What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

[Skepdick]

which results in having a problem acknowledging mental content that doesn't have a third-person observable behavioral correlate.

Where the fuck did you get that from?

I explicitly pointed out that the first-person mental content which is non-causal is inconsequential. Such mental content is local and localised to you and you alone.

If YOUR moral predispositions don't reify then your moral predispositions don't affect ME or anybody else in any way. In that regard they are as relevant as your belief in God.

The irony, of course is that you seem to think that I am discarding/ignoring your emotions, yet emotions are supposed to be the very things that move us. If your emotions don't lead to motions... well. You are pretty emotionally challenged as far as I am cocnerned.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Even if they were normative or prescriptive that wouldn't have anything to do with morality. It's not as if all normatives/prescriptives are moral.

I agree with Skepdick's arguments above.

Yes, not all normatives are moral, but those normatives that are moral are within what is defined as morality, i.e. morality-proper.

I have defined morality-proper generally as promoting good and avoiding evil to maintain and uplift the well being of the individuals and humanity.
What is 'good' is not what is 'evil'.
What is evil is any human acts [or thoughts] that is a net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and humanity.
The humans killing of humans is evil.
The inherent normative of 'no human ought to kill humans' is a moral ought.

But how are they normative/prescriptive? According to whom?

According the the human individuals and humanity as conditioned by what is inherent to human nature.

The choice of goal (say, well-being), the moral rightness of the goal, what constitutes the goal, whether an action and its consequences are consistent with the goal - these are all matters of opinion, not matters of fact. It's subjectivity all the way.

The fundamental of 'well-being' is to survive.
How can the need to survive by all human [till inevitable mortality] be matters of opinion.
I have argued the obvious, ALL humans are "programmed" to survive [till inevitable mortality]. This is an objective fact that is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, thus objective.

Btw, my definition of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.
100% of all normal people will agree in consensus they strive to survive to avoid death at least till inevitable mortality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Huh?

Look, yes or no, do you think that there is a moral FSK that can verify/empirically justify some moral maxim?

Pleas just answer yes or no.

Yes.

Okay, and name the moral FSK (we're not going to be talking about scientific FSKs at all, you need to NAME A MORAL FSK) that you think can verify/empirically justify some moral maxim. Once you name it, we're going to stick with that one in subsequent comments, so be prepared to name one that you can continue to support for this.

It the Generic Morality-Proper FSK.

I had defined Morality-Proper generally [besides the detailed one] is about promoting good and avoiding evil.
What is good is not-evil.
What is evil is any human act or thought that is net-negative to the well-being of the individuals and humanity.
Example, being killed is a net-negative to an individual's being, so is rape, torture, slavery etc.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes.

Okay, and name the moral FSK (we're not going to be talking about scientific FSKs at all, you need to NAME A MORAL FSK) that you think can verify/empirically justify some moral maxim. Once you name it, we're going to stick with that one in subsequent comments, so be prepared to name one that you can continue to support for this.

It the Generic Morality-Proper FSK.

I had defined Morality-Proper generally [besides the detailed one] is about promoting good and avoiding evil.
What is good is not-evil.
What is evil is any human act or thought that is net-negative to the well-being of the individuals and humanity.
Example, being killed is a net-negative to an individual's being, so is rape, torture, slavery etc.

Okay, so now let's pick a moral maxim--it could be "One ought to not rape" or whatever you'd like--and let's explain how the "Generic Morality-Proper" verifies/empirically justifies that moral maxim. Which maxim are you going to go with? And then you can start explaining how the verification/empirical justification is supposed to work.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Okay, and name the moral FSK (we're not going to be talking about scientific FSKs at all, you need to NAME A MORAL FSK) that you think can verify/empirically justify some moral maxim. Once you name it, we're going to stick with that one in subsequent comments, so be prepared to name one that you can continue to support for this.

It the Generic Morality-Proper FSK.

I had defined Morality-Proper generally [besides the detailed one] is about promoting good and avoiding evil.
What is good is not-evil.
What is evil is any human act or thought that is net-negative to the well-being of the individuals and humanity.
Example, being killed is a net-negative to an individual's being, so is rape, torture, slavery etc.

Okay, so now let's pick a moral maxim--it could be "One ought to not rape" or whatever you'd like--and let's explain how the "Generic Morality-Proper" verifies/empirically justifies that moral maxim. Which maxim are you going to go with? And then you can start explaining how the verification/empirical justification is supposed to work.

The verification and justification process is very complex and I do not intent to go into all the details, but here is the general process,

• 1. Model: Generic Morality-Proper FSK.
  2. The definition of Morality-Proper generally [besides the detailed one] is about promoting good and avoiding evil.
  3. What is good is not-evil.
  4. What is evil is any human act or thought that is net-negative to the well-being of the individuals and humanity.
  5. To achieve the above entails establishing moral standards as guide in terms of what ought to be done and what ought not to be done. i.e. the dos and don'ts which are not imposing rules but standards in this case.
  5i. Each and every good-that-in-not-evil claimed as a moral fact to be a moral standard must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
  6. 'Humans killing of humans' is a critical moral element based on the biological fact, 'ALL humans strive to survive till inevitable mortality, thus ALL normal humans do not want to be killed.
  7. Re 5, the necessary moral standard for the moral Framework and system, re 'Humans killing of humans' is thus, 'no human ought to kill humans'.
  8. A justified-moral-standard is a moral fact within the Generic Morality-Proper FSK.

The above 1-7 is a general process of how moral facts are verified and justified within a moral FSK.

5i. Edited in response to PH's post. I have repeated this point a "1000" times elsewhere.

[Peter Holmes]

The verification and justification process is very complex and I do not intent to go into all the details, but here is the general process,

• 1. Model: Generic Morality-Proper FSK.
  2. The definition of Morality-Proper generally [besides the detailed one] is about promoting good and avoiding evil.
  3. What is good is not-evil.
  4. What is evil is any human act or thought that is net-negative to the well-being of the individuals and humanity.
  5. To achieve the above entails establishing moral standards as guide in terms of what ought to be done and what ought not to be done. i.e. the dos and don'ts which are not imposing rules but standards in this case.
  6. 'Humans killing of humans' is a critical moral element based on the biological fact, 'ALL humans strive to survive till inevitable mortality, thus ALL normal humans do not want to be killed.
  7. Re 5, the necessary moral standard for the moral Framework and system, re 'Humans killing of humans' is thus, 'no human ought to kill humans'.
  8. A justified-moral-standard is a moral fact within the Generic Morality-Proper FSK.

The above 1-7 is a general process of how moral facts are verified and justified within a moral FSK.

Your definitions are empty.

According to white supremacists, good is white supremacy and evil its opposite; and only white supremacy can guarantee the well-being of individuals and humanity, because the non-white races are better off when they have discipline and guidance.

According to male supremacists, good is patriarchy and evil its opposite; and only patriarchy can guarantee the well-being of individuals and humanity, because women are better off when they have discipline and guidance.

According to nationalists, good is national independence and greatness and evil its opposite; and only national independence and greatness can guarantee the well-being of 'our people', because Johnny Foreigner is only out for himself, at 'our' expense.

That many of us disagree with these definitions of good, evil and well-being is a fact. But what actually constitutes good, evil and well-being is obviously a matter of opinion. So the claim that morality is 'about promoting good and avoiding evil' is a nothing more than a yay-slogan.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The verification and justification process is very complex and I do not intent to go into all the details, but here is the general process,

• 1. Model: Generic Morality-Proper FSK.
  2. The definition of Morality-Proper generally [besides the detailed one] is about promoting good and avoiding evil.
  3. What is good is not-evil.
  4. What is evil is any human act or thought that is net-negative to the well-being of the individuals and humanity.
  5. To achieve the above entails establishing moral standards as guide in terms of what ought to be done and what ought not to be done. i.e. the dos and don'ts which are not imposing rules but standards in this case.
  5i.Each and every good-that-in-not-evil claimed as a moral fact to be a moral standard must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
  6. 'Humans killing of humans' is a critical moral element based on the biological fact, 'ALL humans strive to survive till inevitable mortality, thus ALL normal humans do not want to be killed.
  7. Re 5, the necessary moral standard for the moral Framework and system, re 'Humans killing of humans' is thus, 'no human ought to kill humans'.
  8. A justified-moral-standard is a moral fact within the Generic Morality-Proper FSK.

The above 1-7 is a general process of how moral facts are verified and justified within a moral FSK.

Your definitions are empty.

According to white supremacists, good is white supremacy and evil its opposite; and only white supremacy can guarantee the well-being of individuals and humanity, because the non-white races are better off when they have discipline and guidance.

According to male supremacists, good is patriarchy and evil its opposite; and only patriarchy can guarantee the well-being of individuals and humanity, because women are better off when they have discipline and guidance.

According to nationalists, good is national independence and greatness and evil its opposite; and only national independence and greatness can guarantee the well-being of 'our people', because Johnny Foreigner is only out for himself, at 'our' expense.

That many of us disagree with these definitions of good, evil and well-being is a fact. But what actually constitutes good, evil and well-being is obviously a matter of opinion. So the claim that morality is 'about promoting good and avoiding evil' is a nothing more than a yay-slogan.

Your above 'yay-slogan' [Ayer's] is so typical of the Logical Positivists' bastardized philosophies.

You failed again in ignoring my principles which I had repeated a "million' times;

What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Your "according to white supremacists, good is white supremacy and evil its opposite;"
will not pass my above principles as moral facts within their White-Supremacists-FSK.
You are merely making statements and noises but provide no verification and justification empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

Btw, each and every good-that-in-not-evil claimed must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK. I have repeated this a "1000" times in the various posts.

[Terrapin Station]

The verification and justification process is very complex and I do not intent to go into all the details, but here is the general process,

• 1. Model: Generic Morality-Proper FSK.
  2. The definition of Morality-Proper generally [besides the detailed one] is about promoting good and avoiding evil.
  3. What is good is not-evil.
  4. What is evil is any human act or thought that is net-negative to the well-being of the individuals and humanity.
  5. To achieve the above entails establishing moral standards as guide in terms of what ought to be done and what ought not to be done. i.e. the dos and don'ts which are not imposing rules but standards in this case.
  5i. Each and every good-that-in-not-evil claimed as a moral fact to be a moral standard must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
  6. 'Humans killing of humans' is a critical moral element based on the biological fact, 'ALL humans strive to survive till inevitable mortality, thus ALL normal humans do not want to be killed.
  7. Re 5, the necessary moral standard for the moral Framework and system, re 'Humans killing of humans' is thus, 'no human ought to kill humans'.
  8. A justified-moral-standard is a moral fact within the Generic Morality-Proper FSK.

The above 1-7 is a general process of how moral facts are verified and justified within a moral FSK.

5i. Edited in response to PH's post. I have repeated this point a "1000" times elsewhere.

Okay, so that's loaded with problems. Chief among them:

1 through 5i are stipulations and subjective assessments. There's nothing to verify, empirically confirm, etc. there aside from the fact that people are making the stipulations or subjective assessments that they are.

The first part of 6 is also a subjective assessment ("x is a critical moral element" is simply telling us how someone feels about x, relative to what they've stipulated and subjectively assessed in 1-5i).

The second part of 6 is stating a statistical fact. It's worth stressing again that "normal" there is just saying that it's statistically common. The word "biological" doesn't add anything significant to the sentence, by the way. (All dispositions are biological, including the dispositions of those relatively rare persons who do not strive to survive until "inevitable mortality.") Empirically verifying that most humans strive to survive is possible, but it doesn't do the work we need done here.

Re 7, there's nothing that we're empirically verifying here, and the only sort of "philosophical justification" we could claim is that per the way we're thinking about our stipulations and subjective assessments, we're stating our disposition that if something is statistically normal, and namely in this case, relative to what is (statistically) normally deemed "well-being," it ought to be the case. But this isn't saying anything aside from "The people who agree with this have this disposition." Which isn't at all in dispute. The only fact here is that people who agree with this feel that it ought to be the case.

So we've not empirically verified/justified anything here, and we've done nothing to establish that it's a fact--aside from the fact that some people have a disposition--that any "is" suggests any "ought."

[Veritas Aequitas]

The verification and justification process is very complex and I do not intent to go into all the details, but here is the general process,

• 1. Model: Generic Morality-Proper FSK.
  2. The definition of Morality-Proper generally [besides the detailed one] is about promoting good and avoiding evil.
  3. What is good is not-evil.
  4. What is evil is any human act or thought that is net-negative to the well-being of the individuals and humanity.
  5. To achieve the above entails establishing moral standards as guide in terms of what ought to be done and what ought not to be done. i.e. the dos and don'ts which are not imposing rules but standards in this case.
  5i. Each and every good-that-in-not-evil claimed as a moral fact to be a moral standard must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
  6. 'Humans killing of humans' is a critical moral element based on the biological fact, 'ALL humans strive to survive till inevitable mortality, thus ALL normal humans do not want to be killed.
  7. Re 5, the necessary moral standard for the moral Framework and system, re 'Humans killing of humans' is thus, 'no human ought to kill humans'.
  8. A justified-moral-standard is a moral fact within the Generic Morality-Proper FSK.

The above 1-7 is a general process of how moral facts are verified and justified within a moral FSK.

5i. Edited in response to PH's post. I have repeated this point a "1000" times elsewhere.

Okay, so that's loaded with problems. Chief among them:

1 through 5i are stipulations and subjective assessments. There's nothing to verify, empirically confirm, etc. there aside from the fact that people are making the stipulations or subjective assessments that they are.

The first part of 6 is also a subjective assessment ("x is a critical moral element" is simply telling us how someone feels about x, relative to what they've stipulated and subjectively assessed in 1-5i).

The second part of 6 is stating a statistical fact. It's worth stressing again that "normal" there is just saying that it's statistically common. The word "biological" doesn't add anything significant to the sentence, by the way. (All dispositions are biological, including the dispositions of those relatively rare persons who do not strive to survive until "inevitable mortality.") Empirically verifying that most humans strive to survive is possible, but it doesn't do the work we need done here.

Re 7, there's nothing that we're empirically verifying here, and the only sort of "philosophical justification" we could claim is that per the way we're thinking about our stipulations and subjective assessments, we're stating our disposition that if something is statistically normal, and namely in this case, relative to what is (statistically) normally deemed "well-being," it ought to be the case. But this isn't saying anything aside from "The people who agree with this have this disposition." Which isn't at all in dispute. The only fact here is that people who agree with this feel that it ought to be the case.

So we've not empirically verified/justified anything here, and we've done nothing to establish that it's a fact--aside from the fact that some people have a disposition--that any "is" suggests any "ought."

I have already stated a 1000 times, whatever is dispositions of individuals or groups claimed to be moral elements are not of morality proper.

Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
Personal judgments and decisions made by individuals [in real life or from thought experiments] related to moral elements are not Morality Per se.
These are subjective opinions and beliefs of the individual[s] and they are not moral facts.

If you cannot differentiate the above from dispositions, I'll pass on this.

[Terrapin Station]

I have already stated a 1000 times, whatever is dispositions of individuals or groups claimed to be moral elements are not of morality proper.

Then why are you hinging an argument about this stuff on mental dispositions?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have already stated a 1000 times, whatever is dispositions of individuals or groups claimed to be moral elements are not of morality proper.

Then why are you hinging an argument about this stuff on mental dispositions?

Where did I hinge on mental disposition, e.g. personal feelings and their expressions.

What I am hinging on are the roots and sources re the mental states and neural correlates that are represented by their specific neuronal referents. It something like Epistemological Naturalism.

You are stuck with very archaic philosophical thoughts of the classical analytic philosophy re Behaviourism which Rorty was condemning in his Mirror of Nature [suggest you read this book].
Behaviorism is now dumped into the recycle bin of Philosophy since the advance of realistic neurosciences, cognitive science, neuropsychology, evolutionary psychology which can be easily translated to things of good use for humanity.

[Skepdick]

Then why are you hinging an argument about this stuff on mental dispositions?

Are you implying that arguments OUGHT NOT be hinged on mental dispositions?

Man, you are so full of oughts but you can never derive any!

[Terrapin Station]

I have already stated a 1000 times, whatever is dispositions of individuals or groups claimed to be moral elements are not of morality proper.

Then why are you hinging an argument about this stuff on mental dispositions?

Where did I hinge on mental disposition, e.g. personal feelings and their expressions.

As I explained above, for example:

"1 through 5i are stipulations and subjective assessments. There's nothing to verify, empirically confirm, etc. there aside from the fact that people are making the stipulations or subjective assessments that they are."

In other words, 1 thorugh 5i are personal feelings/dispositions.

[Terrapin Station]

Then why are you hinging an argument about this stuff on mental dispositions?

Are you implying that arguments OUGHT NOT be hinged on mental dispositions?

Not at all. Veritas had a problem with this right after forwarding an argument that was almost all just mental dispositions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Then why are you hinging an argument about this stuff on mental dispositions?

Where did I hinge on mental disposition, e.g. personal feelings and their expressions.

As I explained above, for example:

"1 through 5i are stipulations and subjective assessments. There's nothing to verify, empirically confirm, etc. there aside from the fact that people are making the stipulations or subjective assessments that they are."

In other words, 1 thorugh 5i are personal feelings/dispositions.

• 5i. Each and every good-that-is-not-evil claimed as a moral fact to be a moral standard must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

5i is verified and justified to the respective physical referents, i.e. the corresponding neural correlates.
My 51i reinforces 1-4.

I have already argued a "1000" times whatever is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK [moral in this case] are not personal feelings/disposition.
For example it is verified and justified within the Biology FSK, "all humans ought to breathe else they die" is a fact and not personal feelings/dispositions.

That Biden is the 46th President of the USA is a fact within the US-Political FSK.
It is a fact but only a political fact within a political FSK, even though appx 50% of voters did not vote for him.
But the US-Political FSK don't give a damn about that, because its constitution declared Biden the 46th President of the USA and that is a political fact and that is independent of individuals and groups opinions and beliefs.
Do you deny 46th President of the USA is a political fact.

As such, my 5i which is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK is a moral fact independent of any individuals or group's opinion and beliefs.

Btw, you should provide references to your views, i.e. such and such philosopher of such philosophical tradition views said this or that which do not agree with my views.

When you do that, you will find all your supporting theories are based on the bastardized philosophies inherited from the defunct logical positivists and classical analytic philosophy.
This is what Rorty had debunked in his Mirror of Nature, so has other philosophers who had killed classical analytic philosophy but you are so ignorant of its demise.