You are ignorant by assuming a 'judgment' must be a belief or opinion.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:44 amEnforcement is not the issue when it comes to moral objectivity - the claim that there are moral facts - that an ought assertion can be objective.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 8:28 am The issue with "is" from "ought" is the question of enforcement.
This is what Hume implied, i.e.
"How the hell did an enforceable ought came out of the blue from a illusory being i.e. God. - Why should anyone comply with this ought from an illusory God?"
However from the secular perspective, the question of ought, is that it is not enforceable.
Whatever ought that is enforceable is not 'morality' per se as in Philosophy.
What is enforceable in general belongs to Politics.
What is enforceable by a threat of Hell belongs to theism.
Show me wherein the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics where morality-proper is related to enforcement by external parties or a threat from God.
Here are two main perspectives of Morality and Ethics;
The Philosophy of Morality and Ethics by default is individual-centric and not based on 'oughts' that are to be enforceable by external parties.
- Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.
Utilitarianism is a family of consequentialist ethical theories that promotes actions that maximize happiness and well-being for the affected individuals.
Any mentioned of theistic morality is merely pseudo-morality because of the enforcement of a threat of Hell by a God.
All moral oughts must be verified and justified to empirical facts and reinforced with the finest [exhausted to the limit] philosophical reasoning.
the agreement to the above can be verified empirically by asking whether each individual want to be enslaved by another as a chattel slave;
- "No human ought to own another human" [re Chattel Slavery]
The individual can confirm the agreement within 1-4.
- 1. the individual him or herself
2. historically - normal person will agree to the above ought
3. literature review -normal person will agree to the above ought
4. questioning one closest kins, friends and associates
5. polling every human on Earth
Method 5 will be quite a task, but not an impossibility.
If we can poll 80% of all human [in the future] that would be credible and the answer is likely they all will agree with the above ought.
Whilst the empirical evidence is not 100%, we then use the highest and finest philosophical reasoning to reason for method 5.
Thus from the above process we can determine the 'ought'
because no normal human on Earth would volunteer to be enslaved by another human.
- "No human ought to own another human"
Yes, there will be exceptions with some perverts which would be certified by psychiatrist as abnormal and not normal human beings.
I had emphasized the above 'ought' is not enforceable on anyone by external parties.
Since Morality and Ethics are individual centric, thus there ought to be changes in the brain to trigger and activate the inherent faculty of morality to drive the individual toward higher moral competences.
Btw, the above changes is not effective for the present generations but only for future generations if we start the discussion to implement effective strategies now.
Whatever facts we deploy to justify a moral assertion - how ever rational, scientific, evidenced, peer reviewed, and so on, and so on - to assert an ought is to express a judgement - a belief or opinion - and that must be subjective. That's just the way it is.
Note definition of 'judgment' below;
- judgment = the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
I had explained and argued,
scientific judgments [knowledge - JTB] which is general accepted as objective starts as subjective opinions [abduction] then they become personal subjective beliefs of a scientist, then it is processed via the Scientific Method and accepted via testings and peers [subjects] review as objective.
Thus a scientific judgment aka scientific ought is not a subjective belief nor opinion but an objective judgment based on intersubjectivity.
Therefore all scientific theories, knowledge, truths, theories, facts are judgment.
Thus if I express a scientific judgment
'All human ought to breathe else they die"
is not a belief nor opinion, but rather that is an objective scientific judgment, knowledge, truth, theories and fact.
I have argued and demonstrated we can derive a moral ought [moral judgment, law, rule] as objective via subjectivity as with objective scientific knowledge.
Despite my proof and demonstration,
your inability to accept a moral ought as justified intersubjectively cannot be objective is due to very blind strong resistance from your psychological confirmation bias.