, when we say the assertion 'water is H2O' is true, what we mean is that whether anyone believes water is H2O is irrelevant.

So, are you saying this 'works' because 'we' have added the 'true' word on the end of 'water is H2O' or because of some other reason?

By the way, I ALREADY KNOW that what is BELIEVED is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. But what I am 'trying to' ascertain from 'you' is where the 'truth-value' (or 'truth-claim') that 'water is 'H2O' comes from if NOT just from the 'opinions' of human beings?

Also, WHY did you use the 'assertion' word here? Did you think that would give more 'weight' to your claim here?

It just is H2O. In other words, we don't think that what we call truth is a matter of individual, consensual or universal opinion.

That might be what 'you', and some "others", do NOT think. But, and you and will you explain how 'water' is just 'H2O' if it is NOT just a matter of either individual, consensual, nor of universal 'opinion'?

See, to 'me', how 'you', human beings, arrived at the words that you have, and have arrived at the definitions that you have, for the words that you have, is from 'opinions', themselves.

See, what 'water' is, and thus what 'water's' definition is, was once just the opinion of one or of few human beings. They 'decided' what 'it' is that will 'define' what 'water' actually 'is'. This word and its definition is still just an 'opinion' of whoever is holding this opinion. And, the actual 'truth-value' of this opinion rests on the opinions of "others".

So, it is by 'agreement' and 'acceptance' where 'truth' and/or 'truth-value' actually lays, and rests.

By the way, saying "It just is H20", is just 'an opinion', which most of 'us' english speaking ones tend to 'agree with' and 'accept' as being true.

And that's precisely the way moral obectivists use the word 'fact' with reference to moral facts.

Using the word "objectivists" is like 'you' are 'trying to' infer that those ones, with just a different view (or opinion) than you' are some kind of "other", which are best completely 'rejected' and/or 'ignored', because my "side", or my view, is Right and "their" view is Wrong, making "those people", themselves, Wrong.

Also, what it appears you are saying here is that some human beings, which you have labeled "objectivists" are doing EXACTLY what 'you' say "we" do, correct? But they are just doing the same thing in regards to 'morals', which you BELIEVE there can NOT be 'facts' NOR 'truths' to. Is this correct?

For example, when they say it's a fact that slavery is morally wrong, what they mean is that it wouldn't matter if everyone on earth thought that slavery isn't morally wrong, because it's just the case (it's a fact) that slavery is morally wrong.

But by your own definition and 'logic' above this would, and DOES, MAKE IT WRONG.

You said above:
when we say the assertion 'water is H2O' is true, what we mean is that whether anyone believes water is H2O is irrelevant.

Which essentially means that when 'we' SAY ... is true, then, no matter what ANY one ELSE BELIEVES is irrelevant. Therefore, if just 'one' is 'saying'; "The assertion that 'slavery is wrong' is true", but absolutely every one ELSE BELIEVES otherwise, then this is irrelevant, correct.

If 'water is H2O' 'is a fact' just because 'you' and some "others" assert that 'it is a fact', then so to would 'slavery is morally wrong' 'is a fact' just because ' some "others" assert that 'it is a fact'.

You can NOT have it BOTH ways. That is; that what you SAY works for 'you', and everyone else who agrees with you, but this does not apply to nor work for "others" SAY what you do NOT agree with and accept.

The apparent hypocrisy and contradictions SHOWN and REVEALED here is BLINDING OBVIOUS, well to 'me' anyway.

But maybe I am MISSING some thing here, which, if I am, you will shine a light on.

So, yes, I'm arguing that there can be no moral facts, because a moral assertion, such as 'slavery is morally wrong', can only ever express a moral opinion, and does not make a factual claim about reality with a truth-value.

"Yes" you might be saying and thus doing this, but considering the fact that this is so one-sided, to me, this is just shining a light on and just HIGHLIGHTING your OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS (opinions) about what is True and NOT True, to 'you'.

By the way, your 'arguing' is NOT working by the very nature and fact that you are contradicting "yourself" here.

There's no way to falsify a moral assertion, simply because it has no truth-value in the first place. That's not its function.

So, WHY did you actually ask the question; What could make morality objective? When ALL along you BELIEVE that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that could make morality objective?

Some people say that this behavior is True 'trolling', as a hook, which is baited, is cast out to see who and what it catches.

But sometimes it is the people themselves who cast the bait who get hooked up, and reeled in.

Now, you might be able to very easily and very simply explain away the many apparent contradictions of yours here, and thus the apparent contradictory nature of your own argument, itself, which if you can, then I would very much like to SEE it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Don't be silly. The fact that we make moral judgements, and have reasons for them, doesn't mean those moral judgements are facts. That's a simple misunderstanding. For example, I think abortion is not morally wrong, and I have what I take to be good, strong reasons for thinking it. But I don't claim that what I think about abortion is a fact - a feature of reality that is the case, independent from anyone's opinion. That would be extreme, absolutist moral egotism and fascism.

You have to be precise with what is judgment.

If you make a personal judgment, abortion is not morally wrong based on your strong reason, that is not a moral fact per se.
It is a fact you made a judgment about abortion, but what is judged 'abortion is not morally wrong' is not a moral fact.
That, you and I would agree is your subjective opinion.

On the subject of abortion,
what is the related moral fact is this oughtness, i.e.
"no human ought to abort the unborn [human*]"
* only applicable to humans and to not non-humans.

Now the above oughtness can only be a moral fact when it is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.
Thus the moral fact is objective, i.e. independent of an individual's opinion and beliefs regardless of how strong the reason the individual has.

Every fact is that claimed to be a moral fact must be individually verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.

I don't prefer to justify no-abortion as a moral fact here - a bit more complicated.

What I have justified quite sufficiently as a moral fact is the following;
"no human ought to murder* humans"
as a Justified True Moral Fact within a moral framework and system.
* or killing in other instances.

I'm serious about this. Moral objectivism is barely disguised moral egotism, and moral fascism is its progeny. 'It's a fact that abortion is morally wrong; therefore a woman must be forced to carry a pregnancy to term'. In my opinion (which is all I have), that is morally disgusting.

As I had claimed you are very ignorant with shallow and narrow philosophical knowledge and wisdom.
The implementation of the moral standard based on moral fact [no abortion allowed] thus set an objective of ZERO Abortion.
There are so many fool proof [other than dictatorial] strategies to strive towards the ideal of ZERO Abortion that humanity can generate and implement.

And the fact that moral realists and objectivists have to retreat into mysticism - because they have no factual evidence - ties in very comfortably with this quasi-religious, totalitarian irrationalism.

It is only the theists and Platonist who retreat into mysticism, not mine which is based on empirical realism leveraged upon empirically based moral facts.

You are so ignorant and do not realize you are also [as with the theists and Platonists] retreating [subliminally] into mysticism with your claim of the fact-in-itself which ultimately is an illusion.
There are No Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591
Looks like you don't have the philosophical competence to understand [not necessary agree with] this point.

[Peter Holmes]

Well from this definition and explanation there could NEVER be, so called, "moral objectivity", correct?

Independence from opinion when considering facts (or absolutely ANY thing else in fact) would be an IMPOSSIBILITY, correct?

Discovering if there are or are not 'moral facts' could NEVER be obtained without thinking, which obviously includes what people think. So, if what people think is irrelevant to moral facts, then by this claim alone there could NEVER be 'moral facts'. And, if there could NEVER be 'moral fats', then there also could NEVER be 'moral objectivism or objectivity', correct?

By the way who is the 'we' that call 'objectivity' independence from opinion when considering the facts?

I call 'objectivity,' 'that' what is agreed with and accepted by EVERY one, as One. Although this is NOT 'objectivity', in a sense, it is the closest we can get to 'objectivity, itself. And, if Everyone is in acceptance and in agreement with some 'thing', then it is and would have to be an irrefutable fact anyway.

So, if there is an agreement with and an acceptance on and of some fact in regards to some thing 'moral' with and by Everyone, then we have obtained a moral fact, and then it would be this agreement which has made 'morality' objective, or made 'morality' the closest thing to being 'moral objectivity'.

But, because you appear to BELIEVE wholeheartedly otherwise, you will just reject this outright, correct?

To me, you appear to completely contradict "yourself" here.

Admittedly I have not read this whole thread and thus all of your responses but even from the very outset by starting a thread and asking the question: What could make morality objective? But then by completely denying that it could even be a possibility, and so being completely closed, you are contradicting your apparent openness by asking a seemingly OPEN question in the beginning.

What we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are - because, how could they be anything else?

You have written a statement of claim but added a question mark at the end of it. Was this done for some apparent deception of openness, or for something else?

If it was for something else, then what was 'that' exactly?

And if this claim of yours is true, then I/we say what is a 'moral fact' is what Everyone agrees on as being what is morally Right in Life and/or what is morally Wrong in Life. So, when Everyone says what 'moral truths' ARE, then 'that' is what makes 'morality' objective.

Now, according to your CLAIM just here, this is not just how 'morality' COULD be objective but actually how 'morality' IS objective - because, according to your OWN logic here, they could NOT be ANY thing else.

Unless, of course, you REALLY are being OPEN and are just asking me an OPEN CLARIFYING question, of which if you are, then my answer IS; What 'I', 'you', or 'we' say things are, then that is EXACTLY what they are, to 'us'.

So, this takes us back to what I am pointing out, and 'saying', which is; when Everyone/we agree on some 'thing', then although that obviously comes from just another subjective viewpoint, but because it is coming from 'absolutely' EVERY one and not just some, then from that viewpoint there could not be ANY thing closer to being an objective viewpoint, nor a more objective viewpoint to be LOOKING FROM.

Which takes me back to the fact that I asked 'you' to CLARIFY who the 'we' is when you use that word here, which, by the way, you NEVER clarified, which reminds me to remind you that you have avoided and NEVER actually answered ANY of my five openly asked clarifying questions posed to you.

Also, what you wrote here apparently completely opposes and thus completely contradicts what you wrote in the previous reply to me.

What you said then was:
What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts.

But what you say now is:
What we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are

To me, this is a True sign that you were challenged by my question you will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to back up and support your currently held BELIEFS.

You are aware that what 'we' say some 'thing' is or say 'they' are is, essentially, 'just an opinion', right?

If no, then tell 'us' how the word 'we' use and say are NOT, essentially, just our OWN opinion?

So what we mean when we talk about factual assertions being true is what constitutes what we call truth - and there's no other court of appeal.

Which only contradicts what you have previously said, and actually backs up and supports what I have previously said and am now still saying.

Also, to me, it appears you are using the 'we' word again, and numerous times, in an attempt to sound more convincing and as though this gives what you say and claim more weight. But, if you do NOT clarify who the 'we' is, exactly, then what it might all come down to is that actually it is just 'you' and 'you' alone.

And when we say a factual assertion is true, what we mean is that its truth-value is not a matter of opinion.

Again, who is the 'we' who 'you' are 'trying' to use, to back up and support your claim here?

By the way, would ANY one, or could it even be logically possible for ANY one, to 'say' a 'factual' assertion is 'false'. The words 'factual' and 'true' here just go together, without the need for even 'saying'.

By the way, how is 'truth-value' actually obtained without an opinion? In fact, how could a 'truth-value' be obtained without an opinion?

Where does some 'thing's' 'truth-value' come from if not from opinion?

See, to me ALL 'truth-value' lays in one's 'opinion'.

WHERE do 'you' suggest 'truth-value' actually come from, if not from within human being thinking, which is what 'opinions' are and where opinions come from?

For example, when we say the assertion 'water is H2O' is true, what we mean is that whether anyone believes water is H2O is irrelevant.

So, are you saying this 'works' because 'we' have added the 'true' word on the end of 'water is H2O' or because of some other reason?

By the way, I ALREADY KNOW that what is BELIEVED is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. But what I am 'trying to' ascertain from 'you' is where the 'truth-value' (or 'truth-claim') that 'water is 'H2O' comes from if NOT just from the 'opinions' of human beings?

Also, WHY did you use the 'assertion' word here? Did you think that would give more 'weight' to your claim here?

It just is H2O. In other words, we don't think that what we call truth is a matter of individual, consensual or universal opinion.

That might be what 'you', and some "others", do NOT think. But, and you and will you explain how 'water' is just 'H2O' if it is NOT just a matter of either individual, consensual, nor of universal 'opinion'?

See, to 'me', how 'you', human beings, arrived at the words that you have, and have arrived at the definitions that you have, for the words that you have, is from 'opinions', themselves.

See, what 'water' is, and thus what 'water's' definition is, was once just the opinion of one or of few human beings. They 'decided' what 'it' is that will 'define' what 'water' actually 'is'. This word and its definition is still just an 'opinion' of whoever is holding this opinion. And, the actual 'truth-value' of this opinion rests on the opinions of "others".

So, it is by 'agreement' and 'acceptance' where 'truth' and/or 'truth-value' actually lays, and rests.

By the way, saying "It just is H20", is just 'an opinion', which most of 'us' english speaking ones tend to 'agree with' and 'accept' as being true.

And that's precisely the way moral obectivists use the word 'fact' with reference to moral facts.

Using the word "objectivists" is like 'you' are 'trying to' infer that those ones, with just a different view (or opinion) than you' are some kind of "other", which are best completely 'rejected' and/or 'ignored', because my "side", or my view, is Right and "their" view is Wrong, making "those people", themselves, Wrong.

Also, what it appears you are saying here is that some human beings, which you have labeled "objectivists" are doing EXACTLY what 'you' say "we" do, correct? But they are just doing the same thing in regards to 'morals', which you BELIEVE there can NOT be 'facts' NOR 'truths' to. Is this correct?

For example, when they say it's a fact that slavery is morally wrong, what they mean is that it wouldn't matter if everyone on earth thought that slavery isn't morally wrong, because it's just the case (it's a fact) that slavery is morally wrong.

But by your own definition and 'logic' above this would, and DOES, MAKE IT WRONG.

You said above:
when we say the assertion 'water is H2O' is true, what we mean is that whether anyone believes water is H2O is irrelevant.

Which essentially means that when 'we' SAY ... is true, then, no matter what ANY one ELSE BELIEVES is irrelevant. Therefore, if just 'one' is 'saying'; "The assertion that 'slavery is wrong' is true", but absolutely every one ELSE BELIEVES otherwise, then this is irrelevant, correct.

If 'water is H2O' 'is a fact' just because 'you' and some "others" assert that 'it is a fact', then so to would 'slavery is morally wrong' 'is a fact' just because ' some "others" assert that 'it is a fact'.

You can NOT have it BOTH ways. That is; that what you SAY works for 'you', and everyone else who agrees with you, but this does not apply to nor work for "others" SAY what you do NOT agree with and accept.

The apparent hypocrisy and contradictions SHOWN and REVEALED here is BLINDING OBVIOUS, well to 'me' anyway.

But maybe I am MISSING some thing here, which, if I am, you will shine a light on.

So, yes, I'm arguing that there can be no moral facts, because a moral assertion, such as 'slavery is morally wrong', can only ever express a moral opinion, and does not make a factual claim about reality with a truth-value.

"Yes" you might be saying and thus doing this, but considering the fact that this is so one-sided, to me, this is just shining a light on and just HIGHLIGHTING your OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS (opinions) about what is True and NOT True, to 'you'.

By the way, your 'arguing' is NOT working by the very nature and fact that you are contradicting "yourself" here.

There's no way to falsify a moral assertion, simply because it has no truth-value in the first place. That's not its function.

So, WHY did you actually ask the question; What could make morality objective? When ALL along you BELIEVE that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that could make morality objective?

Some people say that this behavior is True 'trolling', as a hook, which is baited, is cast out to see who and what it catches.

But sometimes it is the people themselves who cast the bait who get hooked up, and reeled in.

Now, you might be able to very easily and very simply explain away the many apparent contradictions of yours here, and thus the apparent contradictory nature of your own argument, itself, which if you can, then I would very much like to SEE it.

Thanks for such a long and thoughtful comment, which deserves an equally careful reply. I think you have misunderstood my argument, and I want to point out exactly where that happens. But I need more time than I have at the moment. Perhaps I can ask for your patience.

Meanwhile - to your point about the OP title. Of course I was trying to provoke interest. And of course I think morality isn't and can't be objective - and arguing for that position was my purpose in this and my other post, 'Is morality objective or subjective?'. Perhaps titles should always be declarative and never interrogative: 'Nothing can make morality objective' or 'There are no moral facts'.

[Age]

To me, you appear to completely contradict "yourself" here.

Admittedly I have not read this whole thread and thus all of your responses but even from the very outset by starting a thread and asking the question: What could make morality objective? But then by completely denying that it could even be a possibility, and so being completely closed, you are contradicting your apparent openness by asking a seemingly OPEN question in the beginning.

What we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are - because, how could they be anything else?

You have written a statement of claim but added a question mark at the end of it. Was this done for some apparent deception of openness, or for something else?

If it was for something else, then what was 'that' exactly?

And if this claim of yours is true, then I/we say what is a 'moral fact' is what Everyone agrees on as being what is morally Right in Life and/or what is morally Wrong in Life. So, when Everyone says what 'moral truths' ARE, then 'that' is what makes 'morality' objective.

Now, according to your CLAIM just here, this is not just how 'morality' COULD be objective but actually how 'morality' IS objective - because, according to your OWN logic here, they could NOT be ANY thing else.

Unless, of course, you REALLY are being OPEN and are just asking me an OPEN CLARIFYING question, of which if you are, then my answer IS; What 'I', 'you', or 'we' say things are, then that is EXACTLY what they are, to 'us'.

So, this takes us back to what I am pointing out, and 'saying', which is; when Everyone/we agree on some 'thing', then although that obviously comes from just another subjective viewpoint, but because it is coming from 'absolutely' EVERY one and not just some, then from that viewpoint there could not be ANY thing closer to being an objective viewpoint, nor a more objective viewpoint to be LOOKING FROM.

Which takes me back to the fact that I asked 'you' to CLARIFY who the 'we' is when you use that word here, which, by the way, you NEVER clarified, which reminds me to remind you that you have avoided and NEVER actually answered ANY of my five openly asked clarifying questions posed to you.

Also, what you wrote here apparently completely opposes and thus completely contradicts what you wrote in the previous reply to me.

What you said then was:
What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts.

But what you say now is:
What we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are

To me, this is a True sign that you were challenged by my question you will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to back up and support your currently held BELIEFS.

You are aware that what 'we' say some 'thing' is or say 'they' are is, essentially, 'just an opinion', right?

If no, then tell 'us' how the word 'we' use and say are NOT, essentially, just our OWN opinion?

So what we mean when we talk about factual assertions being true is what constitutes what we call truth - and there's no other court of appeal.

Which only contradicts what you have previously said, and actually backs up and supports what I have previously said and am now still saying.

Also, to me, it appears you are using the 'we' word again, and numerous times, in an attempt to sound more convincing and as though this gives what you say and claim more weight. But, if you do NOT clarify who the 'we' is, exactly, then what it might all come down to is that actually it is just 'you' and 'you' alone.

And when we say a factual assertion is true, what we mean is that its truth-value is not a matter of opinion.

Again, who is the 'we' who 'you' are 'trying' to use, to back up and support your claim here?

By the way, would ANY one, or could it even be logically possible for ANY one, to 'say' a 'factual' assertion is 'false'. The words 'factual' and 'true' here just go together, without the need for even 'saying'.

By the way, how is 'truth-value' actually obtained without an opinion? In fact, how could a 'truth-value' be obtained without an opinion?

Where does some 'thing's' 'truth-value' come from if not from opinion?

See, to me ALL 'truth-value' lays in one's 'opinion'.

WHERE do 'you' suggest 'truth-value' actually come from, if not from within human being thinking, which is what 'opinions' are and where opinions come from?

For example, when we say the assertion 'water is H2O' is true, what we mean is that whether anyone believes water is H2O is irrelevant.

So, are you saying this 'works' because 'we' have added the 'true' word on the end of 'water is H2O' or because of some other reason?

By the way, I ALREADY KNOW that what is BELIEVED is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. But what I am 'trying to' ascertain from 'you' is where the 'truth-value' (or 'truth-claim') that 'water is 'H2O' comes from if NOT just from the 'opinions' of human beings?

Also, WHY did you use the 'assertion' word here? Did you think that would give more 'weight' to your claim here?

It just is H2O. In other words, we don't think that what we call truth is a matter of individual, consensual or universal opinion.

That might be what 'you', and some "others", do NOT think. But, and you and will you explain how 'water' is just 'H2O' if it is NOT just a matter of either individual, consensual, nor of universal 'opinion'?

See, to 'me', how 'you', human beings, arrived at the words that you have, and have arrived at the definitions that you have, for the words that you have, is from 'opinions', themselves.

See, what 'water' is, and thus what 'water's' definition is, was once just the opinion of one or of few human beings. They 'decided' what 'it' is that will 'define' what 'water' actually 'is'. This word and its definition is still just an 'opinion' of whoever is holding this opinion. And, the actual 'truth-value' of this opinion rests on the opinions of "others".

So, it is by 'agreement' and 'acceptance' where 'truth' and/or 'truth-value' actually lays, and rests.

By the way, saying "It just is H20", is just 'an opinion', which most of 'us' english speaking ones tend to 'agree with' and 'accept' as being true.

And that's precisely the way moral obectivists use the word 'fact' with reference to moral facts.

Using the word "objectivists" is like 'you' are 'trying to' infer that those ones, with just a different view (or opinion) than you' are some kind of "other", which are best completely 'rejected' and/or 'ignored', because my "side", or my view, is Right and "their" view is Wrong, making "those people", themselves, Wrong.

Also, what it appears you are saying here is that some human beings, which you have labeled "objectivists" are doing EXACTLY what 'you' say "we" do, correct? But they are just doing the same thing in regards to 'morals', which you BELIEVE there can NOT be 'facts' NOR 'truths' to. Is this correct?

For example, when they say it's a fact that slavery is morally wrong, what they mean is that it wouldn't matter if everyone on earth thought that slavery isn't morally wrong, because it's just the case (it's a fact) that slavery is morally wrong.

But by your own definition and 'logic' above this would, and DOES, MAKE IT WRONG.

You said above:
when we say the assertion 'water is H2O' is true, what we mean is that whether anyone believes water is H2O is irrelevant.

Which essentially means that when 'we' SAY ... is true, then, no matter what ANY one ELSE BELIEVES is irrelevant. Therefore, if just 'one' is 'saying'; "The assertion that 'slavery is wrong' is true", but absolutely every one ELSE BELIEVES otherwise, then this is irrelevant, correct.

If 'water is H2O' 'is a fact' just because 'you' and some "others" assert that 'it is a fact', then so to would 'slavery is morally wrong' 'is a fact' just because ' some "others" assert that 'it is a fact'.

You can NOT have it BOTH ways. That is; that what you SAY works for 'you', and everyone else who agrees with you, but this does not apply to nor work for "others" SAY what you do NOT agree with and accept.

The apparent hypocrisy and contradictions SHOWN and REVEALED here is BLINDING OBVIOUS, well to 'me' anyway.

But maybe I am MISSING some thing here, which, if I am, you will shine a light on.

So, yes, I'm arguing that there can be no moral facts, because a moral assertion, such as 'slavery is morally wrong', can only ever express a moral opinion, and does not make a factual claim about reality with a truth-value.

"Yes" you might be saying and thus doing this, but considering the fact that this is so one-sided, to me, this is just shining a light on and just HIGHLIGHTING your OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS (opinions) about what is True and NOT True, to 'you'.

By the way, your 'arguing' is NOT working by the very nature and fact that you are contradicting "yourself" here.

There's no way to falsify a moral assertion, simply because it has no truth-value in the first place. That's not its function.

So, WHY did you actually ask the question; What could make morality objective? When ALL along you BELIEVE that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that could make morality objective?

Some people say that this behavior is True 'trolling', as a hook, which is baited, is cast out to see who and what it catches.

But sometimes it is the people themselves who cast the bait who get hooked up, and reeled in.

Now, you might be able to very easily and very simply explain away the many apparent contradictions of yours here, and thus the apparent contradictory nature of your own argument, itself, which if you can, then I would very much like to SEE it.

Thanks for such a long and thoughtful comment, which deserves an equally careful reply. I think you have misunderstood my argument, and I want to point out exactly where that happens. But I need more time than I have at the moment. Perhaps I can ask for your patience.

Meanwhile - to your point about the OP title. Of course I was trying to provoke interest.

I think if you REALLY want to and are trying to provoke interest, then a thread heading like: Morality can NOT be objective AND I have PROOF OF THIS would provoke far more interest. But I might be completely WRONG here.

And of course I think morality isn't and can't be objective

This thread title does NOT show this AT ALL.

In fact it SHOWS the EXACT opposite, well to me anyway.

- and arguing for that position was my purpose in this and my other post, 'Is morality objective or subjective?'.

Again, you ask a question that is NOT even a possibility from your perspective. So, you are just asking this question from a Truly CLOSED position.

I much prefer to ask questions from a Truly OPEN perspective, INSTEAD.

Perhaps titles should always be declarative and never interrogative: 'Nothing can make morality objective' or 'There are no moral facts'.

Well that would be far MORE Honest, from YOUR perspective anyway, and so far LESS deceiving, for "others".

If you want to be Truly declarative, then you would have to add that those views/opinions are just for, and from, 'you', and that they OBVIOUSLY could NOT be 'objectively True'.

Because OBVIOUSLY if there are NO 'moral facts', then there could be NO fact NOR truth that 'there are no moral facts'.

To say that "there are no moral facts" is obviously a 'moral' issue, of which there, supposedly NO 'moral facts', AT ALL.