What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you can't show how a moral assertion can follow logically from a factual assertion. So you can see why your appeal to reason and evidence is incoherent. Whatever facts and arguments we deploy to justify a moral opinion, it remains an opinion - by definition. And others can deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify different a moral opinion. And that's our moral predicament.

The idea of 'moral opinion' is merely a derogatory term introduced by some low class moral philosophers.

Your idea of an "opinion" is false;

I have presented this many times;
Opinion= a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

The moral fact I presented is justified from scientific facts, other knowledge and philosophical reasoning.

So you recognise there is indeed a difference between an assertion expressing a value-judgement, and a factual assertion. An opinion - in this case, a value-judgement - can be based on facts and knowledge - but it remains an opinion. You don't seem to grasp the fact that a justification is just a reason for believing or claiming something. A moral opinion justified by facts and sound argument doesn't therefore become a fact.

Btw, if you think induction can ride to the rescue, please show how a factual premise can induce a moral conclusion. (I assure you, you won't be able to - but you still haven't cracked the conceptual problem - recognised the category error - so feel free to find out for yourself.)

Btw, if you think a normative approach can demonstrate the existence of moral facts, please show an example. (You'll find it doesn't.)

Are you sure you understand Normative Ethics thoroughly?
I don't believe you do.

Okay, do what I ask - show how a there can be a moral fact in a normative ethical context. Ffs.

Re induction, as I had demonstrated, you can do a test and ask every normal human whether they will volunteer to be stopped from breathing till they die.
Any normal person will arrive at the same answer intuitively and this can be confirmed by induction.
Would you dispute this?

Please think. We can conclude inductively - by asking lots of people - that people don't want to be suffocated. But all we have then is the (inductive) fact that people don't want to be suffocated. It doesn't follow that it's morally wrong to suffocate people. You keep missing the break - bridging over it - pretending it isn't there. We can't demonstrate by induction, anymore than by deduction, that X is morally wrong.

In addition I have introduced philosophical reasoning to support how I have arrived at the moral conclusion, i.e. a moral fact or moral standard.

And I've shown clearly and repeatedly why you haven't demonstrated the existence of moral facts. So there. Ner, ner, ner-ner, ner.

I had also argued, if other various types of Framework and System can generate their respective facts, why can a Framework and System of Morality generate moral facts?

What about astrology? Can that generate astrological facts? If you think it can't, ask yourself why it can't. And how can we tell it can't?

It is a waste of time to repeat my answers SO MANY times but your skull is so thick that no philosophical sense can get through in this case.

Just a note on Astrology.
I have demonstrated the continuum from opinion to beliefs to Knowledge [Justified True Beliefs].
Note, on color continuum it is true, White could be 0.001% black -99.999 white, grey = 50% black 50% white, and Black = 0.001% white.
On this term, there is a continuum of fact with degrees of veracity from 0/100 [opinions] to 99.9/100 [JTB].
As such Astrological fact has a 0.001% of veracity & 99.999 falsehoods. Divine fact such as God exists, imo, is 0/100 degree of veracity.

Note I had stated your use of 'fact' is too dogmatic. When you read the term 'fact' you spontaneously associate the term 'fact' with your bias screwed up definition of 'what is fact'.

Suggest you read up extensively on 'Normative Ethics' to understand there are normative 'moral' facts and truths which are conditioned within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Here is some points from Korsgaard re Normative Ethics;

Moral principles could be shown to be principles of practical reasoning that are based on the nature of the will and yield conclusions about what we ought to do.
There are then facts, moral truths, about what we ought to do, but that is not because the actions are intrinsically normative.
They [facts and moral truths] inherit their normativity from principles that spring from the nature of the will - the principles of practical reasoning.

.... [there are] philosophers who reject the idea that knowledge is what we need for normativity and put something more like confidence in its place.
According to these philosophers, morality is not grounded in our apprehension of truths about objective values.
It [morality] is grounded in human nature and certain natural human sentiments [e.g. Hume].
The normative question is then whether it is good to have such a nature and to yield to its claims.
Normativity will be established, not by knowledge, but by our own reflective endorsement of our moral nature.

The above is what morality-proper represent in contrast to your screwed up definition of 'what is fact' and 'objectivity'.

Hume relied on human sentiments but his argument for morality is not solid enough. There are other philosophers who had improved on Hume version of morality.

[uwot]

One of them is RED
And the other one is RED

Which red do you mean?

The red one.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you can't show how a moral assertion can follow logically from a factual assertion. So you can see why your appeal to reason and evidence is incoherent. Whatever facts and arguments we deploy to justify a moral opinion, it remains an opinion - by definition. And others can deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify different a moral opinion. And that's our moral predicament.

The idea of 'moral opinion' is merely a derogatory term introduced by some low class moral philosophers.

Your idea of an "opinion" is false;

When faced with a FACT.
That is all you have. A random ad hominem followed by denial.

I have presented this many times;
Opinion= a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

The moral fact I presented is justified from scientific facts, other knowledge and philosophical reasoning.

ALL moral statements are opinions. That is an objective fact.

Nah! your statement is a screwed up opinion.

As presented above, there is the continuum of degree of veracity for 'what held to be true' from opinions, to beliefs to justified true beliefs. [JTB].

Whatever moral statements made are opinions if they are not sufficiently justified within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics. e.g. Peter's "Murder is not morally wrong", "Murder is wrong is merely an opinion."

Whatever moral statements made are beliefs if they are reasonable justified with high personal conviction, within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics. e.g. I believe Murder is wrong because I don't want to be murdered and I sense evil with the idea of murdering another human being.

Whatever moral statement made are moral knowledge/moral facts if they are solidly justified within an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics. These facts are Justified True Moral Beliefs [JTMB].
The justification in this case for JTMB has to be very thorough to as close as possible like how Science justify its scientific knowledge.

[Sculptor]

Misrepresenting PH is not going to get you anywhere.
You seem too dull to understand what he has just said.
Like a child you do not understand the difference between opinion and fact. God help you when you read a newspaper!
Now matter how you cut it "murder is bad" is still an opinion. Were I to have killed Hitler in Germany in 1944 I would have committed murder. Murder is defined as ILLEGAL killing; that is a FACT. I would argue that that particular murder would have been good. Not good for Hitler. Maybe not good for the German people. But good for the Allies. That is what is called an OPINION. this is subjective, obviously.
Now with, this, the MOST simple example can you not see how even murder is not bad or good?

Idiot. It is a FACT that you hold an opinion.

It is also a FACT that your opinions lead you to actions.

If I can predict your opinions/actions then your opinions/actions are OBJECTIVE as far as the scientific framework is concerned.

Obviously you are also having problems with the meaning of "if" too.

That is HOW we test for "objectivity" empirically. That is what the word "objective" means within the empirical epistemology! Irrespective of the fucking definition.
[/quote]
There is no test for objectivity. Objectivity is just an aspiration. You can't get there with induction. fucking moron.

You are so dumb you can't even think without a definition.

You are too dumb to understand that definitions do not represent reality, but use metaphor to try to establish meaning. That does not entitle you to impose definitions on reality.

[Sculptor]

The idea of 'moral opinion' is merely a derogatory term introduced by some low class moral philosophers.

Your idea of an "opinion" is false;

When faced with a FACT.
That is all you have. A random ad hominem followed by denial.

I have presented this many times;
Opinion= a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

The moral fact I presented is justified from scientific facts, other knowledge and philosophical reasoning.

ALL moral statements are opinions. That is an objective fact.

Nah! your statement is a screwed up opinion.

As presented above, there is the continuum of degree of veracity for 'what held to be true' from opinions, to beliefs to justified true beliefs. [JTB].

Whatever moral statements made are opinions if they are not sufficiently justified within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics. e.g. Peter's "Murder is not morally wrong", "Murder is wrong is merely an opinion."

Whatever moral statements made are beliefs if they are reasonable justified with high personal conviction, within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics. e.g. I believe Murder is wrong because I don't want to be murdered and I sense evil with the idea of murdering another human being.

Whatever moral statement made are moral knowledge/moral facts if they are solidly justified within an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics. These facts are Justified True Moral Beliefs [JTMB].
The justification in this case for JTMB has to be very thorough to as close as possible like how Science justify its scientific knowledge.

God help you.
PS I'm an atheist.
LOL

[Skepdick]

There is no test for objectivity. Objectivity is just an aspiration. You can't get there with induction. fucking moron.

Then how are you using that word , dipshit?

What is the conventional way in which you are using the word "objective" if objectivity doesn't exist?

If you were playing a game of idealism, knowing that nobody can jump as high as you've placed the bar then you are just setting everybody up for failure. Well done! You are a douchebag.

You are too dumb to understand that definitions do not represent reality, but use metaphor to try to establish meaning. That does not entitle you to impose definitions on reality.

Idiot. Pay attention to my entire Philosophy. Representation is ALL you have.

That's what you use LANGUAGE for. I am not imposing definitions on reality. I have MODELS for navigating it.
I am a constructivist. Logically. Mathematically. Philosophically. Epistemologically. The core mantra of constructivism is meaning-making..
It's an attitude which stands in defiance to nihilism (which is 100% true).

There is absolutely no need for you to wear the shining armour you've donned on for yourself - reality doesn't need you to defend its honour from my "definitions". Your sense of self-importance greatly exceeds your intellect.

[Sculptor]

There is no test for objectivity. Objectivity is just an aspiration. You can't get there with induction. fucking moron.

Then how are you using that word , dipshit?

Duh! Like this, wanker.
"(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."
It's an aspiration since all statements about moral matters inevitably involve a person in making a JUDGEMENT, about how to weight the facts. That is what makes it an aspiration because it is not possible for anyone to speak without offering their own point of view.

What is the conventional way in which you are using the word "objective" if objectivity doesn't exist?

DUH.
Objectivity exists AS AN ASPIRATION.
It is an attempt to see a problem without bias. This is impossible, since none of can escape our point of view.

If you were playing a game of idealism, knowing that nobody can jump as high as you've placed the bar then you are just setting everybody up for failure. Well done! You are a douchebag.

fallacy of adverse consequences, tosser!

[Skepdick]

"(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

You have the emotional intelligence of a potato.

The whole notion of "judgment" and "not influenced by feelings" is incoherent bullshit!

You cannot represent the totality of facts because language does not allow for it!
Language is lossy compression!

That which is left unsaid is that which you, the judge of facts have deemed irrelevant to mention! The distinction between relevance and irrelevance is 100% a subjective judgment!

If what's relevant to me is not relevant to you, from my perspective you are lying by omission!

It's an aspiration since all statements about moral matters inevitably involve a person in making a JUDGEMENT, about how to weight the facts. That is what makes it an aspiration because it is not possible for anyone to speak without offering their own point of view.

You aren't fucking saying anything. OBVIOUSLY everybody's point of view is their own point of view.

What I am asking you is how does the unification of perspectives work? How do we arrive at facts if all we have is the sum of subjective judgments?

Objectivity exists AS AN ASPIRATION.
It is an attempt to see a problem without bias. This is impossible, since none of can escape our point of view.

Does anything which humans call "objective" in 2020 satisfy your aspiration; or is everything that humans call "objective" simply not good enough for Sculptor?

fallacy of adverse consequences, tosser!

Fallacy fallacy! Wanker.

Such idealism/perfectionism is fucking harmful - perfect is the enemy of good!

Which only begs the question: Good enough for WHAT?!?!?

[Sculptor]

"(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

You have the emotional intelligence of a potato.

The whole notion of "judgment" and "not influenced by feelings" is incoherent bullshit!

You cannot represent the totality of facts because language does not allow for it!
Language is lossy compression!

That which is left unsaid is that which you, the judge of facts have deemed irrelevant to mention! The distinction between relevance and irrelevance is 100% a subjective judgment!

If what's relevant to me is not relevant to you, from my perspective you are lying by omission!

It's an aspiration since all statements about moral matters inevitably involve a person in making a JUDGEMENT, about how to weight the facts. That is what makes it an aspiration because it is not possible for anyone to speak without offering their own point of view.

You aren't fucking saying anything. OBVIOUSLY everybody's point of view is their own point of view.

What I am asking you is how does the unification of perspectives work? How do we arrive at facts if all we have is the sum of subjective judgments?

Objectivity exists AS AN ASPIRATION.
It is an attempt to see a problem without bias. This is impossible, since none of can escape our point of view.

Does anything which humans call "objective" in 2020 satisfy your aspiration; or is everything that humans call "objective" simply not good enough for Sculptor?

fallacy of adverse consequences, tosser!

Fallacy fallacy! Wanker.

Such idealism/perfectionism is fucking harmful - perfect is the enemy of good!

Which only begs the question: Good enough for WHAT?!?!?

Total wanker.
Back on ignore with you

[Atla]

So, deduction doesn't work. A factual assertion can't entail a moral assertion. You can't get an ought from an is. Well - who knew?

I know - let's try induction. Perhaps a collection of facts can induce a moral conclusion.

For example, perhaps we can show by induction that eating animals is or isn't morally wrong.

Or perhaps we can show, by Bayesian analysis, the post probability that eating animals is or isn't morally wrong.

(Please. Wake up. Ffs.)

I agree with you 100% Peter.

There is absolutely no way for you to induce OR deduce that "Murdering me, Peter Holmes, is wrong."
There is absolutely no way you could possibly arrive at such conclusion and hold the opinion that you hold.

So lets murder you then. Commit to your opinions.

I want to be so woke!

Skepdick, we do not agree on many issues but wow!! this point is very philosophically solid.
This is a checkmate argument and Peter has no way out of this.
Your point has so much philosophical sense, yet those real ignorant dickheads in their ignorance condemned your point without solid counter argument.

If so wish, anyone all can murder Peter because he is insisting it is not morally wrong to kill another human.

If we are in a sovereign nation with severe penalties the one who murder Peter could only be in trouble if he did not commit the perfect murder, thus could end with a lifetime prison sentence or will be legally killed for it.
If anyone who think they can commit the perfect murder, they can go ahead an murder Peter.

Now if Peter lands on an isolated island not belonging to any sovereign nation, then, anyone on that island can kill him without any legal threat at all.

This is why we need a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics with objective moral facts/truths as moral ought/standard that are independent of individual opinions and beliefs and are naturally in alignment within ALL humans regardless of where they are.

Within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, the individual is his own moral-defendant, defense lawyer, persecutor, jury, judge, correctional officer within his internal court [brain/mind].
The effective with moral laws applied within himself are those he has recognized and adopted himself which align with the universal moral facts justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

In this case, the moral fact/truth of an ought-not as effected internally is;
'No human ought to to kill another human'

In this case, it is morally wrong for any human to kill Peter because he is 'another human'.

If despite the above, Peter is killed due to other reasons, it is not a moral issue rather it will be an issue of Ethics [Applied] and deliberated separately.

Where was the checkmate? Treating a global moral system like it was objective, doesn't actually turn that system absolutely objective.

I wonder which part of this is difficult to understand?

[Skepdick]

Where was the checkmate? Treating a global moral system like it was objective, doesn't actually turn that system absolutely objective.

I wonder which part of this is difficult to understand?

No need to wonder - I'll tell you.

The part where Peter is equivocating "objectivity" makes it impossible to understand.

On the one hand Peter insists on the conventional use of words, on the other hand he objects that the conventional use of the word "objectivity" is not "absolutely objective".

So he might as well be asking "What could make Earth's roundness objective?".

Absolutely objective? Nothing!
Objective in the conventional sense? It already is. Exactly like morality.

[Atla]

Where was the checkmate? Treating a global moral system like it was objective, doesn't actually turn that system absolutely objective.

I wonder which part of this is difficult to understand?

No need to wonder - I'll tell you.

The part where Peter is equivocating "objectivity" makes it impossible to understand.

On the one hand Peter insists on the conventional use of words, on the other hand he objects that the conventional use of the word "objectivity" is not "absolutely objective".

So he might as well be asking "What could make Earth's roundness objective?".

Absolutely objective? Nothing!
Objective in the conventional sense? It already is. Exactly like morality.

Maybe, but you get things wrong like 80% of time, so could you quote him saying such things?

[Skepdick]

Maybe, but you get things wrong like 80% of time, so could you quote him saying such things?

I can, but I don't have to - there is a "search" function.

Peter knows I am not lying and that's enough.

This is the other 20%....

[henry quirk]

Thoughtful Wrath

“There are those, pacifists they name themselves, who proclaim that no man’s life is worth another’s; that it is better to die, or witness murder, than to take a life. And if one first grants that all lives have equal value in some mythical sense, this may make sense upon its face.

“There are those, the grovelers, who opine that life is far more precious than the liberty to live it. And so, that ’tis better to be the live dung-worm than the dead eagle, that it is better to live on one’s knees – or one’s face – than die on one’s feet, and thus so how much better not to slay in its defense? And for those timid souls who value their lives but little, whose satisfaction is mediocrity and whose ambitions are but embers, this may also be true.

“There are, too, those who claim that no property or possession is worth a life. And once again, for those whom life is worth infinity in the abstract but nigh-naught in the concrete, it indeed boots little to give away fragments of a life, however cherished, however hard-earned, however irreplaceable, for such small Flames surely quail to fill even their bearer’s body, much less invest the world about.

“But for the sake of the principle that these things embody, that man is a means, not an end; that none exist for the use or pleasure of another; that he who kills, or enslaves, or robs even the least among us, by whatever means, for whichever cause, commits a crime not only against his victim but rebels against the proper nature of rational beings itself —

“If the world chooses to deny this principle, gentle reader, we must drown the world in its own blood.” -A. Young

...as the moral vacuum is mute.

[Peter Holmes]

Here is some points from Korsgaard re Normative Ethics;

Moral principles could be shown to be principles of practical reasoning that are based on the nature of the will and yield conclusions about what we ought to do.
There are then facts, moral truths, about what we ought to do, but that is not because the actions are intrinsically normative.
They [facts and moral truths] inherit their normativity from principles that spring from the nature of the will - the principles of practical reasoning.

.... [there are] philosophers who reject the idea that knowledge is what we need for normativity and put something more like confidence in its place.
According to these philosophers, morality is not grounded in our apprehension of truths about objective values.
It [morality] is grounded in human nature and certain natural human sentiments [e.g. Hume].
The normative question is then whether it is good to have such a nature and to yield to its claims.
Normativity will be established, not by knowledge, but by our own reflective endorsement of our moral nature.

Quoting a load of cack written by someone else does nothing to beautify yours.