What could make morality objective?

[Sculptor]

"ALL human[s] ought to prevent other humans from breathing till they die."
How can this be an opinion [as defined]?

That opinion is not more valid than the converse.
Let me show you where you are going wrong.

It is obviously not an opinion as defined and as accepted generally.

You have stated that breathing is necessary for life in humans. Actually you can live without breathing, with a machine, but I'll let that go for purposes of simplicity. No one disagrees the truth of this; that at least oxygen is necessary for the persistence of a living human life.

So far so good.

That is shifting the goal post.
If you are insistent I would say "the need for oxygen" is critical or else it is death.
There are loads of moral facts and oughts other than the need to breathe.

You seem to continue to say that breathing is an objective right, or words to that effect.
Is this okay so far?

I derived the moral fact from the Moral Framework based on empirical facts, i.e.
"No human ought to prevent other humans from breathing till they die"

Let's see if you are kidding yourself and ignoring some issues here. Let's start simply by answering the questions without comment.

Can you answer these questions, yes or no, please!

1) Is it possible that the continuation of a life is a good idea, from the perspective of an individual?

I had argued,
'ALL humans are "programmed" to survive at all costs till the inevitable.'
The "purpose" is to ensure the preservation of the human species.
This is supported by empirical facts.
Therefore the "individual" human will survive at all cost till the inevitable naturally as "programmed".
As such is not not a matter of 'a good idea' but that the "individual" of the human species is naturally programmed to survive at all costs till the inevitable.

However nature is never perfect and in general the Normal Distribution principles [Bell Curve] patterns are a reality with all human variables.
Thus those individuals in the appx 2 sigma percentile [5%] may be the exceptions [suicidal, risk takers etc.] and may not strive to survive at all costs.

Thus the fact remains,
'ALL humans are "programmed" to survive at all costs till the inevitable.'
Therefore the "individual" human will strive to survive at all cost till the inevitable, naturally as "programmed"

2) Is it possible that the continuation of a particular life is a good is a good idea, from the perspective of society?

Same argument as above.

'ALL humans are "programmed" to survive at all costs till the inevitable.'
Therefore the "individual" human will strive to survive at all cost till the inevitable, naturally as "programmed" as a society to enhance a greater chance of survival.
There will be exceptions.

3) Is it possible that the preservation of life of an infinite number of humans on a planet with finite resources a good idea?

The "purpose" is to ensure the preservation of the human species.
To ensure the above,
This is effected,
'ALL humans are "programmed" to survive at all costs till the inevitable.'
Therefore the "individual" human will strive to survive at all cost till the inevitable, naturally as "programmed" as a society to enhance a greater chance of survival.
There will be exceptions.

In addition to the above, and to ensure the preservation of the species,
Human beings are also programmed with the inherent faculty of philosophy, morality, intelligence, rationality, wisdom, continual improvement program and the propensity to optimize within constraints.

The objective of humanity in the longer run will be to optimize the objective laws of morality with whatever known constraints.
In the longer run, the average or the majority of individuals will have developed higher competency in their impulse controls with understanding of species-teamwork, optimality & fool proof approaches and will not fuck & produce like rabbits as with the current population explosion.

4) If you think that breathing is an objective moral right, who has to responsibility to guarantee that right and provide the resources where necessary to given each and every human the means to breath?

Within the Moral Framework, there will be a need to increase the average Moral Quotient of say 100 to 1,000 within the next 50 to 100 years.
Then individual will self-legislate as team-humanity and co-operate for the greater good.

You know this is crazy, don't you?

5) It is necessary for a potato eelworm to have potatoes to live. Does a potato eelworm have the right to potatoes?

Straw man!
Note Hume's example of Patricide,
i.e. it is immoral for a new plant from seed of tree-X to grow so tall and big nearby that it monopolized all the sunlight and in the end kill its father tree-X?
Hume is way off with morality in this example.

Point is, DNA/RNA wise all humans are programmed with a faculty of morality and ethics and neuroscientists and neuropsychologists and others are slowly discovering this faculty within the brain of human and to some minute degree in primates.

Lets' have more of the sort of the above discussions instead of intellectual violence.

A question cannot be a strawman since it does not imply an argument.
You have not begun to answer this question. You do not even seem to understand it. If a human objectively deserves air, then why not an eelworm deserves potato?

Had you simply answered the question we might have had some progress.
Sadly you failed to answer the question.

So now lets try to ask some counter questions.
1)Is it possible that the continuation of a life is a NOT good idea, from the perspective of an individual?
2) Is it possible that the continuation of life is NOT a good idea, from to the perspective of society.
3) Is it possible that the preservation of life of an infinite number of humans on a planet with finite resources is bad idea?
4) If you think that breathing is an objective moral right, who has to responsibility to guarantee that right and provide the resources where necessary to given each and every human the means to breath?
I'm asking this one again.
5) If you think it is okay to deny an eelworm potato then why do you think a human deserves oxygen.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, rather than addressing each of your comments, none of which contain any logical justification

This is a peculiar commentary. What justifies/legitimises logic?

that is apparent to me, can I ask you to give an example of something you consider to be subjective. That might help bring us closer to the same page, or, indeed, the same book.

Sure.

The objective/subjective distinction is subjective. <---- This is objectively true.

Drawing distinction is what humans do. <--- This is objectively true.

[Skepdick]

Well of course I disapprove of murder. What I call murder is any killing of another human being that I object to morally - same as everyone else. There are instances of killing people that I do not think are murder, but others do. Some think that the people at Dignitas are murderers, I don't. Others think lethal injection is justice, I think it's murder. So well done Skepdick, you have demonstrated that people disapproving of the things they disapprove of is objective.

And you have trivialised this to words/semantics (like all dumb philosophers), rather than empiricism.

Philosopher 1 says "The color of this letter is Red": A
Philosopher 2 says "The color of this letter is Red": A

Obviously there will be disagreement! Obviously you will find that each Philosopher manages to persuade non-zero number of impressionable minds and will amass a following. Obviously factionalism will take place.

How do you propose that we determine the true hypothesis? What mechanism do you have in mind? Why does it even matter whether this is red, or this is red?

When you are ready to commit yourself to an answer let me know.

Now all ya gotta do is show that everyone objects to the same examples of killing another person, and we can wrap up this thread.

Yeah! I guess the shape of the Earth isnt' going to become round until we convince ALL of the flat-earthers.

[Harbal]

Skepdick, rather than addressing each of your comments, none of which contain any logical justification

What justifies/legitimises logic?

Nothing, it seems, as far as yours is concerned.

The objective/subjective distinction is subjective. <---- This is objectively true.

Drawing distinction is what humans do. <--- This is objectively true.

What you seem to be doing is forcing everything into one category by arbitrarily removing the alternative.

[Skepdick]

Nothing, it seems, as far as yours is concerned.

Logic in general is unjustifiable. It's subjective.

In particular: empiricism justifies the validity of a particular logical model.

What you seem to be doing is forcing everything into one category by arbitrarily removing the alternative.

I am doing the exact opposite!

You are forcing everything into one perspective: your own!
I am pointing out the 8 billion other perspectives.

Your subjective perspective is objective to everybody else!

[Harbal]

Your subjective perspective is objective to everybody else!

No, most people would consider my subjective perspective to be just that, my subjective perspective, and that would be their subjective opinion.

I suggest you read fewer philosophy books, they seem to have left you with the attitude that the style of your comments is more important than their content.

[Skepdick]

No, most people would consider my subjective perspective to be just that, my subjective perspective, and that would be their subjective opinion.

Of course they say that! It's the default strategy for dismissing other perspectives.

But if you dismiss my perspective and I dismiss your perspective, and we dismiss everybody else's perspective - then whose perspective is "objective" exactly?

What does "objectivity" even mean? Can you give me an example of something you consider objective?

I suggest you read fewer philosophy books, they seem to have left you with the attitude that the style of your comments is more important than their content.

The irony! I don't read philosophy books - I am a scientist.

The objectivity of morality is an ineffable fact, but you have to work your way there, sadly Philosophers couldn't reason their way out of a wet paper bag.

[surreptitious57]

ANYBODY can live by ones own standards
One is just doing what one wants not responding to any moral standard

This is actually false because human beings are also moral beings as well
Some may have a rather loose moral code but that will still be the basic moral foundation that they live their life by
No one capable of making moral choices is absolutely immoral or amoral for they will attain to some moral standard

[Harbal]

Of course they say that! It's the default strategy for dismissing other perspectives.

I am not dismissing anyone's perspective, I am merely recognising it as being subjective.

What does "objectivity" even mean? Can you give me an example of something you consider objective?

At the moment, I would find it far easier to give you an example of something objectionable.

The irony! I don't read philosophy books - I am a scientist.

In that case, I apologise; I am blaming the wrong books.

The objectivity of morality is an ineffable fact.

Well you certainly seem to find it ineffable.

[Skepdick]

I am not dismissing anyone's perspective, I am merely recognising it as being subjective.

That's only part of the story.

Do you recognise anybody's perspective as objective? If so - whose?

I want to make sure that you aren't doing exactly what you are accusing me of - which is

You seem to be arguing against the existence of subjectivity, which you are perfectly entitled to do, but, as far as this thread is concerned, I think it a bit unfair to remove one choice when there were only two to start with.

You seem to be arguing against the existence of objectivity!

Far more peculiar to me is that:

1. You believe that there exists a choice between objectivity and subjectivity.
2. You've chosen subjectivity over objectivity.

Why?

Well you certainly seem to find it ineffable.

Me and Wittgenstein both. Don't look at my words - look at the thing they are pointing at.

[surreptitious57]

What does objectivity even mean ? Can you give me an example of something you consider objective ?

There are two types of objectivity : relative and absolute

Relative pertains to that which through inter subjective consensus is agreed upon to be true [ though subsequently may be shown to be false ]
Absolute pertains to that which is definitely true but is entirely beyond all human perception because it is true in of itself and of nothing else

An example of what I would consider objective would be the statement : one plus one is two [ because inter subjective consensus says so ]
So this would be an example of relative objectivity - I cannot give an example of absolute objectivity because I am human and only human

[Skepdick]

There are two types of objectivity : relative and absolute

Don't start with that.

There are two type of assertions also: Subjective and objective ones.

I cannot give an example of absolute objectivity because I am human and only human

Then why did you draw the distinction and why are you even talking about something that's out of your reach?

[uwot]

The irony! I don't read philosophy books - I am a scientist.

In that case, I apologise; I am blaming the wrong books.

Mr Harbal, I salute you! That is genius.
Anyway, have you finished editing Skepdick? That's 13 times so far.

[Immanuel Can]

There are no objective moral facts/laws that are ontologically that is absolutely independent of human subjectivity.

What you can safely say is only that you personally recognize nothing more than human subjectivity as existing.

But if you're thinking consistently, then what you would also have to recognize is that if there were, say, a race of aliens on Mars, and supposing they also knew about moral issues, then they too would have a subjectivity, and even if all the humans on planet Earth were gone, they would plausibly still have a moral perspective. So if there were aliens, morality would no longer depend exclusively on human perception.

Let's assume there are not aliens on Mars, or anywhere else. But if the case is that there is moral consciousness in the universe that is not human, then morality is no longer a human-dependent thing. Clear enough?

Likewise, then, if God exists, then morality does not depend on human subjectivity. So what you've done there is assumed the conclusion you needed -- not proven it is true. If other awareness of morality exists in the universe, then moral values neither come into being with human cognition nor vanish when human cognition shifts or ends.

So you would need to show that the claim "God exists" is impossible to believe: or as you yourself put it, you would need to show that God was "impossible to be real." And frankly, I don't think that's a job you can do.

So you are left with only this claim: "So far as VA knows, morality depends on human cognition." But that's only so far as VA knows. And in honesty, that's where your claim must begin and end.

[surreptitious57]

There are two type of assertions also : Subjective and objective ones

An objective assertion is actually a fact and so there are really only subjective ones
And they are subjective because in absence of any evidence they are merely opinions