Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:38 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 5:59 am
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 4:16 pm
So we can have the situation where:
(1) Genocide isn't objectively wrong.
(2) Whether genocide is morally wrong is
relative to individual opinions.
(3) Out of 7 billion people, all 7 billion individuals feel that genocide is morally wrong.
In that situation, how does it make sense to say that "genocide is 'as moral' as non-genocide"?
You are very lost here.
What is crucial is we must define what is morality, i.e. morality-proper and not just tom, dick and harry's morality.
What is YOUR definition of morality?
It is because you did not provide a specific definition of what is morality that you are able to 'eel' and slide your way around.
I had defined "what is morality-proper" a "1000" times i.e. generally as morality-proper is about promoting 'good' and avoiding 'evil'. ['terms' as defined].
Genocide is a moral issue.
Genocide is evil and is to be avoid in accordance to the definition of morality-proper.
That 7+ billion think genocide is wrong is not necessary objective, e.g. once almost everyone thought the Earth was flat.
But such a high majority will give us a very strong abductive clue that there is a high possibility of 'objectivity' on such a moral issue.
What is "objective" must be a FSK-dependent-fact, e.g. a moral fact that is objective, i.e. independent of individual opinions and beliefs.
I have already argued a moral fact is one that is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK, i.e. the moral fact of inherent ought_ness and inhibition in the brain of ALL humans, i.e.
'no human ought to kill humans'.
thus
'no human ought to commit genocide.'
The above is how we differentiate genocide from the moral standard of no-genocide within a credible
moral-FSK.
Note whatever is 'morality' must be qualified to a moral-FSK.
First, hasn't it been clear to you that I don't agree with a single sentence you type? Your views are a series of misconceived notions, misunderstood parrotings and incorrect conclusions that you repeat as infinitum in the manner of a telemarketing script, where you've shown time and time again that it's just not possible for you to go off-script. The simplest request to go off-script is met with befuddlement and condescension, and then you quickly go back on-script.
I DID NOT expect you to agree with what I type.
What counts is whether your have valid and sound arguments on whatever you counter.
Where I said something you find unpleasant, it is supported by evidences and justifications based on what you have posted not like your 'put downs'.
At any rate, morality consists of judgments/assessments/dispositions/etc. of interpersonal (where "a person towards themself" is a possibility), action-oriented behavior that the assessor considers more significant than etiquette.
The judgments/assessments in question are of the nature of behavior being acceptable/permissible versus unacceptable/impermissible, morally good versus morally bad, recommendable versus not recommendable, obligatory versus prohibitable, and so on.
etiquette = the customary code of polite behaviour in society or among members of a particular profession or group.
I have done extensive research on morality and read hundreds of definitions of what is morality,
On the Definition of Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737
Your definition of what is morality above is the worst definition I have come across in relation to what is morality as understood by the general public and academic.
Note for the Yakuza the Japanese mafia, what is more significant than etiquette is to cut off one's finger if one has committed one of their sins.
Your basis of morality as 'more significant than etiquette' is too loose.
The principle with
etymology is any word can have any meaning as long as long as there are sufficient recognition by people, i.e. it is based on popularity. Note example the word 'gay' used to mean 'joyful' but now the popular use of 'gay' refer to homosexuality.
For intellectual integrity sake within a philosophical state, whatever meaning you have for a word should at least be grounded to a specific FSK with its principles, grounds and various means of justifications.
Your basis of morality as 'more significant than etiquette' in this case is too flimsy.
At most, what is more significant than etiquette is Organizational-based ethics [applied], e.g. medical ethics, etc. but that is not morality per-se [principles].
According to my survey, the very common terms associated with 'what is morality' are 'good' and 'evil' then 'right' & 'wrong.' I don't prefer the latter.
I believe 'good' and 'evil' are the most appropriate terms to be associated with morality-proper. I define 'good' as 'not-evil' and I then define 'what is evil' and it must be avoided. I provided the grounds why that is so. In addition I will have to provide an exhaustive list of what are evil acts.
Agreement doesn't make it more likely that we're talking about something objective, because agreement in itself doesn't suggest that we're talking about something that's other than a mental phenomenon.
Yes, agreement [unqualified] does not mean objective.
What is objective is agreement within a specific FSK, thus independent of individuals' opinions and belief but not independent of the FSK [collective of humans].
I had argued what "philosophical objectivity" meant.
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
7 Dimensions of Objectivity – Mathew Kramer
viewtopic.php?p=471122#p471122
Basically what is objectivity is intersubjectivity, i.e. intersubjective consensus within a specific FSK.
I don't agree with your sense of "objectivity" [you defined in one of your post] as things that are "external" and has nothing to do with the subject.