What could make morality objective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12244
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Basically, the term 'objectivity' is to reflect the confidence level of how realistic a knowledge claim is.
If there are various claims the Sun is 150, 500, 1000 million miles from Earth.
Surely the first thing, if you are rational, would want to know whether the above is subjective or objective knowledge.
All knowledge is subjective, if you were driving a very big truck and a consensus of locals told you the bridge you need to cross was perfectly safe for all truck traffic. Nevertheless, your subjectivity is telling you this bridge doesn't look like it could support a number of people never mind the tonnage you were driving, which do you think would win out. Would you drive fearlessly across said bridge? The local evaluation is objective knowledge, isn't it? Subjective knowledge is going to win out every time your butt is on the line.
"All knowledge is subjective" is a truism, thus moot and a non-starter.

What is critical in your example is objective truth.
There is no reliability whether it is your subjective assessment or the locals' assessment [subjective] is true or not? Since there is no reliability in this case, one will take the no-risk position, i.e. don't drive across the bridge.

What is most reliable is the objective truth regarding the strength of the bridge.
In this case, the objective truth is to get an independent civil engineer to assess the maximum load of that particular bridge.
The engineer independent assessment will depend on his professional expertise in using various objective scientific knowledge.

Image

Therefore independent objective knowledge trumps subjective knowledge anytime.

As is quite well known, the above claims 150, 500, 1000 million miles are identified as subjective claims by different subjects based on their person judgments or from unreliable sources. The scientific knowledge is the Sun is Appx 93 million miles from Earth.
Surely you would NOT classify this scientific claim as a subjective claim like the above.
As such to differentiate the reliability and credibility of the scientific knowledge, it is generally identified as 'OBJECTIVE' knowledge as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
This is a common practice, why do you want to resist it without any sound basis at all?
While in the case above there is no subjective experience to come into play, there is just trust in authority, in hearsay. Here you are assuming others know better than you. It is very thin ice from a subjective perspective and depends upon the level of trust in the experiences of the past with this particular authority.
Hearsay??
Reliance and trust of objective scientific knowledge is hearsay?
It is not merely assumption but based on past experiences within human history and personally that objective scientific knowledge trumps personal subjective knowledge.

Objective knowledge is not a 100% certainty, but its reliability is based on past proven experiences thus in general it is more trustworthy.
In general [there are exceptions], one of the feature of Objectivity is testability, repeatability, if you don't trust it, you can repeat the experiments and you will get the same results.
This scientific objectivity is ultimately reinforced by intersubjective agreement [intersubjectivity] within the relevant peers.
Without this condition of intersubjectivity, no thesis will be recognized as an objective scientific theory, truth or knowledge.
Because it is accepted by peers, it is independent of the individual scientist judgment or belief, thus objective via intersubjectivity.
E.g. the theory of relativity is objective, not because Einstein said so, but because Science [Physics FSK] said so.
This is still trust in authority well founded as it may be. It is the collective subjective of like biologizes concerning an experience the subject has not had in order to have subjective knowledge of the case of point. TRUST!
Either way it is you trust your own subjective knowledge or you trust the objective knowledge via intersubjectivity.

The difference is;
1. Subjective knowledge = tainted with personal bias and beliefs
2. Objective knowledge = independent of personal bias and beliefs.

Because the subject alone is very fallible, objective knowledge within a credible FSK eliminate as much personal biases and beliefs as possible.
Harping on the term subjective and subjectivity will not generate confidence levels for others to rely upon it to generate utilities.
This is why the term 'objectivity' [via intersubjectivity] is critical to identify the knowledge is reliable as derived from a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
As I had stated, whatever is an objective fact must be conditioned upon a credible FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK being the most credible at present.
Then we have a credible moral FSK which rely on its input from the scientific FSK, objective moral fact are derived from the moral FSK with reasonable degree of objectivity.
It is trust in the collective subject evaluation as it is instituted. I don't think we really disagree here, but personal subjectivity will always trump the collective if there is a great deal at stake for the individual. Trust will only carry one so far, our personal subjectivity is the individual's survival mode and the measure and meaning of all things. The topic above though is misleading, for the question asks HOW morality becomes objectified and the only possible answer is morality in whatever structure or forms it might take is biological extension, an expression of humanities subjective nature, the subject manifests his sentiments in outward creations.
If a person is sick and facing the treat of mortality, surely the objective knowledge from the medical community in general would trump the personal subjective opinions of the individual? Don't you think so?

It is the same with every field of objective knowledge which will always trump personal subjective opinions and beliefs.

One good example is the subjective personal belief in the existence of a God, where it is claimed creationism trumps objective [intersubjectivity] Physics.
You're a theist? insisting on the subjective belief that God created the world in 7 days?

Re morality, Hume argued that morality is extended from sentiments.
But what are sentiments grounded or emerged from in humans.

Point is whatever the moral sentiments they must emerged from the physical biological brain [there is no other place].
It is only objective knowledge [intersubjectivity] from the various sciences that can verify and justify the existence of the physical neurons, algorithm, processes, DNA, atoms, and quarks in the brain that support and generate those sentiments that lead to the issues of morality.

These PHYSICAL elements are the objective moral facts grounded on INTERSUBJECTIVITY, not on subjective personal beliefs and judgments.

My point;
Whatever is objective [thus reliable] facts is grounded on intersubjectivity within a framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
Objective moral facts emerged from the moral FSK.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

VA has invented the expression 'framework and system of knowledge' or 'FSK'. And this invention obviously assumes the existence of knowledge - of things or facts that can be known.

VA then points out there are many different 'FSKs': physics, chemistry, biology, history, law, and so on. And each of these different 'FSKs' supposedly produces things or facts that can be known within the 'FSK'. So there are physics facts, chemistry facts, biology facts, and so on.

VA knows that there are no astrology facts, alchemy facts, demonology facts, and so on - so that the expressions astrology FSK, alchemy FSK and demonology FSK are incoherent. After all, if there are no things or facts to be known, there can be no framework and system of knowledge within which to know them.

So VA knows that the existence of an 'FSK' depends on the existence of things or facts that can be known within the 'FSK'. And VA rightly insists on the importance of empirical evidence for those things and facts to give any 'FSK' credibility. Hence the high credibility and prestige of the natural sciences, including neuroscience. And so far so good.

But then VA goes wrong. Forgetting that the existence of a credible 'FSK' depends on the existence of things and facts that can be known, VA proposes the existence of a 'morality FSK'. And this term, by definition, assumes the existence of moral things and facts, which can therefore be known.

And here's VA's trick. Neuroscience shows that (to simplify) humans are programmed with (at least the potential) to avoid killing other humans. VA calls this 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' - which (let's assume) is a physical fact. But then VA says that humans killing humans is a moral matter, because 'morality-proper' is about the reduction or avoidance of evil. So, hey presto, feed the physical fact into a credible morality FSK, and we have a moral fact.

But hold on. The very existence - let alone the credibility - of an 'FSK' depends on the existence of things or facts that can be known. So those things and facts must exist outside the proposed 'FSK'. And human programming not to kill humans is (let's say) a physical fact, not in itself a moral thing or fact that exists outside any proposed 'morality FSK'.

So VA's argument rests on a deep and fundamental fallacy. That we should or ought to reduce or avoid evil - and what constitutes evil - are not facts, but rather matters of belief, judgement or opinion - which are therefore subjective. And appealing to physical facts from neuroscience does nothing to change that.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:19 am
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:08 am The physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, deal with this!!
To me the above is which is obvious is moot, a non-starter based and MEANINGLESS re the point that I have emphasized Kant's Copernican Revolution '1000s' of times.
But the experiencing subject creates both object and representations of the object.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:19 am
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:08 am The physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, deal with this!!
To me the above is which is obvious is moot, a non-starter based and MEANINGLESS re the point that I have emphasized Kant's Copernican Revolution '1000s' of times.
But the experiencing subject creates both object and representations of the object.
Oh, the high tides of rhetoric!

That we ('experiencing subjects' - aka people) call some things 'objects', and name and describe them, doesn't mean that we necessarily create objects. Did we create the earth, and that rock on that planet on the other side of the universe? What utter, idealistic nonsense.

The blather - 'objects don't exist unless there are subjects' - is a wonderful example of the mystical claptrap that sometimes passes for philosophy.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:38 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:51 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:48 am What could make morality objective------- A SUBJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"A SUBJECT" ???

There are >8 billion subjects, so there are > 8 billion conceptions of 'moral objectivity'?

This is why the most realistic definition of 'what is objectivity' is;
"Objectivity is intersubjectivity" as in scientific objectivity based on the intersubjective consensus [shared] of individual subjective views,
Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and the basis of the authority of science in society.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/
What is 'objectivity' is reducible to 'subjects' via intersubjectivity not via 'a subject'.

That objectivity is intersubjectivity prevails because such conception has produced tremendous utilities and contributed to the progress within humanity via Scientific Objectivity which can be extended to moral objectivity.
Claptrap. Scientific and technological progress comes from the refusal to accept the intersubjective consensus - the current orthodoxy. It comes from observing reality as it really is - not as it's supposed to be.

Consensus theories of truth and knowledge are patently ridiculous and easily refuted - as is moral cognitivism.
But reality as it really is is impossible when there are millions of experiencers each of whose access to reality is limited by their finite nervous system.
True, science does work. Lots of commonsense ideas also work. The trial and error of plants and ants works too. If an idea or a technology fails then the individuals who have invested too much in it will also fail. This is why science and technology work: man evolves mainly by means of cultural adaptation.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:33 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:38 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:51 am
"A SUBJECT" ???

There are >8 billion subjects, so there are > 8 billion conceptions of 'moral objectivity'?

This is why the most realistic definition of 'what is objectivity' is;
"Objectivity is intersubjectivity" as in scientific objectivity based on the intersubjective consensus [shared] of individual subjective views,



What is 'objectivity' is reducible to 'subjects' via intersubjectivity not via 'a subject'.

That objectivity is intersubjectivity prevails because such conception has produced tremendous utilities and contributed to the progress within humanity via Scientific Objectivity which can be extended to moral objectivity.
Claptrap. Scientific and technological progress comes from the refusal to accept the intersubjective consensus - the current orthodoxy. It comes from observing reality as it really is - not as it's supposed to be.

Consensus theories of truth and knowledge are patently ridiculous and easily refuted - as is moral cognitivism.
But reality as it really is is impossible when there are millions of experiencers each of whose access to reality is limited by their finite nervous system.
This is empiricist skepticism at its trashy work: 'knowledge comes from experience, which is necessarily first-person, subjective and unverifiable. Each of us perceives reality differently, so there are different realities.'
True, science does work. Lots of commonsense ideas also work. The trial and error of plants and ants works too. If an idea or a technology fails then the individuals who have invested too much in it will also fail. This is why science and technology work: man evolves mainly by means of cultural adaptation.
Adaptation to what? How do science and common sense work? Apply Occam's Razor to the supposed proliferation of different realities.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:48 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:33 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:38 pm
Claptrap. Scientific and technological progress comes from the refusal to accept the intersubjective consensus - the current orthodoxy. It comes from observing reality as it really is - not as it's supposed to be.

Consensus theories of truth and knowledge are patently ridiculous and easily refuted - as is moral cognitivism.
But reality as it really is is impossible when there are millions of experiencers each of whose access to reality is limited by their finite nervous system.
This is empiricist skepticism at its trashy work: knowledge comes from experience, which is necessarily first-person, subjective and unverifiable. Each of us perceives reality differently, so there are different realities.
True, science does work. Lots of commonsense ideas also work. The trial and error of plants and ants works too. If an idea or a technology fails then the individuals who have invested too much in it will also fail. This is why science and technology work: man evolves mainly by means of cultural adaptation.
Adaptation to what? How do science and common sense work? Apply Occam's Razor to the supposed proliferation of different realities.
An experience may correlate somewhat with others' experience , or it may not: an experience is an experience.
By "adaptation" I mean adaptation to whichever view of reality prolongs life, reduces suffering, and increases pleasure.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:52 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:48 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:33 am But reality as it really is is impossible when there are millions of experiencers each of whose access to reality is limited by their finite nervous system.
This is empiricist skepticism at its trashy work: knowledge comes from experience, which is necessarily first-person, subjective and unverifiable. Each of us perceives reality differently, so there are different realities.
True, science does work. Lots of commonsense ideas also work. The trial and error of plants and ants works too. If an idea or a technology fails then the individuals who have invested too much in it will also fail. This is why science and technology work: man evolves mainly by means of cultural adaptation.
Adaptation to what? How do science and common sense work? Apply Occam's Razor to the supposed proliferation of different realities.
An experience may correlate somewhat with others' experience , or it may not: an experience is an experience.
By "adaptation" I mean adaptation to whichever view of reality prolongs life, reduces suffering, and increases pleasure.
1 That humans should prolong life, reduce suffering and increase pleasure - and for which creatures - is a matter of opinion, which is subjective. There are no facts of the matter.

2 There's no evidence for the existence of different realities, which each of us experiences alone, and within which we can prolong life, reduce suffering and increase pleasure. Occam's Razor.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:05 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:52 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:48 am
This is empiricist skepticism at its trashy work: knowledge comes from experience, which is necessarily first-person, subjective and unverifiable. Each of us perceives reality differently, so there are different realities.
Adaptation to what? How do science and common sense work? Apply Occam's Razor to the supposed proliferation of different realities.
An experience may correlate somewhat with others' experience , or it may not: an experience is an experience.
By "adaptation" I mean adaptation to whichever view of reality prolongs life, reduces suffering, and increases pleasure.
1 That humans should prolong life, reduce suffering and increase pleasure - and for which creatures - is a matter of opinion, which is subjective. There are no facts of the matter.

2 There's no evidence for the existence of different realities, which each of us experiences alone, and within which we can prolong life, reduce suffering and increase pleasure. Occam's Razor.

I did not say should
in italics or not.
Unfortunately for lovers who wish to be as one, they are fated to remain separate. Not every relationship is that of lovers ;nevertheless it's nice to have a bit of empathy. Unfortunately even the best empathy cannot make two people as one.
I suppose the most obvious evidence for different realities is on the battlefield.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:19 am
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:08 am The physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, deal with this!!
To me the above is obviously moot, a non-starter based and MEANINGLESS re the point that I have emphasized Kant's Copernican Revolution '1000s' of times.
Well, with your advanced knowledge, perhaps you could tell me about how it differs from the common understanding of the relation between subject and object. If it is not the subject that objectives its sentiments of compassion which are the seeds of morality; then how does this come about?
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:19 am
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:08 am The physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, deal with this!!
To me the above is which is obvious is moot, a non-starter based and MEANINGLESS re the point that I have emphasized Kant's Copernican Revolution '1000s' of times.
But the experiencing subject creates both object and representations of the object.
Hi Belinda,

Yes, one could use the term biological readout to underline your point, but I am not sure this would be easier for many to grasp. The object or the physical world as object, is the subjective biological reactions of a conscious subject; that seems hard for a lot of people to grasp.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

[quote="Veritas Aequitas".

These PHYSICAL elements are objective moral facts grounded on INTERSUBJECTIVITY, not on subjective personal beliefs and judgments.

My point;
Whatever is objective [thus reliable] facts is grounded on intersubjectivity within a framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
Objective moral facts emerged from the moral FSK.
[/quote]

The physical world is relative to biology or a biological subject, when you are discussing instituted knowledge; that instituted knowledge has been acquired in the same way. The reason our reality, read apparent reality or your everyday reality appears as it does; is because of the basic nature of one's own biological nature, cold is not cold or hard is not hard but it is relative to the biology experiencing the energies of the physical world. Object is a reaction of biology; this is not to say different biologizes would experience it the same way being different in structure and form, but basically biology is the measure and meaning of all things. Don't forget we can only know the world subjectively and apparent reality is a subjective creation, that is to say, there is but energy out there, not a thing/object. Morality is basically the self-interest of one's own welfare and an expanded sense of self by which we identify with others, and thus compassion for others then arises. One important point to ponder is, in the absence of a conscious subject the world is utterly meaningless, in fact it ceases to be on a subjective level. The subjective being the only level that we can know the world through, the meanings of which the conscious subject then bestows its experiential knowledge/meanings upon a meaningless world.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12244
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:18 am VA has invented the expression 'framework and system of knowledge' or 'FSK'. And this invention obviously assumes the existence of knowledge - of things or facts that can be known.

VA then points out there are many different 'FSKs': physics, chemistry, biology, history, law, and so on. And each of these different 'FSKs' supposedly produces things or facts that can be known within the 'FSK'. So there are physics facts, chemistry facts, biology facts, and so on.
That is why I had stated you are very ignorant, shallow, narrow and dogmatic on issues that matter.

If you have done extensive research, you will definitely come across the concept of Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR].

Listen here re Richard Feyman at 1:40 re Framework of Knowledge;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8&t=96s

Note these;
What is a FSK?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31603

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_framework
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_% ... ciences%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

You have to update yourself on the above [.. I have posted many times] to clear your ignorance.

So there are FSK dependent facts;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
VA knows that there are no astrology facts, alchemy facts, demonology facts, and so on - so that the expressions astrology FSK, alchemy FSK and demonology FSK are incoherent. After all, if there are no things or facts to be known, there can be no framework and system of knowledge within which to know them.
To resolves problem effectively we have to use the concept of continuum to establish the common denominator, e.g. solving arithmetic of fractions and other problems.
It is not wrong to assert '1% black is 99% white' and so on.
So it is not wrong to assert 0.1% fact is 99.9% falsehood or 99.9% fact is 0.1% falsehood [uncertainty].

Since I claimed,
"A fact is conditioned upon a specific FSK"
so, we can say there are theistic facts, astrology facts, alchemy facts, demonology facts from their respective FSK.
Because these FSK are NOT credible and reliable, their facts are rated at 1% fact - 99% falsehoods.
What is critical here is the qualifications must be expressed with the statement.
What is wrong with that?
For computational sake we can say 1% fact - 99% falsehoods, but re common usage we simply state they are falsehoods.
So VA knows that the existence of an 'FSK' depends on the existence of things or facts that can be known within the 'FSK'. And VA rightly insists on the importance of empirical evidence for those things and facts to give any 'FSK' credibility. Hence the high credibility and prestige of the natural sciences, including neuroscience. And so far so good.
Yes.
But then VA goes wrong. Forgetting that the existence of a credible 'FSK' depends on the existence of things and facts that can be known, VA proposes the existence of a 'morality FSK'. And this term, by definition, assumes the existence of moral things and facts, which can therefore be known.
Nope!
As stated above;
"a fact is conditioned upon a specific FSK" without the requirement that the emerging facts must be knowable.
One can have a FSK [framework and model] to determine the existence of a square-circle or God.
In this case, the FSK is so flimsy and not credible that whatever is claim from such FSKs, they are facts [as defined] but merely 1% fact thus 99% falsehood.
And here's VA's trick. Neuroscience shows that (to simplify) humans are programmed with (at least the potential) to avoid killing other humans. VA calls this 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' - which (let's assume) is a physical fact.
But then VA says that humans killing humans is a moral matter, because 'morality-proper' is about the reduction or avoidance of evil. So, hey presto, feed the physical fact into a credible morality FSK, and we have a moral fact.
You are rejecting that above because you are so ignorant.
As I had stated above and a 'million' times elsewhere,
A fact is conditioned upon a specific FSK.
A FSK accepts inputs of other facts to process and enable the emergence of its own related facts.
Example, the legal FSK accepts scientific facts [e.g. DNA, biological, etc. evidence] from the scientific FSK with other facts to generate its own legal facts. It is already establish in many cases of a legal fact 'X is a convicted murderer' where DNA evidence contribute a 90% weightage to the final judgment.
But hold on. The very existence - let alone the credibility - of an 'FSK' depends on the existence of things or facts that can be known. So those things and facts must exist outside the proposed 'FSK'. And human programming not to kill humans is (let's say) a physical fact, not in itself a moral thing or fact that exists outside any proposed 'morality FSK'.
Nope, as argued above,
FSKs need not depend in facts that can be known or must exists outside the proposed FSK.
It is the FSK itself that enable whether a thing as claimed can be known.

As for 'outside' that is based your own dogmatic corrupted ideology of Philosophical Realism which is grounded on your psychological state.
So VA's argument rests on a deep and fundamental fallacy.
That we should or ought to reduce or avoid evil - and what constitutes evil - are not facts, but rather matters of belief, judgement or opinion - which are therefore subjective.
And appealing to physical facts from neuroscience does nothing to change that.
The 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' and the likes are physical facts from neuroscience leveraged upon philosophy, logic and epistemology.
These facts are specifically related to morality.
When these facts are considered within the Moral FSK, they are objective moral facts.

As I had argued, such identified objective moral facts has high utility values that can contribute [as moral standards] to guide the moral progress of humanity, i.e. the Vision and Mission of striving towards ZERO humans killed by humans.

You with your denial of objective moral fact is complicit to;
"PH's Morality: ALL of You Will be Killed Potentially"
and all the immorality within humanity in the future and eternally.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12244
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:19 am
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:08 am The physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, deal with this!!
To me the above is which is obvious is moot, a non-starter based and MEANINGLESS re the point that I have emphasized Kant's Copernican Revolution '1000s' of times.
But the experiencing subject creates both object and representations of the object.
Yes, I agree.

I have raised many threads re the above, e.g.
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12244
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:19 am
popeye1945 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:08 am The physical world is meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, deal with this!!
To me the above is obviously moot, a non-starter based and MEANINGLESS re the point that I have emphasized Kant's Copernican Revolution '1000s' of times.
Well, with your advanced knowledge, perhaps you could tell me about how it differs from the common understanding of the relation between subject and object. If it is not the subject that objectives its sentiments of compassion which are the seeds of morality; then how does this come about?
The reality is, there is only a soup of quarks [or nothingness] without differentiation at all.
At this very realistic level, there is no subjects nor objects.

Differentiation started with the first living cells that differentiate what can be consumed or not, to ensure survival, division or later procreation.
The degrees of differentiation increase with the degrees of evolution of living things, friends or enemies, food or poison, and so on.

The above is apparently subjective because the subjects are always involved. As I had stated this is a truism, thus moot for this discussion.

BUT nature do not allow subjectivity [dependent of subjects deliberation] to rule, thus it generates Objectivity [independent of the subject] in the form of instincts and characteristics which are the same and specific to ALL living things.
Surely you can agree, when your [or others'] instinct is instantiated, it does not wait for your subjective judgment but rather the actions is triggered and done without your subjective permission.
In this case, objectivity is intersubjectivity [.. inter-subjects] via evolutionary forces.

It is undeniable scientific objectivity [also mathematics] is generate the most credible and reliable knowledge at present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
If not what others?

But this most reliable objectivity is sustained by subjects in a process on intersubjective consensus via the scientific FSK [scientific methods].
So objectivity [most reliable] is dependent of intersubjectivity.

Where morality is leverage on sentiments , where did this sentiments originate from.
These sentiments are trigger from inherent moral instincts, and instincts are intersubjective [inter-subject] and they are independent of the individual subjects, thus are essentially Objective [as defined].
Where are the moral instincts originate from?
They are represented by physical elements in the brain as developed and honed via evolution.
These inherent moral instincts can be verified and justified scientifically via the scientific FSK and when are input into the moral FSK, they are objective moral facts.

Btw, yours and all humans proclivity to differentiate between 'objects' and 'subjects' is itself objective, i.e. that instinct exists in all humans, thus independent of the individual subject's feelings.

Try disputing the above point by point?
Post Reply