What could make morality objective?

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote. quoting me:

But that 'moral codes and moral frameworks by contrast [with the use of words?] can be identified by what's in them' seems to me true but irrelevant - and not coherently a contrast anyway.

Peter, I meant moral codes and moral frameworks, by contrast with 'morality', can be identified by what's in them. For instance we can identify the Ten Commandments by what is in that moral code or framework. The Beatitudes, we identify that by what is in it. Hitler's moral code or framework, for a time anyway, is identified by Mein Kampf. Muhammad's moral code is identified by The Koran. Moral codes or frameworks were not always written down or even made explicit; some traditional old moral codes are handed from person to person via initiation rites.

People use the word 'morality' in all sorts of utterances. I daresay Mrs Whitehouse used the word quite a lot!

Sorry I failed to attribute your words correctly, Peter. I will try harder.

[Belinda]

Neither Peter or Veritas has it right. 'Morality' is a term that is defined by its use in talk between persons.

Since there are 7+ billion persons on Earth, then there could be billions of definition of what is 'Morality'.

Point is whatever is spoken as 'morality' by the billion person, there are standards and patterns of concepts which represent what "morality" is.
What morality is can only be traceable to moral facts that represent what morality-is.

Thus my earlier point;

• Morality is about how human ought to act which will contribute to the objectives of the well being of the individuals and that of humanity.
  
  As such how one ought to act must be in alignment with "what in fact" ought to be acted upon to meet the above objectives.
  The determination of "what in fact" is recognized and realized within a Moral Framework and System.
  
  .... 'no human ought to kill another' is not a moral judgment, but a confirmation that it is a moral fact which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. This is not a process of moral judgment.
  
  The moral fact exists within a moral framework which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable.
  Morality is thus about how humans naturally ought to act in alignment with the ought-not-to or ought-to of these inherent moral facts.

Show me where my above is wrong?

Moral codes and moral frameworks by contrast can be identified by what's in them.

Any moral framework is like any framework including those of natural sciences, and is defined by theory and method. As such the moral framework can and does change as and when culture of belief changes.

Agree with the above which confirm what is morality is dealt within its specific moral framework.
This is like what is scientific is dealt within its specific scientific framework.

A proper moral framework is generic to ALL humans and will not change easily and in a short span of time.
Those 'moral framework' that change with culture of beliefs are the pseudo ones, e.g. tribal, specific cultural traditions, divinity, etc.

But how does Veritas Aequitas know what is 'generic to all humans'? Veritas Aequitas et al are all in agreement about our having backbones and anatomy that hinges on vertebral columns. However homo sapiens may also be defined by its plastic psyche which is analogous to the physique of the amoeba.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pR7TNzJ_pA

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes wrote. quoting me:

But that 'moral codes and moral frameworks by contrast [with the use of words?] can be identified by what's in them' seems to me true but irrelevant - and not coherently a contrast anyway.

Peter, I meant moral codes and moral frameworks, by contrast with 'morality', can be identified by what's in them. For instance we can identify the Ten Commandments by what is in that moral code or framework. The Beatitudes, we identify that by what is in it. Hitler's moral code or framework, for a time anyway, is identified by Mein Kampf. Muhammad's moral code is identified by The Koran. Moral codes or frameworks were not always written down or even made explicit; some traditional old moral codes are handed from person to person via initiation rites.

People use the word 'morality' in all sorts of utterances. I daresay Mrs Whitehouse used the word quite a lot!

Sorry I failed to attribute your words correctly, Peter. I will try harder.

Thanks, Belinda. What I don't understand is what you think I'm getting wrong about morality.

In the texts you cite - and in oral traditions - actions are prescribed and proscribed as morally right and wrong - or 'proper' and 'improper'. And of course we can or may be able to identify a moral code by its contents.

But what bearing does that have on the function of the various - and maybe conflicting - moral assertions within those codes? If there are no moral facts, what we're left with is our various moral values and codes which, as you rightly say, are historical and cultural developments.

In other words, it's a fact that we have developed moral codes, containing moral assertions. But that doesn't mean those moral assertions are facts. That claim is incoherent. And that's the crux.

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote. quoting me:

But that 'moral codes and moral frameworks by contrast [with the use of words?] can be identified by what's in them' seems to me true but irrelevant - and not coherently a contrast anyway.

Peter, I meant moral codes and moral frameworks, by contrast with 'morality', can be identified by what's in them. For instance we can identify the Ten Commandments by what is in that moral code or framework. The Beatitudes, we identify that by what is in it. Hitler's moral code or framework, for a time anyway, is identified by Mein Kampf. Muhammad's moral code is identified by The Koran. Moral codes or frameworks were not always written down or even made explicit; some traditional old moral codes are handed from person to person via initiation rites.

People use the word 'morality' in all sorts of utterances. I daresay Mrs Whitehouse used the word quite a lot!

Sorry I failed to attribute your words correctly, Peter. I will try harder.

Thanks, Belinda. What I don't understand is what you think I'm getting wrong about morality.

In the texts you cite - and in oral traditions - actions are prescribed and proscribed as morally right and wrong - or 'proper' and 'improper'. And of course we can or may be able to identify a moral code by its contents.

But what bearing does that have on the function of the various - and maybe conflicting - moral assertions within those codes? If there are no moral facts, what we're left with is our various moral values and codes which, as you rightly say, are historical and cultural developments.

In other words, it's a fact that we have developed moral codes, containing moral assertions. But that doesn't mean those moral assertions are facts. That claim is incoherent. And that's the crux.

Peter, my quarrel is with the nature of facts. So-called 'moral' facts, and also so-called 'efficient , scientific, or commonsense' facts are factual only insofar as they fit into paradigms.

Moral facts generally fit into very persistent paradigms underwritten by myths and mythic persons. Although not always; some mythic persons fade away from popularity, loose their lustre, become deflated. Scientific and folk paradigms in this modern scientific age change more rapidly and tend to rely less on mythic personalities.

I agree with Veritas Aequitas that there are moral facts, but with the strong proviso that all facts are pro tem. There are no eternal facts. Eternal facts do not exist, or if they do they have nothing to do with us.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes wrote. quoting me:



Peter, I meant moral codes and moral frameworks, by contrast with 'morality', can be identified by what's in them. For instance we can identify the Ten Commandments by what is in that moral code or framework. The Beatitudes, we identify that by what is in it. Hitler's moral code or framework, for a time anyway, is identified by Mein Kampf. Muhammad's moral code is identified by The Koran. Moral codes or frameworks were not always written down or even made explicit; some traditional old moral codes are handed from person to person via initiation rites.

People use the word 'morality' in all sorts of utterances. I daresay Mrs Whitehouse used the word quite a lot!

Sorry I failed to attribute your words correctly, Peter. I will try harder.

Thanks, Belinda. What I don't understand is what you think I'm getting wrong about morality.

In the texts you cite - and in oral traditions - actions are prescribed and proscribed as morally right and wrong - or 'proper' and 'improper'. And of course we can or may be able to identify a moral code by its contents.

But what bearing does that have on the function of the various - and maybe conflicting - moral assertions within those codes? If there are no moral facts, what we're left with is our various moral values and codes which, as you rightly say, are historical and cultural developments.

In other words, it's a fact that we have developed moral codes, containing moral assertions. But that doesn't mean those moral assertions are facts. That claim is incoherent. And that's the crux.

Peter, my quarrel is with the nature of facts. So-called 'moral' facts, and also so-called 'efficient , scientific, or commonsense' facts are factual only insofar as they fit into paradigms.

Moral facts generally fit into very persistent paradigms underwritten by myths and mythic persons. Although not always; some mythic persons fade away from popularity, loose their lustre, become deflated. Scientific and folk paradigms in this modern scientific age change more rapidly and tend to rely less on mythic personalities.

I agree with Veritas Aequitas that there are moral facts, but with the strong proviso that all facts are pro tem. There are no eternal facts. Eternal facts do not exist, or if they do they have nothing to do with us.

Thanks again. I think this is the heart of the problem with moral objectivism.

Your argument seems to have two parts:

1 All facts are paradigmatic, and paradigms can and do change.
2 Moral facts are paradigmatic, so they can and do change.

First, if facts are features of reality, there's no reason to call them paradigmatic, or to think they change in any other than the way features of reality change - ie, naturally. But if, as seems likely, by 'facts' you mean descriptions of features of reality, then we agree that such descriptions - such truth-claims - are contextual and conventional, so they can and sometimes do change.

But that doesn't mean they will or must change, or that what we call truth, facts and objectivity aren't what we say they are. That's to lament the loss of what we never had; to entertain a fantasy if only to dismiss it. A justification is nothing more than an explanation, and explanations come to an end. The 'paradigm paradigm' fashion merely posits circularity or infinite regress as inescapable. And that delusion comes from mistaking what we say about things for the way things are.

Second, there's no connection between 'all facts are paradigmatic' and 'there are moral facts'. So even if the first is true, the second is a separate factual assertion requiring justification. And that's what we've been arguing about. No one here has demonstrated the existence of moral facts - paradigmatic or otherwise - so I don't know why you agree with VA that they exist.

[Belinda]

Thanks, Belinda. What I don't understand is what you think I'm getting wrong about morality.

In the texts you cite - and in oral traditions - actions are prescribed and proscribed as morally right and wrong - or 'proper' and 'improper'. And of course we can or may be able to identify a moral code by its contents.

But what bearing does that have on the function of the various - and maybe conflicting - moral assertions within those codes? If there are no moral facts, what we're left with is our various moral values and codes which, as you rightly say, are historical and cultural developments.

In other words, it's a fact that we have developed moral codes, containing moral assertions. But that doesn't mean those moral assertions are facts. That claim is incoherent. And that's the crux.

Peter, my quarrel is with the nature of facts. So-called 'moral' facts, and also so-called 'efficient , scientific, or commonsense' facts are factual only insofar as they fit into paradigms.

Moral facts generally fit into very persistent paradigms underwritten by myths and mythic persons. Although not always; some mythic persons fade away from popularity, loose their lustre, become deflated. Scientific and folk paradigms in this modern scientific age change more rapidly and tend to rely less on mythic personalities.

I agree with Veritas Aequitas that there are moral facts, but with the strong proviso that all facts are pro tem. There are no eternal facts. Eternal facts do not exist, or if they do they have nothing to do with us.

Thanks again. I think this is the heart of the problem with moral objectivism.

Your argument seems to have two parts:

1 All facts are paradigmatic, and paradigms can and do change.
2 Moral facts are paradigmatic, so they can and do change.

First, if facts are features of reality, there's no reason to call them paradigmatic, or to think they change in any other than the way features of reality change - ie, naturally. But if, as seems likely, by 'facts' you mean descriptions of features of reality, then we agree that such descriptions - such truth-claims - are contextual and conventional, so they can and sometimes do change.

But that doesn't mean they will or must change, or that what we call truth, facts and objectivity aren't what we say they are. That's to lament the loss of what we never had; to entertain a fantasy if only to dismiss it. A justification is nothing more than an explanation, and explanations come to an end. The 'paradigm paradigm' fashion merely posits circularity or infinite regress as inescapable. And that delusion comes from mistaking what we say about things for the way things are.

Second, there's no connection between 'all facts are paradigmatic' and 'there are moral facts'. So even if the first is true, the second is a separate factual assertion requiring justification. And that's what we've been arguing about. No one here has demonstrated the existence of moral facts - paradigmatic or otherwise - so I don't know why you agree with VA that they exist.

Al facts are transient, historical, and cultural developments.
Moral facts are transient, historical, and cultural developments.

Facts pertain to social reality. Facts don't pertain to eternal reality. Social reality changes: Eternal reality is changeless.
A paradigm is a meta-reality that encompasses subsumed realities. Man -made climate change is a paradigm, a meta-reality. As such it is not eternal reality but is social reality. I very much support the idea of man-made climate change but I do not accord eternal reality to the paradigm of man-made climate change. I know nothing of eternal reality and I can't even describe eternal reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Neither Peter or Veritas has it right. 'Morality' is a term that is defined by its use in talk between persons.

Since there are 7+ billion persons on Earth, then there could be billions of definition of what is 'Morality'.

Point is whatever is spoken as 'morality' by the billion person, there are standards and patterns of concepts which represent what "morality" is.
What morality is can only be traceable to moral facts that represent what morality-is.

Thus my earlier point;

• Morality is about how human ought to act which will contribute to the objectives of the well being of the individuals and that of humanity.
  
  As such how one ought to act must be in alignment with "what in fact" ought to be acted upon to meet the above objectives.
  The determination of "what in fact" is recognized and realized within a Moral Framework and System.
  
  .... 'no human ought to kill another' is not a moral judgment, but a confirmation that it is a moral fact which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. This is not a process of moral judgment.
  
  The moral fact exists within a moral framework which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable.
  Morality is thus about how humans naturally ought to act in alignment with the ought-not-to or ought-to of these inherent moral facts.

Show me where my above is wrong?

Moral codes and moral frameworks by contrast can be identified by what's in them.

Any moral framework is like any framework including those of natural sciences, and is defined by theory and method. As such the moral framework can and does change as and when culture of belief changes.

Agree with the above which confirm what is morality is dealt within its specific moral framework.
This is like what is scientific is dealt within its specific scientific framework.

A proper moral framework is generic to ALL humans and will not change easily and in a short span of time.
Those 'moral framework' that change with culture of beliefs are the pseudo ones, e.g. tribal, specific cultural traditions, divinity, etc.

But how does Veritas Aequitas know what is 'generic to all humans'? Veritas Aequitas et al are all in agreement about our having backbones and anatomy that hinges on vertebral columns. However homo sapiens may also be defined by its plastic psyche which is analogous to the physique of the amoeba.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pR7TNzJ_pA

Whatever the variable, what is generic is common to ALL 'normal' human beings.
Such commonality can be easily verified empirically.

When I state a moral framework and system is generic to all normal humans, that is like the basic human 'digestive system' framework and system is generic to all humans.
Example and analogically,
Humans all over the world have different ways for producing, preparing and consuming food [like different external 'moral' system] but there is only one common digestive system from the mouth onward to the anus [analogically, the basic generic moral system].

Therefore within the wide variety of pseudo-moral systems [religious, tribal, social groups, organizations families, etc.] therein is a basic generic moral system within their brain/mind and body.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter, my quarrel is with the nature of facts. So-called 'moral' facts, and also so-called 'efficient , scientific, or commonsense' facts are factual only insofar as they fit into paradigms.

Moral facts generally fit into very persistent paradigms underwritten by myths and mythic persons. Although not always; some mythic persons fade away from popularity, loose their lustre, become deflated. Scientific and folk paradigms in this modern scientific age change more rapidly and tend to rely less on mythic personalities.

I agree with Veritas Aequitas that there are moral facts, but with the strong proviso that all facts are pro tem. There are no eternal facts. Eternal facts do not exist, or if they do they have nothing to do with us.

Thanks again. I think this is the heart of the problem with moral objectivism.

Your argument seems to have two parts:

1 All facts are paradigmatic, and paradigms can and do change.
2 Moral facts are paradigmatic, so they can and do change.

First, if facts are features of reality, there's no reason to call them paradigmatic, or to think they change in any other than the way features of reality change - ie, naturally. But if, as seems likely, by 'facts' you mean descriptions of features of reality, then we agree that such descriptions - such truth-claims - are contextual and conventional, so they can and sometimes do change.

But that doesn't mean they will or must change, or that what we call truth, facts and objectivity aren't what we say they are. That's to lament the loss of what we never had; to entertain a fantasy if only to dismiss it. A justification is nothing more than an explanation, and explanations come to an end. The 'paradigm paradigm' fashion merely posits circularity or infinite regress as inescapable. And that delusion comes from mistaking what we say about things for the way things are.

Second, there's no connection between 'all facts are paradigmatic' and 'there are moral facts'. So even if the first is true, the second is a separate factual assertion requiring justification. And that's what we've been arguing about. No one here has demonstrated the existence of moral facts - paradigmatic or otherwise - so I don't know why you agree with VA that they exist.

Al facts are transient, historical, and cultural developments.
Moral facts are transient, historical, and cultural developments.

Facts pertain to social reality. Facts don't pertain to eternal reality. Social reality changes: Eternal reality is changeless.
A paradigm is a meta-reality that encompasses subsumed realities. Man -made climate change is a paradigm, a meta-reality. As such it is not eternal reality but is social reality. I very much support the idea of man-made climate change but I do not accord eternal reality to the paradigm of man-made climate change. I know nothing of eternal reality and I can't even describe eternal reality.

Well said.

No one here has demonstrated the existence of moral facts - paradigmatic or otherwise - so I don't know why you agree with VA that they exist.

Since you mentioned the term 'paradigm' note its meaning;

In science and philosophy, a paradigm (/ˈpærədaɪm/) is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitutes legitimate contributions to a field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm

As you will note as with the definition of 'paradigm' above and the bolded contents, I have already demonstrated moral facts do exist within the "moral paradigm" aka 'the Moral Framework and System'.

Your problem is, you could not recognize the existence of a Moral Paradigm [due to moral deficit*] but instead dogmatically is stuck to your apparently dominant linguistic paradigm and imposing it on everything else.

* I believe you have some degrees of moral deficit and moral incompetence, presumably due to some benign psychopathy that inhibit your empathy and moral sense, thus cannot relate to the moral facts [reality] that are within yourself and as verified and justified is logically in all humans.

[Belinda]

Since there are 7+ billion persons on Earth, then there could be billions of definition of what is 'Morality'.

Point is whatever is spoken as 'morality' by the billion person, there are standards and patterns of concepts which represent what "morality" is.
What morality is can only be traceable to moral facts that represent what morality-is.

Thus my earlier point;

• Morality is about how human ought to act which will contribute to the objectives of the well being of the individuals and that of humanity.
  
  As such how one ought to act must be in alignment with "what in fact" ought to be acted upon to meet the above objectives.
  The determination of "what in fact" is recognized and realized within a Moral Framework and System.
  
  .... 'no human ought to kill another' is not a moral judgment, but a confirmation that it is a moral fact which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. This is not a process of moral judgment.
  
  The moral fact exists within a moral framework which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable.
  Morality is thus about how humans naturally ought to act in alignment with the ought-not-to or ought-to of these inherent moral facts.

Show me where my above is wrong?


Agree with the above which confirm what is morality is dealt within its specific moral framework.
This is like what is scientific is dealt within its specific scientific framework.

A proper moral framework is generic to ALL humans and will not change easily and in a short span of time.
Those 'moral framework' that change with culture of beliefs are the pseudo ones, e.g. tribal, specific cultural traditions, divinity, etc.

But how does Veritas Aequitas know what is 'generic to all humans'? Veritas Aequitas et al are all in agreement about our having backbones and anatomy that hinges on vertebral columns. However homo sapiens may also be defined by its plastic psyche which is analogous to the physique of the amoeba.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pR7TNzJ_pA

Whatever the variable, what is generic is common to ALL 'normal' human beings.
Such commonality can be easily verified empirically.

When I state a moral framework and system is generic to all normal humans, that is like the basic human 'digestive system' framework and system is generic to all humans.
Example and analogically,
Humans all over the world have different ways for producing, preparing and consuming food [like different external 'moral' system] but there is only one common digestive system from the mouth onward to the anus [analogically, the basic generic moral system].

Therefore within the wide variety of pseudo-moral systems [religious, tribal, social groups, organizations families, etc.] therein is a basic generic moral system within their brain/mind and body.

But just as there is no basic generic system for preparing food, so there is no basic generic moral system. There is a basic generic organ called a brain and it is far more susceptible to environmental influences than stomachs or even bowels. Stomachs are organs adapted to digest food: brains (most of brain tissues)are organs adapted to learning and memory.
It's true that stomachs adapt to unusual diets, however that happens to a minute degree compared with the adaptations that happen moment by moment in brains, especially the brains of intelligent animals.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whatever the variable, what is generic is common to ALL 'normal' human beings.
Such commonality can be easily verified empirically.

When I state a moral framework and system is generic to all normal humans, that is like the basic human 'digestive system' framework and system is generic to all humans.
Example and analogically,
Humans all over the world have different ways for producing, preparing and consuming food [like different external 'moral' system] but there is only one common digestive system from the mouth onward to the anus [analogically, the basic generic moral system].

Therefore within the wide variety of pseudo-moral systems [religious, tribal, social groups, organizations families, etc.] therein is a basic generic moral system within their brain/mind and body.

But just as there is no basic generic system for preparing food, so there is no basic generic moral system. There is a basic generic organ called a brain and it is far more susceptible to environmental influences than stomachs or even bowels. Stomachs are organs adapted to digest food: brains (most of brain tissues)are organs adapted to learning and memory.
It's true that stomachs adapt to unusual diets, however that happens to a minute degree compared with the adaptations that happen moment by moment in brains, especially the brains of intelligent animals.

You missed my point.
I stated there is no generic system in human preparing food for consumption, but
there is a a generic human digestive system within all humans.

Surely you are not disputing the Human Digestive System is generic to ALL humans.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_digestive_system
  The human digestive system consists of the gastrointestinal tract plus the accessory organs of digestion (the tongue, salivary glands, pancreas, liver, and gallbladder). Digestion involves the breakdown of food into smaller and smaller components, until they can be absorbed and assimilated into the body. The process of digestion has three stages.

I am comparing the variations in preparing food to the different relative 'moral' systems, e.g. those confined to tribal groups, social groups, religions, which are merely pseudo-morality since their moral elements will differ between them.

BUT amongst all the different types of moral traditions and rules, there is a generic moral system within ALL humans just like the generic human digestive system.
One example is, while there are many different types of relative moral systems that cater to their respective conditions, all of them will not condone premeditated murder, as such this is one evidence of a generic element within a generic moral system.

This is because these relative moral systems intuitively are acting in accordance to the generic moral facts [no killing of humans] within all humans.

As such, regardless of how the relative moral systems operate within their respective conditions, there exist a generic moral system within them which they may not be consciously aware of.

[Belinda]

Whatever the variable, what is generic is common to ALL 'normal' human beings.
Such commonality can be easily verified empirically.

When I state a moral framework and system is generic to all normal humans, that is like the basic human 'digestive system' framework and system is generic to all humans.
Example and analogically,
Humans all over the world have different ways for producing, preparing and consuming food [like different external 'moral' system] but there is only one common digestive system from the mouth onward to the anus [analogically, the basic generic moral system].

Therefore within the wide variety of pseudo-moral systems [religious, tribal, social groups, organizations families, etc.] therein is a basic generic moral system within their brain/mind and body.

But just as there is no basic generic system for preparing food, so there is no basic generic moral system. There is a basic generic organ called a brain and it is far more susceptible to environmental influences than stomachs or even bowels. Stomachs are organs adapted to digest food: brains (most of brain tissues)are organs adapted to learning and memory.
It's true that stomachs adapt to unusual diets, however that happens to a minute degree compared with the adaptations that happen moment by moment in brains, especially the brains of intelligent animals.

You missed my point.
I stated there is no generic system in human preparing food for consumption, but
there is a a generic human digestive system within all humans.

Surely you are not disputing the Human Digestive System is generic to ALL humans.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_digestive_system
  The human digestive system consists of the gastrointestinal tract plus the accessory organs of digestion (the tongue, salivary glands, pancreas, liver, and gallbladder). Digestion involves the breakdown of food into smaller and smaller components, until they can be absorbed and assimilated into the body. The process of digestion has three stages.

I am comparing the variations in preparing food to the different relative 'moral' systems, e.g. those confined to tribal groups, social groups, religions, which are merely pseudo-morality since their moral elements will differ between them.

BUT amongst all the different types of moral traditions and rules, there is a generic moral system within ALL humans just like the generic human digestive system.
One example is, while there are many different types of relative moral systems that cater to their respective conditions, all of them will not condone premeditated murder, as such this is one evidence of a generic element within a generic moral system.

This is because these relative moral systems intuitively are acting in accordance to the generic moral facts [no killing of humans] within all humans.

As such, regardless of how the relative moral systems operate within their respective conditions, there exist a generic moral system within them which they may not be consciously aware of.

I think I get your general drift now.
At one time I'd hoped to find a human belief that was common to all societies. The belief I chose was not anti-murder but pro-hospitality to strangers. I still think the evidence favours generic pro-hospitality, but am willing to reconsider.

As for murder being generically wrong, there is such a lot of evidence of private and judicial murder throughout history that there is no chance murder is generically wrong.In some USA states within a civilised highly developed nation they still do capital punishment!

[Peter Holmes]

At one time I'd hoped to find a human belief that was common to all societies. The belief I chose was not anti-murder but pro-hospitality to strangers. I still think the evidence favours generic pro-hospitality, but am willing to reconsider.

As for murder being generically wrong, there is such a lot of evidence of private and judicial murder throughout history that there is no chance murder is generically wrong.In some USA states within a civilised highly developed nation they still do capital punishment!

Sorry, but here's the objectivist mistake in a nutshell.

The expressions 'generically right' and 'generically wrong' demonstrate a simple confusion. It may be (though it's debateable) that 'the rightness of xenophilia' and 'the wrongness of killing others' are part of (generic in) human nature, so that they manifest universally in moral codes and laws.

But that doesn't mean the moral assertions 'it's right to be kind to strangers' and 'it's wrong to kill others' are facts - true factual assertions. All it means is that humans think it's right to be kind to strangers, and wrong to kill others. That's the only fact involved - and to call it a moral fact is to make a grammatical misattribution.

[Hermit Philosopher]

.../what is the object that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?/...

I’d like to propose using empathy and self-disassociation as possible “objects” (in regards to your post).

Though I’m not saying that we’ll be able to define universally applicable ethics, I believe the two play a role in why certain things are considered immoral by a majority of people.

Our ability to empathise suggests that, if we were able to emotionally comprehend everyone’s experience [of x], this would have an impact on our moral judgements.

If we then toyed with the thought that we could be/could have been someone other than ourselves (not uncommon), or that we did not know which of the experiences were “ours”, this would impact on our judgement ever further.

Is it likely then, that the more a society is able to empathise and self-disassociate, the less things it will be willing to morally assess, but that at the same time, on the fewer things it does take a moral stand on, its judgement be both harsher and more homogenous...?
If so, would its ethics seem more objective?

Humbly
Hermit

[Peter Holmes]

.../what is the object that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?/...

I’d like to propose using empathy and self-disassociation as possible “objects” (in regards to your post).

Though I’m not saying that we’ll be able to define universally applicable ethics, I believe the two play a role in why certain things are considered immoral by a majority of people.

Our ability to empathise suggests that, if we were able to emotionally comprehend everyone’s experience [of x], this would have an impact on our moral judgements.

If we then toyed with the thought that we could be/could have been someone other than ourselves (not uncommon), or that we did not know which of the experiences were “ours”, this would impact on our judgement ever further.

Is it likely then, that the more a society is able to empathise and self-disassociate, the less things it will be willing to morally assess, but that at the same time, on the fewer things it does take a moral stand on, its judgement be both harsher and more homogenous...?
If so, would its ethics seem more objective?

Humbly
Hermit

Thanks. I agree that empathy and what you call self-disassociation can and do come into our individual and collective moral judgements. But I don't think those can be called 'objects' in this context. And anyway, that we should use them in making moral judgements is itself a matter of judgement or opinion, and is therefore subjective - even if collectively so. There's no fact of the matter, and what we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts.

[Justintruth]

At one time I'd hoped to find a human belief that was common to all societies. The belief I chose was not anti-murder but pro-hospitality to strangers. I still think the evidence favours generic pro-hospitality, but am willing to reconsider.

As for murder being generically wrong, there is such a lot of evidence of private and judicial murder throughout history that there is no chance murder is generically wrong.In some USA states within a civilised highly developed nation they still do capital punishment!

Do you mean ontological or epistemic objectivity?

Ontological objective morality cannot occur because morality is a characterization of experiencing not an objective property of an object. It is objective ontologically only if you allow subjective properties of objective systems. Then it is objective in that the thing that is experiencing morally is an object, but not that the moral experiencing is objective.

I think epistemically morality is objective as whether there is moral experiencing occurring on the dark side of the moon is determined by fact.

Long time no read Belinda!