Syllogism: Morality is an Objective Fact

[popeye1945]

There is nothing in the world that has an objective existence in and of itself, for all meanings are of subjective experience.

I agree with the above, i.e. "there is nothing in the world that has an objective-existence-in-and-of-itself.
Actually, there is nothing and there is no thing-in-itself, i.e. there are no things that exist in, of, or by themselves.

All things and of reality are ultimately subjective; there are two main types of subjectivity, i.e.

• 1. Personal subjectivity re a single subject in terms of opinions and beliefs.
  
  2. Interpersonal subjectivity, i.e. intersubjectivity consensus re subjects that support objectivity where a Framework and System of Reality is taken into account.

I believe there are objective moral facts that are supported by physical elements within the human brain and body BUT whatever are facts are ultimately subjective i.e. intersubjective.

Subjectively, experience is knowledge/meaning, and opinion/beliefs come in as meaning for the subject.
Interpersonal subjectivity is the collective agreement of an experience.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is nothing in the world that has an objective existence in and of itself, for all meanings are of subjective experience.

I agree with the above, i.e. "there is nothing in the world that has an objective-existence-in-and-of-itself.
Actually, there is nothing and there is no thing-in-itself, i.e. there are no things that exist in, of, or by themselves.

All things and of reality are ultimately subjective; there are two main types of subjectivity, i.e.

• 1. Personal subjectivity re a single subject in terms of opinions and beliefs.
  
  2. Interpersonal subjectivity, i.e. intersubjectivity consensus re subjects that support objectivity where a Framework and System of Reality is taken into account.

I believe there are objective moral facts that are supported by physical elements within the human brain and body BUT whatever are facts are ultimately subjective i.e. intersubjective.

Subjectively, experience is knowledge/meaning, and opinion/beliefs come in as meaning for the subject.
Interpersonal subjectivity is the collective agreement of an experience.

Interpersonal subjectivity is the collective agreement [intersubjective consensus] of an experience which must be verified and justified within a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] and the resultant of this is conventionally term as 'objectivity'.

There is no object-in-itself nor objectivity-in-itself.
What is the true real object is the resultant of an immediate emergence of the 'object' as conditioned upon the specific FSR.

The above objectivity is grounded on the fact that the inherent human nature of the realization of reality is generic within ALL humans.

[popeye1945]

I agree with the above, i.e. "There is nothing in the world that has an objective-existence-in-and-of-itself.
Actually, there is nothing and there is no thing-in-itself, i.e. there are no things that exist in, of, or by themselves.

All things and reality are ultimately subjective; there are two main types of subjectivity, i.e.

• 1. Personal subjectivity re a single subject in terms of opinions and beliefs.
  
  2. Interpersonal subjectivity, i.e. intersubjectivity consensus re subjects that support objectivity where a Framework and System of Reality is taken into account.

I believe there are objective moral facts that are supported by physical elements within the human brain and body BUT whatever are facts are ultimately subjective i.e. intersubjective.

Subjectively, experience is knowledge/meaning, and opinion/beliefs come in as meaning for the subject.
Interpersonal subjectivity is the collective agreement of an experience.

Interpersonal subjectivity is the collective agreement [intersubjective consensus] of an experience which must be verified and justified within a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] and the resultant of this is conventionally term as 'objectivity'.

The system of reality is subject and object in unison with the subject holding the property of experience/knowledge/meaning the world is objectively meaningless, in the absence of a conscious subject. All meanings the subject applies to the world are biological experiences thus the meanings attributed to the physical are but biological readouts of the physical world.

There is no object-in-itself nor objectivity-in-itself.
What is the true real object is the resultant of an immediate emergence of the 'object' as conditioned upon the specific FSR
The above objectivity is grounded in the fact that the inherent human nature of the realization of reality is generic within ALL humans.
[/quote]

I have an expanded view of Spinoza's statement that we come to know the world as object/s through the objects making alterations to the physical body, the physical body being the mind's first idea. I think that it is the energies of the cosmos making alterations to our body/biology processed through the perception and understanding of the organism/body that creates said objects, So, in effect there are only objects to living organisms they do not exist in and of themselves, but exist in relativity to the organism/body as biological readouts, this is true I believe of all organisms.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Subjectively, experience is knowledge/meaning, and opinion/beliefs come in as meaning for the subject.
Interpersonal subjectivity is the collective agreement of an experience.

Interpersonal subjectivity is the collective agreement [intersubjective consensus] of an experience which must be verified and justified within a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] and the resultant of this is conventionally term as 'objectivity'.

The system of reality is subject and object in unison with the subject holding the property of experience/knowledge/meaning the world is objectively meaningless, in the absence of a conscious subject. All meanings the subject applies to the world are biological experiences thus the meanings attributed to the physical are but biological readouts of the physical world.

There is no object-in-itself nor objectivity-in-itself.
What is the true real object is the resultant of an immediate emergence of the 'object' as conditioned upon the specific FSR
The above objectivity is grounded in the fact that the inherent human nature of the realization of reality is generic within ALL humans.

I have an expanded view of Spinoza's statement that we come to know the world as object/s through the objects making alterations to the physical body, the physical body being the mind's first idea.
I think that it is the energies of the cosmos making alterations to our body/biology processed through the perception and understanding of the organism/body that creates said objects,
So, in effect there are only objects to living organisms they do not exist in and of themselves, but exist in relativity to the organism/body as biological readouts, this is true I believe of all organisms.

Looks like we had talked pass each other.

To clarify:

Philosophically your the energies of the cosmos would be regarded as 'object' in the widest sense as I had taken it to be; if not then we can group it under 'things' which cover all things physical as defined within Physics and philosophy, i.e.

In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

There is no things-in-themselves thus including "the energies of the cosmos" you had postulated.

Thus, your "the energies of the cosmos" "making alterations to our body/biology processed through the perception and understanding of the organism/body that creates said objects"
is regarded as a thing and it is ultimately subjective.

As such, we have something like;
"the energies of the cosmos -> Body [subject] -> object"
This whole lot in red is ultimately subjective.

This would seem odd, because in the above the "the energies of the cosmos" preceded the 'subject' so you would question how can it be subjective?

Kant in his CPR -as a whole argument- demonstrated how it is ultimately subjective despite the above. The "the energies of the cosmos" as the final, first or ultimate cause is an illusion.

Ultimately the resolution is psychological not epistemological.

You mentioned Spinoza [the immanent source], if I am not mistaken you are also onto to Schopenhauer's WILL underlying all of reality.
Ultimately what drove Spinoza and Schopenhauer to their conclusion to conclude it as real when it is an illusion is psychological.

Note Kant highlighted this;

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397

In fact all those German Idealists who came after Kant, succumbed and fell back to grasp the illusion that there is an ultimate cause, e.g. Hegel's Absolute, Schopenhauer's WILL and so on. This epistemological failure is psychological.

[popeye1945]

Things are energies that have manifested for the organism as objects, much of the energies out there are not sensed by any organism. That which cannot be sensed cannot be considered a thing. Apparent reality is said to be the world of things, ultimate reality is said to be a place of no things, unmanifest energies are not objects/things. The only way we can know the world is as a subjective manifestation and this is the world of energies manifested as objects. One substance monism makes perfect sense, if the substance is energy that manifests in and out of itself into a subjective world of objects. According to modern physics, all is energy. "The energies of the cosmos preceded the subject this seems odd." No not really, for in the absence of a conscious subject there is nothing just as in the absence of the world as an object there could be no consciousness. Apparent reality is the interdependence of subject and object, or as Schopenhauer put it, subject and object stand or fall together. All is energy, all is subjective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Things are energies that have manifested for the organism as objects, much of the energies out there are not sensed by any organism. That which cannot be sensed cannot be considered a thing.

Apparent reality is said to be the world of things, ultimate reality is said to be a place of no things, unmanifest energies are not objects/things.

The only way we can know the world is as a subjective manifestation and this is the world of energies manifested as objects. One substance monism makes perfect sense, if the substance is energy that manifests in and out of itself into a subjective world of objects.

According to modern physics, all is energy. "The energies of the cosmos preceded the subject this seems odd."
No not really, for in the absence of a conscious subject there is nothing just as in the absence of the world as an object there could be no consciousness.
Apparent reality is the interdependence of subject and object, or as Schopenhauer put it, subject and object stand or fall together.
All is energy, all is subjective.

You stated "all is subjective" which I agree in a way, but I qualify, all is absolutely-ultimately subjective, i.e. "all is subjective" is ultimately subjective.

I agree with this;
"or in the absence of a conscious subject there is nothing just as in the absence of the world as an object there could be no consciousness."
In other worlds, if there are no humans, then, there is nothing.
Thus whatever is something is conditioned upon your existence and the existence of humans collectively.

My point has been,
despite the above, there is objectivity which is subjected to the above subjectivity.
As such this objectivity is not absolute but conditional upon the above principle.
But you keep denouncing there is no 'objectivity'.
I presume your are referring to absolute objectivity while I am referring to relative objectivity.

Now what I am dealing with is objectivity within subjectivity which is relative objectivity i.e. conditioned upon ultimate subjectivity.

[popeye1945]

You stated "all is subjective" which I agree with in a way, but I qualify, all is absolutely-ultimately subjective, i.e. "all is subjective" is ultimately subjective. I agree with this;
"Or in the absence of a conscious subject there is nothing just as in the absence of the world as an object there could be no consciousness."
In other words, if there are no humans, then, there is nothing.
Thus, whatever is something is conditioned upon your existence and the existence of humans collectively.

My point has been,
Despite the above, there is objectivity which is subjected to the above subjectivity.
As such this objectivity is not absolute but conditional upon the above principle.
But you keep denouncing there is no 'objectivity'.
I presume you are referring to absolute objectivity while I am referring to relative objectivity.
Now what I am dealing with is objectivity within subjectivity which is relative objectivity i.e. conditioned upon ultimate subjectivity.

No there is no in a way, subjectively is the only way we know the world, apparent reality is the energies sensed and conditioned by biology as a biological readout of what is. Yes, apparent reality as opposed to ultimate reality is the energies sensed by biological organisms as a biological readout, much like numbers put into a calculator to find a total sum. There is no such thing as objectivity for apparent reality is a reactionary manifestation of biological experience of the energies present. Yes, people tend to think that we experience what it is and nothing else and this is what they call objective reality. As I've stated before, apparent reality is a biological response, a reaction to physical energies as their effect upon one's biology.

[popeye1945]

You stated "all is subjective" which I agree with in a way, but I qualify, all is absolutely-ultimately subjective, i.e. "all is subjective" is ultimately subjective. I agree with this;
"Or in the absence of a conscious subject there is nothing just as in the absence of the world as an object there could be no consciousness."
In other words, if there are no humans, then, there is nothing.
Thus, whatever is something is conditioned upon your existence and the existence of humans collectively.

My point has been,
Despite the above, there is objectivity which is subjected to the above subjectivity.
As such this objectivity is not absolute but conditional upon the above principle.
But you keep denouncing there is no 'objectivity'.
I presume you are referring to absolute objectivity while I am referring to relative objectivity.
Now what I am dealing with is objectivity within subjectivity which is relative objectivity i.e. conditioned upon ultimate subjectivity.

No there is no in a way, subjectively is the only way we know the world, apparent reality is the energies sensed and conditioned by biology as a biological readout of what is. Yes, apparent reality as opposed to ultimate reality is the energies sensed by biological organisms as a biological readout, much like numbers put into a calculator to find a total sum. There is no such thing as objectivity for apparent reality is a reactionary manifestation of biological experience of the energies present. Yes, people tend to think that we experience what it is and nothing else and this is what they call objective reality. As I've stated before, apparent reality is a biological response, a reaction to physical energies as their effect upon one's biology.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You stated "all is subjective" which I agree with in a way, but I qualify, all is absolutely-ultimately subjective, i.e. "all is subjective" is ultimately subjective. I agree with this;
"Or in the absence of a conscious subject there is nothing just as in the absence of the world as an object there could be no consciousness."
In other words, if there are no humans, then, there is nothing.
Thus, whatever is something is conditioned upon your existence and the existence of humans collectively.

My point has been,
Despite the above, there is objectivity which is subjected to the above subjectivity.
As such this objectivity is not absolute but conditional upon the above principle.
But you keep denouncing there is no 'objectivity'.
I presume you are referring to absolute objectivity while I am referring to relative objectivity.
Now what I am dealing with is objectivity within subjectivity which is relative objectivity i.e. conditioned upon ultimate subjectivity.

No there is no in a way, subjectively is the only way we know the world, apparent reality is the energies sensed and conditioned by biology as a biological readout of what is. Yes, apparent reality as opposed to ultimate reality is the energies sensed by biological organisms as a biological readout, much like numbers put into a calculator to find a total sum. There is no such thing as objectivity for apparent reality is a reactionary manifestation of biological experience of the energies present. Yes, people tend to think that we experience what it is and nothing else and this is what they call objective reality. As I've stated before, apparent reality is a biological response, a reaction to physical energies as their effect upon one's biology.

The point is;

I believe there is relative-objectivity within ultimate-subjectivity.
As such I agree with the general view that scientific knowledge is objective [relatively] as subsumed within ultimate subjectivity i.e. intersubjectivity.

Whilst the following are ultimately subjective, there is no denying for the majority,
That Biden is the 46th President of the USA is objective knowledge [political].
That Harnaaz Sandhu was crowned Miss Universe 2021 is objective [beauty contest].
That the US Dollar is the official currency of the United States, is real and objective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar
note this thread; viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31448

You on the other hand do not believe 'objectivity' can be related to any knowledge at all with no consideration for any disambiguation nor Principle of Charity.

I have asked many times;
Do you believe scientific knowledge is objective? Yes or No.
Only a 'yes' or 'no' and whatever your answer, that will settle the discussion.

[popeye1945]

You stated "all is subjective" which I agree with in a way, but I qualify, all is absolutely-ultimately subjective, i.e. "all is subjective" is ultimately subjective. I agree with this;
"Or in the absence of a conscious subject there is nothing just as in the absence of the world as an object there could be no consciousness."
In other words, if there are no humans, then, there is nothing.
Thus, whatever is something is conditioned upon your existence and the existence of humans collectively.

My point has been,
Despite the above, there is objectivity which is subjected to the above subjectivity.
As such this objectivity is not absolute but conditional upon the above principle.
But you keep denouncing there is no 'objectivity'.
I presume you are referring to absolute objectivity while I am referring to relative objectivity.
Now what I am dealing with is objectivity within subjectivity which is relative objectivity i.e. conditioned upon ultimate subjectivity.

No there is no in a way, subjectively is the only way we know the world, apparent reality is the energies sensed and conditioned by biology as a biological readout of what is. Yes, apparent reality as opposed to ultimate reality is the energies sensed by biological organisms as a biological readout, much like numbers put into a calculator to find a total sum. There is no such thing as objectivity for apparent reality is a reactionary manifestation of biological experience of the energies present. Yes, people tend to think that we experience what it is and nothing else and this is what they call objective reality. As I've stated before, apparent reality is a biological response, a reaction to physical energies as their effect upon one's biology.

The point is;

I believe there is relative-objectivity within ultimate-subjectivity.
As such I agree with the general view that scientific knowledge is objective [relatively] as subsumed within ultimate subjectivity i.e. intersubjectivity.

The world is known to you subjectively and the thought is that this knowledge, the property of a conscious subject, is about the physical world. This is only partially true in that what is really out there is conditioned by the nature of your own being, it is a biological readout and thus true to the biology that is experiencing it. This is why it is called apparent reality as opposed to ultimate reality, ultimate reality being what it truly is in and of itself and this the physicists tell us is simply a world of no things, a world of pure energies.

Whilst the following are ultimately subjective, there is no denying for the majority,
That Biden is the 46th President of the USA is objective knowledge [political].
That Harnaaz Sandhu was crowned Miss Universe 2021 is objective [ beauty contest].
That the US Dollar is the official currency of the United States, is real and objective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar. [/quote]

Yes, but you must remember that all knowledge about the physical world is subjective knowledge, there simply is no other kind of knowledge. As is the case with all factual information, it is true that biology experiences it, thus all the above is thought to be objective but the knowledge of anything is subjective, knowledge is relative to the state of one's biology, all things are relative to the experience of them, thus to the utterly ignorant it is meaningless babble. Apparent reality is a reactionary manifestation of the energies the conscious subject is subjected to, and things are real in the way they affect the subject's body and understanding, this is what is called objectively real.

note this thread; viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31448

You on the other hand do not believe 'objectivity' can be related to any knowledge at all with no consideration for any disambiguation nor Principle of Charity. I have asked many times;
Do you believe scientific knowledge is objective? Yes or No.
Only a 'yes' or 'no' and whatever your answer, that will settle the discussion.
[/quote]

You cannot dictate what a person's response should be, nevertheless, I think if you can understand what I have already said it answered your question. The object is the experience of one's biology but all knowledge of a said object is the property of a conscious subject. There is no way of proving that the said object is independent for its existence from the biology that experiences it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No there is no in a way, subjectively is the only way we know the world, apparent reality is the energies sensed and conditioned by biology as a biological readout of what is. Yes, apparent reality as opposed to ultimate reality is the energies sensed by biological organisms as a biological readout, much like numbers put into a calculator to find a total sum. There is no such thing as objectivity for apparent reality is a reactionary manifestation of biological experience of the energies present. Yes, people tend to think that we experience what it is and nothing else and this is what they call objective reality. As I've stated before, apparent reality is a biological response, a reaction to physical energies as their effect upon one's biology.

The point is;

I believe there is relative-objectivity within ultimate-subjectivity.
As such I agree with the general view that scientific knowledge is objective [relatively] as subsumed within ultimate subjectivity i.e. intersubjectivity.

The world is known to you subjectively and the thought is that this knowledge, the property of a conscious subject, is about the physical world. This is only partially true in that what is really out there is conditioned by the nature of your own being, it is a biological readout and thus true to the biology that is experiencing it. This is why it is called apparent reality as opposed to ultimate reality, ultimate reality being what it truly is in and of itself and this the physicists tell us is simply a world of no things, a world of pure energies.

Whilst the following are ultimately subjective, there is no denying for the majority,
That Biden is the 46th President of the USA is objective knowledge [political].
That Harnaaz Sandhu was crowned Miss Universe 2021 is objective [ beauty contest].
That the US Dollar is the official currency of the United States, is real and objective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar.

Yes, but you must remember that all knowledge about the physical world is subjective knowledge, there simply is no other kind of knowledge. As is the case with all factual information, it is true that biology experiences it, thus all the above is thought to be objective but the knowledge of anything is subjective, knowledge is relative to the state of one's biology, all things are relative to the experience of them, thus to the utterly ignorant it is meaningless babble. Apparent reality is a reactionary manifestation of the energies the conscious subject is subjected to, and things are real in the way they affect the subject's body and understanding, this is what is called objectively real.

note this thread; viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31448

You on the other hand do not believe 'objectivity' can be related to any knowledge at all with no consideration for any disambiguation nor Principle of Charity. I have asked many times;
Do you believe scientific knowledge is objective? Yes or No.
Only a 'yes' or 'no' and whatever your answer, that will settle the discussion.

You cannot dictate what a person's response should be, nevertheless, I think if you can understand what I have already said it answered your question.
The object is the experience of one's biology but all knowledge of a said object is the property of a conscious subject.
There is no way of proving that the said object is independent for its existence from the biology that experiences it.

You have to deliberate reality from the various relevant perspectives.

From the common sense, conventional sense, scientific sense we can prove an object [things] has an independent external existence from the biology that experience it.
Surely the physical bird on the tree you can see outside your window has an independent existence from your biology.
This can be verified and justified empirically independently from any individual's opinion, belief and judgment thus objective as defined.
Surely we don't dispute such claims of independence and objectivity asserted with the relevant qualifications, assumptions and limitations.
This is empirical realism and is objective as qualified.

The problem arises with the philosophical realist's claim. i.e.

Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.
Realism about a certain kind of thing is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3]
This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.

The Philosophical Realist is dogmatic in insisting the subject or observers play no part whatsoever in the realization of the external things at all.

But to the Transcendental Idealist, in a deeper level of reflection, what is accepted an external and independent within Empirical Realism cannot be absolutely independent but rather that reality is in entanglement with the subject or the observer.
Even Einstein had already given a clue of the observer's involvement in his Observer's Effect, albeit in his case it is not with full conviction.

Then we have QM where the subject interdependence with the object [things] is more significant.

In this case the knower and the known are one as such there is only full subjectivity but there still objectivity [empirical realism] subsumed within this ultimate subjectivity.

The point is if there is no objectivity, the principles whilst intersubjective cannot be translates to standards that we referenced to be useful consistently for the good of humanity.
For example all the standard systems of measurements are wholly subjective but they must be made objective to be useful for various purposes.

So, all knowledge are ultimately subjective but at some level knowledge must be deliberately made objective when processed within a credible specific Framework and System of Reality or knowledge.

[popeye1945]

I have no more to add, live long and prosper!!

[Iwannaplato]

• P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
  P2 Morality is part of human nature
  C1 Morality is an objective fact

Yes, morality exists. I mean, it's already assumed in P2. Morality exists. People think some things (behaviors, attitudes) are good, and some are bad. This syllogism is immaculate.

Fantasy is an objective fact.
Hallucinations are objective facts.
Nonsense is an objective fact.
Wet dreams are objective facts.
Statements that contradict themselves are objective facts.

Just put those nouns into the syllogism and out comes their existence as objective facts.

[Age]

• P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
  P2 Morality is part of human nature
  C1 Morality is an objective fact

Nope. Even if there is such a thing as human nature which sets it apart from, say, dog nature and cockroach nature - and even if it's human nature to behave in certain ways - that wouldn't make it morally right to behave in those ways, and morally wrong not to. Moral judgements are of a separate and different kind from factual considerations.

Facts about humans and their well-being don't and can't entail moral conclusions. Full stop.

Strawman again!
I have stated a "million times" my version of morality is not leveraged on 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of human acts.

AND, what IS 'rightness' and/or 'wrongness' of 'human behavior' leveraged upon if NOT 'personal views or opinions'?

It is very evident and generally accepted as Sculptor stated;
"There is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species; "

There is also NO doubt that the downfall of the human being is because of the so-called 'human immoral nature', or the 'Wrong behavior' of the human being.

As such the moral nature is inherent within human nature.

And what about ALL of the IMMORAL 'things' that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, DO?

Where IS this so-called 'immoral nature'? If it is NOT inherent within 'you', human beings, then WHERE is 'it' EXACTLY?

You don't agree with this obvious human nature?

Do you NOT agree with the VERY OBVIOUS so-called 'immoral nature' of 'you', adult human beings.

After all it is ONLY 'adult human beings, who are IMMORAL in 'this world'.

As stated in the OP:
Human nature is represented by the physical human body, brain, organs, cells, DNA and their functions [programs] and workings.

Adult human beings DO 'immoral things'. Therefore, if we go by your so-called "logic" here, then BEING IMMORAL IS 'human nature'.

The AMOUNT OF WAYS that 'you' 'TRY TO' argue FOR what 'you' ALREADY BELIEVE is Truly REMARKABLE to WATCH, and OBSERVE.

Therefore the generally accepted moral nature of all humans must be represented by physical human body, brain, organs, cells, DNA and their functions and workings which are matter of facts.
Therefore whatever is moral must be factual.

If it was NOT for the Fact that this one does NOT YET even KNOW how DECEPTIVE 'it' is being here, the amount of DECEPTION that this one is expressing here would BE IMMORAL.

Since morality is about avoiding evil to promote good,

Is 'this' an ACTUAL, objective, Fact, or just ANOTHER one of "veritas aequitas's" OWN, subjective, views or opinions here?

then improving the inherent moral program effective will lead to lesser evil, i.e. increasing morality index.
There is no need to cling to 'rightness' or 'wrongness'.

Analogy, if your room temperature is lower than the degree set in the thermostat, that does not result in wrongness.
All the air-conditioner need to do is to work its mechanisms and process to achieve the targeted temperature.
If it cannot achieve the target due to damage, then repairs are necessary.

The same analogy applies to the moral faculty within human nature.

The physical elements, programs and processes within the moral faculty or potential are the objective moral facts -there is no question of 'rightness' nor 'wrongness'.

BUT, there ARE QUESTIONS of 'rightness' AND 'wrongness'.

For example, is it 'Right' OR 'Wrong' to FOLLOW "islam"?

SURELY 'you', "veritas aequitas", could INFORM ALL of 'us' here the 'rightness' AND 'wrongness' here, now, right?

[Age]

...

More importantly...not only is there nothing here that VA has not said before, but it would fit perfectly in the following threads he created....

• There are Objective Moral Facts
  Hume's "No Ought From Is" is Limited!
  My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.
  Copernican Revolution for Morality?
  What is Morality?
  Moral Facts from the Inherent Moral Potential
  Anti-Realists' Fact vs Realists' Fact
  Moral realism: A Defence - Russ Shafer-Landau
  Morality is Self-Driven like Self-Discipline, Self-Motivation.

and it goes on and on, that's just from the first two pages
and does not include all the threads aimed at PH that take up exactly the same issues with the exact same arguments (and yes, also other versions)
IOW VA started a thread for no reason.

But "veritas aequitas" has NEVER started a thread for NO reason.

"veritas aequitas" starts threads because 'it' ACTUALLY BELIEVES that what 'it' BELIEVES is true, is IRREFUTABLY TRUE.

Just like what "peter holmes" BELIEVES is true here 'it' BELIEVES 'it' to be IRREFUTABLY TRUE, AS WELL.

BOTH of these 'posters' here can NOT YET SEE the Falsehood AND the Truth in BOTH of what they are SAYING and CLAIMING here. This IS, AGAIN, BECAUSE they BOTH, laughably, BELIEVE that 'they' each HAVE and are HOLDING the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE TRUTH here.

Did not add to his positions but repeated an argument he has made before. Any slight changes in his wording could be highlighted in one of the many threads he has already started on this issue.