What could make morality objective? 2

[Veritas Aequitas]

What could make morality objective? 2

In the OP below, Peter contended that Morality cannot be objective.
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

Peter argued;

• To be objective, there must be an object [moral judgment] that is a matters of fact [state of affairs], falsifiable and independent of judgement, belief or opinion.
  
  A state-of-affairs either is or isn't the case. So its existence is independent from what anyone believes or claims to know; and the truth-value of a factual assertion - one that asserts a state-of-affairs - is independent from what anyone believes or claims to know.
  viewtopic.php?p=455965#p455965
  
  A fact is either a state-of-affairs or a description of a state-of-affairs.
  
  So a moral fact, if there is such a thing, is either a moral state-of-affairs or a description of a moral state-of-affairs.

Moral Realists has not been able to demonstrate moral facts exists, therefore Morality cannot be objective.

…………………
The above argument is very problematic because Peter has a very shallow and narrow perspective of Philosophy which is confined dogmatically to the Principles of Analytic Philosophy;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy

One will note from ‘googling’ there are loads of criticism and condemnation of Analytic Philosophy.
Example:
Isaiah Berlin, Critic of Analytic Philosophy
https://digressionsnimpressions.typepad ... sophy.html

Analytic Philosophy is heavily criticized by philosophers from Continental Philosophy.
Personally I agree Analytic Philosophy merely has limited utility but it is not The Philosophy of Philosophy as the analytic philosophers are dreaming it to be.

……………….
When Peter insists moral facts do not exist, he is only claiming upon the conditions of the Framework of Analytics Philosophy which has its specific meaning of fact, state-of-affair, objectivity, propositions, accounts of truth, truth-bearers, obtaining, objects, properties, relations and exemplification and other terms.

In addition, Peter’s analytic view is also based on Philosophical Realism;

In metaphysics, realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Point is, Analytic Philosophy and Philosophy Realism are not realistic, i.e. the ultimate referent of their principles are illusory.

Since Peter is leveraging fundamentally on illusion, he has no grounds to claim what is ‘objective’ and that Morality is not objective.
…………………………………..

My realistic perspective is;

Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence, sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

My view of what is an object is different from the “object” of Analytic Philosophy which is fundamentally illusory.
What is ‘object’ to me is an emergence which the subject as co-contributor to that emergence.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671

My view of what is fact is not the ‘fact’ as defined by Analytic Philosophy, but rather;

A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.
For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star." is a cosmological fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
All of these statements have the epistemic quality of being "ontologically superior" to opinion or interpretation — they are either categorically necessary or supported by adequate documentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

What is fact is thus conditioned by how the fact is derived from a Framework of Knowledge. As above a linguistic fact is justified and derived from a Linguistic Framework.

Moral facts [similar to scientific facts] are derived from a Framework of Knowledge, i.e. the Moral Framework, thus are objective, i.e. independent of the individual[s] opinion and beliefs.
Moral facts in this case are Justified True Moral Beliefs, i.e. objective.
Example: “No human ought to prevent another human from breathing” is a moral fact derived from a specific Moral Framework.

Therefore there are moral facts which are objective, thus morality is fundamentally is objective.

Views? Counters?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The main contention here is on the term 'objectivity' and not so much on what is fact which has two meanings as highlighted above.

Note the definition of objectivity:

Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence, sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

I have argued my empirical moral realism of justifying facts from a specific Moral Framework is similar to the justification of scientific facts from the Scientific Framework.
Since scientific facts are objective, thus moral facts are also objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Another problem with Peter Holme's
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

is he jumped in and presented the discussion topic without defining
'What is Morality'

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]

Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

Moral philosophy includes meta-ethics, which studies abstract issues such as moral ontology and moral epistemology, and normative ethics, which studies more concrete systems of moral decision-making such as deontological ethics and consequentialism.
An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule, which states that: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."

-wiki

The above definition and details of morality is quite sufficient except 'religion' should be independent of morality-proper.

To be more sufficient and thorough, the following should be included in what 'morality' entails which should include the following;

• 3 Evolution
  4 Psychology
  • 4.1 Moral cognition
  5 Neuroscience
  • 5.1 Brain areas
    5.2 Mirror neurons

It is from the above that one can access empirical evidences that will justify what are Justified True Moral Facts that will determine whatever 'objectivity' is related to morality [as defined], i.e. the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your theory of frameworks doesn't do the work that you think it does.

Agreed, any description - and therefore any truth-claim - is within a descriptive context, with a conventional use of signs. So what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth - and therefore what we call facts.

But 'what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true' is that its truth-value is independent from opinion, given the way we use the signs involved in that context. So what we call truth is very explicitly not a matter of intersubjectve consensus - of collective opinion.

You are still very blind on the truth.

I agree the truth-value of a fact is independent from an individual's opinion and beliefs.
But that objective fact [whilst independent in one phase] and even the referent-of-that-fact cannot ultimately be totally independent from the collective's involvement via emergence and confirmed by intersubjective consensus.

What you are banking on are the principles of Philosophical Realism which is not ULTIMATELY realistic at all.
The fact is the views of Philosophical Realists are not individuals' opinion and belief, but they are nevertheless based on a "collective opinion" based on intersubjective consensus among philosophical realists.
You dispute this??
You cannot.

You are claiming for a 'fact' and 'truth' that are not qualified to any Framework, but you are ignorant you are grounding your 'fact' and 'truth' on some kind of Framework [i.e. Philosophical Realism and linguistics] which ultimately are not realistic but only produce illusions.
You got dig deeply to understand how you are caught in this deep hole and conundrum you are ignorant of.

Btw, show me one fact or truth that is absolutely independent and not dependent on any framework of knowledge?

And, for example, natural scientists never never ever say 'we agree that this claim is or seems to be true - so it is true'. They use the word 'truth' and its cognates in the standard way, to mean 'true independent from opinion'.

What natural scientists claimed as true is always qualified 'true as justified upon the scientific framework, scientific method, peer review and its intrinsic principles."
Scientific facts are only true if and only if they are derived from the scientific framework and no where else.
In this case, it is true as independent of individual scientists and other individual, but not independent of the Scientific Framework.

Your claim that morality is a field or body of knowledge in which, as in other fields, there can be factual assertions - and therefore objectivity - begs the question. It's precisely the radical difference between moral assertions, such as 'slavery is wrong', and factual assertions with truth-value that we're arguing about. Just saying there's no difference gets us nowhere.

Moral facts are the same with scientific facts, i.e. both are justified and derived from their respective Framework.
Point is as long as there is a credible framework, whatever is produced are its relative facts with different degrees of confidence levels for users.
"Slavery is wrong" is an objective moral fact justified and derived from a Moral Framework with its specific requirements and principles.
The requirement here is 'slavery is wrong' must be justified based on empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning just like what Science is doing in producing its objective scientific facts.

Get us nowhere??
Hey.. the recognition, acknowledge and deliberation of justified true moral facts will improve upon the morality of all humans and humanity in the future [not now] toward ensuring the preservation of the human species.

The moral relativism [or moral skepticism] you are banking on could possibly exterminate the human species in the future in the hands of humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your theory of frameworks doesn't do the work that you think it does.

Agreed, any description - and therefore any truth-claim - is within a descriptive context, with a conventional use of signs. So what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth - and therefore what we call facts.

But 'what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true' is that its truth-value is independent from opinion, given the way we use the signs involved in that context. So what we call truth is very explicitly not a matter of intersubjectve consensus - of collective opinion.

You are still very blind on the truth.

I agree the truth-value of a fact is independent from an individual's opinion and beliefs.
But that objective fact [whilst independent in one phase] and even the referent-of-that-fact cannot ultimately be totally independent from the collective's involvement via emergence and confirmed by intersubjective consensus.

You are claiming for a 'fact' and 'truth' that are not qualified to any Framework, but you are ignorant you are grounding your 'fact' and 'truth' on some kind of Framework [i.e. Philosophical Realism and linguistics] which ultimately are not realistic but only produce illusions.
You got dig deeply to understand how you are caught in this deep hole and conundrum you are ignorant of.

Pay attention. I said 'Agreed, any description - and therefore any truth-claim - is within a descriptive context, with a conventional use of signs. So what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth - and therefore what we call facts.' What you call 'within a framework' is what I call 'within a descriptive context'. We're agreeing here - please don't misrepresent what I say.

Your mistake is in saying that, because facts are always within a descriptive context - a 'framework' - then any descriptive context can produce facts - so what you call a moral framework can produce facts. And that generalised conclusion is patently false.

"You" pay attention!

OK, I can reconcile with 'descriptive context' but I insist 'Framework of Knowledge' is more critical and relevant.

Yes, any defined 'Framework of Knowledge' can produce facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
However there is a degree to the confidence level on the facts produced by each specific Framework of Knowledge.

I believe the most credible Framework of Knowledge at present is the Scientific Framework with produces scientific facts and truths.
Say, if we give a general rating on veracity to the Scientific Framework with its defined features of 100 as a standard, we can relative gauge the rating of other Frameworks of Knowledge.

For example, in astrology, human personality has twelve types according to birth date. So, given your claim, it's a fact that all Librans are indecisive, and so on. I assume you agree that's nonsense.

If the Scientific Framework is rated at 100, then based on the defined feature of the Astrological Framework, we will rate its knowledge at a consolation of 0.1/100.

It is the same for the divine 'fact' by theists, e.g. "God exists as real," personally I would rate that at 0/100.

A beauty contest organization is also a specific Framework of knowledge.
You cannot deny it is a fact and objective, Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is the current Miss Universe 2019. I would rate such a fact at 50/100.

Depending on the credibility of the legal framework of say the USA, we could rate legal facts from USA at 70-80/100.

We can rate all other Framework of Knowledge based on what features of justification and verification for the specific Framework of Knowledge against the Scientific Framework's features of relying on justification, verification, testing of empirical evidences, assured repeatability of results, falsifiability, peer reviews and other essential features.

So, what's the difference between a descriptive context (a 'framework') that can produce facts, and one that can't? It can only be the evidence for the factual claims within that descriptive context. So, in a given context, with given criteria, a stick is 1m long - and you agree that 'the truth-value of a fact is independent from an individual's opinion and beliefs.'
Because the stick is a feature of reality, the assertion 'the stick is 1m long' is true, regardless of opinion, given the context and criteria of the claim.

I don't prefer "descriptive context" but I prefer a Framework of Knowledge where there is a constitution at its core, principles, processes, rules, assumptions, etc. that define the feature of a specific framework of knowledge.

As long as there is defined 'framework of knowledge' it will produce facts.

In the case of 'a stick is 1m long' that is a fact derived from a standardization of measurement Framework of knowledge.
There is no way that fact can stand alone by itself without reference to a specific Framework.
In that specific framework of metric measurement, there is an assumed standard of 'what is 1m'

Are you ignorant of this intersubjective process that establishes your so called 'fact' and truth-value, the stick is 1m long.

The metre (Commonwealth spelling) or meter (American spelling) (from the French unit mètre, from the Greek noun μέτρον, "measure") is the base unit of length in the International System of Units (SI). The SI unit symbol is m. The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by monochromatic light in a vacuum in
1/299 792 458 of a second.

The metre was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole along a great circle, so the Earth's circumference is approximately 40000 km.

In 1799, the metre was redefined in terms of a prototype metre bar (the actual bar used was changed in 1889).

In 1960, the metre was redefined in terms of a certain number of wavelengths of a certain emission line of krypton-86.

The current definition [metre] was adopted in 1983 and slightly updated in 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre

Yes, your stick is 1 meter long is independent of individuals' beliefs and opinion, but it is not independent of the collective opinion of those subjects who set and agree to what one meter is to be as the STANDARD METER.

Therefore what you think is an objective fact with truth-value independent of individuals opinions and belief, is fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective with the consensus of subjects.

Now, back to what you call the 'moral framework'. What feature of reality can possibly confirm the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong', in the way that the stick confirms the assertion 'the stick is 1m long'?
Is the moral wrongness of slavery a feature of reality?
Is the indecisiveness of Librans a feature of reality?

As I said, your theory of frameworks doesn't establish the factual nature of moral assertions. Back to the drawing board.

Your assertion of the 'fact' -'the stick is 1m long' is fundamentally very subjective and based on the opinions of a group of people without justifications at all.
What feature of reality can possibly confirm the assertion 'the stick is 1m long'.

Note 'the stick is 1foot long' speculated to be based on the length of the foot of a person in authority, a king.

There is this story:

Probably the most common story of government setting standards of measurement is the story of King Henry I of England, who ruled England from 1100 to 1135. The standard for the "foot" was supposed to have been made by measuring the King's foot.
Link

Maybe it was a speculation, but the fundamental point is, what is a foot lenght is based on a very subjective origin that is made objective intersubjectively.

But my moral fact 'slavery is wrong' is justified from empirical evidence from various source of knowledge, e.g. anthropology, psychology, philosophical reasoning, etc.
This moral fact 'slavery is wrong' can be tested by asking everyone one on earth whether they would voluntarily want be a chattel slave, i.e. owned by another human or humans.

Hope you understand how your ignorance is exposed in the above?

The moral relativism [or moral skepticism] you are banking on could possibly exterminate the human species in the future in the hands of humans.

This is ridiculous. I've never advocated moral relativism or skepticism. My argument is against moral objectivism.

I am against Moral Realism in the sense of Plato's universals that exists independent of the human conditions and those pseudo-moral realism from theists.

My proposals are based on empirical-moral-realism i.e. objective moral facts that are justified with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning, thus independent of individuals' beliefs and opinion but not independent of the collective subjects involved.

Btw, your objection to moral objectivism or moral realism is based on the principles of Philosophical Realism.
Those moral realists or moral objectivists are also relying on Philosophical Realism.
Thus you are kicking your own back when you condemns moral realism or moral objectivism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is another problem with Peter's approach to Morality, i.e. too traditional and too dogmatically stuck with metaphysical and linguistic basis.

Here the point from SEP;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/

One question that has exercised certain philosophers is whether realism (and thus anti-realism) should be understood as a metaphysical or as a linguistic thesis.
(See Devitt 1991 and Dummett 1978 for advocacy of the respective viewpoints.)
The “traditional view,” as initially expressed above, makes the matter solidly metaphysical: It concerns existence and the ontological status of that existence.

But when the traditional terms of the debate were drawn up, philosophers did not have in mind 20th-century complications such as noncognitivism, which is usually defined as a thesis about moral language.

Thus, most contemporary ways of drawing the distinction between moral realism and moral anti-realism begin with linguistic distinctions:

It is first asked
“Is moral discourse assertoric?” or
“Are moral judgments truth apt?”

Peter's stance is that of the moral anti-realist views i.e. moral judgments are merely opinions thus cannot be truth apt and is stuck is this linguistic - metaphysical paradigm.

Peter is ignorant of
20th-century complications surround morality, such as noncognitivism, which is usually defined as a thesis about moral language.

[Ginkgo]

What could make morality objective? 2

In the OP below, Peter contended that Morality cannot be objective.
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

Peter argued;

• To be objective, there must be an object [moral judgment] that is a matters of fact [state of affairs], falsifiable and independent of judgement, belief or opinion.
  
  A state-of-affairs either is or isn't the case. So its existence is independent from what anyone believes or claims to know; and the truth-value of a factual assertion - one that asserts a state-of-affairs - is independent from what anyone believes or claims to know.
  viewtopic.php?p=455965#p455965
  
  A fact is either a state-of-affairs or a description of a state-of-affairs.
  
  So a moral fact, if there is such a thing, is either a moral state-of-affairs or a description of a moral state-of-affairs.

Moral Realists has not been able to demonstrate moral facts exists, therefore Morality cannot be objective.

…………………
The above argument is very problematic because Peter has a very shallow and narrow perspective of Philosophy which is confined dogmatically to the Principles of Analytic Philosophy;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy

One will note from ‘googling’ there are loads of criticism and condemnation of Analytic Philosophy.
Example:
Isaiah Berlin, Critic of Analytic Philosophy
https://digressionsnimpressions.typepad ... sophy.html

Analytic Philosophy is heavily criticized by philosophers from Continental Philosophy.
Personally I agree Analytic Philosophy merely has limited utility but it is not The Philosophy of Philosophy as the analytic philosophers are dreaming it to be.

……………….
When Peter insists moral facts do not exist, he is only claiming upon the conditions of the Framework of Analytics Philosophy which has its specific meaning of fact, state-of-affair, objectivity, propositions, accounts of truth, truth-bearers, obtaining, objects, properties, relations and exemplification and other terms.

In addition, Peter’s analytic view is also based on Philosophical Realism;

In metaphysics, realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Point is, Analytic Philosophy and Philosophy Realism are not realistic, i.e. the ultimate referent of their principles are illusory.

Since Peter is leveraging fundamentally on illusion, he has no grounds to claim what is ‘objective’ and that Morality is not objective.
…………………………………..

My realistic perspective is;

Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence, sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

My view of what is an object is different from the “object” of Analytic Philosophy which is fundamentally illusory.
What is ‘object’ to me is an emergence which the subject as co-contributor to that emergence.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671

My view of what is fact is not the ‘fact’ as defined by Analytic Philosophy, but rather;

A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.
For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star." is a cosmological fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
All of these statements have the epistemic quality of being "ontologically superior" to opinion or interpretation — they are either categorically necessary or supported by adequate documentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

What is fact is thus conditioned by how the fact is derived from a Framework of Knowledge. As above a linguistic fact is justified and derived from a Linguistic Framework.

Moral facts [similar to scientific facts] are derived from a Framework of Knowledge, i.e. the Moral Framework, thus are objective, i.e. independent of the individual[s] opinion and beliefs.
Moral facts in this case are Justified True Moral Beliefs, i.e. objective.
Example: “No human ought to prevent another human from breathing” is a moral fact derived from a specific Moral Framework.

Therefore there are moral facts which are objective, thus morality is fundamentally is objective.

Views? Counters?

Plato was an objectivist when it came to ethics. He argued that justice and virtue are objective facts that are universal.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Plato was an objectivist when it came to ethics. He argued that justice and virtue are objective facts that are universal.

Yes, these are the objectivists [absolute] that Peter is waiting to pounce on.
Peter believe all moral objectivists believe in the Plato's sort of objectivity and the likes.

Point is there are objective [relative] moral facts other than Plato's and the likes.
This is why I have been trying to convince Peter to differentiate between absolute moral facts [as claimed] and relative moral facts [as real].

[Scott Mayers]

"Analytic" opposes "Synthetic" more appropriately and referring to how a proposition's subject relates to the predicate. When the subject logically relates to the predicate by a genus-specie or tautological meaning, the propositions are deemed easiest to analyze because they don't add information beyond what can be implied. Thus, a proposition that has a subject that does not connect necessarily to its predicate is relatively artificial or coincidental and thus, the term, 'synthetic' describes those propositions.

I probably won't get into this too deeply as I'm not committed to being online as much anymore. But although I thank you for reopening a new thread given I wouldn't bother attempting to catch up on the 3000+ posts there. However, I am still surprised that you (Veritas) are still attempting to impose meaning to something 'moral' as though with religious conviction. (?)

Since morals are about evaluations of behavior deemed "good" or "bad" (as its minimal extremes), how do you deem that some behavior is understood as 'good' in some universal way? You may be making the same kind of error that the Social Darwinian's extend in meaning (synthetically) by contrast to the Evolutionary Darwinian idea of 'fit'. The meaning of what is 'fit' in evolution means "to match" and not, "to improve", even though these may synthetically be true to many parts of reality. The 'fit' meaning "to improve" is a subjective evalutation what such fitness implies about better qualities, capacities, or efficiencies relative to some understood goals. But these evaluations of utility are independently defined.

You appear to be using the term, "objective", more in the way of someone who is religious because it presumes "God" is an evaluative being [and co-derives with the word, "Good". In fact, "Moral" derives from "mara" (greatest) and "el" (for meaning "one" or "Thee One", such as is often a reference to the source being of the Universe.)

Have you altered any opinion since we last discussed this? I ask because one of the biggest reasons I am not online as much lately is that I don't see anyone able to alter their views regardless of any arguments. And I may be just as guilty. But I can't see how you can disrespect the virtue of analysis and so think you must be mistaking your understanding of the distinction in difference you have with Peter?


[Btw, nice to see you and others still living, given this Covid-19 thing. I'm guessing that many here are more used to isolation than the average and so at least can deal with these times with relative ease?]

[Skepdick]

"Analytic" opposes "Synthetic" more appropriately and referring to how a proposition's subject relates to the predicate. When the subject logically relates to the predicate by a genus-specie or tautological meaning, the propositions are deemed easiest to analyze because they don't add information beyond what can be implied. Thus, a proposition that has a subject that does not connect necessarily to its predicate is relatively artificial or coincidental and thus, the term, 'synthetic' describes those propositions.

I probably won't get into this too deeply as I'm not committed to being online as much anymore. But although I thank you for reopening a new thread given I wouldn't bother attempting to catch up on the 3000+ posts there. However, I am still surprised that you (Veritas) are still attempting to impose meaning to something 'moral' as though with religious conviction. (?)

Since morals are about evaluations of behavior deemed "good" or "bad" (as its minimal extremes), how do you deem that some behavior is understood as 'good' in some universal way? You may be making the same kind of error that the Social Darwinian's extend in meaning (synthetically) by contrast to the Evolutionary Darwinian idea of 'fit'. The meaning of what is 'fit' in evolution means "to match" and not, "to improve", even though these may synthetically be true to many parts of reality. The 'fit' meaning "to improve" is a subjective evalutation what such fitness implies about better qualities, capacities, or efficiencies relative to some understood goals. But these evaluations of utility are independently defined.

You appear to be using the term, "objective", more in the way of someone who is religious because it presumes "God" is an evaluative being [and co-derives with the word, "Good". In fact, "Moral" derives from "mara" (greatest) and "el" (for meaning "one" or "Thee One", such as is often a reference to the source being of the Universe.)

Have you altered any opinion since we last discussed this? I ask because one of the biggest reasons I am not online as much lately is that I don't see anyone able to alter their views regardless of any arguments. And I may be just as guilty. But I can't see how you can disrespect the virtue of analysis and so think you must be mistaking your understanding of the distinction in difference you have with Peter?


[Btw, nice to see you and others still living, given this Covid-19 thing. I'm guessing that many here are more used to isolation than the average and so at least can deal with these times with relative ease?]

Take this entire line of reasoning and re-frame it around "fitness". Is there such a thing as "universal fitness?" How do you differentiate between fit and unfit?

Who evaluates/decides fitness/unfitness and for what purpose?

There are are only two candidates for the evaluator's job ( as far as I can tell): Humans; or the universe. The latter being "the natural selector".
And that is the basic tension explored throughout history/humanity/religion. Upward and downward causality. David vs Goliath.

We don't need "evaluative beings" like God. We ARE evaluative beings. We just need to exploit superdeterminism

[Scott Mayers]

"Analytic" opposes "Synthetic" more appropriately and referring to how a proposition's subject relates to the predicate. When the subject logically relates to the predicate by a genus-specie or tautological meaning, the propositions are deemed easiest to analyze because they don't add information beyond what can be implied. Thus, a proposition that has a subject that does not connect necessarily to its predicate is relatively artificial or coincidental and thus, the term, 'synthetic' describes those propositions.

I probably won't get into this too deeply as I'm not committed to being online as much anymore. But although I thank you for reopening a new thread given I wouldn't bother attempting to catch up on the 3000+ posts there. However, I am still surprised that you (Veritas) are still attempting to impose meaning to something 'moral' as though with religious conviction. (?)

Since morals are about evaluations of behavior deemed "good" or "bad" (as its minimal extremes), how do you deem that some behavior is understood as 'good' in some universal way? You may be making the same kind of error that the Social Darwinian's extend in meaning (synthetically) by contrast to the Evolutionary Darwinian idea of 'fit'. The meaning of what is 'fit' in evolution means "to match" and not, "to improve", even though these may synthetically be true to many parts of reality. The 'fit' meaning "to improve" is a subjective evalutation what such fitness implies about better qualities, capacities, or efficiencies relative to some understood goals. But these evaluations of utility are independently defined.

You appear to be using the term, "objective", more in the way of someone who is religious because it presumes "God" is an evaluative being [and co-derives with the word, "Good". In fact, "Moral" derives from "mara" (greatest) and "el" (for meaning "one" or "Thee One", such as is often a reference to the source being of the Universe.)

Have you altered any opinion since we last discussed this? I ask because one of the biggest reasons I am not online as much lately is that I don't see anyone able to alter their views regardless of any arguments. And I may be just as guilty. But I can't see how you can disrespect the virtue of analysis and so think you must be mistaking your understanding of the distinction in difference you have with Peter?


[Btw, nice to see you and others still living, given this Covid-19 thing. I'm guessing that many here are more used to isolation than the average and so at least can deal with these times with relative ease?]

Take this entire line of reasoning and re-frame it around "fitness". Is there such a thing as "universal fitness?" How do you differentiate between fit and unfit?

Who evaluates/decides fitness/unfitness and for what purpose?

There are are only two candidates for the evaluator's job ( as far as I can tell): Humans; or the universe. The latter being "the natural selector".
And that is the basic tension explored throughout history/humanity/religion. Upward and downward causality. David vs Goliath.

We don't need "evaluative beings" like God. We ARE evaluative beings. We just need to exploit superdeterminism

Hi Skepdick,

I'm not sure what you are saying with respect to my points here. I was expressing how the term, "fitness" or its root, "fit", is/was used in 'synthetic' ways by interpreting the analytical meaning of the term to have emotive extension that only coincidentally occurs. Fitness in evolution only means that some genetic being is able to live long enough to procreate and pass on their genes when and where the environment permits it as fitting in with the accepted environment, regardless of the person's quality of genes. Genetics passes on qualities that will tend to be both 'good' and 'bad' but given the beings that don't survive lack being alive anymore to feel compassion for, anything that lives is better than not surviving. Thus, many default to interpret those being able to live as a 'good' thing. The 'survivors' are treated as EARNING their fortune to live when their lives had no actual choice or power in surviving. But given the dead cannot speak, only the living get to pass on their emotional opinions on whether their survival is better off. And so we tend to TRANFER that emotive extension in meaning to the original term, ''fitness'', as though it means both those fortunate to survive by the environment's power as well as a good thing.

I agree to some of what you said. I just don't know if you understood my context or if you were just adding some extra thought beyond Veritas' thread?

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Analytic" opposes "Synthetic" more appropriately and referring to how a proposition's subject relates to the predicate. When the subject logically relates to the predicate by a genus-specie or tautological meaning, the propositions are deemed easiest to analyze because they don't add information beyond what can be implied. Thus, a proposition that has a subject that does not connect necessarily to its predicate is relatively artificial or coincidental and thus, the term, 'synthetic' describes those propositions.

Note sure what is your point here, cannot see anything significant.
What is critical is when the above are combined with a priori or a posteriori elements -see Kant's view on this.

I probably won't get into this too deeply as I'm not committed to being online as much anymore. But although I thank you for reopening a new thread given I wouldn't bother attempting to catch up on the 3000+ posts there. However, I am still surprised that you (Veritas) are still attempting to impose meaning to something 'moral' as though with religious conviction. (?)

As I have been arguing, what I had proposed is as close to Science as possible.
Show me where I am wrong in this?

Since morals are about evaluations of behavior deemed "good" or "bad" (as its minimal extremes), how do you deem that some behavior is understood as 'good' in some universal way? You may be making the same kind of error that the Social Darwinian's extend in meaning (synthetically) by contrast to the Evolutionary Darwinian idea of 'fit'. The meaning of what is 'fit' in evolution means "to match" and not, "to improve", even though these may synthetically be true to many parts of reality. The 'fit' meaning "to improve" is a subjective evalutation what such fitness implies about better qualities, capacities, or efficiencies relative to some understood goals. But these evaluations of utility are independently defined.

Nope Morality proper is not about evaluations of behavior deemed "good" or "bad" for the individual to make moral choices and moral decision with every action intended.

Note I wrote this in another thread;

First one need to define 'what is morality' else we will be talking pass each other.
Fundamentally morality is not about making moral choices - which is an impossibility to make a moral decision on every actions we intend to act or act spontaneously.
viewtopic.php?p=458435#p458435

Then I proceed to explain how morality works.

Re evolution, my purpose is to abstract moral facts from empirical evidence related to human nature.
Show me where I have failed in this?

You appear to be using the term, "objective", more in the way of someone who is religious because it presumes "God" is an evaluative being [and co-derives with the word, "Good". In fact, "Moral" derives from "mara" (greatest) and "el" (for meaning "one" or "Thee One", such as is often a reference to the source being of the Universe.)

I am using the term 'objective' in the sense scientific facts are objective, not like theists.
You dispute 'scientific facts are objective'?

Have you altered any opinion since we last discussed this? I ask because one of the biggest reasons I am not online as much lately is that I don't see anyone able to alter their views regardless of any arguments. And I may be just as guilty. But I can't see how you can disrespect the virtue of analysis and so think you must be mistaking your understanding of the distinction in difference you have with Peter?

If you bring evidences and rational arguments to show my premises are false, I will alter my opinion.
You will note most of the posters do not provide solid arguments but just repeat dogmatic statement from philosophical traditions like those of philosophical realism, analytic philosophy and the like.
Meanwhile I have provided load of arguments supported with lots of empirical evidences.

[Btw, nice to see you and others still living, given this Covid-19 thing. I'm guessing that many here are more used to isolation than the average and so at least can deal with these times with relative ease?]

Fortunately I am not living in the USA [touted as the greatest in this and that] which is an embarrassment in dealing with the Covid19 infections [2m+] and death [110k+].

[Scott Mayers]

"Analytic" opposes "Synthetic" more appropriately and referring to how a proposition's subject relates to the predicate. When the subject logically relates to the predicate by a genus-specie or tautological meaning, the propositions are deemed easiest to analyze because they don't add information beyond what can be implied. Thus, a proposition that has a subject that does not connect necessarily to its predicate is relatively artificial or coincidental and thus, the term, 'synthetic' describes those propositions.

Note sure what is your point here, cannot see anything significant.
What is critical is when the above are combined with a priori or a posteriori elements -see Kant's view on this.

This was about what you said to Pete Olcott dismissing "analytic philosophy" for whatever you proposed in place of it. The replacing complement has to refer to 'synthetic' information that cannot be properly discussed without ambiguity. Any intellectual inspection about anything requires analysis. This IS what you are doing necessarily when competing and comparing for different views. The formal "analytical philosophers" were very specific to make sure that any statements being used to logically discuss any matter requires absolute clarity. It not, they deemed it unable to be analyzed with SPECIFIC understanding. It is also what must coexist within science. Science just adds the particular 'constants' that you can place into a logical argument. If you can't do this, it is referred to as "indeterminate".

I probably won't get into this too deeply as I'm not committed to being online as much anymore. But although I thank you for reopening a new thread given I wouldn't bother attempting to catch up on the 3000+ posts there. However, I am still surprised that you (Veritas) are still attempting to impose meaning to something 'moral' as though with religious conviction. (?)

As I have been arguing, what I had proposed is as close to Science as possible.
Show me where I am wrong in this?

This requires answering your next quote:

Since morals are about evaluations of behavior deemed "good" or "bad" (as its minimal extremes), how do you deem that some behavior is understood as 'good' in some universal way? You may be making the same kind of error that the Social Darwinian's extend in meaning (synthetically) by contrast to the Evolutionary Darwinian idea of 'fit'. The meaning of what is 'fit' in evolution means "to match" and not, "to improve", even though these may synthetically be true to many parts of reality. The 'fit' meaning "to improve" is a subjective evalutation what such fitness implies about better qualities, capacities, or efficiencies relative to some understood goals. But these evaluations of utility are independently defined.

Nope Morality proper is not about evaluations of behavior deemed "good" or "bad" for the individual to make moral choices and moral decision with every action intended.

If you aren't treating morality and ethics in general as to be necessarily about emotional evaluations, such as good or bad, you aren't talking about these as is understood. You are welcome to redefine the meanings of any symbol you want in philosophy. I can define "morality" as "anything that I, Scott Mayers, says it is." But then the symbol, "morality", doesn't share the same meaning. You assumed we all shared this meaning by the title of this thread. Yet it would be just a sales-pitch term, like how "free" is used in unconventional ways in advertisements that is just meant to trick us into interpreting whatever price they want for something as though it is providing something 'free' by popular understanding.

Morality is necessarily about judgements of favor or disfavor by someone(s) particular beliefs about them (subjectively) or some whole that all subjects in some universal class are presumed to share (objectively) regarding behaviors in normal usage. (favored things are deemed "good" to those suggesting it versus the opposite or vice versa.) The title implies that you are not in disagreement of some common understood distinction but that whether something can be 'objective' by whatever you interpret that to mean.

It reduces to politics. Is it morally universal (objective) that "no one should kill", where "kill" might mean, "to end the life of something or someone"? Or is it only morally universal to kill special things or persons? (an exception that would make it relatively 'subjective')

To most, since morality IS about valued emotional judgements, the "should" implicit in some 'law' is just an opinion about what is expected by SOME people. If it is all, then 'should' no longer applies given all members are compelled to obey without concern to nature's laws (objectively).

Note I wrote this in another thread;

First one need to define 'what is morality' else we will be talking pass each other.
Fundamentally morality is not about making moral choices - which is an impossibility to make a moral decision on every actions we intend to act or act spontaneously.
viewtopic.php?p=458435#p458435

Then I proceed to explain how morality works.

Re evolution, my purpose is to abstract moral facts from empirical evidence related to human nature.
Show me where I have failed in this?

Your link is responding to Pete's thread and has to map to HIS meaning, not your unusual meaning. It appears that his is the same as mine and what others understand it to mean via the general use of the term.

He basically asserted the same thing I just spoke above. If there is some behavior that is universally evaluated at all, it requires at least a COMPLEMENT judgement about what should be done or it is already universal for no one being able to choose. If X is ONLY a 'constant' evaluation that is universally shared objectively, no subject of the universal class of discourse could disagree. If you are interpreting the nature of people in science to maintain "objective" opinions based upon statistical majorities (or pluralities), these imply a difference of opinion that MAY exist of some potential member(s) of that class. But the act of agreeing or disagreeing about what is true of nature is deemed tentative and dependent upon some physical theory.

We might have a unanimous agreement among scientists that climate change will distroy us if we don't act now. The logic could even be assured given all premises are agreed to by all members as a given. But someone can still disagree for some indeterminate reason of their own regardless of the logic, even if they agree to the inputs. Morals are treated by default as having at least two CERTAIN possibilities to behave as existing, not merely postulated about the future. That is, a particular moral is suggested when there actually is a certainty that at least some person behaves in one way which some other person has not, that both behaviors are relatively ambiguous to nature (indeterminate), and that some political/social suggestion proposed which is intended to set a human law of behavior that implies consequences if one disobeys.

If people didn't exist, people's morals do not. But if something physical exists, morales do not. Religious people usually believe this last point is not true in that some God is assumed to exist who dictates THAT one of two or more behaviors are 'good' or not apriori to anyone or anything existing. The term, "God" is literally an evolved word from "good" versus "bad" (or "evil", some more absolute extreme of some 'bad' behavior). As such, they believe morality as absolute and has definitively certain consequences. In fact, many argue THAT a God has to exist to command what will be defined as 'good' versus 'evil' precisely because nature itself doesn't do this on Earth. For instance, why is there not always consequential justice to universal behaviors? Why, for instance, can we kill another and sometimes get away with it regardless? The religious would argue that while on Earth one CAN behave arbitrarily, they will still have a real specific consequence as adjudicated by a God when you die on Earth.

Morality has no meaning without interpreted values of 'good/not-good' to exist with UNIQUE consequences. This is then "objective" to Nature (for God's domain) by religious people. The consequences have to be promised uniquely or they lack meaning.

Politics is the human domain to adjudicate which behaviors we assign to be 'good' or 'bad' with consequences for breaking them where caught/exposed. Thus this is why I keep referring you to look at politics and not science. We have something called, political science

If you are not talking politics, which include social laws we make between any two people about deciding shared etiquette, then morals have no consideration by science proper. The reason "indeterminacy" is a difficult discussion in science is due to science's shared assumption that physical laws exist that assure unique consequential outcomes. If you are opting to discuss different possible outcomes in science, they require too to have at least some interpretation about physics that demonstrates at least some conflicting ambiguity assuming two possible valued outcomes. But in these cases, Nature would hold all the possible outcomes that those discussing some moral idea would impose.

And IF you are still so certain THAT morality can be treated as 'objectively' unique, then you would simultaneously SOLVE all political/social problems regarding differences of behavior. Unfortunately, since Nature only permits existence WITH conflict, you have a great challenge to try to prove that you could possibly even have a universally undeniable 'science' of moral conduct which is sure to please each and every person on Earth.

[Skepdick]

And IF you are still so certain THAT morality can be treated as 'objectively' unique, then you would simultaneously SOLVE all political/social problems regarding differences of behavior. Unfortunately, since Nature only permits existence WITH conflict, you have a great challenge to try to prove that you could possibly even have a universally undeniable 'science' of moral conduct which is sure to please each and every person on Earth.

What does the objectivity of morality have to do with individual choices?

ALL scientific theories are descriptive.
ALL choices are imperative.

Morality is a systemic property. Being moral is a meaningful thing only in the context of humanity and when measured against social norms.
We don't have to appease every person on Earth. That is WHY we have laws, so that the ones who can't be reasoned with can be disciplined.

And why we have conflict/violence as a tool against the abuse of laws.

Conflict resolution is part&parcel of the "morality" of the system.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Analytic" opposes "Synthetic" more appropriately and referring to how a proposition's subject relates to the predicate. When the subject logically relates to the predicate by a genus-specie or tautological meaning, the propositions are deemed easiest to analyze because they don't add information beyond what can be implied. Thus, a proposition that has a subject that does not connect necessarily to its predicate is relatively artificial or coincidental and thus, the term, 'synthetic' describes those propositions.

Note sure what is your point here, cannot see anything significant.
What is critical is when the above are combined with a priori or a posteriori elements -see Kant's view on this.

This was about what you said to Pete Olcott dismissing "analytic philosophy" for whatever you proposed in place of it. The replacing complement has to refer to 'synthetic' information that cannot be properly discussed without ambiguity. Any intellectual inspection about anything requires analysis. This IS what you are doing necessarily when competing and comparing for different views. The formal "analytical philosophers" were very specific to make sure that any statements being used to logically discuss any matter requires absolute clarity. It not, they deemed it unable to be analyzed with SPECIFIC understanding. It is also what must coexist within science. Science just adds the particular 'constants' that you can place into a logical argument. If you can't do this, it is referred to as "indeterminate".

I have no issue with the need for analysis and being analytical which is my natural tendency and my professional life is about serious analysis and being analytical.

My complain with with 'analytic philosophy' which take analysis to the extreme as an ideology.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy
Analytic philosophy is a branch or tradition of philosophy using analysis which is popular in the Western World and Anglosphere, beginning around the turn of the 20th century in the contemporary era and continues today.

Note also,

Analytic philosophy is often understood in contrast to other philosophical traditions, most notably continental philosophies such as existentialism and phenomenology, and Hegelianism.[7]
Russell contrasted analytic "academic" philosophy with continental "literary" philosophy.
-ibid

I believe "analytic philosophy" is too rigid, the continental philosophies [my preference Kantian] is more realistic in alignment with reality.

Nope Morality proper is not about evaluations of behavior deemed "good" or "bad" for the individual to make moral choices and moral decision with every action intended.

If you aren't treating morality and ethics in general as to be necessarily about emotional evaluations, such as good or bad, you aren't talking about these as is understood.
You are welcome to redefine the meanings of any symbol you want in philosophy.

I can define "morality" as "anything that I, Scott Mayers, says it is." But then the symbol, "morality", doesn't share the same meaning. You assumed we all shared this meaning by the title of this thread. Yet it would be just a sales-pitch term, like how "free" is used in unconventional ways in advertisements that is just meant to trick us into interpreting whatever price they want for something as though it is providing something 'free' by popular understanding.

There are many definitions of "what is morality" as it is understood.
You cannot insist yours and Peter's are the general view of what is morality.
You have to do a literature survey on 'what is morality' to understand the various mode 'morality is understood'.

In fact, Peter's and your and the like are the minority view.
The majority who are mostly theists believe there are moral facts as opposed to Peter's view - there are no moral facts - absolute moral facts.
I believe in relative moral facts which are in contrast to the theists.

Therefore note the below, i.e. to define what is morality is critical;

First one need to define 'what is morality' else we will be talking pass each other.
Fundamentally morality is not about making moral choices - which is an impossibility to make a moral decision on every actions we intend to act or act spontaneously.
viewtopic.php?p=458435#p458435
Then I proceed to explain how morality works.

Re evolution, my purpose is to abstract moral facts from empirical evidence related to human nature.
Show me where I have failed in this?

Your link is responding to Pete's thread and has to map to HIS meaning, not your unusual meaning. It appears that his is the same as mine and what others understand it to mean via the general use of the term.

He basically asserted the same thing I just spoke above. If there is some behavior that is universally evaluated at all, it requires at least a COMPLEMENT judgement about what should be done or it is already universal for no one being able to choose. If X is ONLY a 'constant' evaluation that is universally shared objectively, no subject of the universal class of discourse could disagree. If you are interpreting the nature of people in science to maintain "objective" opinions based upon statistical majorities (or pluralities), these imply a difference of opinion that MAY exist of some potential member(s) of that class. But the act of agreeing or disagreeing about what is true of nature is deemed tentative and dependent upon some physical theory.

Note my point above.

Peter's and your understanding of 'what is morality' is of the minority's.

And IF you are still so certain THAT morality can be treated as 'objectively' unique, then you would simultaneously SOLVE all political/social problems regarding differences of behavior. Unfortunately, since Nature only permits existence WITH conflict, you have a great challenge to try to prove that you could possibly even have a universally undeniable 'science' of moral conduct which is sure to please each and every person on Earth.

YES I am optimistic my proposals re Morality if implemented will SOLVE all political/social problems regarding differences of behavior in the FUTURE [next few generations] not now.
Based on existing psychological states, it is too late at present/now for any significant improvements in the average moral competence of humanity.

My optimism is based on the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, e.g. the Human Connectome Project [mapping of the human brain] and advances in other fields of knowledge.

Besides my proposals are already being practiced progressively at present, albeit crudely, thus all it need is to polish those practices and fit them into the proposed Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.