What could make morality objective?

[Walker]

2 As for Trump, that you support such an utterly morally disgusting man and his policies ...

That's unsubstantiated opinion.

You've been propagandized.

Now if you apply that same opinion to Andrew Cuomo, you will be able to supply plenty of substantiation.

[Peter Holmes]

2 As for Trump, that you support such an utterly morally disgusting man and his policies ...

That's unsubstantiated opinion.

You've been propagandized.

Now if you apply that same opinion to Andrew Cuomo, you will be able to supply plenty of substantiation.

Perhaps you think separating young children from their parents (for just one example) is morally acceptable. But I and many others think it's morally disgusting. Point is, there's no moral fact of the matter that can settle it. We just disagree.

[Walker]

2 As for Trump, that you support such an utterly morally disgusting man and his policies ...

That's unsubstantiated opinion.

You've been propagandized.

Now if you apply that same opinion to Andrew Cuomo, you will be able to supply plenty of substantiation.

Perhaps you think separating young children from their parents (for just one example) is morally acceptable. But I and many others think it's morally disgusting. Point is, there's no moral fact of the matter that can settle it. We just disagree.

If you look into that sound bite you'll find the truth of that Leftist propaganda, what was going on and how that came to be.

[henry quirk]

1 There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions.

2 In my opinion, Trump and his policies are utterly morally disgusting.

There's no inconsistency between those two assertions. Obviously.

when you say ORANGE MAN is utterly morally disgusting you state it as fact

when you say ORANGE MAN, in my opinion, is utterly morally disgusting you offer opinion

the first, by your reckoning, is false

the second, by your reckoning, is all you have

quit tryin' to have it both ways

[Peter Holmes]

That's unsubstantiated opinion.

You've been propagandized.

Now if you apply that same opinion to Andrew Cuomo, you will be able to supply plenty of substantiation.

Perhaps you think separating young children from their parents (for just one example) is morally acceptable. But I and many others think it's morally disgusting. Point is, there's no moral fact of the matter that can settle it. We just disagree.

If you look into that sound bite you'll find the truth of that Leftist propaganda, what was going on and how that came to be.

You've been propagandized. Suckered by anaesthetising right wing media. Fake news.

[Walker]

You've been propagandized. Suckered by anaesthetising right wing media. Fake news.

Nope. I don't rely on sound bites, and I'm aware of the propaganda.

Go on, do some research into your border-children issue.
The truth is out there but you have to surf a bit, and think clearly.

You sure won't find it on Leftist media.

I'm also aware of the futility of doing the research for you.

*

However, I will do the thinking for you.

As an incentive I assert that for my generosity you now have the obligation to also think and express your thoughts in dialogue. As an assertion of your identity you may respond that you have no moral obligation to respond in any way that I require. I may claim you have an obligation of fairness and you may claim, fairness for whom? To that I say, fairness to yourself, so that you benefit from your own writing, as I benefit from mine.

Allow me to offer a few portals into your research.

Why are the kids even there in the first place? Why did their parents illegally bring them into the country? Joe Biden said he and Barack O. put the kids in cages to protect them. Is that the truth of why they caged the children, and if so, protect them from what? Right-wingers? Dig a little. Think.

What’s the alternative to the situation as it is? And by the way, where are the parents? I can guarantee you that if for some unimaginable reason my children were detained by the authorities because they tried to sneak into a foreign country, knowing that thousands of miles and perhaps a few other countries would be between us, guided by a human trafficker who just might be a woman with a woman’s soft sell of persuasion … well then, under such a situation, the authorities would have no problem at all finding me. I would find them, come hell or high water, by any means necessary.

What kind of a parent scratches together 10K to send their unaccompanied, unprotected child on a long-distance journey where statistics show the child stands a good chance of being raped and enslaved to pimps, a probability so much so that the little girls are given birth control pills to take along.

Yes, not only do the parents give their child away, they pay 10K to do it. This is a nuts and bolts, cost/benefit decision where the child’s welfare is obviously not primary in the parents’ equation. Quite an arrangement. The parents don’t even sell their children. They give them away to anyone who will also accept 10K.

What are the possible reasons for such a thing to happen?

- Either the parents’ rational faculties were twisted with some heavy propaganda, such as … no problem, once the children cross the border they’re detained for awhile, they get the best medical care and healthy food, they get to use indoor plumbing maybe for the first time, they get to go to school, they get clothes, and at the very worst they get sent back. Look at it as an educational excursion, with benefits.

-The parents say, but we don’t want them sent back, conditions are too bad here. We don’t have any of that stuff and worst of all, not only do we have no opportunity to improve our miserable lot in life, we have nothing to offer. No modern job skills, no academic degrees, nothing that authorities desire from legal immigrants.

- The coyote says that’s easy, just don’t go claim them or check up on them. They will be fine, for Americans are humane people, and quite generous. The kids may be temporarily kept in makeshift conditions for awhile simply because we’re flooding the border with so many people all at once, but eventually the overburdening of the system will force them to build large facilities to handle the open borders that are coming in the future, so that the authorities can at least make a cursory check for diseases, and the afflicted can be isolated in large indoor complexes that even now are being planned by some future, Progressive administration. As you must now know, we are overwhelming the border system and that might expedite your child’s release to a relative already in the country because there are strong rumours of waivers and changes in fundamental rules.

- Or, perhaps the parents don’t value their children, which is kind of weird since they laid out the cash and maybe even sold their souls to get the cash. Doesn’t seem likely.

- Let’s see. Assemble a mob of 500. Charge them each 10K for travel expenses and then either walk, hop a freight, or get on one of these buses that someone has provided. Rape the women on the journey because you are an immoral human trafficker and not the salesman who collected the cash from the parents, which accounts for the longer journey by foot. Quite a business model. Healthy profit in people.

- Why do these people want to get into the USA anyway, and more importantly, why are Progressives so hellbent on getting in as many of the great unwashed as possible?

- Don’t be coy, you know why. It wasn’t just for a chance for the Obama administration to exercise inhumanity by putting children in cages, like dogs. Neither was it a chance for the Trump administration to display inhumanity to the world, although it is rumored by propagandists that the objective of the Trump administration is to make all folks drink dirty water and sleep in a hollow log.

- No, all the fuss is for one-party rule because if the parents are stupid enough to send their unprotected, unaccompanied children on a harrowing, life-threatening journey, then they’re stupid enough to vote Democrat once the borders are opened, when they can follow their children, and all those yet to have children can also follow.

[Immanuel Can]

1 There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions.

2 In my opinion, Trump and his policies are utterly morally disgusting.

There's no inconsistency between those two assertions. Obviously.

No...but only so long as you have no ambition at all to suggest anyone else should agree with you. The minute you suggest that even one person is even slightly morally obligated to join you in your opinion, you've departed "Subjectivist Island" and joined all the moral objectivists on the mainland.

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps you think separating young children from their parents (for just one example) is morally acceptable.

Perhaps you think pedophiles and coyotes should have free access to children.

In point of fact, the very FIRST thing anybody should do if a group attempts to cross the border is to ascertain if the kids they're trafficking...I mean bringing...are really their kids. So you should separate them, put them in the facilities -- the ones that Obama set up for them, by the way -- and do the DNA test.

But no way should you leave vulnerable children in the hands of adult predators.

[Atla]

No...but only so long as you have no ambition at all to suggest anyone else should agree with you. The minute you suggest that even one person is even slightly morally obligated to join you in your opinion, you've departed "Subjectivist Island" and joined all the moral objectivists on the mainland.

If we want others to share our moral opinion, then we can only be moral objectivists.
This has got to be the stupidest thing I've read in this topic, and there are many.

[Belinda]

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.

I believe pro-hospitality is more Nurture than Nature. It has to battle to suppress the more inherent nature of tribalism, i.e. us versus them.
But murder is a more fundamental and serious issue of human nature.

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!

I believe DNA wise, thus on the basis of NATURE, ALL humans are "programmed" with the basic 'ought-not-to-kill humans' or 'ought-not-to-murder'.
However due to other necessary conditions, this program is not full activated and highly active. This is why there are still killings and murder still going on at present, BUT ...

But you should have noticed the rate and number of permitted killings and murders had been on a decreasing trend since >50 years ago.
More and more governments are abolishing capital punishments. The are more concerns in attempt to prevent wars, especially World-Wars. Even narcissistic Trump had declared not to start wars by the US and evidently he did not start any. [yet?]

Note this thread I raised,

• Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

Therein Steven Pinker has provided solid evidences to support his argument.
Read the thread to get an idea or read his book to get to the details.

The fact that evil, violence, killings and murder of human are on a decreasing trend since the past to the present is because of the gradual unfoldment of the inherent generic moral potential that was programmed within the human brain.

Note the analogy,
DNA wise, ALL humans are "programmed" inherently and intrinsically with the necessary sexual features and sex drive; it is dormant at birth till there about the early teens years, it only takes a small amount of the necessary hormones to trigger and activate the sexual mechanisms and sex drive during puberty.

The above analogy of dormancy and unfoldment is applicable to the "programmed" inherent and intrinsic moral mechanisms and moral drive within ALL humans as embedded in the DNA. The difference is this moral potential and its unfoldment is not that explicit in experiences.

I believe and is optimistic, given the current trend of the exponential and expansion of knowledge and technology, humanity will be able to expedite and accelerate the unfoldment of the inherent generic moral potential within humans.

Peter Holmes, Sculptor, PantFlasher and the likes prefer to be "ostriches" to inherent moral facts and they are complicit in being indifferent to the current level of evil [violence, etc.] as it is or worst condoning it.

There are quite a few contenders to be inherent human behaviours. The only way to discover which are most probable is to study all anthropological records and note which behaviours are common to all known social communities. This would not be easy as some communities would overlap, howver kit is the only possible method.

One can believe all one likes , Veritas, but belief is not evidence. Human behaviour, whatever innate qualities it might have, advances or recedes by the cultural route not the generic route, unless some powerful mad dictator promotes eugenics.

It's absurd to claim violence has decreased. I wonder where you get your info.

[Immanuel Can]

If we want others to share our moral opinion, then we can only be moral objectivists.

Not quite: if we think there is any basis upon which we can convince others that they ought to share our moral opinion, then yes, we can only be moral objectivists.

On the other hand, if we're just saying, "This is what I think, but it may be totally wrong, and meanwhile, you can think whatever you want," then we can be as subjectivist as we like.

[Veritas Aequitas]

May I express your thesis as follows? Humans as social animals have specific inherent potentials. Among these inherent potentials is not killing other humans, nurturing their young for ten+ years, and taking care of needy humans from outwith the tribe.

These potentials will not be actualised until and unless the individual has been socialised into particular traditions or codes of conduct.

To be more precise re OP,
ALL humans [as "programmed"] have specific inherent moral potentials.

It is not necessary for the moral potentials to be actualized until the individual has been socialized into a particular traditions or codes of conduct.

The moral potential, e.g. moral fact re 'ought-not-to-kill' unfold naturally on the individual basis without any need to be influenced by the society. This is why the majority of humans who do not go about killing other humans at all times.

There are individuals who live in violent society who do not have any inclinations nor tendency to kill other humans. It is sort of instinctive because the 'ought-not-to-kill humans' in inherent within the person and all humans.

However, for many the tendency to kill may be influenced by the society and circumstances they are in. In this case their inherent 'ought-to-kill-human' is overwhelmed by social peer pressure and other social forces.

The above may be temporary and the person inherent moral potential re 'ought-not-to-kill humans' will remain active if the external influences are removed.

However if the 'ought-not-to-kill humans' inhibitors are damaged in the person e.g. a malignant psychopath serial killer, the urge to kill will be triggered and only restricted by the threats of criminal laws.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope. I've explained the problem with your moral FSK theory: the claim that moral facts exist within the moral FSK begs the question. And you've never addressed that fallacy in your argument.

Where?

And I notice you've deleted my examples of question-begging arguments with moral conclusions. Care to explain why they're not fallacious? Or you could just keep on saying the same thing, making the same mistake, to the crack of doom. A Trump disciple, perhaps?

Don't be too hasty in blaming others when its is your doing.
I picked your post and quoted it before you edited and added the last part.
Note my counter to that.

Trump disciple??
That is a cheap defense to the argument.
That you believe Trump is bad or evil is because you had been brainwashed and zombied by the bias media driven by tribalism and Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Objectively, I believe Trump, re his job appraisal taking into account the positives and negative, did a great job [net positive] relative to his terms of employment as a Government servant and employee.
Where is your sense of objectivity and rationality in relation to Trump and his contractual terms of employment?

1 Your claim that there are moral facts 'specific' to the moral FSK assumes there is a moral FSK within which there are moral facts, which begs the question. Waste of time.

My claim is the same that there are scientific facts specific to the scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK is constructed informally among practicing scientists and is not assumed.
My moral FSK is similar to the scientific FSK.
Are you saying the scientific facts/truths from a Scientific FSK relied on begging the question?

2 As for Trump, that you support such an utterly morally disgusting man and his policies is a QED against moral objectivism, as far as I'm concerned.

Your views of Trump are very emotional and subjective as being brainwashed by the one-sided media driven by tribalism.
I am not too bothered by Trump's personal behavior and attitude.
You are too subjective, on what basis you rate Trump as being morally disgusting, where is your objective proofs and justifications.

As I had stated I am very objective is assessing his job performance required within his term of employment as an employees of the US Government.
I belief [based on evidences], taking into the pluses and minuses in his job, Trump's appraisal result is a net-plus - objectively.

[Peter Holmes]

1 There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions.

2 In my opinion, Trump and his policies are utterly morally disgusting.

There's no inconsistency between those two assertions. Obviously.

when you say ORANGE MAN is utterly morally disgusting you state it as fact

when you say ORANGE MAN, in my opinion, is utterly morally disgusting you offer opinion

the first, by your reckoning, is false

the second, by your reckoning, is all you have

quit tryin' to have it both ways

Wrong. Since there are no moral facts, any moral assertion expresses an opinion which can't be factually verified or falsified. The linking verb 'is' has a different function in factual and non-factual assertions. Merely insisting that it doesn't begs the question.

If I say 'This painting is beautiful', I'm expressing an aesthetic opinion - and I can always explain my reasons for doing so. But if someone else says 'No, this painting is ugly - for these reasons', there's no way to settle the matter. There's no aesthetic fact of the matter. To appeal to an 'aesthetic FSK', in which there are aesthetic standards, is merely to beg the question.

Now, pari passu for moral assertions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are quite a few contenders to be inherent human behaviours. The only way to discover which are most probable is to study all anthropological records and note which behaviours are common to all known social communities. This would not be easy as some communities would overlap, howver kit is the only possible method.

One can believe all one likes , Veritas, but belief is not evidence. Human behaviour, whatever innate qualities it might have, advances or recedes by the cultural route not the generic route, unless some powerful mad dictator promotes eugenics.

From human history and records, the murder of humans is a detestable evil act by the individuals and the community and still is at the present and will be in the future, because the 'ought-not-to-kill human' is inherent in all humans.
All steps to deter and prevent murders are instituted in every society.
You can verify that moral fact ['ought-not-to-kill human'] exists as some sort of inhibiting program in you at present because as an ordinary normal person you would be thinking of killing another human and any proposal for such would be abhorrent to you.

As I had stated, killing of humans only occur because the forces of the moral fact ['ought-not-to-kill human'] is not sufficiently strong or the mechanism is damaged, e.g. as in a malignant psychopath.

This is why humanity need to identify and recognized the existence of inherent moral facts and expedite individuals [in the future, not now] to align with such natural moral oughts.

It's absurd to claim violence has decreased. I wonder where you get your info.

Intuitively and from my personal assessments of whatever facts I am aware of I agree with Steven Pinker's hypothesis, Violent has Decreased, which he supported with a wide range of data, see here or read his book,

Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995