Moral Objectivism: WHAT is a moral.

[Sculptor]

There have been many threads about this topic.
Many attempts to demand that morals have to be objective. None have been effective.

I'd like to ask a moral objectivist, what does he think moral are? What is the thing that makes them morals. What are the things that distinguish morals from other things. What would make them objective - has been asked. But no answer has been made.
The reason is that no one has unpacked the most basic question, by trying to say that morals are.

Anyone care to try?

[Skepdick]

There have been many threads about this topic.
Many attempts to demand that morals have to be objective. None have been effective.

I'd like to ask a moral objectivist, what does he think moral are? What is the thing that makes them morals. What are the things that distinguish morals from other things. What would make them objective - has been asked. But no answer has been made.
The reason is that no one has unpacked the most basic question, by trying to say that morals are.

Anyone care to try?

I don't understand what your questions mean and I don't know how to answer a question I don't understand.

I would like to attempt an answer, but I need you to help me understand the question.
So why don't you give me an example of how you might answer them? Say if we posed those exact questions with respect to gravity.

What do you think gravity is?
What is the thing that makes it gravity?
What are the things that distinguish gravity from other things?
What makes gravity objective has been asked. But no answer has been made.

And I don't want to hear any of the standard regurgitations. Because you are you are going to start talking about matter very soon. At which point - replace "gravity" with "matter" and re-attempt the questions above.

The reason that no one has unpacked the "most basic questions" may be because you don't even understand that the questions aren't as basic as they seem.

[Sculptor]

There have been many threads about this topic.
Many attempts to demand that morals have to be objective. None have been effective.

I'd like to ask a moral objectivist, what does he think moral are? What is the thing that makes them morals. What are the things that distinguish morals from other things. What would make them objective - has been asked. But no answer has been made.
The reason is that no one has unpacked the most basic question, by trying to say that morals are.

Anyone care to try?

I don't understand what your questions mean and I don't know how to answer a question I don't understand.

I would like to attempt an answer, but I need you to help me understand the question.
So why don't you give me an example of how you might answer them? Say if we posed those exact questions with respect to gravity.

What do you think gravity is?
What is the thing that makes it gravity?
What are the things that distinguish gravity from other things?
What makes gravity objective has been asked. But no answer has been made.

And I don't want to hear any of the standard regurgitations. Because you are you are going to start talking about matter very soon. At which point - replace "gravity" with "matter" and re-attempt the questions above.

The reason that no one has unpacked the "most basic questions" may be because you don't even understand that the questions aren't as basic as they seem.

I think the problem here is that the moral objectivists want to be able to answer the moral question is the same way with the same criteria as the question about gravity.
It's not about having the answer to this but understand that whereas you can answer the gravity question by assuming that gravity is a property of the universe and the interaction of matter and energy; morals are not like that.
So why don't you answer your own question about gravity and try to use the same method to answer the question about morality.
Gravity is a materialist property of the universe.
You might also say gravity is the description of the property whereby all material objects in the universe have a tendency to move towards all other objects.
Is that a help?
DO you personally think morals are objective?

[Skepdick]

I think the problem here is that the moral objectivists want to be able to answer the moral question is the same way with the same criteria as the question about gravity.

Uh. No. The point of my comment was to observe that you can't answer your own questions with respect to something as simple as gravity.

But you want an answer for a much more complex idea - morality.

It's not about having the answer to this but understand that whereas you can answer the gravity question by assuming that gravity is a property of the universe and the interaction of matter and energy; morals are not like that.

In so far as you can't answer your own questions with respect to matter and energy - morals are exactly like that.

So why don't you answer your own question about gravity and try to use the same method to answer the question about morality.

Because I still don't understand the question. Neither with respect to morality, nor with respect to gravity. Or with respect to properties; or with respect to matter.

Gravity is a materialist property of the universe.

That's not an answer. I can say the exact same thing about morality.

Morality is a materialist property of the universe.

What do you think a property is?
What is the thing that makes it a property?
What are the things that distinguish properties from other things?
What makes a property objective has been asked. But no answer has been made.

You are just going to keep piling on mettaphysical answers to a question you don't understand.

[Sculptor]

Whereof you cannot speak thereof you ought to remain silent.

[Skepdick]

Whereof you cannot speak thereof you ought to remain silent.

I know. And yet you spoke a question which had presupposition you clearly cannot speak of.

[Sculptor]

Whereof you cannot speak thereof you ought to remain silent.

I know. And yet you spoke a question which had presupposition you clearly cannot speak of.

Grammar please

[popeye1945]

Morals are the sensiabilties of conscious organisms in their ability to see themselves in the selves in others as being able to suffer in like kind, evoking compassion for the suffering of fellow creatures. This is an entirely subjective realization, its concepts later made manifest in the physical world which in itself is utterly meaningless in the absence of consciousness.