What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

When you make a value judgement things are far more difficult. Murder is bad, because it is unlawful. Why is braking the law bad? You can only respond with another judgement. Why is killing a human different from killing a dog. Once again you have to make a judgement. It is not an objective truth to say that all humans must be good, or do good. There is simply no objective basis for that that does not rely on the judgement of a subject; a person to whom the rules might be imposed, or a person who might be imposed upon.

Your approach is too shallow.

All humans are "programmed" with,
'ought not to kill humans'
this is evident why the majority of people are not running around killing humans.
This inhibition of not killing humans is represented by neuron and neural connectivities, thus represent a state-of-affairs or state-of-being human.
It is only when the inherent program 'ought not to kill humans' is weakened or damaged [as in psychopaths] that certain humans will kill other humans.

In other cases where humans permit and accept the killing of humans as in wars, legal, and the likes, there is some degree of deviation from the inherent inhibitors of 'ought-not-to-kill'.

Morality is independent of the laws which is politics.
Morality is related to the self-development of one's inherent moral potential.

If someone were to kill Trump, I would applaud. It might be considered murder, but it would be for the greater good. There is no morally objective case that can encompass that.
As for killing dogs, I value my dog over your life. Law would not see it that way; but then as always the law is an ass.

If you applaud the killing of another human or you yourself want to kill another human, it indicate your moral competence is immature and moral compass is not working properly.

It is only those with primal and barbaric tendencies who would want to kill another for not meeting their expectations.

For those who are evolving to be more human, they develop their moral competence and solve the roots of the problems via the prevention route rather instead of curing by killing the ones who do not meet their expectations.

[Peter Holmes]

When you make a value judgement things are far more difficult. Murder is bad, because it is unlawful. Why is braking the law bad? You can only respond with another judgement. Why is killing a human different from killing a dog. Once again you have to make a judgement. It is not an objective truth to say that all humans must be good, or do good. There is simply no objective basis for that that does not rely on the judgement of a subject; a person to whom the rules might be imposed, or a person who might be imposed upon.

Your approach is too shallow.

All humans are "programmed" with,
'ought not to kill humans'
this is evident why the majority of people are not running around killing humans.
This inhibition of not killing humans is represented by neuron and neural connectivities, thus represent a state-of-affairs or state-of-being human.
It is only when the inherent program 'ought not to kill humans' is weakened or damaged [as in psychopaths] that certain humans will kill other humans.

In other cases where humans permit and accept the killing of humans as in wars, legal, and the likes, there is some degree of deviation from the inherent inhibitors of 'ought-not-to-kill'.

Morality is independent of the laws which is politics.
Morality is related to the self-development of one's inherent moral potential.

If someone were to kill Trump, I would applaud. It might be considered murder, but it would be for the greater good. There is no morally objective case that can encompass that.
As for killing dogs, I value my dog over your life. Law would not see it that way; but then as always the law is an ass.

If you applaud the killing of another human or you yourself want to kill another human, it indicate your moral competence is immature and moral compass is not working properly.

It is only those with primal and barbaric tendencies who would want to kill another for not meeting their expectations.

For those who are evolving to be more human, they develop their moral competence and solve the roots of the problems via the prevention route rather instead of curing by killing the ones who do not meet their expectations.

Premise: we are 'programmed' with 'ought not to kill other humans'.
Conclusion: therefore, killing other humans is morally wrong.

Even if the premise is true, the conclusion doesn't follow. And pari passu, if we were 'programmed' with 'ought to kill other humans', it wouldn't follow that killing other humans is morally right.

How ever often you repeat this fallacy, it remains a fallacy. A factual assertion can't entail a moral assertion.

[Sculptor]

Earth is an oblate spheroid might be the case, as long as we agree the terms. It is not exhaustive, since the earth is many things. IN a sense even that statement is partial.

All statements are partial. That's a general problem with language, not a specific problem with moral facts.

It is ALWAYS a problem for moral "facts".

Language is incomplete.

When you make a value judgement things are far more difficult. Murder is bad, because it is unlawful. Why is braking the law bad? You can only respond with another judgement. Why is killing a human different from killing a dog.

The same goes with any English sentence. If you keep asking "Why?" about you will either end up perpetually asking, or you will end up at a place where you have to allow for something to be true.

Like what?

If someone were to kill Trump, I would applaud. It might be considered murder, but it would be for the greater good.

I further predict that you are going to furnish a bunch of reasons attempting to justifying murder. Like the asshole you are.

Asshole or not. There are plenty of objective reasons why killing Trump is a good idea. N one of them amount to objectively moral rules.

As for killing dogs, I value my dog over your life. Law would not see it that way; but then as always the law is an ass.

Which is precisely why we have laws. Your emotional attachment to some things at the expense of others leads to harmful outcomes.

You have nothing to offer the thread as usual, excpet cheap insults.
The thread is about objectivity. When are you going to address the topic?

[Skepdick]

It is ALWAYS a problem for moral "facts".

It's ALWAYS a problem for "facts".

Everything that is deemed a "fact" is always asserted by pre-supposing a system of normative semantics.
And everything normative is a violation of the is-ought gap. Without exceptions.

So, you'll have to unlearn all that bullshit they taught you at school and start afresh. Back to first principles!

Like what?

Like EVERY "Why?" question!

When you as a WHY? question you are always in some implicit framework in which you have allowed something to be true a priori.
otherwise you are always asking WHY.

Don't take it from me though. Take it from the dude with the Nobel Prize.

Asshole or not. There are plenty of objective reasons why killing Trump is a good idea. N one of them amount to objectively moral rules.

Seems somebody doesn't even know the difference between killing and murder.

No wonder you are so confused.

You have nothing to offer the thread as usual, excpet cheap insults.
The thread is about objectivity. When are you going to address the topic?

I've been addressing it all along. That you can't understand my point probably suggests that my point is above your level of understanding.

Before you even begin bothering with "objectivity" first you need a theory of semantics. And your theory of semantics needs to be able to discriminate between meaningful and meaningless questions.

Whatever theory of semantics you come up with needs to be able to account for the difference between "Is the sky blue?" and "Is murder wrong?"

They are both questions. They are both trivially answerable with a "yes". And yet you insist on some great difference between the two.

[Sculptor]

It is ALWAYS a problem for moral "facts".

It's ALWAYS a problem for "facts".

Everything that is deemed a "fact" is always asserted by pre-supposing a system of normative semantics.
And everything normative is a violation of the is-ought gap. Without exceptions.

So, you'll have to unlearn all that bullshit they taught you at school and start afresh. Back to first principles!

Like what?

Like EVERY "Why?" question!

When you as a WHY? question you are always in some implicit framework in which you have allowed something to be true a priori.
otherwise you are always asking WHY.

Don't take it from me though. Take it from the dude with the Nobel Prize.

Asshole or not. There are plenty of objective reasons why killing Trump is a good idea. N one of them amount to objectively moral rules.

Seems somebody doesn't even know the difference between killing and murder.

No wonder you are so confused.

You have nothing to offer the thread as usual, excpet cheap insults.
The thread is about objectivity. When are you going to address the topic?

I've been addressing it all along. That you can't understand my point probably suggests that my point is above your level of understanding.

The thread is about objectivity. When are you going to address the topic?

[Skepdick]

The thread is about objectivity. When are you going to address the topic?

I've been addressing it all along. That you can't understand my point probably suggests that my point is above your level of understanding.

Said simply: you may be fucking stupid.

Any notion of "objectivity" depends critically on a notion of semantics. And your notion of semantics needs to be able to discriminate between meaningful and meaningless questions.

You need to account for the difference between "Is the sky blue?" and "Is murder wrong?"
They are both questions. They are both trivially answerable with a "yes". And yet you insist that there is some great difference in the process of arriving at an answer from the comfort of your armchair.

In fact, it's pretty obvious to me that all of this is above your intellect, since you probably don't understand why the following statement is true: Meaningful questions necessitate a priori semantics.

[Belinda]

Skepdick wrote:

Meaningful questions necessitate a priori semantics.

Does that claim mean every utterance has context; context which the communicators must understand if they are to understand the utterance?

That is what I believe, anyway. I'd add specifically social context, as in "every utterance has social context".

[Skepdick]

Does that claim mean every utterance has context; context which the communicators must understand if they are to understand the utterance?

In a way it does, but it's even more constrained than that.

In a monologue the question-asker must understand the meaning of their own words if they are to stand any chance at having their own question answered.

And so the question needs to be meaningful in my own context, before I even bother figuring out if it's meaningful in yours.

That is what I believe, anyway. I'd add specifically social context, as in "every utterance has social context".

Yep. Language is a social phenomenon. In as much as you've acquired sufficient understanding of it in order to ask meaningful questions in the first place.

For example, the question "What is the capital of France?" necessitates some kind of mental/geographical mental model where there are things like "countries" and "countries" have "capitals".

And so "the capital of France" may be Paris, but the "capital of South Africa" is a meaningless notion. South Africa doesn't have a capital.

[Sculptor]

The thread is about objectivity. When are you going to address the topic?

I've been addressing it all along. That you can't understand my point probably suggests that my point is above your level of understanding.

Said simply: you may be fucking stupid.

Any notion of "objectivity" depends critically on a notion of semantics. And your notion of semantics needs to be able to discriminate between meaningful and meaningless questions.

You need to account for the difference between "Is the sky blue?" and "Is murder wrong?"
They are both questions. They are both trivially answerable with a "yes". And yet you insist that there is some great difference in the process of arriving at an answer from the comfort of your armchair.

In fact, it's pretty obvious to me that all of this is above your intellect, since you probably don't understand why the following statement is true: Meaningful questions necessitate a priori semantics.

The thread is about objectivity. When are you going to address the topic?

[Sculptor]

Does that claim mean every utterance has context; context which the communicators must understand if they are to understand the utterance?

It's even more constrained than that.

Even in a monologue the question-asker must understand the question before even asking it. And so they have pre-existing concepts in their mind

That is what I believe, anyway. I'd add specifically social context, as in "every utterance has social context".

Yep. Language is a social phenomenon. In as much as you've acquired sufficient understanding of it in order to ask meaningful questions in the first place.

For example, the question "What is the capital of France?" necessitates some kind of mental/geographical mental model where there are things like "countries" and "countries" have "capitals".

And so "the capital of France" may be Paris, but the "capital of South Africa" is a meaningless notion. South Africa doesn't have a capital.

The thread is about objectivity. When are you going to address the topic?

[Skepdick]

The thread is about objectivity.

I know.

When are you going to address the topic?

Shame. The fact that "objectivity" is socially constructed must have gone over your head again...

[Sculptor]

The thread is about objectivity.

I know.

When are you going to address the topic?

Shame. The fact that "objectivity" is socially constructed must have gone over your head again...

Why bother posting to an "asshole"?

[Skepdick]

Why bother posting to an "asshole"?

Fellow travellers and useful idiots.

[Sculptor]

Why bother posting to an "asshole"?

Fellow travellers and useful idiots.

When ever I read your posts. This is who I think of.
https://lgbtqnation-assets.imgix.net/20 ... crop=faces

[Skepdick]

When ever I read your posts. This is who I think of.
https://lgbtqnation-assets.imgix.net/20 ... crop=faces

That says way more about your state of mind than mine...