Syllogism: Morality is an Objective Fact

[Age]

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

Does the CLAIM that 'there is absolutely NOTHING in the world that has an objective existence in and of itself' come from your OWN personal subjective experience?

If yes, is it possible that your OWN personal subjective views could be WRONG in ANY way?

I do not think we are at opposite ends of the pole here; you just want to get into the inner biology of the function of a conscious subject which I take for granted. Anything which is not an object in the physical world and the inner working of the conscious subject is not experienced as an object or objects. We have little experience of our inner workings; we experience the totality of those inner workings as what we are, an embodied consciousness. It is proper to say that our own bodies are objects to be experienced in our physical reality, our apparent reality. Anyone claiming the physical world is utterly objective would be hard-pressed to prove it,

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here, ONCE AGAIN, 'confirmation bias' at its BEST.

What do 'you' MEAN by 'utterly objective', and what PROOF would be SUFFICIENT, for 'you', "popeye1945"?

we can only know the world through our subject experience and subject experience depends upon the state of a given biology.

'our' is a VERY IMPORTANT word and CLUE here.

[Age]

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

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; "

Since morality is about avoiding evil to promote good,
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'.

Evil and good are not objective substances but human concepts with no final definition or dominant consensus.

How do you KNOW that they have NO final definition NOR dominant consensus, forever more?

They are not only just as subjective as "rightness" or "wrongess;" they are synonyms for the terms

Is this YOUR 'subjective view and opinion', or is this some 'objective fact'?

[Age]

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.

So, what does the Universe, Itself, exist WITH, IN RELATION TO, or AMONG, EXACTLY?

you NOT ANSWERING this QUESTION, which you WILL NOT, is just FURTHER PROOF of just how STUPIDLY CLOSED you REALLY ARE.

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 physical elements within the human brain and body BUT whatever are facts are ultimately subjective i.e. intersubjective.

Can you REALLY NOT SEE the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION/S here?

This one continues to PROVE just how CLOSED, BLIND, and DEAF 'it' REALLY IS.

[Age]

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 physical elements within the human brain and body BUT whatever are facts are ultimately subjective i.e. intersubjective.

If everything is ultimately subjective, then nothing is objective....particularly morality

Which IS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

And, one would have to be Truly CLOSED to NOT SEE the OBVIOUS CONTRADICTIONS "veritas aequitas" KEEPS MAKING here.

[Age]

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'.

ONLY to the one here known as "veritas aequitas", as this is OBVIOUSLY just 'your' OWN personal subjective view and perspective "veritas aequitas".

WHEN will 'you' COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND this Fact?

Even the "fsr" is just your OWN personal view and perspective of 'things'. As well ANY so-called "fsr" will ALWAYS only be from the subjective viewpoint of the ones involved in the process.

See, ANY 'framework and system of reality' is CONFINED to the peoples and to the times of the people involved in that 'framework and system'.

So, in the days when people BELIEVED that the sun revolved around the earth, for example, 'their', laughingly called, 'framework and system of reality'
would have CONCLUDED that the sun "ACTUALLY DOES" revolve around the earth. Can you COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND this Fact?

There is no object-in-itself nor objectivity-in-itself.

Which completely and utterly CONTRADICTS your OTHER CLAIMS here.

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.

This is here FURTHER PROOF of how these human beings, back in those times, would SAY just about ANY thing, when 'TRYING TO' back up and support what they ALREADY BELIEVED was true and right.

[Age]

Now, HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE between 'objective facts' AND 'subjective facts' is Truly a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY PROCESS.

Thus, WHY FINDING and KNOWING what IS ACTUALLY A 'morally objective Fact', FROM ALL of 'your' OWN personal subjective OPINIONS about what is right and wrong in Life, is ALSO a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY PROCESS, INDEED.

You often say it is an easy process to work out this or that, but you never seem to say what the process is.

YES VERY True.

AND, the reason WHY I do this, as I have STATED a few times ALREADY, is BECAUSE I am WAITING for only those who are Truly INTERESTED in wanting to LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and/or KNOW MORE.

There is OBVIOUSLY NO REAL USE in just SAYING or EXPLAINING 'things' to those who show NO REAL INTEREST in wanting to LEARN MORE.

Also, I have ALREADY SAID what the process is, (NOT that I am expecting 'you' or "others" to have necessarily already seen 'this'), but anyway I do NOT, continually, say what the process is BECAUSE I want to SHOW just how much DISINTEREST in LEARNING MORE and ANEW existed among adult human beings in the days when this was being written.

For example, if ANY one come on here and SAID that there was some sort of process, which was VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE, and which WOULD PROVIDE ANSWERS to QUESTIONS, then the FIRST 'thing' I would DO would be to ASK 'them' some 'thing' like; 'What is 'that process', EXACTLY?"

Which IS, EXACTLY, what I am WAITING FOR.

I can ONLY 'trigger' INTEREST, I can NOT and would NOT 'force' INTEREST in ANY one.

[Age]

From the VERY OUTSET of this thread "veritas aequitas's" syllogism is as ABSURD AS:
P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
P2 Personal opinions are part of human nature
P3 Personal opinions are an objective fact
Therefore, ALL personal opinions are objective facts.

The MAJORITY of what "veritas aequitas" SAYS and CLAIMS in this forum is just PURE ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL.

I, too, find most of what he says to be illogical and nonsensical. He claims to have read a lot by way of research, but I always have the feeling that he has misunderstood most of what he has read.

And the reason WHY you have 'that feeling' is BECAUSE "veritas aequitas" reads FROM BELIEF, and so has a VERY HIGH 'confirmation bias', when reading, which ultimately leads to a VERY HIGH MISUNDERSTANDING.

Also, and by the way, when "veritas aequitas" CLAIMS to have 'studied' and/or 'researched', what "veritas aequitas" ACTUALLY MEANS is that 'it' has just read some 'words'.

[Age]

Now, HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE between 'objective facts' AND 'subjective facts' is Truly a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY PROCESS.

Thus, WHY FINDING and KNOWING what IS ACTUALLY A 'morally objective Fact', FROM ALL of 'your' OWN personal subjective OPINIONS about what is right and wrong in Life, is ALSO a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY PROCESS, INDEED.

You often say it is an easy process to work out this or that, but you never seem to say what the process is.

It's so easy that it goes without saying.

There is, laughingly, MORE Truth in this than first REALIZED.

ONCE just how SIMPLE and EASY the process REALLY IS is REALIZED, what comes with that REALIZATION is that, ACTUALLY, that process was ALWAYS ALREADY KNOWN, just UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOWN, and REALLY does just 'go, WITHOUT SAYING'.

[Age]

You often say it is an easy process to work out this or that, but you never seem to say what the process is.

It's so easy that it goes without saying.

I have to say I blushed in empathy when Age felt compelled to mention it. To ask him to explain it would be beyond the pale.

SEE, here is ANOTHER example of just how NON CURIOUS, and DISINTERESTED, these adult human beings, REALLY WERE, back in those days.

And, WHEN they ACTUALLY BELIEVED that "another" could NOT KNOW some 'thing', then there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that could IGNITE INTEREST in 'them'.

They would, literally, WAIT, UNTIL ACTUAL PROOF was PROVIDED TO 'them' BEFORE they would SHOW ANY INTEREST AT ALL in "another", which 'they' BELIEVED WAS somewhat NOT 'normal' in ANY way.

I have SHOWN how it does NOT matter how MANY TIMES I REQUEST to be CHALLENGED and/or QUESTIONED OVER absolutely ANY thing I SAY and WRITE here, YET 'these' ones would STILL HOLD BACK.

This one here, for example, is of such A BELIEF that I can NOT back up and support what I WRITE and SAY here that 'it' even BLUSHES, in empathy, of all things.

And 'it's' BELIEF is SO STRONG that 'it' could NEVER EVER even just CONSIDER to ASK for CLARITY, NOR even just some CLARIFICATION.

[Age]

Apparent reality/meaning is not objective, that is why it is called apparent rather than ultimate reality. We can only know the world subjectively and that is the result of whatever is out there altering our biological senses or changing the nature of our biology.

These human beings, back in those days, thought so HIGHLY of "themselves" that 'they' ACTUALLY BELIEVED that 'they', "themselves", were the one/s who OWNED or POSSESSED 'things' like; 'biological senses', 'biology', and even 'the world' and 'the Universe', among MANY OTHER 'things'.

They NEVER even RECOGNIZED that 'they', "themselves", were A RESULT of OTHER 'things' coming-together, and that 'they' were NOT some 'thing' OUTSIDE OF nor BEYOND 'those things'.

This, however, tells us little to nothing of what is out there,

Out WHERE, EXACTLY?

WHERE do 'you' think 'you' ARE, EXACTLY, and WHERE is 'out there', EXACTLY?

it only tells us how what is out there affects us in giving us experience,

NOTHING 'gives' 'you' 'experience'. 'you' ARE the RESULT of the 'experiences' of 'that body' in which 'you' are WITHIN.

apparent reality is a biological readout.

'Apparent reality' is just what is ASSUMED to be real, but which is NOT necessarily ACTUAL 'Reality'. 'Reality' and 'reality' being two very DIFFERENT DISTINCT 'things'.

Objects are particular to biology, in other words, objects are biologically dependent and consciousness is energy or what is out there dependent.

REALLY?

[Flannel Jesus]

You often say it is an easy process to work out this or that, but you never seem to say what the process is.

It's so easy that it goes without saying.

There is, laughingly, MORE Truth in this than first REALIZED.

ONCE just how SIMPLE and EASY the process REALLY IS is REALIZED, what comes with that REALIZATION is that, ACTUALLY, that process was ALWAYS ALREADY KNOWN, just UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOWN, and REALLY does just 'go, WITHOUT SAYING'.

No wonder you're talking so much about it without saying what it is. Truly a brilliant thinker.

[Iwannaplato]

It's so easy that it goes without saying.

There is, laughingly, MORE Truth in this than first REALIZED.

ONCE just how SIMPLE and EASY the process REALLY IS is REALIZED, what comes with that REALIZATION is that, ACTUALLY, that process was ALWAYS ALREADY KNOWN, just UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOWN, and REALLY does just 'go, WITHOUT SAYING'.

No wonder you're talking so much about it without saying what it is. Truly a brilliant thinker.

No, no, FJ. You're missing the point. There's only one thing that is so obvious that it doesn't need to be mentioned. The process of elimination should lead anyone, here in the past, to the answer. To actually utter it would be crass and an insult to your intelligence.

[Flannel Jesus]

There is, laughingly, MORE Truth in this than first REALIZED.

ONCE just how SIMPLE and EASY the process REALLY IS is REALIZED, what comes with that REALIZATION is that, ACTUALLY, that process was ALWAYS ALREADY KNOWN, just UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOWN, and REALLY does just 'go, WITHOUT SAYING'.

No wonder you're talking so much about it without saying what it is. Truly a brilliant thinker.

No, no, FJ. You're missing the point. There's only one thing that is so obvious that it doesn't need to be mentioned. The process of elimination should lead anyone, here in the past, to the answer. To actually utter it would be crass and an insult to your intelligence.

Maybe I have a weird fetish then, because if that's insulting my intelligence, then please insult me

[Age]

These people STILL HAD NOT YET WORKED OUT HOW CLARITY, and thus UNDERSTANDING, itself, IS ALSO GAINED.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here 'they' would MUCH PREFER to talk ABOUT "an/other/s" than talk WITH "them". This way 'they' could continue on with 'their' ATTEMPTS AT RIDICULE and HUMILIATION while all along BELIEVING that by doing 'that' it was somehow given 'them' MORE IMPORTANCE or MORE SUPERIORITY. This was how LOW a LOT of the adult population thought and felt ABOUT "themselves", back in those "good old days".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Elsewhere, VA offers this killer syllogism.

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

P1 and P2 are false, or at least not shown to be true - so the argument is unsound, or at least not shown to be sound.

Note the following which you have not taken into account in your above.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Obviously when you are dogmatically stuck with the Philosophical Realism [mind, human-condition independent] sense of objectivity, human nature is not objective. This is because there are no innate, ideal human nature existing independently of the human conditions.

• By late antiquity and medieval times, the particular approach that came to be dominant was that of Aristotle's teleology, whereby human nature was believed to exist somehow independently of individuals, causing humans to simply become what they become.
  This, in turn, has been understood as also demonstrating a special connection between human nature and divinity, whereby human nature is understood in terms of final and formal causes.
  Wiki - Human Nature

It is the same if you are stuck with the Philosophical Realism version of "what is fact" then you will not recognize human nature as a fact, thus not objective.

My version of 'human nature' in P1 is based on a different sense of objectivity and fact, i.e. facts as entangled [not independent] with the human conditions [mind]. Note

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

From Philosophical Objectivity, i.e. intersubjective consensus, we have;

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

Thus my P1 Human Nature is an objective fact refers to scientific facts from the scientific-FSK and is scientific objectivity.

discussions regarding human nature are typically related to those regarding the comparative importance of genes and environment in human development (i.e., 'nature versus nurture'). Accordingly, the concept also continues to play a role in academic fields, such as the natural sciences, social sciences, history, and philosophy,

Note Scientific Understanding of Human Nature [WIKI]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nat ... erstanding
There are loads of human nature and behaviour that are traceable to physical neural correlates and genes.

P2 Morality is part of human nature
Humans had been involved with morality since humans emerged long ago up the present whence there is a serious call for greater moral progress.
As such how can these moral aspects participated by humans not be part of human nature?


As such my syllogism [edited] is valid and sound;

P1 Human Nature is an objective fact [scientific]
P2 Morality is part of human nature [self-evident]
C1 Morality is an objective fact

What is your counter to the above?