What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

How do you know your premises are non-moral? What if the entire universe is moral somehow?

A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong, good or bad - or that we should or shouldn't do something because it's morally right or wrong, and so on. An assertion that doesn't say one of those things is non-moral. For example, the assertion 'the entire universe is moral' is non-moral.

Then I don't know what you mean. If we aren't talking about morality then we aren't talking about morality, but that doesn't mean that therefore objective morality can't exist.

And since nothing can be objectively morally right or wrong

Why not?

Because to say something is morally right or wrong can only ever be to express a value-judgement, belief or opinion, which is necessarily subjective. And that's why people can perfectly rationally disagree over such issues as abortion, capital punishment and killing animals for food or sport. There are no features of reality (facts) whose demonstrable existence can settle the disagreements. So moral assertions don't make verifiable or falsifiable factual truth-claims. That's why there are no moral facts.

[Belinda]

A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong, good or bad - or that we should or shouldn't do something because it's morally right or wrong, and so on. An assertion that doesn't say one of those things is non-moral. For example, the assertion 'the entire universe is moral' is non-moral.

Then I don't know what you mean. If we aren't talking about morality then we aren't talking about morality, but that doesn't mean that therefore objective morality can't exist.

And since nothing can be objectively morally right or wrong

Why not?

Because to say something is morally right or wrong can only ever be to express a value-judgement, belief or opinion, which is necessarily subjective. And that's why people can perfectly rationally disagree over such issues as abortion, capital punishment and killing animals for food or sport. There are no features of reality (facts) whose demonstrable existence can settle the disagreements. So moral assertions don't make verifiable or falsifiable factual truth-claims. That's why there are no moral facts.

I agree with Peter, although I'd also claim 'factual' judgments are inter-subjective.
If it were to be established beyond all doubt what human nature is then we could align evaluations and facts.

[FlashDangerpants]

The end. Or is it..?

Only one thing has happened really in over 400 pages of this thread. That thing is the descent of VA's whole FSK thing, which started out so innocently with stuff like this

Kant's Framework and System of Morality and Ethics the model is like the Science Model with its dual Pure [Moral] and Applied [Ethics] aspects....

But ended up as a complete flustercluck where the imbecile is incapable, without an FSK that is credibly similar to that of science(?), to establish whether or not there is a nose somewhere on his face.

All of that decay originated with this unintentionally poisonous thread.

Fwell. I've found some of it stimulating, educational and entertaining - when you're on a rant, for example. Fwah.

Well I suppose, when I first joined in this stuff I was a borderline non-specific moral skeptic with no allegiance to any of the more specific arguments such as the one from queerness. Having seen years of this merry-go-round, my views have hardened, I now accept that there is some need for an argument that a moral object would have some very weird metaphysical properties. Hell, I might consider agreeing even with moral error theory. So I have changed my position in a way I suppose.

I do sometimes enjoy the rant thing.

[Atla]

A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong, good or bad - or that we should or shouldn't do something because it's morally right or wrong, and so on. An assertion that doesn't say one of those things is non-moral. For example, the assertion 'the entire universe is moral' is non-moral.

Then I don't know what you mean. If we aren't talking about morality then we aren't talking about morality, but that doesn't mean that therefore objective morality can't exist.

And since nothing can be objectively morally right or wrong

Why not?

Because to say something is morally right or wrong can only ever be to express a value-judgement, belief or opinion, which is necessarily subjective. And that's why people can perfectly rationally disagree over such issues as abortion, capital punishment and killing animals for food or sport. There are no features of reality (facts) whose demonstrable existence can settle the disagreements. So moral assertions don't make verifiable or falsifiable factual truth-claims. That's why there are no moral facts.

You could address what I actually write. Of course we can't exclude the possibility of objective morality, just because in the known world morality always seems to be subjective as far as we can tell.

[FlashDangerpants]

Then I don't know what you mean. If we aren't talking about morality then we aren't talking about morality, but that doesn't mean that therefore objective morality can't exist.


Why not?

Because to say something is morally right or wrong can only ever be to express a value-judgement, belief or opinion, which is necessarily subjective. And that's why people can perfectly rationally disagree over such issues as abortion, capital punishment and killing animals for food or sport. There are no features of reality (facts) whose demonstrable existence can settle the disagreements. So moral assertions don't make verifiable or falsifiable factual truth-claims. That's why there are no moral facts.

You could address what I actually write. Of course we can't exclude the possibility of objective morality, just because in the known world morality always seems to be subjective as far as we can tell.

I think there was a disconnect when you mentioned God.

I think Pete was doubting whether it is metaphysically possible even for God (should such entity exist) to make morality an objective thing. The existence of somebody bigger and badder than us who has bigger opinions about what ought and ought not to be the case doesn't really change much about the is/ought thing. Being a larger opinion does not mean being a fact.

I feel that you might have been suggesting an undetectable panmoralist thing that only God could tell us about, a sort of moral pannanenenanthism, whereby some moral quality is assumed to be embedded within stuff just as some people imagine mind to be embedded in every grain of sand out there, and others think of God as part of every drop of water in the universe and so on. You seemed to be suggesting that would be a whereof we cannot speak, thereof we do the silent thing?

[Iwannaplato]

I feel that you might have been suggesting an undetectable panmoralist thing that only God could tell us about, a sort of moral pannanenenanthism, whereby some moral quality is assumed to be embedded within stuff just as some people imagine mind to be embedded in every grain of sand out there, and others think of God as part of every drop of water in the universe and so on. You seemed to be suggesting that would be a whereof we cannot speak, thereof we do the silent thing?

I think this is the only solution to a possible objective morality. And it would entail (or pretail) that everyone/thing deep down has this bent and needs that outlook to be present ¨'in the air' and interperson- and thingally. That to exist one has this moral, like one has extension or whatever.

[Atla]

Because to say something is morally right or wrong can only ever be to express a value-judgement, belief or opinion, which is necessarily subjective. And that's why people can perfectly rationally disagree over such issues as abortion, capital punishment and killing animals for food or sport. There are no features of reality (facts) whose demonstrable existence can settle the disagreements. So moral assertions don't make verifiable or falsifiable factual truth-claims. That's why there are no moral facts.

You could address what I actually write. Of course we can't exclude the possibility of objective morality, just because in the known world morality always seems to be subjective as far as we can tell.

I think there was a disconnect when you mentioned God.

I think Pete was doubting whether it is metaphysically possible even for God (should such entity exist) to make morality an objective thing. The existence of somebody bigger and badder than us who has bigger opinions about what ought and ought not to be the case doesn't really change much about the is/ought thing. Being a larger opinion does not mean being a fact.

I feel that you might have been suggesting an undetectable panmoralist thing that only God could tell us about, a sort of moral pannanenenanthism, whereby some moral quality is assumed to be embedded within stuff just as some people imagine mind to be embedded in every grain of sand out there, and others think of God as part of every drop of water in the universe and so on. You seemed to be suggesting that would be a whereof we cannot speak, thereof we do the silent thing?

With or without God, but objective morality by definition would have nothing to do with opinions, so I didn't understand that tangent. Yes morality could simply be "in" everything, the entire universe could be moral. (I don't think for a second that it is.)

[bobmax]

There is a widespread idea that good and evil are a matter of subjective judgment.

This idea probably derives from the observation that morality cannot be objective.
Because the fact as such is neither right nor wrong.

However, morality is not even the judgment of the subject.

The goodness or otherwise of a fact is the provisional result reached by existence in the search for Truth.
Existence is the same original subject-object split.

Love pushes existence to mend the split.
And this movement is determined by the progressive distancing from evil and approaching good.

By shunning evil, Dionysus will eventually stop identifying himself with the world in the mirror

[FlashDangerpants]

Do you reckon he meant Narcissus not Dionysus?

[Iwannaplato]

There is a widespread idea that good and evil are a matter of subjective judgment.

This idea probably derives from the observation that morality cannot be objective.
Because the fact as such is neither right nor wrong.

However, morality is not even the judgment of the subject.

The goodness or otherwise of a fact is the provisional result reached by existence in the search for Truth.
Existence is the same original subject-object split.

Love pushes existence to mend the split.
And this movement is determined by the progressive distancing from evil and approaching good.

By shunning evil, Dionysus will eventually stop identifying himself with the world in the mirror

My emphasis above.
Why does it have to be distancing evil and approaching good?
Why can't it simply be approaching love?

There is no need to add in these abstractions of good and evil. One could still root for approaching love, with these unnecessary abstractions.

Further, beyond the fact that I think Flashdangerpants is correct - you probably mean narcissus. And why is it the world in the mirror? Identifing with the world would be ok in your schema, since this would mean a healing of the split between subject and object. I could see narcissus no longer identifying with the face (self) in the mirror.

It's not a spirituality I like, but i think that is more consistant.

[bobmax]

Why does it have to be distancing evil and approaching good?
Why can't it simply be approaching love?

There is no need to add in these abstractions of good and evil. One could still root for approaching love, with these unnecessary abstractions.

Further, beyond the fact that I think Flashdangerpants is correct - you probably mean narcissus. And why is it the world in the mirror? Identifing with the world would be ok in your schema, since this would mean a healing of the split between subject and object. I could see narcissus no longer identifying with the face (self) in the mirror.

It's not a spirituality I like, but i think that is more consistant.

I don't think it's possible to approach love directly.
If you try, it's probably an illusion. Because love is unattainable.
That is, it is never possible to be sure that one's feeling is truly love. There is always a shadow. A hidden advantage.

The reality of love can instead be ascertained when the evil, the evil that I am, shows itself in all its evidence.

Because evil is essentially denied love.

Faced with evil, that is, with the love that I have denied, I can be or not be.

I am if I admit my fault to myself.

Conversely, I am not if I reject all guilt.

The admission of guilt is motivated by my faith in the Truth.
This faith makes me be.
However, the fault, any fault, is forever.
So I can only condemn myself to hell. Because that's right!

In hell, the Truth of love is certainty.
A love lost forever.

I was not referring to Narcissus, but Dionysus.
The god who looks in the mirror and seeing the world forgets himself.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't think it's possible to approach love directly.

Perhaps, but you don't have to think in terms of morals. Morals presume you need outside control to love. You can approach love by NOT blocking love.

The reality of love can instead be ascertained when the evil, the evil that I am, shows itself in all its evidence.

Because evil is essentially denied love.

Exactly what I mean. And you're suffering it then.

Faced with evil, that is, with the love that I have denied, I can be or not be.

I am if I admit my fault to myself.

The suffering one is creating for oneself - and of course the harsh stuff the world throws at us. No need to use moral terms.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Because to say something is morally right or wrong can only ever be to express a value-judgement, belief or opinion, which is necessarily subjective.

And that's why people can perfectly rationally disagree over such issues as abortion, capital punishment and killing animals for food or sport.

There are no features of reality (facts) whose demonstrable existence can settle the disagreements.
So moral assertions don't make verifiable or falsifiable factual truth-claims. That's why there are no moral facts.

Your above thinking is too shallow and narrow.

Kant presented a continuum of truth [fact & knowledge] as;

• 1. Opinion - personal and arbitrary - highly subjective
  2. Beliefs - personal and justified - rationalized subjective
  3. Knowledge - intersubjectively [FSK] justified - objective

I agree when one made moral statements in terms of 1-opinions and 2-beliefs, these are highly subjective.
The point is mankind have been engaged in deliberation of moral matters for a long time and whilst much of these are opinions and beliefs, they had sprung intuitively from an essence of what is morality.

The moral descriptions manifested intuitively are based on moral facts, knowledge re 3. of moral oughtness or ought-not-ness which can be verified and justified via the scientific FSK and then a credible FSK.

Throughout the history of mankind, killing of humans [for example] is a critical issue and this has manifested in killing as a taboo via customs, culture, politics then laws.
However the majority are ignorant 'killing as a taboo' manifests from a moral potential of 'no humans ought to kill humans' driven by evolutionary fundamentals.
This moral potential is a moral fact represented by physical neural networks.

Abortion is a very contentious issue and is subjective.
However one need to note anti-abortion is supported by the majority of people at present, perhaps >70% comprising Christians, Muslims and other anti-abortion religions.
With such majority support there is likely to be a moral essence [moral fact] to it.

I believe anti-abortion has a moral base driven from a moral potential [moral fact] driven by evolutionary forces [current].
Morality is about universal standards.
To make abortion permissible as a universal would mean the extinction of the human race.
Thus universally 'abortion is not permissible' period, but this is only a standard which need not be enforceable on any individuals but merely to act as a guide for improvements in the future.
In the meantime, abortion should be legalized as being pragmatic to optimize against current psychological states, medical and social conditions.

At present, the majority of humans are beasts and thus driven by beastly sexual lusts that end up with unplanned births.
In the future, humanity could come up with pleasures 1000 times more gratifying than sex that sexual lust is relegated as a low priority. Then human will only have sex with its relative low level of pleasure only to satisfy their inherent unavoidable maternal or paternal instincts.

From the above, there are features of reality of moral facts from the moral potential that are represented by physical neurons and the specific neural networks.

Note:
There are Moral Facts [new OP]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002

[bobmax]

I don't think it's possible to approach love directly.

Perhaps, but you don't have to think in terms of morals. Morals presume you need outside control to love. You can approach love by NOT blocking love.

The reality of love can instead be ascertained when the evil, the evil that I am, shows itself in all its evidence.

Because evil is essentially denied love.

Exactly what I mean. And you're suffering it then.

Faced with evil, that is, with the love that I have denied, I can be or not be.

I am if I admit my fault to myself.

The suffering one is creating for oneself - and of course the harsh stuff the world throws at us. No need to use moral terms.

You are tempting me...

By denying the reality of evil, you offer me a chance to escape from hell.
But that would mean denying myself.

It may be that the evil has no real substance, but I can never be the one to establish it.
Because evil became truth when I was cast out of heaven on earth for becoming aware of it.

It may be that a further step will take place.
But I certainly can't force the game, my faith in the Truth demands it.

Anyway thanks for your words!

[Peter Holmes]

Then I don't know what you mean. If we aren't talking about morality then we aren't talking about morality, but that doesn't mean that therefore objective morality can't exist.


Why not?

Because to say something is morally right or wrong can only ever be to express a value-judgement, belief or opinion, which is necessarily subjective. And that's why people can perfectly rationally disagree over such issues as abortion, capital punishment and killing animals for food or sport. There are no features of reality (facts) whose demonstrable existence can settle the disagreements. So moral assertions don't make verifiable or falsifiable factual truth-claims. That's why there are no moral facts.

You could address what I actually write. Of course we can't exclude the possibility of objective morality, just because in the known world morality always seems to be subjective as far as we can tell.

Yes, we can exclude objective morality as a category error, just as we can exclude the possibility of a subjective fact. If there can be no such thing as a subjective fact, there's no need to say that, pending evidence, belief that there are subjective facts is irrational, atm.

Moral rightness and wrongness are not identifiable properties of things and actions. That's why there's no way to adjudicate between the belief that abortion is morally wrong and the belief that it's not morally wrong. And the idea that, somewhere in the universe, it could be a fact that abortion is morally - makes no sense whatsoever. What could make it a fact that abortion is morally wrong? MInd-warp, or what?