What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

It is demonstrably the case that people disagree over what killings are justifiable.

It is also demonstrably the case that people agree over what killings aren't justifiable.

To assign equal weight to both view-points because some dissent exists, is to assign equal weight to round and flat-earth theories because some dissent exists.

Well then, you'd be a fucking idiot to do so.

I figured the right attitude for an epistemologist is to accept both hypotheses on equal footing...

Whoops! Too late.

Wow! You so your ignorance is not an act?

You actually don't understand the difference between prior and posterior probabilities?

No wonder you have no clue how to weigh evidence!

So, you are "not a fucking idiot" and you don't assign equal weight to these hypotheses, right?

A. This is red.
B. This is red.

Whoops! Too late.

Oh please. There are 3 options...the probability of any one obtaining is 1 in 3.

[Skepdick]

Wrong in the moral sense is subjective, but wrong meaning lack of accuracy, isn't necessarily subjective.

So you insisting that your definition of "accuracy" is accurate? Else, you must have an objective method for determining the (in)accuracy of definitions?

And yes, I could be wrong, but I'm not.

How do you know?

[Belinda]

but just because there is a law of nature (or of science) doesn't imply we know what that law is. Similarly just because morality is be in harmony with nature doesn't imply we can know how to be in harmony with nature.

Well I don't think morality is a law of nature, Belinda, I was just saying that it would have to be something like a law of nature to be called an objective thing.
I agree.

I suppose the fact that we have got a capacity for empathy leading to a desire to behave in a certain way towards others is a result of natural laws, but the actual specifics of what will appeal to that desire are conditioned by our social environment, and are variable.

I agree. That's like me saying we can't know what the laws of nature are .


They emanate from the minds of human beings, and in that respect, are the epitome of subjectivity.

I agree. That's like me saying just because there is a law does not mean we know what that law is. "That law" applies to nature/reality and how to harmonise with it. It goes witout saying if we fail to adequately harmonise with nature/reality we die. Morality is people getting on well enough with others i.e. harmonising.

I suspect , Harbal, you resist Well I don't think morality is a law of nature, Belinda,

because God has such a bad reputation and you want to exclude Him. Nature in the sense of reality has the same explanatory power as God, as both God and nature/reality are self caused. God however has taken on personal qualities which we don't approve of. Nature/reality on the other hand has no such superstitions attached to it.That's why we don't give nature/reality pronouns honorific capital letters.

[Harbal]

Wrong in the moral sense is subjective, but wrong meaning lack of accuracy, isn't necessarily subjective.

So you insisting that your definition of "accuracy" is accurate? Else, you must have an objective method for determining the (in)accuracy of definitions?

It didn't give you a definition of accuracy. I was merely comparing two contexts in which the word "wrong" might be used.

And yes, I could be wrong, but I'm not.

How do you know?

I don't know, really.

[Peter Holmes]

What's the probability that eating animals is morally wrong? Or morally right?

What sort of information would make that calculation useful - or even possible?

Would Bayesian analysis, using prior probabilities, come up with a rational answer? What facts would make the relevant claims more likely to be true?

Is eating animals, say, 59% likely to be morally wrong?

Some quality thinking going on here.

[Harbal]

I suspect , Harbal, you resist Well I don't think morality is a law of nature, Belinda,

because God has such a bad reputation and you want to exclude Him. Nature in the sense of reality has the same explanatory power as God, as both God and nature/reality are self caused. God however has taken on personal qualities which we don't approve of. Nature/reality on the other hand has no such superstitions attached to it.That's why we don't give nature/reality pronouns honorific capital letters.

It's true, Belinda, I do have a resistance to anything to do with God. But it seems the more science finds out, the more implausible and strange the workings of the universe turn out to be. So, whatever the ultimate truth is, it will be no less fantastic than the idea of God. I don't think it matters whether you think in terms of nature or God, if both get you to the same place. It is when choosing God impedes rational thinking that I want to show him the door.

[Belinda]

I suspect , Harbal, you resist Well I don't think morality is a law of nature, Belinda,

because God has such a bad reputation and you want to exclude Him. Nature in the sense of reality has the same explanatory power as God, as both God and nature/reality are self caused. God however has taken on personal qualities which we don't approve of. Nature/reality on the other hand has no such superstitions attached to it.That's why we don't give nature/reality pronouns honorific capital letters.

It's true, Belinda, I do have a resistance to anything to do with God. But it seems the more science finds out, the more implausible and strange the workings of the universe turn out to be. So, whatever the ultimate truth is, it will be no less fantastic than the idea of God. I don't think it matters whether you think in terms of nature or God, if both get you to the same place. It is when choosing God impedes rational thinking that I want to show him the door.

Choosing the personal God Who intervenes in nature does impede rational thinking.
Personal God Who intervenes in history is not only fantastical, it's a superstitious idea and has made the work of countless English teachers more difficult.That idea has also impeded the advance of religion so it contains reasonable beliefs suited to the present day.

[Harbal]

Choosing the personal God Who intervenes in nature does impede rational thinking.
Personal God Who intervenes in history is not only fantastical, it's a superstitious idea and has made the work of countless English teachers more difficult.That idea has also impeded the advance of religion so it contains reasonable beliefs suited to the present day.

Religion does, it seems, satisfy some need in some people, whereas that need is satisfied by something else in others, so there probably is a legitimate place for it. But I agree with you; most religion is long overdue for a radical update. The Bible has no business being in the 21st century.

[Skepdick]

It didn't give you a definition of accuracy. I was merely comparing two contexts in which the word "wrong" might be used.

I know you didn't. But I imagine you have a conception of the notion of (in)accuracy.

Since you are using the words "wrong" and "accurate" as adjectives for your definitions/descriptions.

I don't know, really.

You certainty on not being wrong suggests otherwise.

So I guess we are back here...

If your definition is wrong (inaccurate?) then so is all of the reasoning based on that definition.

[Harbal]

I know you didn't. But I imagine you have a conception of the notion of (in)accuracy.

I would rather not get into a discussion about what you imagine, Skepdick. There are plenty of people here who imagine things, you would be far better talking to one of those.

So I guess we are back here...

Well don't let me keep you if there is somewhere else you need to be.

[Skepdick]

I would rather not get into a discussion about what you imagine, Skepdick. There are plenty of people here who imagine things, you would be far better talking to one of those.

So your arbitrary definitions don't come from your imagination? What's your source then? Your ass?

Well don't let me keep you if there is somewhere else you need to be.

Well, we are exactly where we need to be - back at the point.

[Harbal]

So your arbitrary definitions don't come from your imagination? What's your source then? Your ass?

You are starting to get on my nerves now, Skepdik. Would a polite request induce you to shut up, or is assertiveness going to be called for?

[Sculptor]

That is so stupid beyond common sense.


There you go again, abusing the term 'opinion' [as defined] whereas I have provided empirical evidences supported with rational philosophical reasoning.

You simply continually fail to understand the most basic philosophical reasoning..
A justification is an OPINION.

As I had stated you are trapped in a very tall and tight silo in this case.
Your thinking is kindergartenish and attitude childish.

Note the alternative views;

The Fact/Opinion Distinction
John Corvino argues: When debating ethics and other controversial topics, one frequently hears the claim “That’s just your opinion.”
It is a pernicious claim, devoid of clear meaning, and it should be consigned to the flames – or so I shall argue here.

• Why worry about the fact/opinion distinction?
  One reason is that precise thinking is valuable for its own sake.
  But there’s another, more pragmatic reason.
  Despite its unclear meaning, the claim “That’s just your opinion” has a clear use: It is a conversation-stopper.
  It’s a way of diminishing a claim, reducing it to a mere matter of taste which lies beyond dispute.
  (De gustibus non est disputandum: there’s no disputing taste.)
  Indeed, the “opinion” label is used not only to belittle others’ stances, but also to deflate one’s own.
  In recognising that a personal belief differs sharply from that of other individuals and cultures, one may conclude, “I guess that’s just my opinion – no better than anyone else’s.”
  This conclusion may stem from an admirable humility.
  On the other hand, it can have pernicious effects: it leads to a kind of wishy-washiness, wherein one refrains from standing up for one’s convictions for fear of imposing “mere opinions”.
  Such reticence conflicts with common sense: surely some opinions are more thoughtful, more informed, more coherent, and more important than others.
  
  This diminishment is especially troubling in moral debates.
  Moral debates are practical – they’re debates about what to do – and they concern our values: things that matter to us.
  • Either we send troops to Syria or we don’t.
    Either we allow same-sex couples to marry or we don’t.
    Either we lie to our parents about what happened to the car or we don’t.
  Categorising these issues as “matters of opinion” doesn’t make them any less urgent or vital.
  
  I therefore propose that we abandon the ambiguous fact/opinion distinction, and especially the dismissive retort “That’s just your opinion.”
  We should focus instead on whether people can offer good reasons for the claims they make – reasons that might compel us to share their views.
  
  That’s my opinion, anyway.
  If you think yours is better, don’t merely say so: Say why.

https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/ ... istinction

It's like talking to a brick wall.
Moral justifications are not objective.
There is no escape from it, and it is clear that you have not advanced your absurd claims by one inch.
You are started with the assumption that life is sacred. There is not objective statement able to establish this claim, but buckets of empirical evidence to say that it cannot be so.

[Skepdick]

You are starting to get on my nerves now, Skepdik. Would a polite request induce you to shut up, or is assertiveness going to be called for?

I doubt you possess much in the way of "assertiveness", but I am willing to be proven wrong.

If shutting up is what you insist upon - be assertive and lead the way.

[Harbal]

I doubt you possess much in the way of "assertiveness", but I am willing to be proven wrong.

Proven wrong about what? All you've done is ask stupid questions.

If shutting up is what you insist upon - be assertive and lead the way.

I was hoping you would be going on your own.