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

KLewchuk
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:11 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by KLewchuk »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:34 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:53 am
Face palm. What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts, which has nothing to do with how many people are involved. One person can be objective, or some, or many, or everyone. And in the same way, subjectivity isn't tied to the number of people involved. Collective opinion in disregard of the facts - theistic belief, for example - is still subjective.
You should "face palm" yourself for your ignorance, shallowness and narrowness of knowledge.

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
Therefore one person [a sentient subject] cannot generate objectivity.

I have also discussed the 7-Dimension of Objectivity [moral perspective] by Mathew Kramer.

YOUR VIEW is that of Philosophical Realism which is not tenable at all but it is very immature bastardized philosophical view, i.e.
  • In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
    -wiki
What is objectivity is generated from within a Framework and System of Knowledge which is maintained via the collective consciousness of humans.
This is what is going on with Science wherein whatever is objectivity is intersubjective. This same intersubjectivity [independent of individual opinion] is applicable to all Framework and System of Knowledge that claim objectivity for its knowledge.

On the above basis, there are degrees of objectivity to any type of objective knowledge as claimed which is dependent on the features of justifications. Scientific objectivity is the standard bearer at 99.99/100.

Here is something on the Moral Objectivity;

MORAL OBJECTIVITY
By Nicholas Rescher

The aim of this essay is to set out an argument for moral objectivity. A
brief sketch of the considerations at issue should help make it possible to
keep sight of the forest amid the profusion of trees. Overall, then, the line
of thought that is being set out here runs as follows:
  • • To validate moral objectivity, it must be shown that an impersonal
    matter of fact (rather than a personal opinion or feeling) is at issue.
    • A key step in this direction emerges from the consideration that
    morality is a functional enterprise whose aim is to channel people’s actions toward realizing the best interests of everyone.
    • This makes morality into something quite different from mere
    mores geared toward communal uniformity and predictability.
    (After all, morality is not a matter of anthropology; it addresses
    what people should do rather than what they actually do.)
    • The inherent generality of moral principles means that they operate at a level of universality that transcends the limits of societal
    variation.
    • This circumstance militates decisively against moral relativism.
    • Nevertheless, general moral principles can (and should) lend some
    degree of support to the characteristic (and potentially idiosyncratic) claims of our own community.
    • In consequence, morality is rooted in the very nature of rationality
    and thereby provides the moral enterprise with an objectively cogent
    rationale.
So much for the general line of

What, then, of moral objectivity? Let us go back to basics.
What is it that makes something objective?
The objectivity of an issue lies in its being a matter of fact that, in principle, can be determined to be so by anyone, because what is at issue is not a matter of opinion or of custom but rather obtains impersonally, independently of what individual people may think
or prefer.

Objective matters do no lie in the eyes of the beholder but pivot on the actual facts.
This being so, consider the salient question that arises in regard to morality:
Would the prevalence of such-and-such a way of behaving among
the members of the community at large effectively conduce to people’s best interests in making their lives more secure, more pleasant,
and/or more rewarding and satisfying?

The matter at issue here is not a matter of what I like or what would
please me; it is not my attitude or my reaction or my own personal
interests that are at issue—or indeed yours or anybody’s. The question is
inherently general, relating to the reaction of people at large, and it relates
not to what they want but rather to what makes them better off by way
of being conducive to their well-being. The question concerns the condition of people in general, not on the basis of what you or I or some group
or other do think about this, but on the basis of what people should, and
sensible people would, think. Specifically, it is a question of what makes
someone better off in terms of their real or true interest—what conduces
to their health and well-being, their security and safety, their opportunities for self-development and self-expression. All these issues, and others
like them, are substantially matters of objective fact.

Accordingly, what renders morality objective is the fact that moral
evaluations can—and should—be validated as cogent through consideration of how the practices being evaluated advance the aims of the enterprise for whose sake morality is instantiated in human affairs. Morality as
such consists in the pursuit, through variable and context-relative means,
of invariant and objectively implementable ends that are rooted in a
commitment to the best interests of people in general. To claim that someone ought (or ought not) to act in a certain way is thereby to commit
oneself to the availability of a good reason why one should or should not

408 NICHOLAS RESCHER
do so—and a reason that is not only good but good in a certain mode, the
moral mode, in showing that this sort of action is bound up with due care
for the interests of others. Whether an action exhibits due care for the
interests of others is something open to general view, something that can
be investigated by other people as readily as by the agent himself. Since
people’s (real or true) interests are rooted in their needs, the morally
crucial circumstance that certain modes of action are conducive (and
others harmful) to the best interests of people is something that can be
investigated and sensibly assessed by the standards generally prevalent
in rational discussion. These matters are not questions of feeling or taste,
but represent something objective about which one can deliberate and
argue in a sensible way on the basis of reasons whose cogency is, or
should be, accessible to anyone. The modes of behavior of people that
render life in their communities “nasty, brutish, and short” (or even merely
more difficult and less pleasant than need be) generally admit of straightforward and unproblematic discernment.

The fact that thievery, vandalism, boorishness, arrogance, and rudeness
are ethically inappropriate is not rooted in some individual’s or group’s
dislike of such things, but rather in the (perfectly objective) fact that such
modes of behavior will, as they become more prevalent, increasingly
degrade the quality of life of the community by creating circumstances in
which the pursuit by individuals of their life-plans and objectives becomes
increasingly difficult.
Rescher's argument here recapitulates the standard mistake that objectivists always make. Here's a key statement from early on.

'morality is a functional enterprise whose aim is to channel people’s actions toward realizing the best interests of everyone.'

This is similar to the 'well-being' goal pushed by Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty and others. And here are some objections.

1 The choice of goal is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective - even if even if everyone chooses it.
2 That well-being should be the goal of morality is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective, etc.
3 The scope of our moral concerns - whose well-being? - is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective, etc.
4 What constitutes well-being or 'the best interests of everyone' is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective, etc.
5 Objectively verifiable consistency with a given goal doesn't confer objectivity ('factuality') on a moral assertion.

Like all moral objectivists, Rescher (at least here) offers a factual explanation for why we have developed and are developing moral values and rules - but then fallaciously assumes those moral values and rules are themselves facts. The fact that we have a moral value doesn't mean that that moral value is a fact - a state-of-affairs that exists independently from opinion, or a description of such a state-of-affairs.
Omer gerd:
1 The choice of goal is actually not a matter of opinion and subjective. That is a false premise (do some research).
2 If someone states that they would rather be in pain than in pleasure; they are insane. Conversation done.
3 The scope of moral concerns is a challenge but not an objection to the definition. This is were "good" discussion of moral philosophy should be. I which we would investigate these areas more often.
4 False premise (see #1)
5 Actually it does. If I want to be healthy, not drinking poison is an objectively true statement.

What is that? Oh, the mike hitting the floor.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4884
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:59 am Rescher's argument here recapitulates the standard mistake that objectivists always make. Here's a key statement from early on.

'morality is a functional enterprise whose aim is to channel people’s actions toward realizing the best interests of everyone.'

This is similar to the 'well-being' goal pushed by Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty and others. And here are some objections.

1 The choice of goal is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective - even if even if everyone chooses it.
2 That well-being should be the goal of morality is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective, etc.
3 The scope of our moral concerns - whose well-being? - is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective, etc.
4 What constitutes well-being or 'the best interests of everyone' is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective, etc.
5 Objectively verifiable consistency with a given goal doesn't confer objectivity ('factuality') on a moral assertion.
As usual you are rhetorical inventing strawman again.

There is nothing wrong with defining 'morality' in the very general sense below;
'morality is a functional enterprise whose aim is to channel people’s actions toward realizing the best interests of everyone.'

There is no mentioned of 'well being' and no indications of any link to Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty and others. If so, Rescher has to be very specific to the views related to Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty and others by quoting their books or other references. He did not do any of those.

Your points 1-5 it toothless and has no relevance at all.
If the oughtness to breathe is for the well-being of all humans, that is not an opinion but evidently and inductively objective.
It is the same with the ought-not-_ness to kill any other humans which I had justified as a moral fact.

If you read Rescher's points above, he provided clues 'morality' is something that is different from the mere mores, i.e.
Rescher wrote:This makes morality into something quite different from mere
mores geared toward communal uniformity and predictability.
(After all, morality is not a matter of anthropology; it addresses
what people should do rather than what they actually do.)
• The inherent generality of moral principles means that they operate at a level of universality that transcends the limits of societal
variation.
thus warrant its specific Framework and System of knowledge, and therefore generates its specific moral facts which need be be justified.
Like all moral objectivists, Rescher (at least here) offers a factual explanation for why we have developed and are developing moral values and rules - but then fallaciously assumes those moral values and rules are themselves facts. The fact that we have a moral value doesn't mean that that moral value is a fact - a state-of-affairs that exists independently from opinion, or a description of such a state-of-affairs.
The main argument from Rescher above is about how 'Morality is Objective' is structured and organized which has to be based on facts.
But he did not argue nor justified any specific moral facts in the above as I had done elsewhere.

The main point from Rescher is what are the essential features to establish the Objectivity of Morality.

I provided another from Kramer re the 7-Dimensions of Moral Objectivity which is the structural requirements but not involving moral facts yet.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1417
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

KLewchuk wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:58 am
Omer gerd:
1 The choice of goal is actually not a matter of opinion and subjective. That is a false premise (do some research).
2 If someone states that they would rather be in pain than in pleasure; they are insane. Conversation done.
3 The scope of moral concerns is a challenge but not an objection to the definition. This is were "good" discussion of moral philosophy should be. I which we would investigate these areas more often.
4 False premise (see #1)
5 Actually it does. If I want to be healthy, not drinking poison is an objectively true statement.

What is that? Oh, the mike hitting the floor.
1 The choice of goal is indeed a matter of opinion and therefore subjective. The word 'choice' is the clue. Do a little thinking.
2 A wholly unjustified conditional premise - and irrelevant in this context. Do a little thinking.
3 The scope of our moral concern is another subjectively chosen premise. And we've discussed it exhaustively here. Pay attention.
4 False.
5 This conditional premise has no moral implication. Try to read carefully.

Thanks. We probably won't be in touch.
Atla
Posts: 3064
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:59 am Like all moral objectivists, Rescher (at least here) offers a factual explanation for why we have developed and are developing moral values and rules - but then fallaciously assumes those moral values and rules are themselves facts.
Isn't it sad that many of those 'objective morality' philosophers get paid for being terrible thinkers, while not really 'contributing' anything else either?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1417
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Atla wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:23 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:59 am Like all moral objectivists, Rescher (at least here) offers a factual explanation for why we have developed and are developing moral values and rules - but then fallaciously assumes those moral values and rules are themselves facts.
Isn't it sad that many of those 'objective morality' philosophers get paid for being terrible thinkers, while not really 'contributing' anything else either?
Yep. On the other hand, I quite like it that academics can make a paltry living doing practically useless work. It's a bit like having libraries - one mark of a civilised society. But I hear you.
KLewchuk
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:11 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by KLewchuk »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:58 am
KLewchuk wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:58 am
Omer gerd:
1 The choice of goal is actually not a matter of opinion and subjective. That is a false premise (do some research).
2 If someone states that they would rather be in pain than in pleasure; they are insane. Conversation done.
3 The scope of moral concerns is a challenge but not an objection to the definition. This is were "good" discussion of moral philosophy should be. I which we would investigate these areas more often.
4 False premise (see #1)
5 Actually it does. If I want to be healthy, not drinking poison is an objectively true statement.

What is that? Oh, the mike hitting the floor.
1 The choice of goal is indeed a matter of opinion and therefore subjective. The word 'choice' is the clue. Do a little thinking.
2 A wholly unjustified conditional premise - and irrelevant in this context. Do a little thinking.
3 The scope of our moral concern is another subjectively chosen premise. And we've discussed it exhaustively here. Pay attention.
4 False.
5 This conditional premise has no moral implication. Try to read carefully.

Thanks. We probably won't be in touch.
1 True, choice is a matter of opinion and therefore subjective. However, I may choose wrongly. I may choose to drink poison, that does not mean poison results in happiness.
2 There are foundational principles that are not conditional. If you prefer pain to pleasure (e.g. sticking your hand in the fire vs not), society will rightly consider you "insane". If we have to define why it is better not to stick your hand in the fire, one of us is insane.
3 If someone shoots me, I cannot choose whether or not to bleed. The subject of moral concern is not subjective, although we may not be able to conclude what it is (i.e. subject to further research).
4. False, false, see #1
5. Go back to Aristotle. If morality is, by definition, about happiness, well being, etc., then drinking poison does have ethical implications. If nothing you write is about ethics... fine.
KLewchuk
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:11 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by KLewchuk »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:58 am
KLewchuk wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:58 am
Omer gerd:
1 The choice of goal is actually not a matter of opinion and subjective. That is a false premise (do some research).
2 If someone states that they would rather be in pain than in pleasure; they are insane. Conversation done.
3 The scope of moral concerns is a challenge but not an objection to the definition. This is were "good" discussion of moral philosophy should be. I which we would investigate these areas more often.
4 False premise (see #1)
5 Actually it does. If I want to be healthy, not drinking poison is an objectively true statement.

What is that? Oh, the mike hitting the floor.
1 The choice of goal is indeed a matter of opinion and therefore subjective. The word 'choice' is the clue. Do a little thinking.
2 A wholly unjustified conditional premise - and irrelevant in this context. Do a little thinking.
3 The scope of our moral concern is another subjectively chosen premise. And we've discussed it exhaustively here. Pay attention.
4 False.
5 This conditional premise has no moral implication. Try to read carefully.

Thanks. We probably won't be in touch.
BTW, I smell something... maybe my dog maid a mess or are you pomo?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1417
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

KLewchuk wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:58 am
KLewchuk wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:58 am
Omer gerd:
1 The choice of goal is actually not a matter of opinion and subjective. That is a false premise (do some research).
2 If someone states that they would rather be in pain than in pleasure; they are insane. Conversation done.
3 The scope of moral concerns is a challenge but not an objection to the definition. This is were "good" discussion of moral philosophy should be. I which we would investigate these areas more often.
4 False premise (see #1)
5 Actually it does. If I want to be healthy, not drinking poison is an objectively true statement.

What is that? Oh, the mike hitting the floor.
1 The choice of goal is indeed a matter of opinion and therefore subjective. The word 'choice' is the clue. Do a little thinking.
2 A wholly unjustified conditional premise - and irrelevant in this context. Do a little thinking.
3 The scope of our moral concern is another subjectively chosen premise. And we've discussed it exhaustively here. Pay attention.
4 False.
5 This conditional premise has no moral implication. Try to read carefully.

Thanks. We probably won't be in touch.
1 True, choice is a matter of opinion and therefore subjective. However, I may choose wrongly. I may choose to drink poison, that does not mean poison results in happiness.
2 There are foundational principles that are not conditional. If you prefer pain to pleasure (e.g. sticking your hand in the fire vs not), society will rightly consider you "insane". If we have to define why it is better not to stick your hand in the fire, one of us is insane.
3 If someone shoots me, I cannot choose whether or not to bleed. The subject of moral concern is not subjective, although we may not be able to conclude what it is (i.e. subject to further research).
4. False, false, see #1
5. Go back to Aristotle. If morality is, by definition, about happiness, well being, etc., then drinking poison does have ethical implications. If nothing you write is about ethics... fine.
1 So, 'True, choice is a matter of opinion and subjective', and 'The choice of goal is actually not a matter of opinion and subjective'. Perhaps you haven't done much of this kind of thinking. That's called a contradiction. (The folly of a chosen action doesn't make it any less a matter of choice.)

2 Morally irrelevant. That we prefer pleasure to pain may be true - a fact of our nature. But that doesn't mean it's morally right to seek or provide pleasure. A factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion. Mental capacity is a red herring here, and I advise you to drop it as an issue.

3 Wtf? A cow cannot choose whether or not to die when we fire a captive bolt into its brain. Whether other species should be within the scope of our moral concern is a red-hot moral issue for vegans. And our opinions are subjective.

4 False, as demonstrated.

5 Aristotle's has been probably the most pernicious influence in moral philosophy. Do some research.
Skepdick
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:15 am 1 So, 'True, choice is a matter of opinion and subjective', and 'The choice of goal is actually not a matter of opinion and subjective'. Perhaps you haven't done much of this kind of thinking. That's called a contradiction. (The folly of a chosen action doesn't make it any less a matter of choice.)

2 Morally irrelevant. That we prefer pleasure to pain may be true - a fact of our nature. But that doesn't mean it's morally right to seek or provide pleasure. A factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion. Mental capacity is a red herring here, and I advise you to drop it as an issue.
You can't even utter two paragraphs without spewing some incoherent bullshit.

If contradictions exist, then the existence of contradictions is a fact.

Is it a fact or a value that one OUGHT-NOT contradict themselves?

If a factual premise can't entail a value-conclusion, please explain to us how you've come to value non-contradiction and why.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1417
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Here is a true factual premise: logical contradictions exist.

Can anyone demonstrate how that premise logically entails a value-judgement?
Skepdick
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:16 pm Here is a true factual premise: logical contradictions exist.

Can anyone demonstrate how that premise logically entails a value-judgement?
You can. Apparently.

Every time you insist that logical arguments must not contain contradictions.
KLewchuk
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:11 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by KLewchuk »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:15 am
KLewchuk wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:58 am
1 The choice of goal is indeed a matter of opinion and therefore subjective. The word 'choice' is the clue. Do a little thinking.
2 A wholly unjustified conditional premise - and irrelevant in this context. Do a little thinking.
3 The scope of our moral concern is another subjectively chosen premise. And we've discussed it exhaustively here. Pay attention.
4 False.
5 This conditional premise has no moral implication. Try to read carefully.

Thanks. We probably won't be in touch.
1 True, choice is a matter of opinion and therefore subjective. However, I may choose wrongly. I may choose to drink poison, that does not mean poison results in happiness.
2 There are foundational principles that are not conditional. If you prefer pain to pleasure (e.g. sticking your hand in the fire vs not), society will rightly consider you "insane". If we have to define why it is better not to stick your hand in the fire, one of us is insane.
3 If someone shoots me, I cannot choose whether or not to bleed. The subject of moral concern is not subjective, although we may not be able to conclude what it is (i.e. subject to further research).
4. False, false, see #1
5. Go back to Aristotle. If morality is, by definition, about happiness, well being, etc., then drinking poison does have ethical implications. If nothing you write is about ethics... fine.
1 So, 'True, choice is a matter of opinion and subjective', and 'The choice of goal is actually not a matter of opinion and subjective'. Perhaps you haven't done much of this kind of thinking. That's called a contradiction. (The folly of a chosen action doesn't make it any less a matter of choice.)

2 Morally irrelevant. That we prefer pleasure to pain may be true - a fact of our nature. But that doesn't mean it's morally right to seek or provide pleasure. A factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion. Mental capacity is a red herring here, and I advise you to drop it as an issue.

3 Wtf? A cow cannot choose whether or not to die when we fire a captive bolt into its brain. Whether other species should be within the scope of our moral concern is a red-hot moral issue for vegans. And our opinions are subjective.

4 False, as demonstrated.

5 Aristotle's has been probably the most pernicious influence in moral philosophy. Do some research.
1. First, we define the term. If we accept a certain definition of "ethics", we are talking about the goal (i.e. happiness). That is ethics, by definition. Then we decide how to achieve that goal. It is this choice which we can get wrong.
2. Not at all; again, if follows from the definition of "ethics".
3. Yes, so getting shot is not great for well being of the cow.
4. You haven't demonstrated anything.
5. Disagree. That is simply an opinion and, like a**holes, we all have one.

So much of this comes back to simply a definition. In other words, what is a simple definition of ethics?

So much of the disagreements in ethics lie in the fact that people use the same word for different concepts.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4884
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

double-posting
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Oct 24, 2020 6:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4884
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:15 am 5 Aristotle's has been probably the most pernicious influence in moral philosophy.
Do some research.
Have YOU done any research on the above?
From what you have been posting, it is definite you have not be researching the subject thoroughly. Note
Wiki wrote:Aristotle first used the term ethics to name a field of study developed by his predecessors Socrates and Plato.
In philosophy, ethics is the attempt to offer a rational response to the question of how humans should best live. Aristotle regarded ethics and politics as two related but separate fields of study, since ethics examines the good of the individual, while politics examines the good of the City-State, which he considered to be the best type of community.

Aristotle's writings have been read more or less continuously since ancient times,[1] and his ethical treatises in particular continue to influence philosophers working today.

Aristotle emphasized the practical importance of developing excellence (virtue) of character (Greek ēthikē aretē), as the way to achieve what is finally more important, excellent conduct (Greek praxis).
Note the bold statement above, how can you attribute "pernicious" to Aristotle's Ethics.

Aristotle was the first Western philosophy to formalize the study of Ethics aka Morality [later].

In reference to present requirements, Aristotle's Ethics itself has limitations, this is why we now have the Neo-Aristotelian Ethics to overcome whatever weaknesses. However, good as it is, Aristotle's Virtue Ethics is merely a part of the jigsaw of the whole encompassing Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Those who were pernicious to Ethics and Morality were moral-fact-deniers of your likes as generations from the days of the Logical Positivists [LPs] with their bastardized philosophies.
It was and still is that moral-fact-deniers like you are striving to stifle deeper research into the roots, grounds and facts of morality & ethics.

It was fortunate that the LPs were killed philosophically [by Quine et. al.] subsequently the research into Morality and Ethics started to flourish again.
At present the research [deeper and wider] into moral facts are in a multi-disciplinary approach, i.e. philosophers plus others from different fields and much progress had been made.

Are you even aware of how the potential from the advancements from the Human Genome Project, the Human Connectome Project, and other advance knowledge and technology can expedite progress in the average moral competence in the future [not now]?
I bet you are ignorant of this point.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1417
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:16 pm Here is a true factual premise: logical contradictions exist.

Can anyone demonstrate how that premise logically entails a value-judgement?
Answer: no one can, because a factual assertion can't entail a value-judgement, such as a moral assertion.

Deductive entailment is the main rule in the logical inference game. There's no requirement to play the game. But if we play it, we have to obey the rules. And a contradiction is disallowed. Which is not a value-judgement about contradiction.
Post Reply