What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Do you deny this fact that "scientific facts are the most credible polished conjectures /opinions" we have at present?

No, I don't deny it.
If facts are, as you say, polished opinions, then scientific facts are arguably the most polished we produce.

Noted your acceptance.

Scientific facts as polished via the scientific FSK is the most polished opinions [say 80/100 grade].

Note I am claiming the following;
Moral facts as polished via the Moral FSK is the more reasonable polished opinions [say 70/100 grade].

See the point?
What you are blinded and missed out is the FSK factor.

2. Just as scientific facts are polished conjectures /opinions conditioned upon the scientific FSK,
based on the same principles, it can be followed that moral facts as conjectures /opinions conditioned upon the moral FSK.

This is where you go wrong. Your argument is this: facts are polished opinions; therefore polished moral opinions are (or can be) facts.

To generalise, this means: all As are B; therefore all Bs are (or can be) A.
And this is a fallacy, if B is a predicate or property of A. 'All houses are dwellings; therefore all dwellings are (or can be) houses.'

So your argument is invalid - leaving aside its unsoundness: what we call facts are not what we call opinions, polished or not. Words can mean only what we use them to mean, and we clearly distinguish between what we call facts and what we call opinions.

You are being rhetorical here and deliberate ignore the critical factor, i.e. the FSK grounding. Note the proper argument,

1. All opinions [conjectures] polished via a credible FSK are facts.
2. Opinions [scientific] are polished via a credible scientific FSK
3. Therefore all scientific facts are polished opinions via a credible scientific FSK.

So for moral opinions;

1. All opinions [conjectures] polished via a credible FSK are facts.
2. Opinions [moral] are polished via a credible moral FSK
3. Therefore all moral facts are polished opinions via a credible moral FSK.

There is nothing wrong with the syllogism above.
The only question you can raised [as mentioned earlier] is whether the moral FSK as claim is credible or not.
I have already explain why the scientific FSK is credible [90/100] and had demonstrated the moral FSK I proposed is of near-credibility [80/100] to that of the scientific FSK.

Re your claims of 'facts' it is what Belinda has insinuated, i.e. you are chasing God-like illusions which are impossible to be real.
As I had explained this is a common and default psychological issue from a cognitive dissonance driven by the inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Point is you are totally ignorant about this fact about yourself as a human being.

Also note the latest survey on acceptance of moral realism re moral objectivity, i.e. independent moral facts exist.
62% Philosophers Surveyed Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34275
Only 26% accept Moral Anti-Realism, i.e. no moral facts.

This is worse than irrelevant in this context - it's intellectually reprehensible.

Your views above exposed your intellectual bankruptcy.

The survey was carried out by philpapers.org/ managed by David Chalmers.
If the survey is "intellectually reprehensible" the community of philosophers from https://philpapers.org would have raised a hell of a condemnation of the results, but there is no such thing.
So in contrast, your views above ["it's intellectually reprehensible"] exposed your intellectual bankruptcy.

PhilPapers is a comprehensive index and bibliography of philosophy maintained by the community of philosophers. We monitor all sources of research content in philosophy, including journals, books, open access archives, and personal pages maintained by academics. We also host the largest open access archive in philosophy. Our index currently contains 2,630,900 entries categorized in 5,723 categories. PhilPapers has over 290,000 registered users.
https://philpapers.org/

1 Your argument is unsound, because your premise - 'facts are (polished) opinions' - is false, or at least not shown to be true. This is not how we (English speakers) use the words 'fact' and 'opinion'. And words can mean only what we use them to mean. I notice you don't address this point. But, as you know, if even one premise of an argument is false, or at least not shown to be true, the argument collapses.

2 You insist that the descriptive context (the 'FSK') of what we call a fact is critical. But if all facts are polished opinions, this applies to all descriptive contexts. So your premise is: all facts are polished opinions. The bare condition 'within a descriptive context' is redundant.

3 But you insist that the descriptive context (the 'FSK') of what we call a fact must be credible. But what makes an FSK credible is the empirical evidence for its factual assertions - which is why the natural sciences are arguably our most reliable FSKs.

4 You claim that morality constitutes a credible FSK, which can therefore produce moral facts. But the so-called empirical evidence (see 3 above) for moral assertions turns out to be either more moral assertions, or facts with no moral implication, such as scientific facts about human physiology. And a so-called FSK with no facts is not an FSK. It's merely a discourse consisting of opinions, polished or otherwise.

[Belinda]

You could not explain it better than that , VA.

But it's total shit. VA's entire "moral FSK" is nothing but the autistic listing of things and then rating them out of 100 badness units, and calling that a scientific measuring event. Comparing his own scheme to science is lunacy, why are you encouraging him to make an idiot of himself?

You do understand that just as he imagines his FSK measures good and bad, he genuinely thinks that Miss World counts as a scientific measure of beauty, right? Is that the kind of silliness you want to tag along with?

Like the organisers of Miss World have to decide on criteria. A set of moral criteria is a frame of moral knowledge. The clue to the subjective aspect is the word 'frame'. I don't think he claims frames are objectively real does he?

[FlashDangerpants]

You could not explain it better than that , VA.

But it's total shit. VA's entire "moral FSK" is nothing but the autistic listing of things and then rating them out of 100 badness units, and calling that a scientific measuring event. Comparing his own scheme to science is lunacy, why are you encouraging him to make an idiot of himself?

You do understand that just as he imagines his FSK measures good and bad, he genuinely thinks that Miss World counts as a scientific measure of beauty, right? Is that the kind of silliness you want to tag along with?

Like the organisers of Miss World have to decide on criteria. A set of moral criteria is a frame of moral knowledge. The clue to the subjective aspect is the word 'frame'. I don't think he claims frames are objectively real does he?

He thinks it's broadly equivalent to physics, and if you ask he he will probably invent numbers to the effect that physics is 99% objective and his moral FSK is 95%. He might even rate zoology lower than his own thing.

[Peter Holmes]

A set of moral criteria is a frame of moral knowledge. The clue to the subjective aspect is the word 'frame'. I don't think he claims frames are objectively real does he?

The expression 'moral knowledge' is the problem. Knowledge of what? Why does a set of moral criteria, subjectively adopted, constitute knowledge?

[Belinda]

A set of moral criteria is a frame of moral knowledge. The clue to the subjective aspect is the word 'frame'. I don't think he claims frames are objectively real does he?

The expression 'moral knowledge' is the problem. Knowledge of what? Why does a set of moral criteria, subjectively adopted, constitute knowledge?

If your definition of knowledge includes certainty then knowledge does not exist.

[Peter Holmes]

A set of moral criteria is a frame of moral knowledge. The clue to the subjective aspect is the word 'frame'. I don't think he claims frames are objectively real does he?

The expression 'moral knowledge' is the problem. Knowledge of what? Why does a set of moral criteria, subjectively adopted, constitute knowledge?

If your definition of knowledge includes certainty ...

It doesn't. The expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution.

[FlashDangerpants]

A set of moral criteria is a frame of moral knowledge. The clue to the subjective aspect is the word 'frame'. I don't think he claims frames are objectively real does he?

The expression 'moral knowledge' is the problem. Knowledge of what? Why does a set of moral criteria, subjectively adopted, constitute knowledge?

If your definition of knowledge includes certainty then knowledge does not exist.

What about the criteria? According to VA it is objective moral fact that nothing at all done by man to animal is immoral, I'm fairly sure you would use different criteria and in your judgment sexual misuse of a goat would be immoral as some sort of fact, no?

You guys are constantly trying to get around the is ought problem by deriving oughts from hidden oughts instead of ises.

[Belinda]

The expression 'moral knowledge' is the problem. Knowledge of what? Why does a set of moral criteria, subjectively adopted, constitute knowledge?

If your definition of knowledge includes certainty ...

It doesn't. The expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution.

Then there is no certain moral knowledge.

[Skepdick]

You guys are constantly trying to get around the is ought problem by deriving oughts from hidden oughts instead of ises.

"You guys" are constantly trying to move the goal posts and muddy the water by underhandedly (or ignorantly) switching epistemic perspectives mid-argument.

The objectivity of morality is not about hidden oughts- it's about hidden ises, and hidden ises are no problem at all because if they were you'd have to reject the objectivity of gravity also.

So put on your phenomenologist hat and from the exact same perspective from which you assert the objectivity of gravity go ahead and admit to yourself that experiences like falling apples and heavy items are sufficient experiences for inferring hidden ises. Then tell us which phenomena you attribute to this thing you call "morality".

If you can't point to any particular phenomenon, or you don't attribute any measurable real-world effect to "morality" then morality is empirically inconsequential and doesn't even exist.

But, of course you aren't intellectually honest enough to engage the argument on those terms.

What about the criteria? According to VA it is objective moral fact that nothing at all done by man to animal is immoral, I'm fairly sure you would use different criteria and in your judgment sexual misuse of a goat would be immoral as some sort of fact, no?

Well, what about prediction? After all the political nonsense is wrapped up, after all the pro and anti-goatfucking arguments have been made, after the pro goat-fuckers have stood their ground as best as they could...If you were a gambling man would you bet that goat-fucking would be more or less prevalent 5,20,50 and 200 years from now?

Surely you can predict what the future will be like given the hidden ises in people's heads?

[FlashDangerpants]

If you can't point to any particular phenomenon, or you don't attribute any measurable real-world effect to "morality" then morality is empirically inconsequential and doesn't even exist.

To the same extent as other imaginary cultural things that have no basis for empirical measurement such as art, sure. So what?

[Skepdick]

If you can't point to any particular phenomenon, or you don't attribute any measurable real-world effect to "morality" then morality is empirically inconsequential and doesn't even exist.

To the same extent as other imaginary cultural things that have no basis for empirical measurement such as art, sure. So what?

What a lame sleight of hand. What confused you about my request? Point at some observable (even if not measurable) consequences of morality.
You know - like the falling apple is a consequence of gravity.

Are you going to deny the measurable increase in human longevity?
The increase in literacy?
The decrease in poverty?

Or are you insisting we can't measure any of those things?
Perhaps you are insisting thst YOU can't measure those things?

That only renders you incompetent at measurement. I can recommend a book

[FlashDangerpants]

If you can't point to any particular phenomenon, or you don't attribute any measurable real-world effect to "morality" then morality is empirically inconsequential and doesn't even exist.

To the same extent as other imaginary cultural things that have no basis for empirical measurement such as art, sure. So what?

What a lame sleight of hand. I am asking you a straight-forward question. Point at some measurable consequences of morality.

Are you going to deny the measurable increase in human longevity?

I attribute it to people living longer. That's an empirical thing and thus subject to quantification. No morality is measured by measuring it, you merely infer that.

[Skepdick]

I attribute it to people living longer.

Riiiight.

And I bet you also attribute falling apples to falling apples.
And I bet you attribute the distortion of light around large masses to .... the distortion of light around large masses.
And I bet you attribute the attraction between large objects to....the atraction of large objects.

If you are going to play the deflationist card then just bite the bullet and give up gravity, energy and all other objective theoretical constructs.

That's an empirical thing and thus subject to quantification. No morality is measured by measuring it, you merely infer that.

Way to miss the point.

Apples falling is an empirical thing THEREFORE gravity is objective.
Large objects attract each other THEREFORE gravity is objective.
Human longevity increasing is an empirical thing THEREFORE morality is objective.

In quantifying the apple falling you aren't quantifying gravity. You are quantifying an EFFECT of gravity.
In quantifying the improvement in human longevity I am not quantifying morality. I am quantifying an EFFECTS of morality.

If you are unable to pin-point even a single effect of morality, why do you even believe in it?

[FlashDangerpants]

I attribute it to people living longer.

Riiiight.

And I bet you also attribute falling apples to falling apples.
And I also bet you attribute the distortion of light around large masses to .... the distortion of light around large masses.
And I bet you attribute the attraction between large objects to....the atraction of large objects.

If you are going to play the deflationist card then just bite the bullet and give up gravity. It's just a theoretical construct.

That's an empirical thing and thus subject to quantification. No morality is measured by measuring it, you merely infer that.

Way to miss the point.

Apples falling is an empirical thing THEREFORE gravity is objective.
Large objects attract each other THEREFORE gravity is objective.
Human longevity increasing is an empirical thing THEREFORE morality is objective.

In quantifying the apple falling you aren't quantifying gravity. You are quantifying an EFFECT of gravity.
In quantifying the improvement in human longevity I am not quantifying morality. I am quantifying an EFFECTS of morality.

If you are unable to pin-point even a single effect of morality, why do you even believe in it?

I don't believe morality is even a vaguely similar thing to gravity, so this comparison you are trying to make is not very relevant. Measuring human life spans does not measure rightness and wrongness, that shouldn't need explaining.

[Skepdick]

I don't believe morality is even a vaguely similar thing to gravity

Spare me the rhetoric.

With respect to sufficiency having measurable consequences is a sufficient condition for asserting the objective existence of a phenomenon.
If it's sufficient for gravity, then it's sufficient for morality.

If it's sufficient for one but not the other you need to justify your double standard.

, so this comparison you are trying to make is not very relevant. Measuring human life spans does not measure rightness and wrongness, that shouldn't need explaining.

Oh really? So making some structural changes to the environment which results in halving the lifespan of a few million people won't be considered immoral? Or doubling the lifespan of millions won't be considered moral?

I am happy to stick to your criterion if you are so willing to win the argument. But you are going to have to bite that bullet and make some concessions.

You insist that rightness and wrongness has no empirical consequences. So why do you even believe in morality?