What could make morality objective?

[Sculptor]

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!


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?


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 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

Sore loser.
In this case, you are running away because you don't have any rational counters to the points raised.

You have this blind arrogance you are right but don't realize you are ignorant of the relevant knowledge to discuss the issue on hand.
This is very common with those who are stuck with Analytic Philosophy and Philosophical Realism which in the first place are fundamentally unrealistic.

As I had stated, your thinking is very shallow, narrow and dogmatic.

As usual you have nothing to offer the discussion except your personal prejudices.

[Sculptor]

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.

How come you are SO ignorant?
It is very common for a discussion on 'morality' to associate with personal judgments on so-called moral decisions, e.g. casuistry trolley scenarios and problems. But this pseudo morality.

Note what is morality;
Here is the conventional meaning;

• Morality= principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
  http://english.oxforddictionaries.com/morality

Here is the from the Philosophical community

• In the normative sense, “morality” refers to a code of conduct that would be accepted by anyone who meets certain intellectual and volitional conditions, almost always including the condition of being rational.
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

From the above, the main purpose of morality is the establishment of moral facts to be use as principles and code of conduct within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
The issue from here, what is the definition of moral facts and the various contentious issues surround what are moral facts.
I disagree with absolute moral realism relying on absolute moral facts, like those of Plato's Forms or objective moral commands from a God.

What I have been proposing are relative objective moral facts that are justified from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

From a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, the Moral Agent is suppose to act spontaneously in alignment with the relative objective moral facts. If he had acted wrongly and created a moral variance, then his inherent continuous improvement faculty will strive to do better the next time.

It is very stupid [like you] to stick to the idea that a Moral Agent will be making a judgment in every activity he did or will be doing, by weighing the facts.

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.

Nah.. ignorant again.
Objectivity exists on the basis of intersubjective consensus, thus cannnot escape subjectivity.
Objectivity [relative not absolute] exists as a necessity to facilitate survival, thus has survival value.
We have objective Scientific knowledge/facts/truths which has high utility for survival and progress - who would deny such necessary objectivity which is independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs.

Just as we have objective scientific knowledge/facts/truth we have moral knowledge/facts/truths are derived in the similar manner as in Science.

You would possibly do better to respond to posts that I made to you, yourself, not Sdick.
My other bit of advice is to ACTUALLY read and try to understand what is being said, before you make a fool of yourself, yet again.

[surreptitious57]

Here is a point from Korsgaard again where the view of what is morality will shock your system that is stuck to the traditional view

The source of [ moral ] obligation is a legislator one whose authority is beyond question and does not need to be established

But there is only one such authority and it is the authority of your own mind and will

Your own mind is the authority that is beyond question ? Are all minds therefore omniscient ?
So when a mind commits an act that is immoral or illegal it does not have to accept responsibility for it because it can do no wrong ?
Then what is the purpose of law if a mind can freely override it anytime it wants because the only authority it recognises is its own ?
Also what happens when two minds are in conflict with each other but each of them only recognises their own individual authority ?

Are the moral choices of psychopaths beyond question as well ?
Because if one wants to kill me is that decision of theirs perfectly acceptable ?
But what if I do not want to be killed ? Whose opinion takes precedence then ?

What about all of the other immoral things that human beings do ?
Are they all acceptable simply because minds are beyond question ?

This system is impractical because it is basically each mind deciding for themselves - it is nothing more than simple anarchy
The legislator has to be an external body that treats all minds as equally responsible - they cannot be their own lawmakers

Why are you advocating this ? Can you not see how fundamentally flawed it is because of the individual free will which we possess ?
The only way that it could possibly work is if we were all hardwired for non reciprocal altruism but we are not so it is really useless

[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?

Peter is cornered to accept it is not morally wrong if you or anyone wants to kill him, rape his wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.

It is not treating a global moral system like it was objective.
It is objective because it is justified to be objective based on empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
Because it is justified to be objective, it is a Justified True Moral Belief, thus it is a moral fact.
Peter do not recognize there are such moral facts to act as a GUIDE to steer the moral conscience of all humans regardless of whatever circumstances they are in.

Therefore, Peter is cornered to accept it is not morally wrong if you or anyone wants to kill him, rape his wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.

My point is;
"No human ought to kill another human"
is an relative objective moral fact,
which is justified as a Justified True Belief, [like scientific facts]
via a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Therefore based on the objective moral fact, it is morally wrong for anyone to kill/rape another human or commit other evil acts upon another human.
Where any actual evil acts are committed, they are a variance with the grounded objective moral facts, as such necessary actions [morally] has to be taken to deal with the moral variance.

As far as Peter is concerned, he only has legal recourse [not if he is living in an isolated island], personal vengeance or cry, but he has no holistic moral solutions to deal with the acts of evil.

So? Of course killing/raping/etc. isn't absolutely morally wrong, since there is no absolutely objective morality.

What empirical evidence do you mean by the way? We have evidence that during the 4 billion years of life on this planet, most organisms survived by eating other organisms. Humans also have to kill plants or plants+animals. And most organisms (icluding a few humans) don't even have any morality.

[surreptitious57]

Here is a point from Korsgaard again where the view of what is morality will shock your system that is stuck to the traditional view

It is not shocking just unworkable . Also morality has evolved at a species level for all of our current existence
So you cannot ignore that and treat all minds as independent from each other only accountable to themselves
Evolutionary psychology is the foundation of the collective morality of the human race of the last I00 000 years

[henry quirk]

What did I miss?

What's right in front of you.


utterly worthless and meaningless

No, not worthless or meaningless: just not worth more, just not more meaningful, than the opposin' opinion.

[Sculptor]

Here is a point from Korsgaard again where the view of what is morality will shock your system that is stuck to the traditional view

It is not shocking just unworkable . Also morality has evolved at a species level for all of our current existence
So you cannot ignore that and treat all minds as independent from each other only accountable to themselves
Evolutionary psychology is the foundation of the collective morality of the human race of the last I00 000 years

Morality is genetic and cultural.
You do not need EP to see the roots of morality, you've only to observe a mammalian female with her offspring; or watch a pack of wild dogs, to see the emotional basis of empathy, and co-operation.
Cultural aspects tend to make it more complex, by masking the innate emotional basis.

[Peter Holmes]

What did I miss?

What's right in front of you.


utterly worthless and meaningless

No, not worthless or meaningless: just not worth more, just not more meaningful, than the opposin' opinion.

If morality is not objective - if there are no moral facts - why then are all moral judgements of equal worth or equally meaningful? From whose point of view would that be the case?

[henry quirk]

If morality is not objective - if there are no moral facts - why then are all moral judgements of equal worth or equally meaningful? From whose point of view would that be the case?

Obviously, if morality is just an exercise in opinion, then to any given opinion holder, his is important, meaningful, worthwhile. But it's just an opinion. It may be well-founded (in that it aligns with fact) or ill-founded (not aligned with fact), and in that respect we could say some opinions are more weighty or valid than others. But in an amoral Reality, measures (even sumthin' as sensible as how does my opinion align with fact?) are themselves just opinion.

And we're just talkin' about a single opinion holder here. The water gets muddier by far when we look at competin' opinions, and competin' groups of opinion holders.

Say for a moment I'm right: the fact man belongs to himself does lead to the moral fact it's wrong to leash a man. Recognizin' such a thing justifies self-defense, defense of other, property rights, self-determination, etc. such notions become inviolate and, when breached, defensible.

If I'm wrong and there is no moral fact: there's nuthin' to recognize and nuthin' to defend other than opinion.

In an amoral world even the fact man belongs to himself is only as weighty, important, meaningful as any one wants to make it. In an amoral world facts often get memory-holed.


Question (to anyone): if Reality is amoral why do some men insist otherwise?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a point from Korsgaard again where the view of what is morality will shock your system that is stuck to the traditional view;

The source of [moral] obligation is a legislator, one whose authority is beyond question and does not need to be established.

But there is only one such authority and it is the authority of your own mind and will.

It is not the bare fact that it would be a good idea to perform a certain action that obligates us to perform it.

It is the fact that we command ourselves to do what we find it would be a good idea to do.

The above is not about moral judging and deliberating moral decisions but it is activated spontaneously in alignment with the moral fact.

It obvious I don't expect you to buy the above outright.

But what should happen is you should be shocked with the above claims and retorted,
WTF is that?? and be stirred to ask why, how is the above possible and what the hell it is all about? to shift to another perhaps more tenable paradigm of what is morality.

So there are moral facts because 'we command ourselves to do what we find it would be a good idea to do'.

And you find this claptrap even remotely rational? Let's see, shall we?

We find it would be a good idea to murder our enemies. So we command ourselves to murder our enemies. And it's a moral fact that murdering our enemies is a good thing. Indeed, it's a moral obligation.

I think you know Korsgaard's idea is shit, which is why you hesitated to suggest it. Have the courage of your moral convictions. Please.

How come you are so hasty as triggered by your ignorance?

I suggested you must read Korsgaard's view thoroughly to understand [not necessary agree with/yet] her views.

Within Korsgaard's Framework of Morality there is the question of justifying the highest good which obviously reject all evil acts, notably 'murder'.

Look. I have been insisting on the moral maxim,
'No human ought to kill another human'
how could I have suggested Korsgaard's view if she had advocated the contrary.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a point from Korsgaard again where the view of what is morality will shock your system that is stuck to the traditional view

The source of [ moral ] obligation is a legislator one whose authority is beyond question and does not need to be established

But there is only one such authority and it is the authority of your own mind and will

Your own mind is the authority that is beyond question ? Are all minds therefore omniscient ?
So when a mind commits an act that is immoral or illegal it does not have to accept responsibility for it because it can do no wrong ?
Then what is the purpose of law if a mind can freely override it anytime it wants because the only authority it recognises is its own ?
Also what happens when two minds are in conflict with each other but each of them only recognises their own individual authority ?

Are the moral choices of psychopaths beyond question as well ?
Because if one wants to kill me is that decision of theirs perfectly acceptable ?
But what if I do not want to be killed ? Whose opinion takes precedence then ?

What about all of the other immoral things that human beings do ?
Are they all acceptable simply because minds are beyond question ?

This system is impractical because it is basically each mind deciding for themselves - it is nothing more than simple anarchy
The legislator has to be an external body that treats all minds as equally responsible - they cannot be their own lawmakers

Why are you advocating this ? Can you not see how fundamentally flawed it is because of the individual free will which we possess ?
The only way that it could possibly work is if we were all hardwired for non reciprocal altruism but we are not so it is really useless

Note my response to Peter;

Within Korsgaard's Framework of Morality there is the question of justifying the highest good which obviously reject all evil acts, notably 'murder'.

Look, I have been insisting on the moral maxim;
'No human ought to kill another human'
how could I have suggested Korsgaard's view if she had advocated the contrary.

There is more to the above than the statement presented.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

Peter is cornered to accept it is not morally wrong if you or anyone wants to kill him, rape his wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.

It is not treating a global moral system like it was objective.
It is objective because it is justified to be objective based on empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
Because it is justified to be objective, it is a Justified True Moral Belief, thus it is a moral fact.
Peter do not recognize there are such moral facts to act as a GUIDE to steer the moral conscience of all humans regardless of whatever circumstances they are in.

Therefore, Peter is cornered to accept it is not morally wrong if you or anyone wants to kill him, rape his wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.

My point is;
"No human ought to kill another human"
is an relative objective moral fact,
which is justified as a Justified True Belief, [like scientific facts]
via a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Therefore based on the objective moral fact, it is morally wrong for anyone to kill/rape another human or commit other evil acts upon another human.
Where any actual evil acts are committed, they are a variance with the grounded objective moral facts, as such necessary actions [morally] has to be taken to deal with the moral variance.

As far as Peter is concerned, he only has legal recourse [not if he is living in an isolated island], personal vengeance or cry, but he has no holistic moral solutions to deal with the acts of evil.

So? Of course killing/raping/etc. isn't absolutely morally wrong, since there is no absolutely objective morality.

So, like Peter,
Therefore, you are cornered to accept it is not morally wrong if anyone wants to kill you rape your wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.
The above do not sound nice, but I have to introduce such drastic examples with the hope to get the message through.

The point is, there is no absolute-objective morality [e.g. Platonic Forms or God moral laws] but there are justifiable relative objective moral facts just like how Science derives its relative objective scientific facts.
Do you dispute that scientific facts are not objective?

What empirical evidence do you mean by the way? We have evidence that during the 4 billion years of life on this planet, most organisms survived by eating other organisms. Humans also have to kill plants or plants+animals. And most organisms (including a few humans) don't even have any morality.

While there are eating and killing of each other inter-species, there is the core principle of self-preservation within intra-species, especially of the higher animals.
Whilst there are intraspecies competition, the indication such competition is by default for the long good of the species, i.e. the preservation of the species.

Show me which specifically identified species [higher animals] strive to eat and kill each other within the species?

Note:

From the gene-centred view, it follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

Morality is inherent to the human species.
Note,
There are research on babies of less than 12 months [not yet significantly influenced by nurture] that demonstrated human babies has an inherent propensity for morality.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
The Moral Life of Babies
Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.

At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a point from Korsgaard again where the view of what is morality will shock your system that is stuck to the traditional view

It is not shocking just unworkable . Also morality has evolved at a species level for all of our current existence
So you cannot ignore that and treat all minds as independent from each other only accountable to themselves
Evolutionary psychology is the foundation of the collective morality of the human race of the last I00 000 years

As stated, there are a lot more to Korsgaard's Framework and System of Morality and Ethics. It is a big complex jigsaw puzzle with many pieces where I have only presented a few principles.

In this case, whilst the individual is his own legislator, s/he is aligned universally with the human species where all individuals share the same moral principles with moral obligation for all living things.

Note the above is not expected to work at the present with the current psychological state of the average individuals. It will only work in the future [next 50, 75, 100 years?] where the average human mind is wired efficiently for such a state.

[Peter Holmes]

Here is a point from Korsgaard again where the view of what is morality will shock your system that is stuck to the traditional view;



The above is not about moral judging and deliberating moral decisions but it is activated spontaneously in alignment with the moral fact.

It obvious I don't expect you to buy the above outright.

But what should happen is you should be shocked with the above claims and retorted,
WTF is that?? and be stirred to ask why, how is the above possible and what the hell it is all about? to shift to another perhaps more tenable paradigm of what is morality.

So there are moral facts because 'we command ourselves to do what we find it would be a good idea to do'.

And you find this claptrap even remotely rational? Let's see, shall we?

We find it would be a good idea to murder our enemies. So we command ourselves to murder our enemies. And it's a moral fact that murdering our enemies is a good thing. Indeed, it's a moral obligation.

I think you know Korsgaard's idea is shit, which is why you hesitated to suggest it. Have the courage of your moral convictions. Please.

How come you are so hasty as triggered by your ignorance?

I suggested you must read Korsgaard's view thoroughly to understand [not necessary agree with/yet] her views.

Within Korsgaard's Framework of Morality there is the question of justifying the highest good which obviously reject all evil acts, notably 'murder'.

Look. I have been insisting on the moral maxim,
'No human ought to kill another human'
how could I have suggested Korsgaard's view if she had advocated the contrary.

I've no doubt that Korsgaard doesn't advocate murdering our enemies - just as nor do you and I.

I'm pointing out the implication of this account of morality - where it comes from - and how it could be objective. The only way to rescue the theory would be by way of special pleading - 'justifying the highest good' - which was predictable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So there are moral facts because 'we command ourselves to do what we find it would be a good idea to do'.

And you find this claptrap even remotely rational? Let's see, shall we?

We find it would be a good idea to murder our enemies. So we command ourselves to murder our enemies. And it's a moral fact that murdering our enemies is a good thing. Indeed, it's a moral obligation.

I think you know Korsgaard's idea is shit, which is why you hesitated to suggest it. Have the courage of your moral convictions. Please.

How come you are so hasty as triggered by your ignorance?

I suggested you must read Korsgaard's view thoroughly to understand [not necessary agree with/yet] her views.

Within Korsgaard's Framework of Morality there is the question of justifying the highest good which obviously reject all evil acts, notably 'murder'.

Look. I have been insisting on the moral maxim,
'No human ought to kill another human'
how could I have suggested Korsgaard's view if she had advocated the contrary.

I've no doubt that Korsgaard doesn't advocate murdering our enemies - just as nor do you and I.

I'm pointing out the implication of this account of morality - where it comes from - and how it could be objective. The only way to rescue the theory would be by way of special pleading - 'justifying the highest good' - which was predictable.

Didn't you notice the term 'justifying'.
see: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... sh/justify

As I had always stated the process of justification is as close as possible to how Science justifies its scientific facts/truths/knowledge.
You deny scientific facts/truths/knowledge are objective?

Note this new OP,
All Moral Statements are Opinions??
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29465