The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

[Terrapin Station]

The fundamental of 'well-being' is to survive well.

So re this stuff being an opinion, the above is the case per what? Would you say something other than opinion/other than choices about how to use the term "well-being" etc.?

How can the need to survive by all human [till inevitable mortality] be matters of opinion.

Needs hinge on wants/desires. There are no needs aside from that, unless you're simply talking about preconditions, but when we're talking about preconditions, preconditions obtains for multiple options. For example, breathing is a precondition for remaining alive, but not breathing is a precondition for dying from suffocation.

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.

It's not actually an objective fact that all humans are programmed to survive--at least not without far better clarifying just what that's supposed to amount to.

Btw, my definition of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.

Which means that if you were to say something like, "That's objectively incorrect," with an implication of a normative--that the person should correct something, you're forwarding the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

100% of all normal people

By this, as you've stated before, you simply mean what's statistically common.

will agree in consensus they strive to survive to avoid death at least till inevitable mortality.

The idea that most or even all people think or do x, therefore x is correct or true or anything like that is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And my definition of dog = cat, we all have our quirks.

You are very stupid!
[lack intelligence].

In the context of the OP, what is objective as intersubjective consensus must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
The scientific FSK is the most credible.

You dog = cat is justified from your stupid asshole FSK,
if not explain your basis of justification dog = cat as objective?

Try again. 'Objective' means that something is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, therefore it's also independent of intersubjective consensus. But of course your defective mind can't comprehend what it means to refer to an absolute.

So you are implying scientific facts, truth and knowledge are not objective?

Scientific knowledge is objective and they are dependent on intersubjective consensus of the relevant scientific peers and there upon the scientific framework and system [scientific methods, etc.] which is constructed by human scientists.
So how can scientific facts be independent of intersubjective consensus of scientists.

I have no issue with relative-absolutes like absolute temperature and the likes.

But I don't agree an absolutely-absolute that is totally unconditional of human conditions exists as real.
If that is your claim, it because of your cry-baby defective mind that lead you to cling on to such an illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The fundamental of 'well-being' is to survive well.

So re this stuff being an opinion, the above is the case per what? Would you say something other than opinion/other than choices about how to use the term "well-being" etc.?

I have already stated a '1000' times,
whatever I claimed must be verified and justified empirically & philosophically within a credible FSK.
As such whatever is claimed within a FSK cannot be an opinion but rather it is an objective statement.

Survival of the fittest aside, the striving to be fit [well-being] is a general principle of all living things, thus human beings.

How can the need to survive by all human [till inevitable mortality] be matters of opinion.

Needs hinge on wants/desires. There are no needs aside from that, unless you're simply talking about preconditions, but when we're talking about preconditions, preconditions obtains for multiple options. For example, breathing is a precondition for remaining alive, but not breathing is a precondition for dying from suffocation.

I have been stating justified true moral facts are inherent preconditions as 'programmed' via evolution and embedded as codes in the DNA/RNA.

Your "breathing is a precondition for dying from suffocation" is very weird and evasive.
No normal human would want to be suffocated because of the precondition to remain alive, thus the need to breathe.

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.

It's not actually an objective fact that all humans are programmed to survive--at least not without far better clarifying just what that's supposed to amount to.

Anyone familiar with basic modern biology, one will understand that.

Note, ALL humans are "programmed" with the potential for puberty which naturally unfolds and manifest after their 'child' phase to be an adult. Do you deny the inherent 'puberty' as programmed and embedded in the DNA/RNA.

It is the same for the not-so-obvious moral function inherent within all humans.

Btw, my definition of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.

Which means that if you were to say something like, "That's objectively incorrect," with an implication of a normative--that the person should correct something, you're forwarding the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

100% of all normal people

By this, as you've stated before, you simply mean what's statistically common.

will agree in consensus they strive to survive to avoid death at least till inevitable mortality.

The idea that most or even all people think or do x, therefore x is correct or true or anything like that is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

There you go again with your rhetorical 'people think or do'.
It is the justified universal principles that I am referring to, not what subjective people think or do.

The ad populum fallacy only applies to claims that are not verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK. Otherwise all scientific knowledge would succumb to the ad populum fallacy.

Note my point above [repeat],
"I have already stated a '1000' times,
whatever I claimed must be verified and justified empirically & philosophically within a credible FSK."

The point is you are suffering from cognitive blindness and confirmation bias due to the fact that some part of your brain are atrophized by some terrible infections from viruses from the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophy.
Suggest you read Rorty's Mirror of Nature to detoxify your brain.

[Skepdick]

Try again. 'Objective' means that something is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, therefore it's also independent of intersubjective consensus. But of course your defective mind can't comprehend what it means to refer to an absolute.

Ah well! Since you are telling us what mind-independent thing mean, why don't you tell us what God means?

[Atla]

You are very stupid!
[lack intelligence].

In the context of the OP, what is objective as intersubjective consensus must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
The scientific FSK is the most credible.

You dog = cat is justified from your stupid asshole FSK,
if not explain your basis of justification dog = cat as objective?

Try again. 'Objective' means that something is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, therefore it's also independent of intersubjective consensus. But of course your defective mind can't comprehend what it means to refer to an absolute.

So you are implying scientific facts, truth and knowledge are not objective?

Scientific knowledge is objective and they are dependent on intersubjective consensus of the relevant scientific peers and there upon the scientific framework and system [scientific methods, etc.] which is constructed by human scientists.
So how can scientific facts be independent of intersubjective consensus of scientists.

I have no issue with relative-absolutes like absolute temperature and the likes.

But I don't agree an absolutely-absolute that is totally unconditional of human conditions exists as real.
If that is your claim, it because of your cry-baby defective mind that lead you to cling on to such an illusion.

Scientific facts / truths / knowledge can never be entirely objective, but they attempt to refer to something objective, the natural world.

Looks like you demonstrated your inability to comprehend what it means to refer to an absolute. Gee, I didn't see this coming.

[Terrapin Station]

As such whatever is claimed within a FSK cannot be an opinion but rather it is an objective statement.

So the first problem here is that statements can't be objective. They can be about objective things, but the statement itself can't be objective.

[Atla]

Try again. 'Objective' means that something is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, therefore it's also independent of intersubjective consensus. But of course your defective mind can't comprehend what it means to refer to an absolute.

So you are implying scientific facts, truth and knowledge are not objective?

Scientific knowledge is objective and they are dependent on intersubjective consensus of the relevant scientific peers and there upon the scientific framework and system [scientific methods, etc.] which is constructed by human scientists.
So how can scientific facts be independent of intersubjective consensus of scientists.

I have no issue with relative-absolutes like absolute temperature and the likes.

But I don't agree an absolutely-absolute that is totally unconditional of human conditions exists as real.
If that is your claim, it because of your cry-baby defective mind that lead you to cling on to such an illusion.

Scientific facts / truths / knowledge can never be entirely objective, but they attempt to refer to something objective, the natural world.

Looks like you demonstrated your inability to comprehend what it means to refer to an absolute. Gee, I didn't see this coming.

I'm also talking to a guy on another forum now, who insists that we should never use conceptual absolutes. I admit, you two seem to share a kind of stupid that I have not considered before. I rarely learn something new, this is quite exciting for me.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Try again. 'Objective' means that something is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, therefore it's also independent of intersubjective consensus. But of course your defective mind can't comprehend what it means to refer to an absolute.

So you are implying scientific facts, truth and knowledge are not objective?

Scientific knowledge is objective and they are dependent on intersubjective consensus of the relevant scientific peers and there upon the scientific framework and system [scientific methods, etc.] which is constructed by human scientists.
So how can scientific facts be independent of intersubjective consensus of scientists.

I have no issue with relative-absolutes like absolute temperature and the likes.

But I don't agree an absolutely-absolute that is totally unconditional of human conditions exists as real.
If that is your claim, it because of your cry-baby defective mind that lead you to cling on to such an illusion.

Scientific facts / truths / knowledge can never be entirely objective, but they attempt to refer to something objective, the natural world.

Looks like you demonstrated your inability to comprehend what it means to refer to an absolute. Gee, I didn't see this coming.

You are dogmatically insisting your woo woo 'absolute' exists thus deluded.

[Atla]

So you are implying scientific facts, truth and knowledge are not objective?

Scientific knowledge is objective and they are dependent on intersubjective consensus of the relevant scientific peers and there upon the scientific framework and system [scientific methods, etc.] which is constructed by human scientists.
So how can scientific facts be independent of intersubjective consensus of scientists.

I have no issue with relative-absolutes like absolute temperature and the likes.

But I don't agree an absolutely-absolute that is totally unconditional of human conditions exists as real.
If that is your claim, it because of your cry-baby defective mind that lead you to cling on to such an illusion.

Scientific facts / truths / knowledge can never be entirely objective, but they attempt to refer to something objective, the natural world.

Looks like you demonstrated your inability to comprehend what it means to refer to an absolute. Gee, I didn't see this coming.

You are dogmatically insisting your woo woo 'absolute' exists thus deluded.

Right, this coming from the guy who believes that the natural world is somehow dependent on the 'human conditions'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As such whatever is claimed within a FSK cannot be an opinion but rather it is an objective statement.

So the first problem here is that statements can't be objective. They can be about objective things, but the statement itself can't be objective.

Principle of Charity?

I stated whatever is claimed [concluded] within a FSK which obviously have to presented in a statement conditioned upon the FSK and not of the individual's opinion.

What is objective generally is;
: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
The statement of conclusion from a scientific FSK thereby expresses or deals with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
But the scientific FSK is not absolutely independent of subjects, i.e. it is based on intersubjective consensus.

Btw, I disagree with your 'objective thing' as a thing existing absolutely independent of the human conditions as claimed by Philosophical Realism.

[Peter Holmes]

The reason why scientific knowledge progresses by means of 'intersubjective consensus' is precisely the need for objectivity: 'dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations'.

The consensus theory of truth - an assertion is true because that's the consensus opinion - is obviously incorrect. That's not how we use the word 'truth' and its cognates. And words can mean only what we use them to mean.

But here's why some moral objectivists like consensus theory: if an assertion is true because that's the consensus opinion, then a moral assertion can be true if that's the consensus opinion.

It's a lovely con.

[Skepdick]

The consensus theory of truth - an assertion is true because that's the consensus opinion - is obviously incorrect.

What theory of "incorrectness" are you using to make the above assertion?

Any statement can be held true come what may, if we make drastic enough adjustments elsewhere in the system

That's not how we use the word 'truth' and its cognates. And words can mean only what we use them to mean.

And what are "we" using the word "truth" to mean? Your can't really answer that without pre-supposing normative use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

[Veritas Aequitas]

The reason why scientific knowledge progresses by means of 'intersubjective consensus' is precisely the need for objectivity: 'dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations'.

The consensus theory of truth - an assertion is true because that's the consensus opinion - is obviously incorrect. That's not how we use the word 'truth' and its cognates. And words can mean only what we use them to mean.

So you will not accept any scientific truths, facts and knowledge at all because to you they are obviously incorrect??
How can you be so dumb when it is so evident scientific knowledge despite its limitations and lack of precision has contributed so much positives to humanity.

What is critical is not "And words can mean only what we use them to mean." This is the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivist and classical analytical philosophy.

You are onto to rhetoric again. Consensus is not the critical factor for credibility of any claim, note the flat-Earth theory, or God exists.
What you deliberate ignored is my regular claim, whatever is truth, facts and knowledge must be verified and justified empirically & philosophically within a credible FSK.
Whatever consensus in the case of the scientific FSK must be grounded to the above bolded.
At present the scientific FSK is the most credible even at best scientific truths are merely polished conjectures.

However scientific knowledge is most reliable and credible based on the following;

The nine main characteristics of science are as follows:
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/scie ... ined/35060

• 1. Objectivity
  2. Verifiability
  3. Ethical Neutrality
  4. Systematic Exploration
  5. Reliability
  6. Precision
  7. Accuracy
  8. Abstractness
  9. Predictability.

The addition feature is testability and repeatability where Science assured the results will be consistent upon the same tests done by anyone.

But here's why some moral objectivists like consensus theory: if an assertion is true because that's the consensus opinion, then a moral assertion can be true if that's the consensus opinion.

It's a lovely con.

You are building straw_men.
As I had stated, you are onto to the fallacy of hasty generalization and branding all 'moral objectivists' or moral realists the same.
My approach is that of moral empirical realists which rely heavily on inputs from Science and the moral FSK is as near-credible as the scientific FSK.

[Peter Holmes]

The reason why scientific knowledge progresses by means of 'intersubjective consensus' is precisely the need for objectivity: 'dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations'.

The consensus theory of truth - an assertion is true because that's the consensus opinion - is obviously incorrect. That's not how we use the word 'truth' and its cognates. And words can mean only what we use them to mean.

So you will not accept any scientific truths, facts and knowledge at all because to you they are obviously incorrect??
How can you be so dumb when it is so evident scientific knowledge despite its limitations and lack of precision has contributed so much positives to humanity.

What is critical is not "And words can mean only what we use them to mean." This is the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivist and classical analytical philosophy.

You are onto to rhetoric again. Consensus is not the critical factor for credibility of any claim, note the flat-Earth theory, or God exists.
What you deliberate ignored is my regular claim, whatever is truth, facts and knowledge must be verified and justified empirically & philosophically within a credible FSK.
Whatever consensus in the case of the scientific FSK must be grounded to the above bolded.
At present the scientific FSK is the most credible even at best scientific truths are merely polished conjectures.

However scientific knowledge is most reliable and credible based on the following;

The nine main characteristics of science are as follows:
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/scie ... ined/35060

• 1. Objectivity
  2. Verifiability
  3. Ethical Neutrality
  4. Systematic Exploration
  5. Reliability
  6. Precision
  7. Accuracy
  8. Abstractness
  9. Predictability.

The addition feature is testability and repeatability where Science assured the results will be consistent upon the same tests done by anyone.

But here's why some moral objectivists like consensus theory: if an assertion is true because that's the consensus opinion, then a moral assertion can be true if that's the consensus opinion.

It's a lovely con.

You are building straw_men.
As I had stated, you are onto to the fallacy of hasty generalization and branding all 'moral objectivists' or moral realists the same.
My approach is that of moral empirical realists which rely heavily on inputs from Science and the moral FSK is as near-credible as the scientific FSK.

Your determination to misunderstand my argument is a wonder to behold. I agree with you about the success of scientific methods, and the importance of objectivity and empirical testability. And I agree with you that any truth-claim depends on a descriptive context.

But you have invented 'the moral FSK', and vainly repeat your mantra that moral facts exist within that fiction - for which you've never produced evidence - let alone the empirically testable evidence you rightly demand.

[FlashDangerpants]

"What result will we get if we measure the charge of an atom?" is an objective question in a way that "is it morally wrong to drown a sack of kittens?" is not.

Vestibule Antechamber believes his "FSK" is a source moral fact that proves that it is not immoral to drown kittens, but anyone who finds that preposterous can just construct their own "FSK" which gives a different answer and it will be just as good Vertical Aquafresh's FSK. A standoff results in which neither FSK can do anything at all to show the other to be factually inaccurate.

If you want to construct your own "science FSK" that tells you atoms have no charge at all, you may give it a go, but experimental results are likely to render that effort futile.

This is why Eggnog7's amazing "Science is the same as witchcraft FSK" in which he claimed wiggly sticks could measure psychic forces from bad pyramids hasn't caught on.