What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The argument should be as follows;

1. Premise: Humans must breathe, or they die as an imperative to ensure the survival of the species[scientific].

2. ALL facts are conditioned to a specific FSK.
ALL FSKs rely on facts from other FSK and direct evidence.
Thus, Moral FSK rely on scientific facts [e.g. 1] and other to generate moral fact in terms of oughtness and ought-not-ness [matter of fact, not opinions].

3. Conclusion: Therefore, oughtness-not-to-kill humans (by suffocating them?) is a moral fact.

As I and others have explained countless times, your premise 2 is false. Given that do use the word fact to mean a true description, that a description exists within a descriptive context - that it's 'conditioned to a specific FSK' - does not mean that any descriptive context can produce facts.

For example, alchemy and astrology obviously don't produce facts. So something else is needed; an FSK (a descriptive context) isn't enough. And this is obvious. For example, that there are physics facts isn't a consequence of the physics FSK. The physics FSK is credible precisely because there are features of reality that physics describes (at least provisionally) correctly, and testably. The credibility of an FSK depends on the existence of what we call facts. It's not the other way around.

So your argument is fallacious. And here it is.

P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
P2 There is a morality FSK
C Therefore, there are moral facts.

This is nonsense, whether or not you can understand why.

Your sort of thinking is outdated, note the later thinking in Physics re Hawking;

It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.

The above is from;

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2] The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism#

No later and modern physicists will make the claims you made for Physics.
Are you an authority on Physics btw.

I have mentioned the emergence of reality which you are totally ignorant.

Reality is an Emergence
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671

What is wrong with the following argument?

• P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
  P2 There is a morality FSK [that enable the emergence of moral facts]
  C Therefore, there are moral facts.

which is the same as

• P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
  P2 There is a scientific FSK [that enable the emergence of scientific facts]
  C Therefore, there are scientific facts.

Btw,
I am not claiming for moral opinions.
I am claiming moral facts as moral potentials as a matter of fact represented by neural correlates and other physical feature within the brain [& body]. Note a clue [not the full details] to the physical referent here;

Mirror Neurons and Moral Oughtness
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34812

Problem is you are stuck in a very old dogmatic paradigm re morality.

[Peter Holmes]

What is wrong with the following argument?

• P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
  P2 There is a morality FSK [that enable the emergence of moral facts]
  C Therefore, there are moral facts.

Can you see what's wrong with the following argument?

P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
P2 Astrology is an FSK (that enables the emergence of astrological facts).
C Therefore, there are astrological facts.

I'm sure you notice that P2 makes an assumption. It assumes the conclusion is true. And using a conclusion to support a premise is called a begging the question fallacy. P2 is false, or at least not shown to be true. So the argument is unsound.

Now, exactly the same refutation applies to your argument about morality. Your conclusion that morality is indeed an FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts begs the question. An FSK doesn't create the facts that it describes. If there are no facts (see astrology), there simply is no FSK at all.

Btw,
I am not claiming for moral opinions.
I am claiming moral facts as moral potentials as a matter of fact represented by neural correlates and other physical feature within the brain [& body]. Note a clue [not the full details] to the physical referent here;

Mirror Neurons and Moral Oughtness
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34812

Problem is you are stuck in a very old dogmatic paradigm re morality.

No, the trouble is that you know a factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion, but you don't apply that knowledge to your own argument.

The existence of mirror neurons is a (recently discovered) fact about our brains - that helps to explain our behaviour. But it's not a 'moral fact', anymore than the existence of our brains is a 'moral fact'. (In the same way, the fact that humans must breathe or they die is also just a fact, with no moral significance.) Your non sequitur fallacy is this:

Mirror neurons programme us to do X; therefore, doing X is morally right.

To repeat, a factual premise (of any kind whatsoever) can't entail a moral conclusion. And that's because a conclusion can't contain information not present in the premise or premises. If there's no claim about moral rightness/wrongness in the premise(s), the conclusion can't logically make a moral claim, because that won't follow from the premise(s). It really is that simple.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is wrong with the following argument?

• P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
  P2 There is a morality FSK [that enable the emergence of moral facts]
  C Therefore, there are moral facts.

Can you see what's wrong with the following argument?

P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
P2 Astrology is an FSK (that enables the emergence of astrological facts).
C Therefore, there are astrological facts.

I'm sure you notice that P2 makes an assumption. It assumes the conclusion is true. And using a conclusion to support a premise is called a begging the question fallacy. P2 is false, or at least not shown to be true. So the argument is unsound.

Now, exactly the same refutation applies to your argument about morality. Your conclusion that morality is indeed an FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts begs the question. An FSK doesn't create the facts that it describes. If there are no facts (see astrology), there simply is no FSK at all.

Nope P2 is not an assumption.
P2 does follow from P1 as defined.
The argument is valid and sound.

What need to be question is, if that is a fact as defined, then we have to establish whether that fact [as defined] is credible or not.
It is obvious the astronomical FSK [scientific based] is more credible than the astrological FSK based on what we know of both FSK.
Thus there are astrological facts [as defined] but their credibility is way lower than the astronomical facts [as defined].

Note my emphasis if fact 'as defined'.

Who give you the authority that your fact [as defined] is absolute.

Note Skepdick's usual counter;

Where I have qualified my FSK, I can claim the below is a "green" circle.


The above presentation is just not typical but rather extreme. There is nothing wrong with the above logic as long as I qualify the terms and meanings I used within a specific FSK.
Obviously I will not resort to such extreme normally, but just to show you what I meant when what is fact is conditioned upon a FSK.
The word here is not the critical thing but rather what is critical is what is experienced within a defined FSK.

However my definition of fact in relation to a specific FSK is quite normal, note, as implied here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Your problem is you are suffering from cognitive dissonance which you need to seek a cure.

Btw,
I am not claiming for moral opinions.
I am claiming moral facts as moral potentials as a matter of fact represented by neural correlates and other physical feature within the brain [& body]. Note a clue [not the full details] to the physical referent here;

Mirror Neurons and Moral Oughtness
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34812

Problem is you are stuck in a very old dogmatic paradigm re morality.

No, the trouble is that you know a factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion, but you don't apply that knowledge to your own argument.

The existence of mirror neurons is a (recently discovered) fact about our brains - that helps to explain our behaviour. But it's not a 'moral fact', anymore than the existence of our brains is a 'moral fact'. (In the same way, the fact that humans must breathe or they die is also just a fact, with no moral significance.) Your non sequitur fallacy is this:

Mirror neurons programme us to do X; therefore, doing X is morally right.

To repeat, a factual premise (of any kind whatsoever) can't entail a moral conclusion. And that's because a conclusion can't contain information not present in the premise or premises. If there's no claim about moral rightness/wrongness in the premise(s), the conclusion can't logically make a moral claim, because that won't follow from the premise(s). It really is that simple.

Strawman again,
I NEVER agreed,
"you know a factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion,"
rather
'you know a factual premise [empirical] can't entail a moral opinion"

BUT
a factual premise [empirical] can entail a moral fact via a moral FSK.

PH: "Mirror neurons programme us to do X; therefore, doing X is morally right."
How many more '000s of times do I need to point out your strawman factory job?

What I have claimed is,
mirror neurons are the elements of the moral potentials or moral oughtness which is a matter of fact that are represented by the physical referent of neural correlates in the brain [& body].
This moral potential [physical as above] is a moral fact that drives ethical acts and evaluations.

For example in terms of hunger, I am not referring to people making choices based on their preferences in what to eat to satisfy their hunger.
What I am pointing out is the neural correlates in the brain and physical elements in the body that generate the hunger drive. This is the matter of fact I am referring. In terms of digestion FSK this is a fact of digestion.

I have no problem understanding your views which is very limited and kindergartenish.
But you are unable to shift paradigm to understand my views because your problem is you are suffering from cognitive dissonance [thus the bias confirmation and selective attention] which you need to seek a cure.

[Peter Holmes]

What is wrong with the following argument?

• P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
  P2 There is a morality FSK [that enable the emergence of moral facts]
  C Therefore, there are moral facts.

Can you see what's wrong with the following argument?

P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
P2 Astrology is an FSK (that enables the emergence of astrological facts).
C Therefore, there are astrological facts.

I'm sure you notice that P2 makes an assumption. It assumes the conclusion is true. And using a conclusion to support a premise is called a begging the question fallacy. P2 is false, or at least not shown to be true. So the argument is unsound.

Now, exactly the same refutation applies to your argument about morality. Your conclusion that morality is indeed an FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts begs the question. An FSK doesn't create the facts that it describes. If there are no facts (see astrology), there simply is no FSK at all.

Nope P2 is not an assumption.
P2 does follow from P1 as defined.
The argument is valid and sound.

What need to be question is, if that is a fact as defined, then we have to establish whether that fact [as defined] is credible or not.
It is obvious the astronomical FSK [scientific based] is more credible than the astrological FSK based on what we know of both FSK.
Thus there are astrological facts [as defined] but their credibility is way lower than the astronomical facts [as defined].

So you think there are astrological facts, as defined, but that they're not very credible.

This is complete nonsense, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Wafwot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can you see what's wrong with the following argument?

P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
P2 Astrology is an FSK (that enables the emergence of astrological facts).
C Therefore, there are astrological facts.

I'm sure you notice that P2 makes an assumption. It assumes the conclusion is true. And using a conclusion to support a premise is called a begging the question fallacy. P2 is false, or at least not shown to be true. So the argument is unsound.

Now, exactly the same refutation applies to your argument about morality. Your conclusion that morality is indeed an FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts begs the question. An FSK doesn't create the facts that it describes. If there are no facts (see astrology), there simply is no FSK at all.

Nope P2 is not an assumption.
P2 does follow from P1 as defined.
The argument is valid and sound.

What need to be question is, if that is a fact as defined, then we have to establish whether that fact [as defined] is credible or not.
It is obvious the astronomical FSK [scientific based] is more credible than the astrological FSK based on what we know of both FSK.
Thus there are astrological facts [as defined] but their credibility is way lower than the astronomical facts [as defined].

So you think there are astrological facts, as defined, but that they're not very credible.

This is complete nonsense, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Wafwot.

Note my response to the above here;
viewtopic.php?p=572037#p572037

On a FSK basis, there are astrological facts [as defined], but I would rate them with no credibility at all, but if I am driven by science of no absolute certainty, then I can rate it as a 0.00001/100 fact which is as good as nonsense. [just like Dawkins having to rate himself as a 6/7 [85.71%] atheist since he as a scientist cannot claim absolute 100% certainty]

Why the need for the above [atypical view], note this post;
The Continuum Concept in Practice
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34706

Btw, WHO ARE YOU to impose your ungrounded views on everyone?
OTOH, my justifications are based on scientific facts inputted into a moral FSK.
My claim of a moral potential is as a moral fact re a matter of fact represented by its respective physical referent as neural correlates in the brain.
I am not claiming moral opinions as moral facts.

[Peter Holmes]

Nope P2 is not an assumption.
P2 does follow from P1 as defined.
The argument is valid and sound.

What need to be question is, if that is a fact as defined, then we have to establish whether that fact [as defined] is credible or not.
It is obvious the astronomical FSK [scientific based] is more credible than the astrological FSK based on what we know of both FSK.
Thus there are astrological facts [as defined] but their credibility is way lower than the astronomical facts [as defined].

So you think there are astrological facts, as defined, but that they're not very credible.

This is complete nonsense, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Wafwot.

Note my response to the above here;
viewtopic.php?p=572037#p572037

On a FSK basis, there are astrological facts [as defined], but I would rate them with no credibility at all, but if I am driven by science of no absolute certainty, then I can rate it as a 0.00001/100 fact which is as good as nonsense. [just like Dawkins having to rate himself as a 6/7 [85.71%] atheist since he as a scientist cannot claim absolute 100% certainty]

Why the need for the above [atypical view], note this post;
The Continuum Concept in Practice
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34706

Btw, WHO ARE YOU to impose your ungrounded views on everyone?
OTOH, my justifications are based on scientific facts inputted into a moral FSK.
My claim of a moral potential is as a moral fact re a matter of fact represented by its respective physical referent as neural correlates in the brain.
I am not claiming moral opinions as moral facts.

Wafwot.

[Skepdick]

Wafwot.

When Peter Holmes tells you that he's wasting your fucking time you really should believe him.

He is not interested in evolving his view; he's only interested in peddling his view as normative.

All while maintaining that normatives are not factual.

[Belinda]

"The 'What' is what we are talking about " to quote an ephemeral comment.

We can affirm what the 'What" is not. We can affirm that the 'What' includes at least the virtues that transcend precise definition. We can live as though the 'What' exists.

[Peter Holmes]

"The 'What' is what we are talking about " to quote an ephemeral comment.

We can affirm what the 'What" is not. We can affirm that the 'What' includes at least the virtues that transcend precise definition. We can live as though the 'What' exists.

Erm. What counts as a 'virtue that transcends precise definition' is a matter of opinion. Some think one of them is the masculine, patriarchal determination to keep women confined to church, kitchen and children. And they're near to taking power in America. The invocation of transcendence is always a confidence trick, like the appeal to intuition.

But sure, as the song says, you have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.

[Belinda]

"The 'What' is what we are talking about " to quote an ephemeral comment.

We can affirm what the 'What" is not. We can affirm that the 'What' includes at least the virtues that transcend precise definition. We can live as though the 'What' exists.

Erm. What counts as a 'virtue that transcends precise definition' is a matter of opinion. Some think one of them is the masculine, patriarchal determination to keep women confined to church, kitchen and children. And they're near to taking power in America. The invocation of transcendence is always a confidence trick, like the appeal to intuition.

But sure, as the song says, you have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.

Your example does not defy or transcend precise definition; you just defined it.

To invoke what transcends language is part of a reasonable scepticism.

[Peter Holmes]

"The 'What' is what we are talking about " to quote an ephemeral comment.

We can affirm what the 'What" is not. We can affirm that the 'What' includes at least the virtues that transcend precise definition. We can live as though the 'What' exists.

Erm. What counts as a 'virtue that transcends precise definition' is a matter of opinion. Some think one of them is the masculine, patriarchal determination to keep women confined to church, kitchen and children. And they're near to taking power in America. The invocation of transcendence is always a confidence trick, like the appeal to intuition.

But sure, as the song says, you have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.

Your example does not defy or transcend precise definition; you just defined it.

To invoke what transcends language is part of a reasonable scepticism.

My point is that the expression 'virtue that transcends precise definition' is meaningless unless it's given a definition. And it always is - or it's useless. Question: what is morally right and wrong? Answer: the virtue that transcends precise definition is morally right. Or: what's morally right is what manifests the virtue that transcends precise definition. It's woo.

[SpheresOfBalance]

An issue has come up in various recent OPs and comments that I think needs clarifying.

1 A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong, or good or bad - or one that says something should or ought to be the case. (But we can also use the words 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'bad', 'should' and 'ought to' non-morally - with no moral judgement involved.)

2 A non-moral premise cannot entail a moral conclusion. There is no logical connection between them, so the conclusion can't follow from the premise, and the argument must be a non sequitur fallacy.

3 Here are three examples of such fallacies.

• Humans are programmed with 'ought-not-to-kill-other-humans'; therefore humans ought not to kill other humans.

• A creator god thinks X is morally wrong; therefore X is morally wrong.

• People own themselves; therefore it is morally wrong to own people.

None of these premises is a moral assertion. Each is a factual assertion with a truth-value. And the point is, the truth-value of a non-moral premise is not the issue. Even if it's true, a moral conclusion doesn't and can't follow. The is/ought barrier is insuperable. And that's why there are no moral facts, and morality can't be objective.

You're incorrect!

Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).

A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed.

There is no consensus among humans as to what single moral code is objective, (all encompassing). So it might seem to be subjective, and for an individual it is in fact the case. So by itself it's not objective, however when combined with all humanities versions of what they individually expect as moral, it is in fact objective. To be Objective in this case is simply to say it's universal (with respect to the human realm) because the Universe neither knows nor needs such a concept, nor does it create such, it can't, it seems to pretty much be inanimate, not of mind, simply matter and such.

So morality is to be decided by humans, and we differ in opinion. So as soon as anyone 'projects' their moral code upon another they are in violation of the truth of things. And since the old "Golden Rule" is a moral code, that in fact has a version in almost all cultures dating back to antiquity. I have corrected it in the only way it can be corrected. In answer, not only to knowledge, (philosophers concern), but also some things I thought up that are also factors.

So here is the common, 'original', paraphrased: 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.'

And here's my corrected version, which I call "The Fundamental Social Axiom":"Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent, that all parties knowingly agree at the time."

And that's the best we can do! Individually we can't speak for everyone, only ourselves. I know this is going to annoy all you that want/desire to TELL EVERYBODY 'what is what,' but there is no such one thing. We have to ask how it is that they want us to treat them, and then treat them accordingly. Why stupid humans want to 'DICTATE' their PARTICULAR VERSION of LIFE is beyond me, but if everyone did as I insist they do, there would be no crime, no misunderstandings, no encroachment, no treading, no rape, no thievery, etc, etc, etc, perpetrated on anyone including all of us. And of course we'd still need the law to protect all against any infractions.

So the opening line would be: "Would you care to converse?" And while it's easy to see that in fact that could be considered a violation of the point of the axiom, it's the worst we'd have to suffer. From that point on, initially, it would be about what each expected from the other, and all terms explained in case of the ignorance of either participant. Yeah I know what you crazies are thinking, "But how can I take advantage of someone, that's not fair..." EXACTLY!!!! That's the fucking point dip-shit, to protect everyone equally!

SOB originally said: Moral objectivity for any one particular subjective perspective, as an actor, so to project with absolute certainty, can only ever be the observance of the culmination of all subjective moral codes combined as one set of universal facts, thus not subjective in nature, rather universal, thus attaining objectivity. As in my version of the 'Golden Rule', which I've named the "Fundamental Social Axiom:" "Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent that all parties knowingly agree at the time."

If anyone here believes they have a better way to change morality into something objective (all people considered, universal in the human realm) for everyone, AND I MEAN EVERYONE EQUALLY! please enlighten all that visit here.

I'm listening for intelligent philosophy that changes society for the better. Not simply saying that it can't be done so you can feel good about your being a dictator.

Remember: "All Spheres must Balance." We live in a symbiotic biosphere! Without such a situation, we all die as failures to maintain the ecosystems that our lives depend on!

[Peter Holmes]

An issue has come up in various recent OPs and comments that I think needs clarifying.

1 A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong, or good or bad - or one that says something should or ought to be the case. (But we can also use the words 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'bad', 'should' and 'ought to' non-morally - with no moral judgement involved.)

2 A non-moral premise cannot entail a moral conclusion. There is no logical connection between them, so the conclusion can't follow from the premise, and the argument must be a non sequitur fallacy.

3 Here are three examples of such fallacies.

• Humans are programmed with 'ought-not-to-kill-other-humans'; therefore humans ought not to kill other humans.

• A creator god thinks X is morally wrong; therefore X is morally wrong.

• People own themselves; therefore it is morally wrong to own people.

None of these premises is a moral assertion. Each is a factual assertion with a truth-value. And the point is, the truth-value of a non-moral premise is not the issue. Even if it's true, a moral conclusion doesn't and can't follow. The is/ought barrier is insuperable. And that's why there are no moral facts, and morality can't be objective.

You're incorrect!

Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).

A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed.

There is no consensus among humans as to what single moral code is objective, (all encompassing). So it might seem to be subjective, and for an individual it is in fact the case. So by itself it's not objective, however when combined with all humanities versions of what they individually expect as moral, it is in fact objective. To be Objective in this case is simply to say it's universal (with respect to the human realm) because the Universe neither knows nor needs such a concept, nor does it create such, it can't, it seems to pretty much be inanimate, not of mind, simply matter and such.

So morality is to be decided by humans, and we differ in opinion. So as soon as anyone 'projects' their moral code upon another they are in violation of the truth of things. And since the old "Golden Rule" is a moral code, that in fact has a version in almost all cultures dating back to antiquity. I have corrected it in the only way it can be corrected. In answer, not only to knowledge, (philosophers concern), but also some things I thought up that are also factors.

So here is the common, 'original', paraphrased: 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.'

And here's my corrected version, which I call "The Fundamental Social Axiom":"Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent, that all parties knowingly agree at the time."

And that's the best we can do! Individually we can't speak for everyone, only ourselves. I know this is going to annoy all you that want/desire to TELL EVERYBODY 'what is what,' but there is no such one thing. We have to ask how it is that they want us to treat them, and then treat them accordingly. Why stupid humans want to 'DICTATE' their PARTICULAR VERSION of LIFE is beyond me, but if everyone did as I insist they do, there would be no crime, no misunderstandings, no encroachment, no treading, no rape, no thievery, etc, etc, etc, perpetrated on anyone including all of us. And of course we'd still need the law to protect all against any infractions.

So the opening line would be: "Would you care to converse?" And while it's easy to see that in fact that could be considered a violation of the point of the axiom, it's the worst we'd have to suffer. From that point on, initially, it would be about what each expected from the other, and all terms explained in case of the ignorance of either participant. Yeah I know what you crazies are thinking, "But how can I take advantage of someone, that's not fair..." EXACTLY!!!! That's the fucking point dip-shit, to protect everyone equally!

SOB originally said: Moral objectivity for any one particular subjective perspective, as an actor, so to project with absolute certainty, can only ever be the observance of the culmination of all subjective moral codes combined as one set of universal facts, thus not subjective in nature, rather universal, thus attaining objectivity. As in my version of the 'Golden Rule', which I've named the "Fundamental Social Axiom:" "Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent that all parties knowingly agree at the time."

If anyone here believes they have a better way to change morality into something objective (all people considered, universal in the human realm) for everyone, AND I MEAN EVERYONE EQUALLY! please enlighten all that visit here.

I'm listening for intelligent philosophy that changes society for the better. Not simply saying that it can't be done so you can feel good about your being a dictator.

Remember: "All Spheres must Balance." We live in a symbiotic biosphere! Without such a situation, we all die as failures to maintain the ecosystems that our lives depend on!

You confuse universality - which refers to space and time - with objectivity, which refers to facts independent from opinion. An opinion held by everyone (ie universally) is still an opinion. And a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact. That's the difference.

It's rational to discuss and develop our moral values and opinions - that's how we've made and are making moral progress. But moral objectivism - the claim that there are moral facts - justifies and enables precisely the kind of authoritarian imposition of rules that you rightly criticise - and that's happening so disastrously in America at the moment.

[Belinda]

Erm. What counts as a 'virtue that transcends precise definition' is a matter of opinion. Some think one of them is the masculine, patriarchal determination to keep women confined to church, kitchen and children. And they're near to taking power in America. The invocation of transcendence is always a confidence trick, like the appeal to intuition.

But sure, as the song says, you have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.

Your example does not defy or transcend precise definition; you just defined it.

To invoke what transcends language is part of a reasonable scepticism.

My point is that the expression 'virtue that transcends precise definition' is meaningless unless it's given a definition. And it always is - or it's useless. Question: what is morally right and wrong? Answer: the virtue that transcends precise definition is morally right. Or: what's morally right is what manifests the virtue that transcends precise definition. It's woo.

It is indeed meaningless. Nevertheless it still matters because you don't need to define the object of your aspiration towards goodness, truth or beauty as the search is good of itself.

[Peter Holmes]

Your example does not defy or transcend precise definition; you just defined it.

To invoke what transcends language is part of a reasonable scepticism.

My point is that the expression 'virtue that transcends precise definition' is meaningless unless it's given a definition. And it always is - or it's useless. Question: what is morally right and wrong? Answer: the virtue that transcends precise definition is morally right. Or: what's morally right is what manifests the virtue that transcends precise definition. It's woo.

It is indeed meaningless. Nevertheless it still matters because you don't need to define the object of your aspiration towards goodness, truth or beauty as the search is good of itself.

I agree that what we call goodness, truth and beauty matter deeply to us, as does moral rightness - and, therefore, wrongness. But we have to and indeed do define them. And those definitions or descriptions are necessarily subjective. The claim that they are objective is always false and tyrannical.