What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In which peer-reviewed publication do we see this scientific fact of oughtness published please?

As I had stated you are a gnat in terms of such knowledge.
The oughtness to breathe else we die is such a basic biological fact and to demand a peer reviewed publication is bothering on stupidity.

That's never true of the scientific FSK. So you don't have anything from the scientific FSK to justify this scientific fact of oughtness that you claim. You are a fraud.

The oughtness [noun, referent] is represented by the neural correlates and physiological mechanics that compel a person to breathe in the event there is a shortness of oxygen.

I have already explained the point above how 'oughtness to breathe' is imperative for all living humans.
You can't see the 500 pound gorilla?

[FlashDangerpants]

As I had stated you are a gnat in terms of such knowledge.
The oughtness to breathe else we die is such a basic biological fact and to demand a peer reviewed publication is bothering on stupidity.

That's never true of the scientific FSK. So you don't have anything from the scientific FSK to justify this scientific fact of oughtness that you claim. You are a fraud.

The oughtness [noun, referent] is represented by the neural correlates and physiological mechanics that compel a person to breathe in the event there is a shortness of oxygen.

I have already explained the point above how 'oughtness to breathe' is imperative for all living humans.
You can't see the 500 pound gorilla?

Are you telling us that this oughtness is a FACT OF THE SCIENCE FSK or not?

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's never true of the scientific FSK. So you don't have anything from the scientific FSK to justify this scientific fact of oughtness that you claim. You are a fraud.

The oughtness [noun, referent] is represented by the neural correlates and physiological mechanics that compel a person to breathe in the event there is a shortness of oxygen.

I have already explained the point above how 'oughtness to breathe' is imperative for all living humans.
You can't see the 500 pound gorilla?

Are you telling us that this oughtness is a FACT OF THE SCIENCE FSK or not?

Yes, it is a fact of science.
Don't overlook this point,
"The oughtness [noun, referent] is represented by the neural correlates and physiological mechanics that compel a person to breathe in the event there is a shortness of oxygen."
If we do not use the term 'oughtness' we will need the term 'need to' [necessity], imperativeness, and the likes.

Can you prove that it is a scientific fact, all living humans do not need to breathe?

[FlashDangerpants]

The oughtness [noun, referent] is represented by the neural correlates and physiological mechanics that compel a person to breathe in the event there is a shortness of oxygen.

I have already explained the point above how 'oughtness to breathe' is imperative for all living humans.
You can't see the 500 pound gorilla?

Are you telling us that this oughtness is a FACT OF THE SCIENCE FSK or not?

Yes, it is a fact of science.

Show us the peer review that establishes that "ought" is a subject that is studies under scientific method.

[Peter Holmes]

My emphasis is not "it's morally wrong not to breathe."
That was your strawman!

Rather my emphasis is,
there is a matter-of-fact existing as the oughtness-to-breathe which is represented by the physical reference of neural correlates in the brain. This is a scientific fact from the scientific FSK.

When the above is inputted into a credible moral FSK,
that matter of fact represented by the physical reference of neural correlates in the brain, is the ought-not-ness to kill humans as a moral fact.

Note I am not emphasizing here that it is morally wrong for anyone to kill humans.
Rather my emphasis is, there exists the ought-not-ness to kill humans as a moral fact as a matter of fact represented by the physical reference of neural correlates in the brain.

In recognizing the above moral fact a person should self develop to enable the above ought-not-ness to kill humans inhibitor to act naturally and spontaneously.

There should not be any consideration that it is morally wrong to kill humans.
This is your call and your strawman.
I have never used the statement [nor that is my intention if I had inadvertently done that] "it is morally wrong to kill humans". If so, show me where?

Codswallop. Here's VA's non sequitur fallacy.

Premise: Humans must breathe, or they die.

Notice, substituting ought to breathe for must breathe either doesn't change the meaning, or introduces a peculiar, non-idiomatic sense. Calling this 'the fact of oughtness-to-breathe' is an obfuscation. But it's true - it's a fact - that humans must breathe, or they die.

Conclusion: Therefore, oughtness-not-to-kill humans (by suffocating them?) is a moral fact.

This is a non-sequitur. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The fact that humans must breathe or they die has no moral implication. And saying that 'inputting' this fact into a credible moral FSK makes it a 'moral fact' is ridiculous. It's just the moral assertion that killing humans is morally wrong. VA denies that that is his/her claim - but the argument is precisely that.

VA agrees that a factual (non-moral) premise can't entail a moral conclusion - and wriggles and shouts 'straw man' when it's pointed out that that is exactly what her/his argument does.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=571725 time=1652097336 user_id=15099]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=571664 time=1652087809 user_id=7896]

My emphasis is not "it's [b]morally wrong[/b] not to breathe."
That was your strawman!

Rather my emphasis is,
there is a matter-of-fact existing as the oughtness-to-breathe which is represented by the physical reference of neural correlates in the brain. This is a scientific fact from the scientific FSK.

When the above is inputted into a credible moral FSK,
that matter of fact represented by the physical reference of neural correlates in the brain, is the ought-not-ness to kill humans as a moral fact.

Note I am [b]not emphasizing[/b] here that it is morally wrong for anyone to kill humans.
Rather my emphasis is, there exists the ought-not-ness to kill humans as a moral fact as a matter of fact represented by the physical reference of neural correlates in the brain.

In recognizing the above moral fact a person should self develop to enable the above ought-not-ness to kill humans inhibitor to act naturally and spontaneously.

There should not be any consideration that it is morally wrong to kill humans.
This is your call and your strawman.
I have never used the statement [nor that is my intention if I had inadvertently done that] "it is morally wrong to kill humans". If so, show me where?

[/quote]

Codswallop. Here's VA's non sequitur fallacy.

Premise: Humans [i]must[/i] breathe, or they die.

Notice, substituting [i]ought to breathe[/i] for [i]must breathe[/i] either doesn't change the meaning, or introduces a peculiar, non-idiomatic sense. Calling this 'the fact of oughtness-to-breathe' is an obfuscation. But it's true - it's a fact - that humans must breathe, or they die.

Conclusion: Therefore, oughtness-not-to-kill humans (by suffocating them?) is a moral fact.

This is a non-sequitur. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The fact that humans must breathe or they die has no moral implication. And saying that 'inputting' this fact into a credible moral FSK makes it a 'moral fact' is ridiculous. It's just the moral assertion that killing humans is morally wrong. VA denies that that is his/her claim - but the argument is precisely that.

VA agrees that a factual (non-moral) premise can't entail a moral conclusion - and wriggles and shouts 'straw man' when it's pointed out that that is exactly what her/his argument does.
[/quote]

Morality exists. Moral facts are like any other facts; that which continuously replicates. Facts can be firm relationships between fuzzy things and still do good work. If breathing is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals, it's a moral fact. If it's a prerequisite for any given moral question at hand, it's a moral fact. Morality doesn't and can't come from nowhere, it can Only be grounded in facts.

[popeye1945]

"To god, all things are right and good, only to man somethings are and somethings are not." Heraclitus

"There is no such thing as right or wrong, only thinking makes it so." Shakespeare

[Advocate]

">To god, all things are right and good, only to man somethings are and somethings are not." Heraclitus

Any use of "god" can be replaced with "my imagination". So the statement there is "All things are right and good in my imagination, but in reality not so much."

>"There is no such thing as right or wrong, only thinking makes it so." Shakespeare

That doesn't imply that right and wrong can be arbitrary, only that they are contingent. It's a misuse of the idea of subjective, and "no such thing" is factually incorrect.

[Peter Holmes]

Morality exists. Moral facts are like any other facts; that which continuously replicates. Facts can be firm relationships between fuzzy things and still do good work. If breathing is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals, it's a moral fact. If it's a prerequisite for any given moral question at hand, it's a moral fact. Morality doesn't and can't come from nowhere, it can Only be grounded in facts.

1 Morality 'exists' because we say things are morally right and wrong. But it doesn't exist in the way that physical things exist. To say it does is an equivocation fallacy. (Iow, this is nonsense.)

2 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And a feature of reality, such as a rock, does not 'continuosly replicate'. (More nonsense.) Living things are features of reality that do replicate, or at least try to. But there's no guarantee that they'll do so continuosly. (More nonsense.)

3 The fact that some living things have to breathe is not a 'moral fact'. It has no moral entailment. To say it does is to import or assume a moral opinion, which is a non sequitur fallacy. (Even more nonsense.)

4 We may use facts to try to justify our moral opinions, but they remain opinions. And others may use the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify different moral opinions. It sucks, but that's the way it is. It's our moral predicament. And that's why there are rational debates about important moral issues such as abortion, capital punishment and killing animals for food or sport. This fact demolishes moral objectivism. There are no moral facts that can settle these debates. The end.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My emphasis is not "it's morally wrong not to breathe."
That was your strawman!

Rather my emphasis is,
there is a matter-of-fact existing as the oughtness-to-breathe which is represented by the physical reference of neural correlates in the brain. This is a scientific fact from the scientific FSK.

When the above is inputted into a credible moral FSK,
that matter of fact represented by the physical reference of neural correlates in the brain, is the ought-not-ness to kill humans as a moral fact.

Note I am not emphasizing here that it is morally wrong for anyone to kill humans.
Rather my emphasis is, there exists the ought-not-ness to kill humans as a moral fact as a matter of fact represented by the physical reference of neural correlates in the brain.

In recognizing the above moral fact a person should self develop to enable the above ought-not-ness to kill humans inhibitor to act naturally and spontaneously.

There should not be any consideration that it is morally wrong to kill humans.
This is your call and your strawman.
I have never used the statement [nor that is my intention if I had inadvertently done that] "it is morally wrong to kill humans". If so, show me where?

Codswallop. Here's VA's non sequitur fallacy.

Premise: Humans must breathe, or they die.

Notice, substituting ought to breathe for must breathe either doesn't change the meaning, or introduces a peculiar, non-idiomatic sense. Calling this 'the fact of oughtness-to-breathe' is an obfuscation. But it's true - it's a fact - that humans must breathe, or they die.

Conclusion: Therefore, oughtness-not-to-kill humans (by suffocating them?) is a moral fact.

This is a non-sequitur. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The fact that humans must breathe or they die has no moral implication. And saying that 'inputting' this fact into a credible moral FSK makes it a 'moral fact' is ridiculous. It's just the moral assertion that killing humans is morally wrong. VA denies that that is his/her claim - but the argument is precisely that.

VA agrees that a factual (non-moral) premise can't entail a moral conclusion - and wriggles and shouts 'straw man' when it's pointed out that that is exactly what her/his argument does.

Where you are wrong is this?
PH: And saying that 'inputting' this fact [scientific] into a credible moral FSK makes it a 'moral fact' is ridiculous.
You have not explained why this is wrong.

As I had stated,
ALL facts are conditioned to a specific FSK.

Just as I had done above,
within the legal FSK, scientific facts and other facts are inputted into a legal FSK to generate legal facts.
In many cases for example DNA and other scientific forensic evidence are the main evidence that leverage a legal conclusion or legal fact, e.g. X is a murderer.
What is so ridiculous and wrong with that?

Your above is a strawman.
The argument should be as follows;

1. Premise: Humans must breathe, or they die as an imperative to ensure the survival of the species[scientific]

2. ALL facts are conditioned to a specific FSK.
ALL FSKs rely on facts from other FSK and direct evidence.
Thus, Moral FSK rely on scientific facts [e.g. 1] and other to generate moral fact in terms of oughtness and ought-not-ness [matter of fact, not opinions].

3. Conclusion: Therefore, oughtness-not-to-kill humans (by suffocating them?) is a moral fact.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality exists. Moral facts are like any other facts; that which continuously replicates. Facts can be firm relationships between fuzzy things and still do good work. If breathing is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals, it's a moral fact. If it's a prerequisite for any given moral question at hand, it's a moral fact. Morality doesn't and can't come from nowhere, it can Only be grounded in facts.

1 Morality 'exists' because we say things are morally right and wrong.

Your fundamental premise is false, thus whatever that follows is false.

Morality per se is NOT about what we say.
Morality is an inherent property of human nature as a moral potential [as a matter of fact] that is represented by neural correlates in the brain.

But it doesn't exist in the way that physical things exist.

Repeat;
Morality is an inherent property of human nature as a moral potential [as a matter of fact] that is represented by neural correlates in the brain.

What you are claiming are merely farts not facts and has no potential for the progress of humanity but open the path for whatever goes thus the possibility of extreme evil.

On the other hand, what I proposed has the possibility a one-way to facilitate humanity to higher levels of moral progressively.

Morality by default and definition is all, totally and absolutely good.
Thus the recognition of the fact of a moral potential [as a matter of fact] that is represented by neural correlates in the brain will facilitate the self-development by each individual [in the future, not now] to increase their moral competence to the highest possible level.

[Peter Holmes]

The argument should be as follows;

1. Premise: Humans must breathe, or they die as an imperative to ensure the survival of the species[scientific].

2. ALL facts are conditioned to a specific FSK.
ALL FSKs rely on facts from other FSK and direct evidence.
Thus, Moral FSK rely on scientific facts [e.g. 1] and other to generate moral fact in terms of oughtness and ought-not-ness [matter of fact, not opinions].

3. Conclusion: Therefore, oughtness-not-to-kill humans (by suffocating them?) is a moral fact.

As I and others have explained countless times, your premise 2 is false. Given that do use the word fact to mean a true description, that a description exists within a descriptive context - that it's 'conditioned to a specific FSK' - does not mean that any descriptive context can produce facts.

For example, alchemy and astrology obviously don't produce facts. So something else is needed; an FSK (a descriptive context) isn't enough. And this is obvious. For example, that there are physics facts isn't a consequence of the physics FSK. The physics FSK is credible precisely because there are features of reality that physics describes (at least provisionally) correctly, and testably. The credibility of an FSK depends on the existence of what we call facts. It's not the other way around.

So your argument is fallacious. And here it is.

P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
P2 There is a morality FSK
C Therefore, there are moral facts.

This is nonsense, whether or not you can understand why.

[FlashDangerpants]

Still waiting on how you explain that you, who are not a scientist, are able to circumvent the usual publication requirements for a scientific claim and reorganise their entire FSK to be a discussion of your rationalist logical stylings instead of the empirical stuff they normally like to do?

Are you telling us that this oughtness is a FACT OF THE SCIENCE FSK or not?

Yes, it is a fact of science.

Show us the peer review that establishes that "ought" is a subject that is studies under scientific method.

[Peter Holmes]

Morality is an inherent property of human nature as a moral potential [as a matter of fact] that is represented by neural correlates in the brain.

1 A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong/good or bad (evil), or that we ought or oughtn't to do something because it's morally right or wrong/good or bad (evil).

2 A fact can never entail a moral conclusion (a moral assertion). So a fact (actual or putative) about human nature can never entail a moral conclusion. 'Humans are programmed to do X; therefore X is morally right' - is obviously a non sequitur.

3 If we are programmed (with the potential) to behave in a certain way - if that's a fact about human nature - to say that's 'moral programming' is false. The moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour is a separate issue from that behaviour. We may judge that behaviour to be morally right/good, but that's a separate, subjective judgement.

And this is obvious. If we were programmed to kill group-outsiders - if that's a fact about human nature - would we call that 'moral programming'? Would that mean that killing group-outsiders is morally right/good?

[FlashDangerpants]

For example, alchemy and astrology obviously don't produce facts. So something else is needed; an FSK (a descriptive context) isn't enough. And this is obvious. For example, that there are physics facts isn't a consequence of the physics FSK. The physics FSK is credible precisely because there are features of reality that physics describes (at least provisionally) correctly, and testably. The credibility of an FSK depends on the existence of what we call facts. It's not the other way around.

for a sane person, this argumetn might work. But you must remember that your counterpart there firmly believe the Miss world pageant produces scientific results ...

So what??
A fact-of-opinion is still a fact relative to the Miss World Organization and the criteria established by that organization in arriving at that fact.
Regardless of what you think, there is consensus 'Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019' is a fact [albeit qualified].
This fact is recognized by many to the extend she is invited by various organizations and paid for her attendance.

Yes, so what?
A fact-of-opinion is just a fact about opinion. It does nothing to answer my question to just tell me the same thing again.
Pornhub has more data on the subject of beauty than Miss World could possibly assemble, so if their data suggests different standards it must be them that are right and Miss World should be shut down as a fraudulent entity.

Bullshit again, I don't read of Pornhub pronouncing facts of beauty officially like what the Miss Universe Organization is doing.
I am sure the Miss Universe Organization would keep all the records of the judges and how they have given their rating and presumably this will be audited by some respectable auditors.

Playboy-Playmate of the Month could be regarded as fact since there is an official organization with their own criteria to choose who is the Playmate of the Month.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_P ... _the_Month