What is Moral Objectivity?

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

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

What is Moral Objectivity?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Despite numerous justification of what is "Moral Objectivity", Peter Holmes will always raise the same objection again and again because he is blinded by dogmatism and bigotry. This post is for easy reference whenever the same question of "what is moral objectivity" is raised again.

Others can contribute their views on the issue.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:31 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:04 am So, what people want is morally right, and what they don't want is morally wrong. And you call this moral objectivity?
With the empirical knowledge of "what is slavery" and its consequences show me evidence where any normal person would want to be enslaved by another?

Yes the above is justifiable, verifiable, testable, repeatable and which all 'normal' human beings would give their consensus. Thus this is a collective judgment and not a personal subjective opinion nor belief, therefore it is objective.
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.
    -wiki
Therefore one person [a sentient subject] cannot generate objectivity.

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

YOUR VIEW of 'objectivity' is a derivation from Philosophical Realism which is not tenable at all but it is a 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
Whatever fact that is derived on the basis of Philosophical Realism is ultimately an illusion, i.e. there is no absolutely real fact-in-itself. Ultimately [note "ultimately"] there is only fact-by-humanselves. Whatever is potentially an objective fact must be justifiable, verifiable, testable, repeatable and generated from within a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK], e.g. like the Scientific FSK.

What is objectivity is generated from within a Framework and System of Knowledge which is maintained via the collective consciousness and consensus 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.
The above is one acceptable perspective of Moral Objectivity.
However to reinforce greater degrees of objectivity we need to dig deeper into the grounds of the above.

Views?
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Oct 21, 2020 5:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is Moral Objectivity?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Re the 7-Dimensions of Moral Objectivity;

viewtopic.php?p=471317#p471317

As stated for a moral fact to be objective it must fulfil the following 7 Dimensions of Objectivity;
  • Ontological Dimensions are
    1. mind-independence,
    2. determinate correctness,
    3. uniform applicability, and
    4. invariance;
    the epistemic dimensions are
    5. transindividual concurrence and
    6. impartiality; and
    the semantic dimension is
    7. truth-aptitude.
Reference:
Moral Realism as a Moral Doctrine Mathew Kramer
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is Moral Objectivity?

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.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is Moral Objectivity?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:50 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.
    -wiki
Therefore one person [a sentient subject] cannot generate objectivity.
...
Views?
Even a not that complex task, such as understanding the word 'a', seems to exceed your abilities. Here it means 'any'. No, objectivity is not a consensus.

Do you enjoy putting your idiocy on display every single day, or why are you doing this?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What is Moral Objectivity?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:47 am
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.
Same misunderstanding.

Rescher: 'The inherent generality of moral principles means that they operate at a level of universality that transcends the limits of societal variation.'

Even if this is true, it's irrelevant. A general moral principle, such as 'it's wrong to kill people' - even if universally held and applicable - isn't and can never be a fact, because it isn't and can never be a factual assertion with a truth-value. That's not its function.

And I've dealt with Kramer's 7 dimensions of objectivity - metaphysical delusion from start to finish.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is Moral Objectivity?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:47 am
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.
Same misunderstanding.

Rescher: 'The inherent generality of moral principles means that they operate at a level of universality that transcends the limits of societal variation.'

Even if this is true, it's irrelevant. A general moral principle, such as 'it's wrong to kill people' - even if universally held and applicable - isn't and can never be a fact, because it isn't and can never be a factual assertion with a truth-value. That's not its function.
It is a fact as a mental state and condition supported by its specific neural algorithm in the brain.
This is why you and the majority are in a state of inhibition of 'ought-not_ness' to kill another human being. But the potential to kill another human is in you and all humans.
This real existing inhibitory algorithm can be tested by damaging [using various methods] some of the relevant inhibitors in your brain or you can be brainwashed to kill another human. It may also be possible with hypnosis [not too sure].
And I've dealt with Kramer's 7 dimensions of objectivity - metaphysical delusion from start to finish.
You imagined so and you cannot go far on this until you have read his book.
If you'd managed to counter Kramer's 7-Dimension of Objectivity it will definitely be something that is striking to me.

So far in all our discussions there is not one time where you have checked-mate me on my arguments. Most of the time your counters are based on impulsiveness and come short due to ignorance, dogmatism, bigotry, shallowness and narrowness of the relevant knowledge to the point of contention.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What is Moral Objectivity?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:19 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:47 am
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.



thus warrant its specific Framework and System of knowledge, and therefore generates its specific moral facts which need be be justified.


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.
Same misunderstanding.

Rescher: 'The inherent generality of moral principles means that they operate at a level of universality that transcends the limits of societal variation.'

Even if this is true, it's irrelevant. A general moral principle, such as 'it's wrong to kill people' - even if universally held and applicable - isn't and can never be a fact, because it isn't and can never be a factual assertion with a truth-value. That's not its function.
It is a fact as a mental state and condition supported by its specific neural algorithm in the brain.
This is why you and the majority are in a state of inhibition of 'ought-not_ness' to kill another human being. But the potential to kill another human is in you and all humans.
This real existing inhibitory algorithm can be tested by damaging [using various methods] some of the relevant inhibitors in your brain or you can be brainwashed to kill another human. It may also be possible with hypnosis [not too sure].
And I've dealt with Kramer's 7 dimensions of objectivity - metaphysical delusion from start to finish.
You imagined so and you cannot go far on this until you have read his book.
If you'd managed to counter Kramer's 7-Dimension of Objectivity it will definitely be something that is striking to me.

So far in all our discussions there is not one time where you have checked-mate me on my arguments. Most of the time your counters are based on impulsiveness and come short due to ignorance, dogmatism, bigotry, shallowness and narrowness of the relevant knowledge to the point of contention.
1 That we are programmed not to kill another human may be true. It may be a fact of our nature. But even if it is, that doesn't mean it's morally wrong to kill another human. And in the same way, if we were programmed to kill other humans, that wouldn't mean it is morally right to do so. I wonder why this is so hard to understand.

2 You've listed Kramer's 7 dimensions of objectivity, and I believe I've shown why they demonstrate metaphysical delusion.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is Moral Objectivity?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:19 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:29 am
Same misunderstanding.

Rescher: 'The inherent generality of moral principles means that they operate at a level of universality that transcends the limits of societal variation.'

Even if this is true, it's irrelevant. A general moral principle, such as 'it's wrong to kill people' - even if universally held and applicable - isn't and can never be a fact, because it isn't and can never be a factual assertion with a truth-value. That's not its function.
It is a fact as a mental state and condition supported by its specific neural algorithm in the brain.
This is why you and the majority are in a state of inhibition of 'ought-not_ness' to kill another human being. But the potential to kill another human is in you and all humans.
This real existing inhibitory algorithm can be tested by damaging [using various methods] some of the relevant inhibitors in your brain or you can be brainwashed to kill another human. It may also be possible with hypnosis [not too sure].
And I've dealt with Kramer's 7 dimensions of objectivity - metaphysical delusion from start to finish.
You imagined so and you cannot go far on this until you have read his book.
If you'd managed to counter Kramer's 7-Dimension of Objectivity it will definitely be something that is striking to me.

So far in all our discussions there is not one time where you have checked-mate me on my arguments. Most of the time your counters are based on impulsiveness and come short due to ignorance, dogmatism, bigotry, shallowness and narrowness of the relevant knowledge to the point of contention.
1 That we are programmed not to kill another human may be true. It may be a fact of our nature. But even if it is, that doesn't mean it's morally wrong to kill another human. And in the same way, if we were programmed to kill other humans, that wouldn't mean it is morally right to do so. I wonder why this is so hard to understand.
We have gone through this many times. You are the one who has the problem in understanding what morality is about.
Morally is generally about good and evil.
Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.
-wiki
Killing another human is a moral issue re an evil act.
This point is very obvious.*
Therefore killing another human is morally wrong.

* there are justifications why killing another human is a moral issue - not going into it here.

Note Skepdick's challenge,
If killing is not morally wrong, then killing you is not morally wrong.
So why don't you invite him to kill you?

PH: "If we were programmed to kill other humans, that wouldn't mean it is morally right to do so."
If humans are "programmed" to kill other humans as universal potential, then yes, that would be morally right to do so.
But there is no evidence humans are "programmed to kill other humans specifically" as universal potential.
If humans are "programmed" to kill other humans specifically as universal potential, then logically there is a moral potential all human will be killed. It is unlikely such a potential would be an evolutionary feature.

2 You've listed Kramer's 7 dimensions of objectivity, and I believe I've shown why they demonstrate metaphysical delusion.
I have countered your points but you have not recountered them.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is Moral Objectivity?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:51 am 2 You've listed Kramer's 7 dimensions of objectivity, and I believe I've shown why they demonstrate metaphysical delusion.
You have not recountered my points in this last post here;
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:27 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:51 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:01 pm
The claim 'no human ought to kill another' doesn't conclusively satisfy even one of Kramer's criteria for objectivity - not even the mind-independence criterion. Fail.
The above of simply waving off an argument of rigor merely exposed your lack of intellectual capacity, integrity and honesty.
Kramer had 63 pages on mind-independence to explain his point how a moral principle would qualify as mind-independent in all possible worlds.

Btw, Kramer's approach is from the Analytic Philosophy perspective and since you're also of the Analytic tradition, all of Kramer's arguments trounced all of your "Morality is Not Objective" argument [very flimsy].
You are profoundly and, it seems, irremediably confused.

A fact is a state-of-affairs, or a description of a state-of-affairs, that is or was the case. If it's a state-of-affairs, then Kramer's criteria - such as determinate correctness, uniform applicability, invariance, transindividual concurrence, impartiality and truth-aptitude - are inapplicable. A state-of-affairs is none of those, and the claim that it can be is a massive category error.

Kramer claims to specify supposed conditions, criteria or properties for objectivity. ('Dimensions' is an absurdly pompous and mysterious word.) But all he's doing is explaining the way we use the word 'objective' - and getting that wrong. To be objective is to be independent from opinion when considering the facts. That's all. Conceptual analysis of an invented thing - objectivity - is nothing but furkling down a rabbit hole.

When you say this - 'for a moral fact to be objective it must fulfil the following 7 Dimensions of Objective' - that reveals the chasmic depth of your misunderstanding.

A fact - a state-of-affairs or a description of one - can't be objective.

It just either does or doesn't exist. And, along with all other moral realists, you have failed to demonstrate the existence of any moral fact - any moral state-of-affairs. And pending evidence for those, the case for moral objectivism is dead in the water.
:shock: :shock: You are the one who is confused and ignorant.
  • Whatever your definition of fact in the semantic sense, the most credible facts are Scientific facts, truth and knowledge. What other credible facts can there be which is more credible than scientific facts?
    Scientific facts are objective, i.e. mind-independent and independent of individuals' opinions and belief.
    Therefore facts [scientific and others] are objective.

Btw, your sense of 'what is fact' is handed down from the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists who abused the concept of Scientific facts since the LPs believed the scientific facts are the most credible and objective. Note the Verification Principle by Carnap.
Whatever are your fact as state-of-affairs they are reducible and grounded to scientific facts, whatever else to the LPs are nonsense.
And how can you be so ignorant not to know that scientific facts are objective as generated from the Scientific FSK.

As I had stated, the more you try to counter Kramer's perspective of what is objectivity, the more it will exposed your lack of intelligence [aka stupidity].

"Determinate correctness" meant there is only one answer to what is the fact. Indeterminacy i.e. many answers would be subjectivity, i.e. depending on individuals opinions and beliefs.

"Invariance" meant the basic property of a fact remained unchanged - independent from the variations in external conditions. Else there would be subjectivity of the so-called 'fact'.

Kramer added 4 other criteria to his main 7 dimensions, i.e.
  • i. Rational Requisiteness;
    ii. Corrigibility;
    iii. Non-Illusiveness - not illusory;
    iv. Susceptibility to Reasons


I won't bother to explain the others dimensions which if contrary to them would lead to subjectivity.

Suggest you read Kramer's book to make you smarter and not less smart.

Btw, re morality, have you ever checked your back which is full of shit? :shock: :shock:
If you think morality cannot be objective, then morality to you is subjective or relative. Have you ever read the critiques and condemnations of moral subjectivism and moral relativism which are full of shit?
When I have the time I will compile a post to show that moral subjectivism and moral relativism are full of shit.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is Moral Objectivity?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:51 am 2 You've listed Kramer's 7 dimensions of objectivity, and I believe I've shown why they demonstrate metaphysical delusion.
You have not recountered my points in this last post here;
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:27 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:51 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:01 pm
The claim 'no human ought to kill another' doesn't conclusively satisfy even one of Kramer's criteria for objectivity - not even the mind-independence criterion. Fail.
The above of simply waving off an argument of rigor merely exposed your lack of intellectual capacity, integrity and honesty.
Kramer had 63 pages on mind-independence to explain his point how a moral principle would qualify as mind-independent in all possible worlds.

Btw, Kramer's approach is from the Analytic Philosophy perspective and since you're also of the Analytic tradition, all of Kramer's arguments trounced all of your "Morality is Not Objective" argument [very flimsy].
You are profoundly and, it seems, irremediably confused.

A fact is a state-of-affairs, or a description of a state-of-affairs, that is or was the case. If it's a state-of-affairs, then Kramer's criteria - such as determinate correctness, uniform applicability, invariance, transindividual concurrence, impartiality and truth-aptitude - are inapplicable. A state-of-affairs is none of those, and the claim that it can be is a massive category error.

Kramer claims to specify supposed conditions, criteria or properties for objectivity. ('Dimensions' is an absurdly pompous and mysterious word.) But all he's doing is explaining the way we use the word 'objective' - and getting that wrong. To be objective is to be independent from opinion when considering the facts. That's all. Conceptual analysis of an invented thing - objectivity - is nothing but furkling down a rabbit hole.

When you say this - 'for a moral fact to be objective it must fulfil the following 7 Dimensions of Objective' - that reveals the chasmic depth of your misunderstanding.

A fact - a state-of-affairs or a description of one - can't be objective.

It just either does or doesn't exist. And, along with all other moral realists, you have failed to demonstrate the existence of any moral fact - any moral state-of-affairs. And pending evidence for those, the case for moral objectivism is dead in the water.
:shock: :shock: You are the one who is confused and ignorant.
  • Whatever your definition of fact in the semantic sense, the most credible facts are Scientific facts, truth and knowledge. What other credible facts can there be which is more credible than scientific facts?
    Scientific facts are objective, i.e. mind-independent and independent of individuals' opinions and belief.
    Therefore facts [scientific and others] are objective.

Btw, your sense of 'what is fact' is handed down from the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists who abused the concept of Scientific facts since the LPs believed the scientific facts are the most credible and objective. Note the Verification Principle by Carnap.
Whatever are your fact as state-of-affairs they are reducible and grounded to scientific facts, whatever else to the LPs are nonsense.
And how can you be so ignorant not to know that scientific facts are objective as generated from the Scientific FSK.

As I had stated, the more you try to counter Kramer's perspective of what is objectivity, the more it will exposed your lack of intelligence [aka stupidity].

"Determinate correctness" meant there is only one answer to what is the fact. Indeterminacy i.e. many answers would be subjectivity, i.e. depending on individuals opinions and beliefs.

"Invariance" meant the basic property of a fact remained unchanged - independent from the variations in external conditions. Else there would be subjectivity of the so-called 'fact'.

Kramer added 4 other criteria to his main 7 dimensions, i.e.
  • i. Rational Requisiteness;
    ii. Corrigibility;
    iii. Non-Illusiveness - not illusory;
    iv. Susceptibility to Reasons


I won't bother to explain the others dimensions which if contrary to them would lead to subjectivity.

Suggest you read Kramer's book to make you smarter and not less smart.

Btw, re morality, have you ever checked your back which is full of shit? :shock: :shock:
If you think morality cannot be objective, then morality to you is subjective or relative. Have you ever read the critiques and condemnations of moral subjectivism and moral relativism which are full of shit?
When I have the time I will compile a post to show that moral subjectivism and moral relativism are full of shit.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is Moral Objectivity?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:51 am A fact is a state-of-affairs, or a description of a state-of-affairs, that is or was the case.
I have raised a new thread to find out what your 'what is a fact' about,

Peter Holmes: What is Fact.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30735

Explain in detail your "what is fact?"
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is Moral Objectivity?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:51 am A fact is a state-of-affairs, or a description of a state-of-affairs, that is or was the case.
I have raised a new thread to find out what your 'what is a fact' about,

Peter Holmes: What is Fact.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30735

Explain in detail your "what is fact?"
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What is Moral Objectivity?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:50 am Despite numerous justification of what is "Moral Objectivity", Peter Holmes will always raise the same objection again and again because he is blinded by dogmatism and bigotry. This post is for easy reference whenever the same question of "what is moral objectivity" is raised again.

Others can contribute their views on the issue.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:31 am
With the empirical knowledge of "what is slavery" and its consequences show me evidence where any normal person would want to be enslaved by another?

Yes the above is justifiable, verifiable, testable, repeatable and which all 'normal' human beings would give their consensus. Thus this is a collective judgment and not a personal subjective opinion nor belief, therefore it is objective.
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.
    -wiki
Therefore one person [a sentient subject] cannot generate objectivity.
Are .... are you trying to claim that the biases inherent to subjective observation are only a problem when there is a single biased observer, that goes away when there are plural similarly biased observers?

You really have tried to make the word "a" do far too much work for you there.

And your entire argument is as usual a bandwagon fallacy event.





Instead of pointing back to your old arguments in new ones without consideration, you should probably check the old arguments you are repeating and see if they need tightening up.
Post Reply