What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

There is nothing axiomatic about bigotry or prejudice or ignorance that may be characteristics of someones personal truth
Of course not everyones personal truth has these characteristics but the fact some do means it is not by default axiomatic

So if they are not axiomatic, then they are assertions.

Do you think you can assert whether somebody is a bigot? How? What's the first step in your thinking process if it's not an axiom?

[surreptitious57]

Do you think you can assert whether somebody is a bigot ? What is the first step in your thinking process if it is not an axiom ?

You can categorically state [ not merely assert ] that someone is a bigot if they actually display bigotry according to the definition
But I dont regard definitions as axioms - the first applies to [ non mathematical ] language while the second applies to mathematics
Definitions are just descriptions of things but axioms are rules that reference how a system actually operates - they are not the same

[Skepdick]

You can categorically state [ not merely assert ] that someone is a bigot if they actually display bigotry according to the definition

Potato, potatoh. All you are saying is that you can categorically place somebody in one of two categories:
* Biggot
* Not biggot.

But I dont regard definitions as axioms - the first applies to [ non mathematical ] language while the second applies to mathematics
Definitions are just descriptions of things but axioms are rules that reference how a system actually operates - they are not the same

OK, so how would you place somebody in one of the two categories without a definition?

[surreptitious57]

so how would you place somebody in one of the two categories without a definition ?

You cannot have a word - that is what these categories are - without a definition
A word without a definition is a meaningless concept and serves no purpose at all

[Skepdick]

You cannot have a word - that is what these categories are - without a definition
A word without a definition is a meaningless concept and serves no purpose at all

I am not asking you for a word or a definition.

I am asking you to describe what goes on in your head when you are busy deciding whether to put any particular person in one category or the other.

[Sculptor]

NOPE, framework of knowledge are not theories.

Then Veritas Aequitas, when shown to be wrong, denies he said "NOPE, framework of knowledge are not theories."
Then Veritas Aequitas, has the temerity to call me stupid!
LMFHO

[Veritas Aequitas]

NOPE, framework of knowledge are not theories.

Then Veritas Aequitas, when shown to be wrong, denies he said "NOPE, framework of knowledge are not theories."
Then Veritas Aequitas, has the temerity to call me stupid!
LMFHO

Yes, "teacher" that is a fact.
I have learned from you and PantFlasher the best defense is to attack and in both your strategies rely on intellectual violence and straw_mans based on ignorance, stupidity, narrow and shallow perspectives.

Until you and PantFlasher approach to counter my arguments amiably with sound justified counters, it is an eye for an eye.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Honestly - it's stupefying. Calling moral objectivists.

Please demonstrate the entailment of a moral assertion from a factual assertion: 'if A, then B' - or 'in any situation in which A is the case, then B is the case', or 'if A is true, then B is true' - and so on.

Hint: if what you propose is supposed to be a factual entailment, then denying the consequent must produce a contradiction.

For example, here's a dud: People need to breathe; therefore it's morally wrong to prevent people from breathing.

But if you like it, please demonstrate the entailment.

I have already corrected your fallacy, i.e. you are equivocating and conflating 'your' unique facts with moral facts each being justified from their respective Framework and System of Knowledge.

I have pointed out you are too dogmatic in being stuck with the ultimately unrealistic knowledge and fact from Philosophical Realism and semantics.

You have not countered my argument why there should not be different types of facts justified from different Framework and System of Knowledge.

It is only stupefying to you because you lack the dept and width of philosophical and other knowledge to open to understand [not necessary agree with] my counter points.

Worst you do not understand what 'Morality-proper' and 'objectivity' is about in relation to your OP.

It is stupefying you are insisting to avoid the necessary rigor in such a philosophical discussion.

Therefore to clear your 'stupefying' you need to upgrade your philosophical competence first.

To clear the first hurdle you need to trace the philosophical "genealogy" [the lineage] of how you arrive at your current idea of "what is morality" and "what is objectivity".

[Veritas Aequitas]

... "objective" here refers to absolute objectivity ...
Relative objectivities will clash with each other.

Yes, true, but "absolute objectivity" arises only from pure subjectivity.
It is, as such not a value system, not a set of rules and preferences - it is rather the "intuitive"/natural mode of being.

"Absolute objectivity" in the context of morality probably doesn't exist at all, so it probably doesn't arise out of anything.

Ultimately, every thing is fundamentally subjective, i.e. reducible to the involvement of subjects.

"Absolute objectivity" arise as an idea in the minds of absolute objectivists [subjects] which then emerged as an ideology.
Such ideology of moral objectivity emerged as secular and theistic moral commands that influence SOME believers to commit all sorts of evil [genocide to petty evil acts] on non-believers.

This is why it is critical to recognize the above facts and deal, resolve, eliminate, prevent and/or reduce the associated evil acts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes relative objective facts from different Framework of Knowledge will clash but their respective contexts, conditions, assumptions are always explicitly [it has to be] stated.

You are demanding too much. Within a community the "assumptions" are almost always implicit not explicit. They are born from shared experiences.
The narrative/language itself is secondary.

There's a whole lot more that happens in the social sphere than can be captured in a linguistic framework.

Elements of Morality and Ethics can be used as one of the feature of an overarching framework and system that is established to assess the veracity and degree of confidence level it will provide for users of the facts.

That gets us nowhere if you have competing Ethical/Moral frameworks with different goals. You will end up with different languages.

For example a Framework and System of Rating for veracity and degree of confidence level can be established based on the following weighted criteria, e.g.

Veracity and degree of confidence of what? Knowledge? Facts? What are the knowledge and facts produced by your framework used for?

• 1. The efficiency of the infrastructure of the Framework [& system].
  2. The features of of each frameworks, e.g.
  • 3. Testability
    4. Repeatability of results
    5. Falsifiability
    6. Ease of testing,
    7. Peer review
  8. Moral and ethical compliances
  9. Whatever other necessary criteria to be included

Each of the criteria must be given its appropriate weightage.

What purpose do all of those things serve?

From the above, we will note [.. I believe] the Scientific Framework will be rated the highest at the present, given that Science among other features, promised, for most* of its truths - repeatability of results by anyone who test using the Scientific Method. * there are some exceptions, i.e. BB is not repeatable.

Legal Facts would not be as high as Science because legal facts are conditioned upon various circumstances and will not give a high degree of repeatability if a different jury or judge make the judgment.

Thus from the above Framework and System of Rating the Veracity and confidence level, we can obtain the fact of the degree of confidence for each specific Framework and System to assist users in making various judgments.

The knowledge/facts with the highest veracity/confidence/certainty is useless to the person who doesn't need it.

What do you need facts for?

What will happen to those [individuals and groups] who are ignorant of the fact of the Covid19's virus?

[Atla]

Yes, true, but "absolute objectivity" arises only from pure subjectivity.
It is, as such not a value system, not a set of rules and preferences - it is rather the "intuitive"/natural mode of being.

"Absolute objectivity" in the context of morality probably doesn't exist at all, so it probably doesn't arise out of anything.

Ultimately, every thing is fundamentally subjective, i.e. reducible to the involvement of subjects.

"Absolute objectivity" arise as an idea in the minds of absolute objectivists [subjects] which then emerged as an ideology.
Such ideology of moral objectivity emerged as secular and theistic moral commands that influence SOME believers to commit all sorts of evil [genocide to petty evil acts] on non-believers.

This is why it is critical to recognize the above facts and deal, resolve, eliminate, prevent and/or reduce the associated evil acts.

Did you commit such evil acts back when you were a religious fanatic?

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Absolute objectivity" in the context of morality probably doesn't exist at all, so it probably doesn't arise out of anything.

Ultimately, every thing is fundamentally subjective, i.e. reducible to the involvement of subjects.

"Absolute objectivity" arise as an idea in the minds of absolute objectivists [subjects] which then emerged as an ideology.
Such ideology of moral objectivity emerged as secular and theistic moral commands that influence SOME believers to commit all sorts of evil [genocide to petty evil acts] on non-believers.

This is why it is critical to recognize the above facts and deal, resolve, eliminate, prevent and/or reduce the associated evil acts.

Did you commit such evil acts back when you were a religious fanatic?

To confirm the above as a fact;
Go to a busy square in Kabul, then burn the Quran.
Then you know the answer just before you become pieces of meat and bones.

[Atla]

Ultimately, every thing is fundamentally subjective, i.e. reducible to the involvement of subjects.

"Absolute objectivity" arise as an idea in the minds of absolute objectivists [subjects] which then emerged as an ideology.
Such ideology of moral objectivity emerged as secular and theistic moral commands that influence SOME believers to commit all sorts of evil [genocide to petty evil acts] on non-believers.

This is why it is critical to recognize the above facts and deal, resolve, eliminate, prevent and/or reduce the associated evil acts.

Did you commit such evil acts back when you were a religious fanatic?

To confirm the above as a fact;
Go to a busy square in Kabul, then burn the Quran.
Then you know the answer just before you become pieces of meat and bones.

Yeah but did YOU commit such evil acts back when you were a religious fanatic?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Did you commit such evil acts back when you were a religious fanatic?

To confirm the above as a fact;
Go to a busy square in Kabul, then burn the Quran.
Then you know the answer just before you become pieces of meat and bones.

Yeah but did YOU commit such evil acts back when you were a religious fanatic?

Note my earlier assertion;

• Such ideology of moral objectivity emerged as secular and theistic moral commands that influence SOME believers to commit all sorts of evil [genocide to petty evil acts] on non-believers.

I was never religious at all thus do not belong to that 'SOME' group, thus your question is irrelevant to me.

However your questioning as above indicate you doubt my assertion, so to test the truth of my assertion, just do the test I proposed yourself, i.e.

• To confirm the above as a fact;
  Go to a busy square in Kabul, then burn the Quran.
  Then you know the answer just before you become pieces of meat and bones.

Give me the results of the test next week.

[Atla]

To confirm the above as a fact;
Go to a busy square in Kabul, then burn the Quran.
Then you know the answer just before you become pieces of meat and bones.

Yeah but did YOU commit such evil acts back when you were a religious fanatic?

Note my earlier assertion;

• Such ideology of moral objectivity emerged as secular and theistic moral commands that influence SOME believers to commit all sorts of evil [genocide to petty evil acts] on non-believers.

I was never religious at all thus do not belong to that 'SOME' group, thus your question is irrelevant to me.

However your questioning as above indicate you doubt my assertion, so to test the truth of my assertion, just do the test I proposed yourself, i.e.

• To confirm the above as a fact;
  Go to a busy square in Kabul, then burn the Quran.
  Then you know the answer just before you become pieces of meat and bones.

Give me the results of the test next week.

I didn't doubt your assertion, I asked whether you committed evil acts when you were a religious fanatic.

You said you were an avid Vedantists (the wrong kind) for a long time. You still have an agressive, obsessive fanaticism in you. To fix two problems at once, you should go to Kabul, equipped with a bomb, burn the Quran, and push the button when they try to mob you.