What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

An issue has come up in various recent OPs and comments that I think needs clarifying.

1 A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong, or good or bad - or one that says something should or ought to be the case. (But we can also use the words 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'bad', 'should' and 'ought to' non-morally - with no moral judgement involved.)

2 A non-moral premise cannot entail a moral conclusion. There is no logical connection between them, so the conclusion can't follow from the premise, and the argument must be a non sequitur fallacy.

3 Here are three examples of such fallacies.

• Humans are programmed with 'ought-not-to-kill-other-humans'; therefore humans ought not to kill other humans.

• A creator god thinks X is morally wrong; therefore X is morally wrong.

• People own themselves; therefore it is morally wrong to own people.

None of these premises is a moral assertion. Each is a factual assertion with a truth-value. And the point is, the truth-value of a non-moral premise is not the issue. Even if it's true, a moral conclusion doesn't and can't follow. The is/ought barrier is insuperable. And that's why there are no moral facts, and morality can't be objective.

[RCSaunders]

Even a little obscure man like you can influence others to be good or bad.

Every individual has their own mind and their own life and is responsible for making the best they can of the one life they have both the authority and responsibility for, their own. To believe one's purpose in life is influencing others is hubris. It's what makes so many people meddlers in others' affairs. It is not up to you to make sure other's live their lives as you think they should, it is up to you to mind your own business and get your own life in order.

How it must gall you to know there are obscure little men in the world who see right through your collectivist nonsense.

Whether you like it or not you have been influenced by others and you influence others. I daresay there exists a biological species that is composed of solitaries but we men are not solitaries.

You write "Every individual has their own mind and their own life and is responsible for making the best they can of the one life they have both the authority and responsibility for, their own." That is true, and moreover that's the reason we can learn from each other . We learn by comparing our ideas and life experiences with other individuals. In the hypothetical absence of

Every individual has their own mind and their own life and is responsible for making the best they can of the one life they have both the authority and responsibility for, their own.

we would be like sticks and stones, unfitted to learn and progress.

The difference between being, "influenced," by something and, "choosing how to use," something is illustrated by the difference between a fish swimming against the current in a stream and a dead fish being swept long by the current. They are both in the same environment, but one uses the environment for its own purpose to determine where it goes, the other is swept along only going where the current takes it.

A society, or culture, or whatever is made available to an individual in any environment is like the stream. It is the raw material one has available to use or not, but what one does with what is made available to them, if they are alive and have their own mind, they must choose to use, go along with, or reject and go their own way. You seem to think human beings are like dead fish, and what they are and do is determined by the stream of culture and others. Most people do live their lives very much like dead fish just being swept along by whatever their society, culture, and those around them think and do without ever thinking for themselves, which is why most of them are always in some kind of trouble and cannot figure out why.

[Advocate]

There is no objective in any ultimate sense, only in relation to given human aims. To the extent subjective can be settled, as close to objective as possible, which means contingent rather than arbitrary, Morality is. Always.

[Belinda]

Every individual has their own mind and their own life and is responsible for making the best they can of the one life they have both the authority and responsibility for, their own. To believe one's purpose in life is influencing others is hubris. It's what makes so many people meddlers in others' affairs. It is not up to you to make sure other's live their lives as you think they should, it is up to you to mind your own business and get your own life in order.

How it must gall you to know there are obscure little men in the world who see right through your collectivist nonsense.

Whether you like it or not you have been influenced by others and you influence others. I daresay there exists a biological species that is composed of solitaries but we men are not solitaries.

You write "Every individual has their own mind and their own life and is responsible for making the best they can of the one life they have both the authority and responsibility for, their own." That is true, and moreover that's the reason we can learn from each other . We learn by comparing our ideas and life experiences with other individuals. In the hypothetical absence of

Every individual has their own mind and their own life and is responsible for making the best they can of the one life they have both the authority and responsibility for, their own.

we would be like sticks and stones, unfitted to learn and progress.

The difference between being, "influenced," by something and, "choosing how to use," something is illustrated by the difference between a fish swimming against the current in a stream and a dead fish being swept long by the current. They are both in the same environment, but one uses the environment for its own purpose to determine where it goes, the other is swept along only going where the current takes it.

A society, or culture, or whatever is made available to an individual in any environment is like the stream. It is the raw material one has available to use or not, but what one does with what is made available to them, if they are alive and have their own mind, they must choose to use, go along with, or reject and go their own way. You seem to think human beings are like dead fish, and what they are and do is determined by the stream of culture and others. Most people do live their lives very much like dead fish just being swept along by whatever their society, culture, and those around them think and do without ever thinking for themselves, which is why most of them are always in some kind of trouble and cannot figure out why.

I agree with all that. Freedom is NOT being like a dead fish. The more people know and are able to evaluate the more free they are , all else being equal.
This does not imply that traditional beliefs and practices render individuals unfree: knowledge and ability to evaluate can be applied to whole cultures and whole societies.

[RCSaunders]

Whether you like it or not you have been influenced by others and you influence others. I daresay there exists a biological species that is composed of solitaries but we men are not solitaries.

You write "Every individual has their own mind and their own life and is responsible for making the best they can of the one life they have both the authority and responsibility for, their own." That is true, and moreover that's the reason we can learn from each other . We learn by comparing our ideas and life experiences with other individuals. In the hypothetical absence of we would be like sticks and stones, unfitted to learn and progress.

The difference between being, "influenced," by something and, "choosing how to use," something is illustrated by the difference between a fish swimming against the current in a stream and a dead fish being swept long by the current. They are both in the same environment, but one uses the environment for its own purpose to determine where it goes, the other is swept along only going where the current takes it.

A society, or culture, or whatever is made available to an individual in any environment is like the stream. It is the raw material one has available to use or not, but what one does with what is made available to them, if they are alive and have their own mind, they must choose to use, go along with, or reject and go their own way. You seem to think human beings are like dead fish, and what they are and do is determined by the stream of culture and others. Most people do live their lives very much like dead fish just being swept along by whatever their society, culture, and those around them think and do without ever thinking for themselves, which is why most of them are always in some kind of trouble and cannot figure out why.

I agree with all that. Freedom is NOT being like a dead fish. The more people know and are able to evaluate the more free they are , all else being equal.
This does not imply that traditional beliefs and practices render individuals unfree: knowledge and ability to evaluate can be applied to whole cultures and whole societies.

Societies and cultures can only be evaluated by individuals. If someone surrenders their autonomy to any society or culture, letting them dictate what they will think, believe, or do, they are not free.

[Belinda]

The difference between being, "influenced," by something and, "choosing how to use," something is illustrated by the difference between a fish swimming against the current in a stream and a dead fish being swept long by the current. They are both in the same environment, but one uses the environment for its own purpose to determine where it goes, the other is swept along only going where the current takes it.

A society, or culture, or whatever is made available to an individual in any environment is like the stream. It is the raw material one has available to use or not, but what one does with what is made available to them, if they are alive and have their own mind, they must choose to use, go along with, or reject and go their own way. You seem to think human beings are like dead fish, and what they are and do is determined by the stream of culture and others. Most people do live their lives very much like dead fish just being swept along by whatever their society, culture, and those around them think and do without ever thinking for themselves, which is why most of them are always in some kind of trouble and cannot figure out why.

I agree with all that. Freedom is NOT being like a dead fish. The more people know and are able to evaluate the more free they are , all else being equal.
This does not imply that traditional beliefs and practices render individuals unfree: knowledge and ability to evaluate can be applied to whole cultures and whole societies.

Societies and cultures can only be evaluated by individuals. If someone surrenders their autonomy to any society or culture, letting them dictate what they will think, believe, or do, they are not free.

I whole-heartedly agree. Populist politicians pretend their promises free people from the diktat of politicians and intellectuals but the farmer's wife will kill the turkeys she has been feeding.

[Peter Holmes]

I think that only the existence of moral facts could make morality objective. And I use a standard description of the way we use the word 'fact'. Here are two dictionary definitions:

Merriam-Webster: fact: something that really exists or has occurred
Cambridge English Dictionary: fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists

So, if it exists, a moral fact must be: a moral thing that really exists or has occurred; or a moral thing that is known to have happened or to exist, especially a moral thing for which proof exists.

And notice that there is no mention so far of any kind of description with a truth-value. What we call a fact is a thing or event - a feature of reality that just is or was the case, neither true nor false.

But we also use the word 'fact' in a radically different way, to mean a description of such a feature of reality that's true, in context, given the way we use the words or other signs involved.

Obviously, a fact-as-description - typically a linguistic expression - exists only within a descriptive context - what one contributor here calls a framework and system of knowledge. And we can describe features of reality in many different ways. So physics facts are different from chemistry facts, which are different from geology facts, which are different from historical facts - and so on.

But facts-as-features-of-reality don't exist in a descriptive context. And to say they do is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are - to conflate the two completely different uses of the word 'fact'. A descriptive context doesn't create a fact; it just provides a way to describe it - to talk about it. We've invented different ways to talk about reality, but we didn't invent the reality we talk about.

And this is why it's false to say that a 'morality framework and system of knowledge' can create or produce moral facts. If so-called moral facts exist, they must exist independently from any descriptive context. And I think it patently obvious that they don't. The very idea is ridiculous. Moral objectivism is absurd.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=570116 time=1651398282 user_id=15099]
I think that only the existence of moral facts could make morality objective. And I use a standard description of the way we use the word 'fact'. Here are two dictionary definitions:

Merriam-Webster: fact: something that really exists or has occurred
Cambridge English Dictionary: fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists

So, if it exists, a moral fact must be: a moral thing that really exists or has occurred; or a moral thing that is known to have happened or to exist, especially a moral thing for which proof exists.

And notice that there is no mention so far of any kind of description with a truth-value. What we call a fact is a thing or event - a feature of reality that just is or was the case, neither true nor false.

But we also use the word 'fact' in a radically different way, to mean a description of such a feature of reality that's true, in context, given the way we use the words or other signs involved.

Obviously, a fact-as-description - typically a linguistic expression - exists only within a descriptive context - what one contributor here calls a framework and system of knowledge. And we can describe features of reality in many different ways. So physics facts are different from chemistry facts, which are different from geology facts, which are different from historical facts - and so on.

But facts-as-features-of-reality don't exist in a descriptive context. And to say they do is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are - to conflate the two completely different uses of the word 'fact'. A descriptive context doesn't create a fact; it just provides a way to describe it - to talk about it. We've invented different ways to talk about reality, but we didn't invent the reality we talk about.

And this is why it's false to say that a 'morality framework and system of knowledge' can create or produce moral facts. If so-called moral facts exist, they must exist independently from any descriptive context. And I think it patently obvious that they don't. The very idea is ridiculous. Moral objectivism is absurd.
[/quote]

A fact is an instance of truth, which is whatever continuously replicates. Moral truths are reliable contingencies; IF we value both survival and reciprocity THEN we shouldn't murder. Objective cannot mean true in an absolute sense, which is never available to us, it can only mean true enough for all intents and purposes, and that's a much lower bar.

[Advocate]

[quote=Advocate post_id=570122 time=1651406775 user_id=15238]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=570116 time=1651398282 user_id=15099]
Moral objectivism is absurd.
[/quote]

A fact is an instance of truth, which is whatever continuously replicates. Moral truths are reliable contingencies; IF we value both survival and reciprocity THEN we shouldn't murder.

Objective cannot mean true in an absolute sense, which is never available to us, it can only mean true enough for all intents and purposes, and that's a much lower bar.
[/quote]

[Peter Holmes]

I think that only the existence of moral facts could make morality objective. And I use a standard description of the way we use the word 'fact'. Here are two dictionary definitions:

Merriam-Webster: fact: something that really exists or has occurred
Cambridge English Dictionary: fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists

So, if it exists, a moral fact must be: a moral thing that really exists or has occurred; or a moral thing that is known to have happened or to exist, especially a moral thing for which proof exists.

And notice that there is no mention so far of any kind of description with a truth-value. What we call a fact is a thing or event - a feature of reality that just is or was the case, neither true nor false.

But we also use the word 'fact' in a radically different way, to mean a description of such a feature of reality that's true, in context, given the way we use the words or other signs involved.

Obviously, a fact-as-description - typically a linguistic expression - exists only within a descriptive context - what one contributor here calls a framework and system of knowledge. And we can describe features of reality in many different ways. So physics facts are different from chemistry facts, which are different from geology facts, which are different from historical facts - and so on.

But facts-as-features-of-reality don't exist in a descriptive context. And to say they do is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are - to conflate the two completely different uses of the word 'fact'. A descriptive context doesn't create a fact; it just provides a way to describe it - to talk about it. We've invented different ways to talk about reality, but we didn't invent the reality we talk about.

And this is why it's false to say that a 'morality framework and system of knowledge' can create or produce moral facts. If so-called moral facts exist, they must exist independently from any descriptive context. And I think it patently obvious that they don't. The very idea is ridiculous. Moral objectivism is absurd.

A fact is an instance of truth, which is whatever continuously replicates. Moral truths are reliable contingencies; IF we value both survival and reciprocity THEN we shouldn't murder. Objective cannot mean true in an absolute sense, which is never available to us, it can only mean true enough for all intents and purposes, and that's a much lower bar.

Nope. A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. That's how we use the word, as dictionary snap-shots of usage show. And a feature of reality has no truth-value, so it can't be 'an instance of truth'. In this context, only factual assertions - typically linguistic expressions - can be true or false. And the claim that a 'truth' (?) is 'whatever continuously replicates' is incoherent.

It follows that the phrase 'moral truth' means 'a true moral assertion', which assumes a moral assertion is factual and can therefore have a truth-value - which begs the question. And here's your example of a so-called moral truth / reliable contingency:

'IF we value both survival and reciprocity THEN we shouldn't murder.'

This is false, because we may have to co-operate to murder out-groupers, in order to promote in-group survival. But, more fundamentally, goal-consistency doesn't constitute moral objectivity. The consequent 'shouldn't' is purely instrumental, and has no moral significance. In other words, this isn't a moral assertion at all - so it isn't a true moral assertion.

[Advocate]

>>A fact is an instance of truth, which is whatever continuously replicates.

>Nope. A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case.

Those are totally compatible. What are you arguing about?

>It follows that the phrase 'moral truth' means 'a true moral assertion',

That fails for the same reason as JTB. Appealing to future, ultimate, hypothetical validation (true) means you have no benchmark for whether anything is truth. The truth of the matter can only be something accessible to us in the moment for the word to be useful.

>>'IF we value both survival and reciprocity THEN we shouldn't murder.'

>This is false,

Eventually, after i'm famous, after i'm dead, it'll be lauded as pure wisdom.

>because we may have to co-operate to murder out-groupers, in order to promote in-group survival. But, more fundamentally, goal-consistency doesn't constitute moral objectivity. The consequent 'shouldn't' is purely instrumental, and has no moral significance. In other words, this isn't a moral assertion at all - so it isn't a true moral assertion.

You inserted an additional variable before you began to refute "my" claim, straw god.

[Peter Holmes]

>>A fact is an instance of truth, which is whatever continuously replicates.

>Nope. A fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case.

Those are totally compatible. What are you arguing about?

Neither features of reality that are or were the case (facts), nor truth, are things that continuously replicate. This is gibberish.

>It follows that the phrase 'moral truth' means 'a true moral assertion',

That fails for the same reason as JTB. Appealing to future, ultimate, hypothetical validation (true) means you have no benchmark for whether anything is truth. The truth of the matter can only be something accessible to us in the moment for the word to be useful.

What we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth. And that's all there is or can be to it. Who mentioned future, ultimate, hypothetical validation? If what you mean is that there's no such thing as absolute truth, what exactly is it that is being denied?

>>'IF we value both survival and reciprocity THEN we shouldn't murder.'

>This is false,

Eventually, after i'm famous, after i'm dead, it'll be lauded as pure wisdom.

Whatever.

>because we may have to co-operate to murder out-groupers, in order to promote in-group survival. But, more fundamentally, goal-consistency doesn't constitute moral objectivity. The consequent 'shouldn't' is purely instrumental, and has no moral significance. In other words, this isn't a moral assertion at all - so it isn't a true moral assertion.

You inserted an additional variable before you began to refute "my" claim, straw god.

Sorry. Please set out your actual claim, without the additional variable. And if it's false, or not shown to be true, I'll refute it properly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If what you mean is that there's no such thing as absolute truth, ......

I agree, "there's no such thing as absolute truth, ..."

If there is no absolute truth [or fact] then there is only conditional truth or fact.
What you failed here is you stop short of what are these conditional truths or facts conditioned upon?
This is why you have been cowardly avoiding despite my many requests that you state what your conditional truths or facts are conditioned upon.

All you could to was to throw dictionary definitions of 'what is fact' at me.
If that is the best you can do, then you have to accept what is fact as conditional fact is conditioned upon the specific dictionary you quoted or the specific FSK of that dictionary or dictionary in general.

But we know the purpose of etymology [dictionaries] is merely to represent what is the common usage of a word at present and over time, its intention is not to represent reality at all.

So far, you have cowardly avoided to explain what your conditional facts or truths are conditioned upon. If you cannot do so, then such facts or truths are baseless, groundless and delusional.

[Advocate]

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=570557 time=1651640809 user_id=7896]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=570408 time=1651569055 user_id=15099]
If what you mean is that there's no such thing as absolute truth, ......
[/quote]
I agree, "there's no such thing as absolute truth, ..."

If there is no absolute truth [or fact] then there is only [b]conditional[/b] truth or fact.
What you failed here is you stop short of what are these conditional truths or facts conditioned upon?
This is why you have been cowardly avoiding despite my many requests that you state what your conditional truths or facts are conditioned upon.

All you could to was to throw dictionary definitions of 'what is fact' at me.
If that is the best you can do, then you have to accept what is fact as conditional fact is conditioned upon the specific dictionary you quoted or the specific FSK of that dictionary or dictionary in general.

But we know the purpose of etymology [dictionaries] is merely to represent what is the common usage of a word at present and over time, its intention is not to represent reality at all.

So far, you have cowardly avoided to explain what your conditional facts or truths are conditioned upon. If you cannot do so, then such facts or truths are baseless, groundless and delusional.
[/quote]

They're conditioned upon replication. And whether a particular individual knows it or not doesn't settle whether it's true or not.

[Peter Holmes]

If what you mean is that there's no such thing as absolute truth, ......

I agree, "there's no such thing as absolute truth, ..."

If there is no absolute truth [or fact] then there is only conditional truth or fact.
What you failed here is you stop short of what are these conditional truths or facts conditioned upon?
This is why you have been cowardly avoiding despite my many requests that you state what your conditional truths or facts are conditioned upon.

All you could to was to throw dictionary definitions of 'what is fact' at me.
If that is the best you can do, then you have to accept what is fact as conditional fact is conditioned upon the specific dictionary you quoted or the specific FSK of that dictionary or dictionary in general.

But we know the purpose of etymology [dictionaries] is merely to represent what is the common usage of a word at present and over time, its intention is not to represent reality at all.

So far, you have cowardly avoided to explain what your conditional facts or truths are conditioned upon. If you cannot do so, then such facts or truths are baseless, groundless and delusional.

First. Words such as 'fact' and 'truth' can mean only what we use them to mean. And dictionaries provide a snapshot of what we use words to mean. You can dismiss those uses of words, of course. But so what? That's how we use them.

Next. What we English speakers call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And that has nothing to do with knowledge - what we know to be or have been the case - or description - how we describe what is or was the case. So your claim that a fact is 'conditioned upon a system or framework of knowledge' is false. Repeat: false. Repeat: false.

Next. What we English speakers mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth. And that's all there is to it. Again, you can reject that use of the word 'truth', but so what? That's how we use it.

Last. If you claim that nothing - no fact - exists outside a framework and system of knowledge, say it honestly, and prove it. It's nonsense, of course. And that's why your whole argument is hopeless.