What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

A reservation. The factual claim 'the earth is flat' turned out to be wrong (false), because it isn't. But the claim 'murder is wrong' can't turn out to be wrong (false), because it isn't a factual claim in the first place. It just expresses a moral opinion.

Reservation noted. However, if all human thoughts are opinions, then "moral opinion" and "belelived-to-be-fact opinion" are both opinions, and my opinion about objectivity apply to both equally, whether they are factual claims or moral opinions. "A rose is a rose is a rose by any other name."

Understood. I just think that our (subjective) opinions about the truth-value of a factual assertion have no bearing on its truth-value. And that's what matters - it's what makes factual assertion different from non-factual assertions, which have no truth-value, such as 'murder is wrong'.

[Univalence]

But it does mean that it's impossible for humans. And therefore any claims of possibility you make implies that you are thinking of another kind of entity.

That's true. I agree.

OK then you will have to explain yourself:

It is true that I am an atheist

While also...

Timeseeker argued for the existence of god, and when I called him a believer, he denied it, he stated he was an atheist. This was the push to put him on iggi.)

P.S I am Logik/TimeSeeker. And you are an idiot - if you ignore all atheists who argue for gods, then you should probably put yourself on ignore

[-1-]

A reservation. The factual claim 'the earth is flat' turned out to be wrong (false), because it isn't. But the claim 'murder is wrong' can't turn out to be wrong (false), because it isn't a factual claim in the first place. It just expresses a moral opinion.

Reservation noted. However, if all human thoughts are opinions, then "moral opinion" and "belelived-to-be-fact opinion" are both opinions, and my opinion about objectivity apply to both equally, whether they are factual claims or moral opinions. "A rose is a rose is a rose by any other name."

Understood. I just think that our (subjective) opinions about the truth-value of a factual assertion have no bearing on its truth-value. And that's what matters - it's what makes factual assertion different from non-factual assertions, which have no truth-value.

You're absolutely right. Some things are either this way or that way, and we can hit on it or not, by pure chance, that is, we can describe reality in our effort to describe reality, but that's only due to luck if we precisely do that.

But to make a claim about something which can't be made a claim about, or else if we make a claim that is impossible, or if we make a claim that is apparently wrong, then we don't have ANY chance of describing reality.

By claiming that murder is wrong, we don't have a chance of describing reality. Murder and wrongness only exist in relation to people and to people's relation to other people. Remove people, and morality becomes a nonsequiteur.

Furthermore, claim a moral value, and state an instance when it is not wrong, then it is disproven.

Much like theft, which in our culture is a morally wrong act, murder can also be cleared of moral wrongdoing in many instances.

[-1-]

But it does mean that it's impossible for humans. And therefore any claims of possibility you make implies that you are thinking of another kind of entity.

That's true. I agree.

OK then you will have to explain yourself:

It is true that I am an atheist

While also...

Timeseeker argued for the existence of god, and when I called him a believer, he denied it, he stated he was an atheist. This was the push to put him on iggi.)

P.S I am Logik/TimeSeeker. And you are an idiot - if you ignore all atheists who argue for gods, then you should probably put yourself on ignore

If you are Logik/Timeseeker, then go fuck yourself, and I'm putting you on Iggi.

To show you how wrong you are: You think that a different type of entity can exist only if it's god. That's inherent in your argument. That is not at all necessarily needed, however, for my argument.

Therefore go fuck yourself, Timeseeker/Logik/Univalence.

[Univalence]

To show you how wrong you are: You think that a different type of entity can exist only if it's god. That's inherent in your argument. That is not at all necessarily needed, however, for my argument.

It is inherent to your argument, only you are ignorant as to why.

Any entity which is capable of unfalsifiable/objective knowledge is functionally equivalent to the Christian omniscient God.

You don’t know that? Thermodynamics tells you that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

Go fuck yourself indeed. You are a theist with an identity crisis

[Belinda]

Peter Homes wrote:

I just think that our (subjective) opinions about the truth-value of a factual assertion have no bearing on its truth-value. And that's what matters - it's what makes factual assertion different from non-factual assertions, which have no truth-value, such as 'murder is wrong'

What is or is not a fact depends upon what are currently considered to be criteria for facticity. Some eccentrics invent their own criteria for what may rationally communicated while most modern people are roughly in agreement about what is a fact and what isn't.
Religion which for centuries was the medium for codifying and enforcing moral laws has mostly lost its authority. At this time we see big changes when we have to re-examine ethics and moral codes without benefit of revealed truths.

So I ask you, how do you know or how can you possibly know that murder is wrong unless you refer to one of the following criteria

a) revealed moral code

b) reason

c) your gut feeling?

[Univalence]

Peter, what is or is not a fact depends upon what are currently considered to be criteria for facticity. Some eccentrics invent their own criteria for what may rationally communicated

Factuality is a social norm. Like morality.

[Belinda]

Peter, what is or is not a fact depends upon what are currently considered to be criteria for facticity. Some eccentrics invent their own criteria for what may rationally communicated

Factuality is a social norm. Like morality.

It is for me and you. But not for everyone e.g. religious fundamentalists who believe that God has revealed truth once and for all time and all peoples.

[Univalence]

It is for me and you. But not for everyone e.g. religious fundamentalists who believe that God has revealed truth once and for all time and all peoples.

From a consequentialist/empirical point of view - it's immaterial how you justify the wrongness of murder as long as you commit to it in practice.

Whether "God revealed it", or you "reasoned yourself into it", or you just "trust your gut feeling", or "the law says so". As long as you don't go around murdering people it makes no difference whatsoever.

[Peter Holmes]

It is for me and you. But not for everyone e.g. religious fundamentalists who believe that God has revealed truth once and for all time and all peoples.

From a consequentialist/empirical point of view - it's immaterial how you justify the wrongness of murder as long as you commit to it in practice.

Whether "God revealed it", or you "reasoned yourself into it", or you just "trust your gut feeling", or "the law says so". As long as you don't go around murdering people it makes no difference whatsoever.

On this, you and I agree completely, because we share the moral opinion that murder is wrong. Peace, perfect peace.

[Univalence]

On this, you and I agree completely, because we share the moral opinion that murder is wrong. Peace, perfect peace.

All foundational philosophy ends up here. Because all foundational philosophy ends up making inconsequential (e.g untestable) claims.

And empiricism/science only works in scenarios where there are consequences to be tested.

-1- arguing for an "omniscient being" while claiming to be an "atheist" is but one example of this.

[Belinda]

Univalence wrote:

Whether "God revealed it", or you "reasoned yourself into it", or you just "trust your gut feeling", or "the law says so". As long as you don't go around murdering people it makes no difference whatsoever.

Reason is the best method for all morally difficult decisions . That we have mostly moved on from legalism was , for instance ,announced by Jesus who was reiterating what the Jewish prophets had been saying for the past several hundred years. In the UK we see how gut feelings have elected Nigel Farage's Brexit party.

[Belinda]

Univalence wrote:

Whether "God revealed it", or you "reasoned yourself into it", or you just "trust your gut feeling", or "the law says so". As long as you don't go around murdering people it makes no difference whatsoever.

Reason is the best method for all morally difficult decisions . That we have mostly moved on from legalism was , for instance ,announced by Jesus who was reiterating what the Jewish prophets had been saying for the past several hundred years. In the UK we see how gut feelings have elected Nigel Farage's Brexit party.

The consequences are often dire of not engaging brain before jumping .

[Peter Holmes]

On this, you and I agree completely, because we share the moral opinion that murder is wrong. Peace, perfect peace.

All foundational philosophy ends up here. Because all foundational philosophy ends up making inconsequential (e.g untestable) claims.

And empiricism/science only works in scenarios where there are consequences to be tested.

-1- arguing for an "omniscient being" while claiming to be an "atheist" is but one example of this.

Just asking - genuine interest and not to be contrarian - if there's no foundation beneath empirical / scientific claims, what value or purpose do you think they have? What information or knowledge can testing them provide?

[Univalence]

Just asking - genuine interest and not to be contrarian - if there's no foundation beneath empirical / scientific claims, what value or purpose do you think they have? What information or knowledge can testing them provide?

They are strictly pragmatic/instrumental. They allow us to predict events and gain some semblance of control over the environment.

What we use knowledge for is still up to us. e.g we could use nuclear fission for social benefit (cheap electricity) or for warfare (Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Knowledge is power. Quite literally. Power over the matter.

Or if you go higher up the chain of complexity - models of the biosphere allow us to predict trends like global warming etc. Useful metrics to avoid going extinct.