What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

[Terrapin Station]

All FSR/Ks are constructed by humans in consensus.

So then what part is independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs?

Take scientific facts/truths/knowledge from the scientific FSK for example.

I have posted this example before;

• 1. When Einstein had a hunch from his prior knowledge or imagination related to relativity - that was his personal and individual opinion. This is abduction.
  
  2. When Einstein then prove the theory of special gravity to himself with 99% conviction, that was his personal belief.
  
  3. When Einstein's peers has tested his theory and confirmed with evidence it is true, and his peers within the Physics-Scientific FSK accepted the theory, it is independent of Einstein's or any individual-Physicist's opinion and belief.
  The theory is not a scientific truth/fact/knowledge conditioned upon the Physics-Scientific FSK. This is induction.
  
  4. The accepted theory whilst is independent of the individual's opinions and beliefs is nevertheless conditioned and dependent on the Physics-Scientific FSK which is constructed by human minds.

The above principles and processes are similar and applicable to the moral FSR/FSK.

There are things to address in the above, but that's going to get us off track.

What I'm asking you for is what part is independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs for moral judgments/moral claims/moral utterances--whatever we want to call them. That's what we're discussing here, morality and how it can be objective. Give me an example for morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So then what part is independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs?

Take scientific facts/truths/knowledge from the scientific FSK for example.

I have posted this example before;

• 1. When Einstein had a hunch from his prior knowledge or imagination related to relativity - that was his personal and individual opinion. This is abduction.
  
  2. When Einstein then prove the theory of special gravity to himself with 99% conviction, that was his personal belief.
  
  3. When Einstein's peers has tested his theory and confirmed with evidence it is true, and his peers within the Physics-Scientific FSK accepted the theory, it is independent of Einstein's or any individual-Physicist's opinion and belief.
  The theory is not a scientific truth/fact/knowledge conditioned upon the Physics-Scientific FSK. This is induction.
  
  4. The accepted theory whilst is independent of the individual's opinions and beliefs is nevertheless conditioned and dependent on the Physics-Scientific FSK which is constructed by human minds.

The above principles and processes are similar and applicable to the moral FSR/FSK.

There are things to address in the above, but that's going to get us off track.

What I'm asking you for is what part is independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs for moral judgments/moral claims/moral utterances--whatever we want to call them. That's what we're discussing here, morality and how it can be objective. Give me an example for morality.

I have given examples a "1000" times already.
You are forever asking for 'fishes' whereas my focus is on 'how to fish'.

Note I stated,
The above principles and processes are similar and applicable to the moral FSR/FSK

Here are the examples again,
The moral maxim [based on moral fact] 'no human ought to own another' [re chattel slavery] when verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK is independent of individuals or groups opinions and beliefs.
The moral maxim is however conditioned upon the human conditions thus not minds-independent.

Another moral maxim based on moral fact is 'no human ought to kill another' which is represented by neural inhibitors, embedded in the DNA and inherited from evolution.

[Terrapin Station]

The moral maxim [based on moral fact] 'no human ought to own another' [re chattel slavery] when verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK is independent of individuals or groups opinions and beliefs.

In giving an example and explaining how it works, and in the context of making the claim above, you'd need to explain, in detail, just how "verifying and empirically justifying" a moral maxim like "no human ought to own another" (a) works in the context of whatever moral FSK you're claiming (which you'd have to make explicit and justify in itself), and (b) is independent of individuals' or groups' opinions and beliefs.

This is what I'm asking you to do. You can't just claim that it's the case. Show your work. Show how it's the case in detail.

The moral maxim is however conditioned upon the human conditions

You'd have to explain what this even means. What does it mean for something to be "conditioned upon the human condition(s)"?

Another moral maxim based on moral fact is 'no human ought to kill another' which is represented by neural inhibitors, embedded in the DNA and inherited from evolution.

Okay, so for something like this, you'd need to give what evidence you're appealing to of "no human ought to kill another" being embedded in DNA. You could simply link to the research papers that you're basing this on, or whatever would be actual source of this claim.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The moral maxim [based on moral fact] 'no human ought to own another' [re chattel slavery] when verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK is independent of individuals or groups opinions and beliefs.

In giving an example and explaining how it works, and in the context of making the claim above, you'd need to explain, in detail, just how "verifying and empirically justifying" a moral maxim like "no human ought to own another" (a) works in the context of whatever moral FSK you're claiming (which you'd have to make explicit and justify in itself), and (b) is independent of individuals' or groups' opinions and beliefs.

This is what I'm asking you to do. You can't just claim that it's the case. Show your work. Show how it's the case in detail.

It is the same as my earlier reply to you, i.e.;

• Rather we should state "a human killing another human" is not morally-proper, i.e. morally it is something a human ought-not to do.
  Why 'morally'? it is because it is dealt within a Moral Framework and System as defined.
  Why? because it is justifiable and verifiable inductively as a moral fact,
  no normal living human would want nor volunteer to be killed or murdered.
  (The above is one justification which is sufficient, there are many other basis of justifications which I will not go into.)

We can raise the same point with 'slavery' i.e.
"no normal human would want to be enslaved [chattel] by another human"

When the above aversion of human nature is processed within a moral FSK, we get the moral fact: 'no human ought to enslave [chattel] another human'.

It is only a moral fact when processed via a moral FSK.

The moral maxim is however conditioned upon the human conditions

You'd have to explain what this even means. What does it mean for something to be "conditioned upon the human condition(s)"?

Another moral maxim based on moral fact is 'no human ought to kill another' which is represented by neural inhibitors, embedded in the DNA and inherited from evolution.

Okay, so for something like this, you'd need to give what evidence you're appealing to of "no human ought to kill another" being embedded in DNA. You could simply link to the research papers that you're basing this on, or whatever would be actual source of this claim.

Note the extreme of fear of being killed:

• Foniasophobia is the fear of murderers or serial killers, or of being murdered. This fear is usually triggered after hearing news that somebody got murdered or of hearing a person on a killing spree, or more rarely encountering people who killed other people.
  https://phobia.wikia.org/wiki/Foniasophobia

In general as per human nature,
"no normal human being would want to be killed, i.e. facing premature death"

The above aversion to being killed is represented by its physical referent in terms of neurons and the program within the brain.

The above aversion to being killed is also corresponded with the aversion of ought-not to kill.
The majority of normal people do not go about killing humans spontaneously or willy nilly.
It is obvious when someone murder another human it is a psychiatric case, i.e. it is an abnormality.

When we process the above within a moral FSK, we get the moral fact - the ought-non-_ness,
'no human ought to kill another'
What is a Moral Framework and System
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31603
The above moral fact is reducible to its physical referent in terms of neurons and software programs in the brain.

I believe the above is sufficient as a justification to my points.
Note there are loads of more fundamental justification which I would not prefer to go into.

[Terrapin Station]

Let's go step by step through this:

• Rather we should state "a human killing another human" is not morally-proper, i.e. morally it is something a human ought-not to do.
  Why 'morally'? it is because it is dealt within a Moral Framework and System as defined.

So first, what Moral Framework and System are we talking about? What's the name of it, and where do we find it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Let's go step by step through this:

• Rather we should state "a human killing another human" is not morally-proper, i.e. morally it is something a human ought-not to do.
  Why 'morally'? it is because it is dealt within a Moral Framework and System as defined.

So first, what Moral Framework and System are we talking about? What's the name of it, and where do we find it?

I responded to such question before;

What is a Moral Framework and System?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31603

If you are not too sure,
refer to the Scientific Framework and System,
note how it is constructed, its constitution [implied] its processes, conditioned, assumptions, and whatever is necessary for the scientific FSK to be credible.

Feature of the credibility of Science;
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

[Terrapin Station]

Let's go step by step through this:

• Rather we should state "a human killing another human" is not morally-proper, i.e. morally it is something a human ought-not to do.
  Why 'morally'? it is because it is dealt within a Moral Framework and System as defined.

So first, what Moral Framework and System are we talking about? What's the name of it, and where do we find it?

I responded to such question before;

What is a Moral Framework and System?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31603

If you are not too sure,
refer to the Scientific Framework and System,
note how it is constructed, its constitution [implied] its processes, conditioned, assumptions, and whatever is necessary for the scientific FSK to be credible.

Feature of the credibility of Science;
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

Okay, so pick one that you want to use for the demonstration: "Christianity, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. Platonist moralists, deontologists, utilitarianist, consequentialists, tribal moralists . . . " --or something you didn't mention in that first post. Whatever you'd like, but pick one for the demonstration I'm asking for.

The second thing I asked you is, "Where do we find the Moral Framework and System we're talking about?" You need to tell me explicitly where we'd find the content.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Let's go step by step through this:

So first, what Moral Framework and System are we talking about? What's the name of it, and where do we find it?

I responded to such question before;

What is a Moral Framework and System?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31603

If you are not too sure,
refer to the Scientific Framework and System,
note how it is constructed, its constitution [implied] its processes, conditioned, assumptions, and whatever is necessary for the scientific FSK to be credible.

Feature of the credibility of Science;
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

Okay, so pick one that you want to use for the demonstration: "Christianity, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. Platonist moralists, deontologists, utilitarianist, consequentialists, tribal moralists . . . " --or something you didn't mention in that first post. Whatever you'd like, but pick one for the demonstration I'm asking for.

The second thing I asked you is, "Where do we find the Moral Framework and System we're talking about?" You need to tell me explicitly where we'd find the content.

If we take the Christian FSK,
this FSK is grounded on the constitution of the Gospels and in the Bible which is claimed to be from a God.
To theists they believe their FSK is solidly grounded but to me, its grounded is mere on thin air, i.e. no empirical and philosophical verification and justification their God is real.
To be a Christian one has to sign a contract with Jesus/God to comply with the terms of the contract as laid down the Gospels.
The Christian moral FSK and its standards is grounded on the above main FSK which in my view is a pseudo moral FSK due to its lack of solid groundings.

The above main features of the Christian FSK and its pseudo-moral FSK drive all policies, processes and activities of Christians.

At present there is no specific moral FSK that represent the one I am talking about.
However I have provided the main principles and features of such a moral FSK, i.e.
whatever its constitution and moral fact that are to be relied upon as its moral standards as guides-ONLY must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK - which is nearly like the scientific FSK.

[Terrapin Station]

First I want to focus on this:

At present there is no specific moral FSK that represent the one I am talking about.

So wait a minute--you're saying that at the moment there is no moral FSK that can verify/empirically justify any moral maxim (or whatever we want to call the moral "things" in question)?

Aside from that re this: "If we take the Christian FSK, this FSK is grounded on the constitution of the Gospels and in the Bible which is claimed to be from a God . . . " We'd really need to stretch the term "system" to a breaking point, and stretch the notion of epistemology to a breaking point, in order to claim that the Bible somehow amounts to a ethical system or some sort of unique method of epistemology.

At any rate, even ignoring all of this, so let's take a moral maxim made by Christianity and let's show how it's actually supposed to work--in detail re the process(es) we'd go through, for the "Christian FSK" to establish that the moral maxim in question is a fact.

Is this possible do you think?

And are we going to be saying anything that amounts to something other than, "Per Christianity, such and such is a moral maxim"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

First I want to focus on this:

At present there is no specific moral FSK that represent the one I am talking about.

So wait a minute--you're saying that at the moment there is no moral FSK that can verify/empirically justify any moral maxim (or whatever we want to call the moral "things" in question)?

I am referring to the ONE I am talking about.
To be more precise, my moral FSK do not verify and justify empirically the facts directly but rather rely from the empirically-justified scientific facts as inputs into my moral FSK.
Therefrom I am relying upon the constitution and processes [philosophical, etc.] of the moral FSK to process the scientific facts and other input into moral fact.

Note in the case of legal facts, e.g. that X is convicted as a murderer is dependent heavily on scientific facts as inputs then processed within the legal constitution to produce legal facts.
It is same with other FSKs which rely on inputs from science, mathematics, etc. to produce their own facts to their specific FSK.

Aside from that re this: "If we take the Christian FSK, this FSK is grounded on the constitution of the Gospels and in the Bible which is claimed to be from a God . . . " We'd really need to stretch the term "system" to a breaking point, and stretch the notion of epistemology to a breaking point, in order to claim that the Bible somehow amounts to a ethical system or some sort of unique method of epistemology.

Nope.
The term system is very plain. Note

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System

A system is a group of interacting or interrelated entities that form a unified whole.[1] A system, surrounded and influenced by its environment, is described by its boundaries, structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning. Systems are the subjects of study of systems theory.

The Christian Ethical System which is grounded on God has its moral-ethical oughts or else it is Hell.
Note the oughts of the ten commandments and notably 'Thou Shall Not Kill, period!'
which is grounded on a God which is illusory and unreal.
Those who compiled the Bible has the intuitive sense of the inherent moral functions and this critical 'ought' but they attributed its source to some thing fictitious, i.e. GOD.
This is the Gettier sort of knowledge, i.e. they got this inherent fact of 'no killing of humans' correctly but only intuitively and not based on verification and justification empirically and philosophically.

Thus there is a Christianity's moral-ethics framework and system, but I have always insisted the theistic moral system is a pseudo-moral system due to its lack of any real grounding and not all its immutable 'oughts' are related to moral facts.

There is no denying the Christian pseudo-moral system has worked optimally to some degrees in relation to the circumstances humanity was in the past and right up to the present, i.e. the threat of hell had prevented may from killing humans [with some exceptions which are not related to the core pacifistic principles of Christianity].

My Moral FSK is in a way similar to the Christianity's model but my moral standards are not from an illusory God who threatened with Hell for non-compliance but rather based on moral facts that are verifiable and justifiable from a credible moral FSK similar to the scientific FSK.
My approach is not based on threats nor faith but rather it is accepted by the individual with rationality, spontaneously and voluntarily.
Btw, my proposals won't work with you, me and all at present, but only in the future when the proper psychological conditions are established for it to run spontaneously.

At any rate, even ignoring all of this, so let's take a moral maxim made by Ch
ristianity and let's show how it's actually supposed to work--in detail re the process(es) we'd go through, for the "Christian FSK" to establish that the moral maxim in question is a fact.

Is this possible do you think?

And are we going to be saying anything that amounts to something other than, "Per Christianity, such and such is a moral maxim"?

Note my explanation above of how the Christianity's pseudo moral system [inherently pacifistic] with its 'oughts' has worked optimally to the past and current human psychological state.

Note the 'moral' maxim of Christianity, i.e. 'love all, even enemies' indirectly support the core moral maxim, 'thou shall not kill' which is unknown to Christianity is inherent in all humans.

Note the contrast to the supposedly Islam's pseudo-moral FSK which is inherently evil which not be termed 'moral' at all.

[Terrapin Station]

First I want to focus on this:

At present there is no specific moral FSK that represent the one I am talking about.

So wait a minute--you're saying that at the moment there is no moral FSK that can verify/empirically justify any moral maxim (or whatever we want to call the moral "things" in question)?

I am referring to the ONE I am talking about . . .

Huh?

Look, yes or no, do you think that there is a moral FSK that can verify/empirically justify some moral maxim?

Pleas just answer yes or no.

[Skepdick]

Huh?

Look, yes or no, do you think that there is a moral FSK that can verify/empirically justify some moral maxim?

Pleas just answer yes or no.

By framing this as a yes/no question you are answering your own question..

Is murder wrong? Please answer yes/no. Opinions will suffice.

The answer to any yes/no question is 1 Bit of information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit it's the same as any decision problem

What's significant is not whether your answer is "correct" (whatever the hell that means) or not. What's significant is that you have arrived at an answer. Avoiding the fate of Buridan's ass.

[Terrapin Station]

Is murder wrong? Please answer yes/no. Opinions will suffice.

In my opinion and most other folks' opinions, yes.

Now if only this had anything to do with the issues we've been talking about.

[Skepdick]

In my opinion and most other folks' opinions, yes.

Now if only this had anything to do with the issues we've been talking about.

Great! Do you think people's opinions are a causal force?

E.g do they have any effects on reality, or are they just sterile, inconsequential emotions?

If you think opinions are causal force, then that satisfies the scientific notion of "objectivity". Least you are going to argue that gravity is not objective.

In my view abstract opinions affect concrete actions, and so the effects of opinions are 100% objective.

[Terrapin Station]

Great! Do you think people's opinions are a causal force?

They can be. What is this supposed to have with what we're talking about re morality?

If you think opinions are causal force, then that satisfies the scientific notion of "objectivity".

What???

And regardless of the answer of that, it's not the issue under discussion here.

the effects of opinions are 100% objective.

But that's not what we're talking about!