Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

I am not clinging to the traditional view of JTB even from the start. In the past I had brought in the Gettier point mistakenly. I will avoid that in the future to ensure no confusion.

I have presented JTB is a new paradigm as described above and it is similar to scientific knowledge which I claim is also JTB.
What is wrong with dealing with Morality from the epistemological perspective? What is critical is whether whatever is presented is justifiable or not.

My fundamental principle is, whatever that is claimed as knowledge, moral or otherwise, it must be justified empirically and philosophically like scientific knowledge. Where can I go wrong on this.

Thanks for being quicker and clearer this time.

I've explained why the JTB account of knowledge - traditional or updated - is incorrect. If you disagree, show me why I'm wrong.

I have already agreed in generally the traditional view of JTB as knowledge is wrong. What you have explained is common knowledge so nothing new.

I have presented an updated version of JTB which is based on how scientific knowledge is justified as true beliefs.
The term 'justification' and 'belief' are totally different from that of the Traditional View of JTB.
Why is this as qualified, incorrect or not-acceptable?
If you insist it is incorrect, then you are claiming all scientific facts are false.

And I just said what's wrong with 'dealing with Morality from the epistemological perspective'. It assumes that morality is an epistemological matter in the first place - and that has to be demonstrated. To assume it is to beg the question.

The Philosophy of Morality is dealt within its FSK.
The introduction of epistemology is merely as a tool to facilitate communication, just like logic is a tool to structure the information.

Where you go wrong has always been your assumption that moral rightness and wrongness are things that can be empirically demonstrated and therefore 'known' - in the way that the features of reality that natural science can empirically demonstrate can be 'known'.

Note again, to me moral assertions and judgments are not moral facts per se.

What is moral fact is that 'ought-ness' and 'ought-not_ness' that is represented by an inherent algorithm within the human brain, mind and psyche and this is demonstrable via natural science and social science.

Note my analogy with the inherent 'hunger' drive.
It is also the same with the inherent sex drive.

I have asserted the moral function is inherent within the brain and mind and it generate moral facts which can be justified empirically and philosophically.

WAFWOT.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thanks for being quicker and clearer this time.

I've explained why the JTB account of knowledge - traditional or updated - is incorrect. If you disagree, show me why I'm wrong.

I have already agreed in generally the traditional view of JTB as knowledge is wrong. What you have explained is common knowledge so nothing new.

I have presented an updated version of JTB which is based on how scientific knowledge is justified as true beliefs.
The term 'justification' and 'belief' are totally different from that of the Traditional View of JTB.
Why is this as qualified, incorrect or not-acceptable?
If you insist it is incorrect, then you are claiming all scientific facts are false.

And I just said what's wrong with 'dealing with Morality from the epistemological perspective'. It assumes that morality is an epistemological matter in the first place - and that has to be demonstrated. To assume it is to beg the question.

The Philosophy of Morality is dealt within its FSK.
The introduction of epistemology is merely as a tool to facilitate communication, just like logic is a tool to structure the information.

Where you go wrong has always been your assumption that moral rightness and wrongness are things that can be empirically demonstrated and therefore 'known' - in the way that the features of reality that natural science can empirically demonstrate can be 'known'.

Note again, to me moral assertions and judgments are not moral facts per se.

What is moral fact is that 'ought-ness' and 'ought-not_ness' that is represented by an inherent algorithm within the human brain, mind and psyche and this is demonstrable via natural science and social science.

Note my analogy with the inherent 'hunger' drive.
It is also the same with the inherent sex drive.

I have asserted the moral function is inherent within the brain and mind and it generate moral facts which can be justified empirically and philosophically.

WAFWOT.

Signs of losing the argument.

[Peter Holmes]

I have already agreed in generally the traditional view of JTB as knowledge is wrong. What you have explained is common knowledge so nothing new.

I have presented an updated version of JTB which is based on how scientific knowledge is justified as true beliefs.
The term 'justification' and 'belief' are totally different from that of the Traditional View of JTB.
Why is this as qualified, incorrect or not-acceptable?
If you insist it is incorrect, then you are claiming all scientific facts are false.


The Philosophy of Morality is dealt within its FSK.
The introduction of epistemology is merely as a tool to facilitate communication, just like logic is a tool to structure the information.


Note again, to me moral assertions and judgments are not moral facts per se.

What is moral fact is that 'ought-ness' and 'ought-not_ness' that is represented by an inherent algorithm within the human brain, mind and psyche and this is demonstrable via natural science and social science.

Note my analogy with the inherent 'hunger' drive.
It is also the same with the inherent sex drive.

I have asserted the moral function is inherent within the brain and mind and it generate moral facts which can be justified empirically and philosophically.

WAFWOT.

Signs of losing the argument.

No. Boredom.

[Luxin]

deleted 461

[Peter Holmes]

Hello Peter,

I enjoy your writing; you seem a fine teacher. Nevertheless, to me morality is objective and nothing but. Moral facts are very real to me; my whole existence is based on them, and they are the essential substance of God (I am not religious); that is, all Spiritual Law like The Great Law of Love. I consider Morality to be an occult subject because of the confusion surrounding it. Generally unknown facts are still facts. Thank you.

Hello, Luxin.

Thank you.

[Atla]

WAFWOT.

Signs of losing the argument.

No. Boredom.

Veritas is to become the saviour of humanity, how dare you dismiss him like that.

[FlashDangerpants]

WAFWOT.

Signs of losing the argument.

No. Boredom.

Dude, the guy boasts that he spent three years copying the entire Koran into a spreadshee, setting over a thousand categories for each passage. He also boasts that he spent multiple years doing nothing but read Kant for 8 hour per day. He isn't the sort of person that is put off by endless repetition, nor disuaded by the pointlesness of any task.

This is just another thing that he will one day tell somebody he spent three years doing, and he will once again assume that all those wasted hours are equivalent to expertise. Our role in all of this is merely as enablers in someone else's mental decline.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Signs of losing the argument.

No. Boredom.

Dude, the guy boasts that he spent three years copying the entire Koran into a spreadshee, setting over a thousand categories for each passage. He also boasts that he spent multiple years doing nothing but read Kant for 8 hour per day. He isn't the sort of person that is put off by endless repetition, nor disuaded by the pointlesness of any task.

This is just another thing that he will one day tell somebody he spent three years doing, and he will once again assume that all those wasted hours are equivalent to expertise. Our role in all of this is merely as enablers in someone else's mental decline.

Here is another 'boast'.

Since Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:52 am
OUGHT from IS is Possible
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245
which is almost 12 months could be bit earlier
I have researched VERY extensively and into the depths of Ethics and Morality in addition to what I have done with the in depth Morality of Kant.
My New Folder re Morality & Ethics now has 577 Files in 28 Folders and is still increasing as I dug deeper and deeper into the subject.

I have been able to produce a chart of a very meaningful taxonomy representing almost all of the various topics within Ethics and Morality.
From that chart I can see your views as with Peter Holmes and Sculptor on Ethics and Morality are merely a 'needle in a haystack' [cheap, bankrupt] of the whole schema of Ethics/Morality.

It is likely it will take another 6 months to have a reasonable grasp on the whole topic of Ethics and Morality.

[FlashDangerpants]

No. Boredom.

Dude, the guy boasts that he spent three years copying the entire Koran into a spreadshee, setting over a thousand categories for each passage. He also boasts that he spent multiple years doing nothing but read Kant for 8 hour per day. He isn't the sort of person that is put off by endless repetition, nor disuaded by the pointlesness of any task.

This is just another thing that he will one day tell somebody he spent three years doing, and he will once again assume that all those wasted hours are equivalent to expertise. Our role in all of this is merely as enablers in someone else's mental decline.

Here is another 'boast'.

Since Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:52 am
OUGHT from IS is Possible
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245
which is almost 12 months could be bit earlier
I have researched VERY extensively and into the depths of Ethics and Morality in addition to what I have done with the in depth Morality of Kant.
My New Folder re Morality & Ethics now has 577 Files in 28 Folders and is still increasing as I dug deeper and deeper into the subject.

I have been able to produce a chart of a very meaningful taxonomy representing almost all of the various topics within Ethics and Morality.
From that chart I can see your views as with Peter Holmes and Sculptor on Ethics and Morality are merely a 'needle in a haystack' [cheap, bankrupt] of the whole schema of Ethics/Morality.

It is likely it will take another 6 months to have a reasonable grasp on the whole topic of Ethics and Morality.

28 folders and a 2 dimensional chart with which to conquer ethics. Why? You were able to thoroughly dissect Islam with nothing but Excel?

This shit isn't healthy, it's doing you harm.

[Peter Holmes]

By way of valediction, here’s a summary of my argument against moral objectivism, including, where relevant, explanation of the theory of truth and theory of language I use to make the argument. And I apologise for the repetition.

I’m also posting this at my other OP, What could make morality objective?, for anyone following one discussion but not the other.


1 Signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean, and there is no other court of appeal. So what we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are. For example, when we talk about factual assertions being true, that is what constitutes what we call truth. And what we mean when we say we know things is what constitutes what we call knowledge.

The idea that what we call such things as truth and knowledge may not be what we say they are comes from a metaphysical delusion. Unlike nouns such as dog and tree, abstract nouns, such as truth and knowledge, are not names of things of some kind that can be described, in the way we can describe dogs and trees.

Pending evidence for the existence of so-called abstract things, belief that they exist is irrational. But the myth of abstract things is ancient and pervasive.


2 What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So, in this context, that there are facts is a given. And to ask if morality is objective is really to ask if there are moral facts.


3 We use the word fact in two radically different ways, to mean either a feature of reality (a state-of-affairs) that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality. And only the second kind of fact - typically a linguistic expression – has a truth-value: (classically) true or false.

Most features of reality just are or were, neither true not false, because reality is not linguistic. The only features of reality that can have truth-value are factual assertions.


4 I define a factual assertion as an assertion that claims something about reality that may or may not be or have been the case. So a factual assertion has a truth-value: true or false. And we call a true factual assertion a fact.

A factual assertion is always contextual and involves a conventional use of signs. And as there are many ways to describe features of reality, there are many facts about any feature of reality, each true in its descriptive context. But though we invented different ways to talk about reality, we did not invent the reality that we talk about. A description is not the described.


5 A putative moral fact is either a moral feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality. And only the second kind of putative moral fact – typically a linguistic expression – has a truth-value: true or false.


6 Moral realists and objectivists claim that there are moral features of reality – moral rightness and wrongness – that are or were the case, so that there can be factual assertions about them that have truth-value.


7 To my knowledge, moral realists and objectivists have failed to prove that moral features of reality exist. And while that may not mean they do not exist, it does mean that to believe they do exist is irrational.


8 Given this, a moral assertion, such as ‘slavery is morally wrong’ is non-factual, does not claim something about reality that may or may not be or have been the case, and therefore does not have a truth-value.

Instead, the function of a moral assertion is to express a moral value-judgement about a feature of reality, such as genocide, slavery, rape, abortion, capital punishment, eating animals – and so on.


9 Our moral values and judgements matter deeply to us. And we think of them as universal – applicable everywhere and for all time. For example, if we think slavery is morally wrong, we think it always was and will be morally wrong. To think otherwise would be morally inconsistent.

For these reasons, it is easy to think there are moral facts, so that morality is objective. It is an understandable misunderstanding.

[Veritas Aequitas]

By way of valediction, here’s a summary of my argument against moral objectivism, including, where relevant, explanation of the theory of truth and theory of language I use to make the argument. And I apologise for the repetition.

I’m also posting this at my other OP, Is morality objective or subjective?, for anyone following one discussion but not the other.


1 Signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean, and there is no other court of appeal. So what we call truth, facts and objectivity are what we say they are. For example, when we talk about factual assertions being true, that is what constitutes what we call truth. And what we mean when we say we know things is what constitutes what we call knowledge.

The idea that what we call such things as truth and knowledge may not be what we say they are comes from a metaphysical delusion. Unlike nouns such as dog and tree, abstract nouns, such as truth and knowledge, are not names of things of some kind that can be described, in the way we can describe dogs and trees.

Pending evidence for the existence of so-called abstract things, belief that they exist is irrational. But the myth of abstract things is ancient and pervasive.

(I agree it is effective to made repetitions)

No other courts of appeal??
Words as sign to represent truth, fact and objectivity is very crude.
This is a very serious issue and philosophically you need to approach it with more rigor and precision.

What is truth, fact and objectivity is justified empirically and philosophical reasoning within specific Framework and System of knowledge.
The resultant truths, facts and objectivity need not be presented in words but more precise in mathematical symbols and images, videos, etc.

Whatever fact you talk of must be conditioned upon a FSK, and the most credible is the Scientific FSK not on your mere talks of signs, words and what they mean.

Thus the grounding of your argument based on words is toothless and therefore to the conclusions you made depended on the above groundless premises.

2 What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So, in this context, that there are facts is a given. And to ask if morality is objective is really to ask if there are moral facts.

Again objectivity is based on what is justified empirically and philosophical reasoning within specific Framework and System of knowledge.

What is objective in relation to Morality is grounded and structured upon 3 main and 7 sub-dimensions.

• The ontological dimensions of ethical objectivity explored in this book are
  • mind-independence,
    determinate correctness,
    uniform applicability, and
    invariance;
  the epistemic dimensions are
  • transindividual concurrence and
    impartiality; and
  the semantic dimension is
  • truth-aptitude.

I am reading the book on this at present.

3 We use the word fact in two radically different ways, to mean either a feature of reality (a state-of-affairs) that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality. And only the second kind of fact - typically a linguistic expression – has a truth-value: (classically) true or false.

Most features of reality just are or were, neither true not false, because reality is not linguistic. The only features of reality that can have truth-value are factual assertions.

Your grounding of what is fact of reality is toothless.
Thus your 3 is pointless.

4 I define a factual assertion as an assertion that claims something about reality that may or may not be or have been the case. So a factual assertion has a truth-value: true or false. And we call a true factual assertion a fact.

A factual assertion is always contextual and involves a conventional use of signs. And as there are many ways to describe features of reality, there are many facts about any feature of reality, each true in its descriptive context. But though we invented different ways to talk about reality, we did not invent the reality that we talk about. A description is not the described.

Your grounding of what is fact of reality is toothless.
Thus your 4 is pointless.

5 A putative moral fact is either a moral feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality. And only the second kind of putative moral fact – typically a linguistic expression – has a truth-value: true or false.

Your grounding of what is fact of reality is toothless.
Thus your 5 is pointless.

6 Moral realists and objectivists claim that there are moral features of reality – moral rightness and wrongness – that are or were the case, so that there can be factual assertions about them that have truth-value.

Moral realist and moral objectivists [cognitivists] made the following claims;

Moral Sentence and moral judgments;
1. Are propositions
2. Is True or False – Truth Apt
3. Is Objective – mind independent via its FSK
4. Reducible to non-moral properties

The above are justified via a Moral Framework and System and Moral Cognitivists [different groups] has given their respective supports for their claims.

7 To my knowledge, moral realists and objectivists have failed to prove that moral features of reality exist. And while that may not mean they do not exist, it does mean that to believe they do exist is irrational.

This is because you have never bothered to read widely on the various claims made by the cognitivists.
In addition I have presented my of my justifications on the existence of moral facts, but because of your dogmatism you are naturally blinded and be open to alternative views.

8 Given this, a moral assertion, such as ‘slavery is morally wrong’ is non-factual, does not claim something about reality that may or may not be or have been the case, and therefore does not have a truth-value.

Instead, the function of a moral assertion is to express a moral value-judgement about a feature of reality, such as genocide, slavery, rape, abortion, capital punishment, eating animals – and so on.

I have already provided the justifications.
In addition there are loads of books and articles by cognitivists who provided their own basis of justification for moral facts.

9 Our moral values and judgements matter deeply to us. And we think of them as universal – applicable everywhere and for all time. For example, if we think slavery is morally wrong, we think it always was and will be morally wrong. To think otherwise would be morally inconsistent.

For these reasons, it is easy to think there are moral facts, so that morality is objective. It is an understandable misunderstanding.

The misunderstanding is due to your ignorance and dogmatism in sticking to some archaic doctrines inherited from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists, note Ayer's Emotivism for example.

You should try to counter the Frege-Geach Problem that had sunk the non-Cognitivists ideology.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30150
I believe this is beyond your grasp?
This Frege-Geach Problem undermines all your claims above and those nonCognitivists' stances I listed below.
You must counter to keep your claims above water after being sunk.

Your above counter against Moral Objectivism is too flimsy, note the more complete stance taken by nonCognitivists like yourself are;

• Moral Sentences - moral judgments
  1. Cannot be Propositions
  2. Cannot be True nor False
  3. Not truth apt
  4. Not fact, not state-of-affairs
  4i Are opinions and 'beliefs'
  5. Not objectively true
  6. Prescriptive not descriptive
  7. Non-Declarative Speech Acts
  8. Meaningless - Boo,
  9. Moral knowledge impossible
  10. Not state of mind of Beliefs
  11. Express desires, emotions, dis/approval
  12. Do not predicate properties of subjects
  13. Are Queer - mythical -woo woo
  14. Mind Dependent

But the nonCognitivists claims are full of big holes, i.e. fallacious.
Therefore you should get your own house in order before you critique others.

[Peter Holmes]

What we call objectivity is sticking to the facts.

What we call facts are states-of-affairs, or descriptions of states-of-affairs, that are or were the case.

So there can be moral objectivity only if there are moral states-of affairs - if, for example, the moral rightness of capital punishment is a state-of-affairs, or the moral wrongness of eating animals. And, of course, those aren't states-of-affairs at all - and to think they are is an obvious misunderstanding.

Because there are states-of-affairs that can be described by physics, there are 'physics facts'. But there are no such states-of-affairs that moral assertions describe. So morality can't be objective - how ever desperately moral objectivists want it to be.

[Sculptor]

What we call objectivity is sticking to the facts.

You mean manufacturing facts from opinions

What we call facts are states-of-affairs, or descriptions of states-of-affairs, that are or were the case.

What you call facts are platitudes selected from your personal bias to best advance your own prejudice.

So there can be moral objectivity only if there are moral states-of affairs - if, for example, the moral rightness of capital punishment is a state-of-affairs, or the moral wrongness of eating animals. And, of course, those aren't states-of-affairs at all - and to think they are is an obvious misunderstanding.

SO there can be moral objectivity when you ignore other's opinion

Because there are states-of-affairs that can be described by physics, there are 'physics facts'. But there are no such states-of-affairs that moral assertions describe. So morality can't be objective - how ever desperately moral objectivists want it to be.

Indeed
So a state of affairs might be there are more black criminals than white.
A simple unadorned fact?
No, not when you break it down and unpack it.
And this is a perfect is. Many would jump at the chance to demand an ought from this.

[Peter Holmes]

What we call objectivity is sticking to the facts.

You mean manufacturing facts from opinions

What we call facts are states-of-affairs, or descriptions of states-of-affairs, that are or were the case.

What you call facts are platitudes selected from your personal bias to best advance your own prejudice.

So there can be moral objectivity only if there are moral states-of affairs - if, for example, the moral rightness of capital punishment is a state-of-affairs, or the moral wrongness of eating animals. And, of course, those aren't states-of-affairs at all - and to think they are is an obvious misunderstanding.

SO there can be moral objectivity when you ignore other's opinion

Because there are states-of-affairs that can be described by physics, there are 'physics facts'. But there are no such states-of-affairs that moral assertions describe. So morality can't be objective - how ever desperately moral objectivists want it to be.

Indeed
So a state of affairs might be there are more black criminals than white.
A simple unadorned fact?
No, not when you break it down and unpack it.
And this is a perfect is. Many would jump at the chance to demand an ought from this.

Sorry, but I don't get your point. Can you spell it out?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What we call objectivity is sticking to the facts.

What we call facts are states-of-affairs, or descriptions of states-of-affairs, that are or were the case.

So there can be moral objectivity only if there are moral states-of affairs - if, for example, the moral rightness of capital punishment is a state-of-affairs, or the moral wrongness of eating animals. And, of course, those aren't states-of-affairs at all - and to think they are is an obvious misunderstanding.

Because there are states-of-affairs that can be described by physics, there are 'physics facts'. But there are no such states-of-affairs that moral assertions describe. So morality can't be objective - how ever desperately moral objectivists want it to be.

Shouting from being trapped within your 'silo' is not about the real world.
Your definition of 'what is fact' is too archaic and shallow which is inherited from the bastardized ideology of the logical positivists and those of analytic philosophy.

Read this;
What is fact?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
I have quoted this a '1000' times.

What you are arguing against is the typical moral claims, from theists who made claims of moral facts from a God; platonists who claim there are moral universals; various people who make subjective moral claims and judgments, i.e. murder is wrong, abortion is wrong, capital punishment is wrong and the likes. I agree these are not moral facts per se but merely opinions and belief.

What I am claiming is there are moral facts within a Moral Framework and System which are justified as credible facts like facts from Science.
These moral facts are states-of-affairs within the brain of the moral agent as represented by the referent of various moral neural algorithms which can be verified like scientific and psychological facts.
From this perspective moral facts are objective.

In addition, I don't believe you understand what is objectivity-proper.
According to Mathew Kramers who wrote one specialized book on 'Moral Objectivity' where what is objectivity-proper must fulfill 7 dimensions below;

• Ontological (Chapters 2–5)
  1 Mind-independence
  2 Determinate correctness
  3 Uniform applicability
  4 Invariance
  
  Epistemic (Chapters 6–7)
  5 Transindividual concurrence
  6 Impartiality
  
  Semantic (Chapter -8)
  7 Truth-aptitude

I have stated the above many times, and I don't think you will every grasp them given your dogmatism and confirmation bias to your bastardized ideas on 'what is morality'.