What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

It is you making the claims.
You said morality was independent and gave a list of thigs it was independent of.
You have not justified that extraordinary claim.
PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.

How much justification do you need? There's nothing "extraordinary" about this - it's obvious to any non-idiot. Why isn't it obvious to you?

There was morality before you were born.
There will be morality after you die.

That's because morality is independent of you and your mind.

Non sequitur.
None of my experiences are independent of me.

There was morality before I was born.
There will be morality after I die.

That's because morality is independent of me and my mind.

wrong. See above

There was morality before any given individual was born.
There will be morality after any given individual dies.

Wrong. See above

That's because morality is independent of any given individual and their mind.

If you have gone full retard and you want to reject the existence of morality - please inform us. It will save us time.

Where is morality?
If it is independent then ir has to have an existence beyond human experience.
Where is that?

None of your experiences are independent of you.
The experiences of the 8 billion people currently-alive are independent of you.

Morality is independent of your mind; but not independent of the minds of 8 billion people.

Ergo, morality is objective.


Please read and understand this.

If you have gone full retard and you want to reject the existence of morality - please inform us. It will save us time.

[Peter Holmes]

Here is an argument.

I think/everyone thinks X is the case; therefore, (it's a fact that) X is the case.

This is a non sequitur fallacy. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Thinking something is so doesn't make it so, even if everyone thinks it.

And here is another argument.

I think/everyone thinks X is morally wrong; therefore, (it's a fact that) X is morally wrong.

Same non sequitur fallacy, with the added problem that a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion - and this is a non-moral premise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is an argument.

I think/everyone thinks X is the case; therefore, (it's a fact that) X is the case.

This is a non sequitur fallacy. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Thinking something is so doesn't make it so, even if everyone thinks it.

That is so kindergartenish.
Even a child who understand what is 'thinking' knows that thinking of an ice-cream is not the real ice-cream in the shop.
When you use terms like 'is the case' you are playing your own FSK games only you and the likes will agree with.

The point is this;
All facts, truths, knowledge are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
The scientific [also mathematical] FSK is the most credible/reliable at present.
Thus if it is scientific fact, then it is a credible fact [subject to different scientific methods used].

And here is another argument.

I think/everyone thinks X is morally wrong; therefore, (it's a fact that) X is morally wrong.

Same non sequitur fallacy, with the added problem that a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion - and this is a non-moral premise.

The point is this;
All facts, truths, knowledge are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
The scientific [also mathematical] FSK is the most credible/reliable at present.
If the moral FSK relied upon is of near equivalent to the scientific FSK, then the moral fact therefrom is reasonably credible.

The above do not cover moral statements, opinions, personal beliefs [e.g. I believe you ought not to rape, abort, kill, enslave, etc.] which are not verified and justified within a credible moral FSK.

[FlashDangerpants]

When you use terms like 'is the case' you are playing your own FSK games only you and the likes will agree with.

The secret to why you will always fail, is that you are capable of believing that entirely stupid sentence.

[Peter Holmes]

Here is an argument.

I think/everyone thinks X is the case; therefore, (it's a fact that) X is the case.

This is a non sequitur fallacy. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Thinking something is so doesn't make it so, even if everyone thinks it.

That is so kindergartenish.
Even a child who understand what is 'thinking' knows that thinking of an ice-cream is not the real ice-cream in the shop.
When you use terms like 'is the case' you are playing your own FSK games only you and the likes will agree with.

The point is this;
All facts, truths, knowledge are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
The scientific [also mathematical] FSK is the most credible/reliable at present.
Thus if it is scientific fact, then it is a credible fact [subject to different scientific methods used].

And here is another argument.

I think/everyone thinks X is morally wrong; therefore, (it's a fact that) X is morally wrong.

Same non sequitur fallacy, with the added problem that a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion - and this is a non-moral premise.

The point is this;
All facts, truths, knowledge are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
The scientific [also mathematical] FSK is the most credible/reliable at present.
If the moral FSK relied upon is of near equivalent to the scientific FSK, then the moral fact therefrom is reasonably credible.

The above do not cover moral statements, opinions, personal beliefs [e.g. I believe you ought not to rape, abort, kill, enslave, etc.] which are not verified and justified within a credible moral FSK.

Missing the point, yet again. That a 'this is the case' claim - a truth-claim - is always within a descriptive context has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the claim.

For example, the claim 'water is H2O' exists within a 'chemistry context'. But look at the following argument:

I think/everyone thinks water is H2O; therefore, (within the chemistry FSK it's a fact that) water is H2O'.

This is a non sequitur fallacy. Thinking something is so - and claiming it's so within a descriptive context - doesn't make it so.

Also, as ever, you can't refute the claim that a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion. And that demolishes your argument for moral objectivity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is an argument.

I think/everyone thinks X is the case; therefore, (it's a fact that) X is the case.

This is a non sequitur fallacy. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Thinking something is so doesn't make it so, even if everyone thinks it.

That is so kindergartenish.
Even a child who understand what is 'thinking' knows that thinking of an ice-cream is not the real ice-cream in the shop.
When you use terms like 'is the case' you are playing your own FSK games only you and the likes will agree with.

The point is this;
All facts, truths, knowledge are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
The scientific [also mathematical] FSK is the most credible/reliable at present.
Thus if it is scientific fact, then it is a credible fact [subject to different scientific methods used].

And here is another argument.

I think/everyone thinks X is morally wrong; therefore, (it's a fact that) X is morally wrong.

Same non sequitur fallacy, with the added problem that a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion - and this is a non-moral premise.

The point is this;
All facts, truths, knowledge are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
The scientific [also mathematical] FSK is the most credible/reliable at present.
If the moral FSK relied upon is of near equivalent to the scientific FSK, then the moral fact therefrom is reasonably credible.

The above do not cover moral statements, opinions, personal beliefs [e.g. I believe you ought not to rape, abort, kill, enslave, etc.] which are not verified and justified within a credible moral FSK.

Missing the point, yet again. That a 'this is the case' claim - a truth-claim - is always within a descriptive context has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the claim.

For example, the claim 'water is H2O' exists within a 'chemistry context'. But look at the following argument:

I think/everyone thinks water is H2O; therefore, (within the chemistry FSK it's a fact that) water is H2O'.

This is a non sequitur fallacy. Thinking something is so - and claiming it's so within a descriptive context - doesn't make it so.

Also, as ever, you can't refute the claim that a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion. And that demolishes your argument for moral objectivity.

You are so lost in your dogmatic thinking that you are not able to rationalize reality.

Within the Chemistry FSK, no one is thinking 'water is H2O'.
It is so unintelligent to arrive and to insist my point is non-sequitur.
Where did you get the idea from?

'Water is H20' because the scientific FSK - the most credible/reliable - confirms 'Water is H20' as a scientific fact independent of any individual's opinions or beliefs.
If you do not agree it is a reliable scientific fact, you can test, verify the scientific fact yourself.
I believe this scientific fact 'water is H20' has been tested and confirmed by millions or perhaps near billions of chemistry classes by students and scientists alike.

Any description 'water is H20' is a subsequent event or even a theoretical statement.
What is critical is the individuals must first experience "water" and realizes 'water is H2O' as a scientific fact tied to an emerging reality in entanglement with the human conditions.

Your "doesn't make it so" is incoherent i.e. of the untenable Metaphysical Realists ideology.
You are assuming there is "water as H2O" even if there are no humans to realize it.
You are very wrong on this point.

The fact that "water is H20' is based in the experience, realization and the emergence of 'water is H2O' as a scientific fact independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs.
The description of 'water is H2O' for communication purposes is secondary and a different event from the realization of the reality 'water is H2O'.
Note the difference between "experience, realization & the emergence" and the description of it.

The above argument is the same for physically-based moral facts experienced, realized and emerging upon a moral FSK or otherwise sensed intuitively.

Btw, what you are proposing and insisting is very common sense and applicable to the common sense perspective and I have gone through that while is philosophy kindergarten.
I can understand what you are trying to get at, but I have since graduate to higher levels which you are unable to grasp.
Analogically it is like you are dogmatically stuck with Newtonian Physics of reality while I am trying to inform you there is a higher level of reality in Quantum Physics.

[FlashDangerpants]

• If you need to use that abominable fake fact thing to justify a reduced fat inferior version of Objectivity in which the objective quality is derived from nothing but the combination of many subjects' subjective opinions and the Objective Fact thus derived is somehow considered True even though contrary objective facts created out of other individuals' shared subjective opinions which are also True assert that your Objective Fact is FALSE ... you done fucked up BIG.

Nicely put. Reminds me of Tarski's useless solution to a non-existent problem: needing a meta-language to define what we call truth. Explanations come to an end. That we can always say more doesn't mean we can never say enough.

Looks like the new direction is a huge overcommitment to the notion many subjectivities = one objectivity.

But the weakness remains, with nothing but aggregate subjective opinions to found the "objective" truth, competing systems with alternative interpretations are equally valid. So there's nothing to justify an authoritative answer to any question.

It's absurd to suppose that chemistry is in the same bind. The objectivity comes from observation of the real world. Phlogiston did not lose out because oxygen was a more popular explanation.

[Sculptor]

How much justification do you need? There's nothing "extraordinary" about this - it's obvious to any non-idiot. Why isn't it obvious to you?

There was morality before you were born.
There will be morality after you die.

That's because morality is independent of you and your mind.

Non sequitur.
None of my experiences are independent of me.

There was morality before I was born.
There will be morality after I die.

That's because morality is independent of me and my mind.

wrong. See above

There was morality before any given individual was born.
There will be morality after any given individual dies.

Wrong. See above

That's because morality is independent of any given individual and their mind.

If you have gone full retard and you want to reject the existence of morality - please inform us. It will save us time.

Where is morality?
If it is independent then ir has to have an existence beyond human experience.
Where is that?

None of your experiences are independent of you.
The experiences of the 8 billion people currently-alive are independent of you.

Morality is independent of your mind; but not independent of the minds of 8 billion people.

Ergo, morality is objective.

Duh, no.
Ergo morality is subjective.

Please read and understand this.

If you have gone full retard and you want to reject the existence of morality - please inform us. It will save us time.

You can say the say things about anything that is not real.
Morality is all about values and opinions.
The fact that people hold moral views is not the question, idiot.
The existence of morality is not in question dip shit

[Skepdick]

Duh, no.
Ergo morality is subjective.

It's external to; and intependent of your mind.

It's a fact about other people. It's objective. To you.

Why are you struggling with such basic English comprehension?

You can say the say things about anything that is not real.
Morality is all about values and opinions.
The fact that people hold moral views is not the question, idiot.
The existence of morality is not in question dip shit

You don't understand the question either.

But we've established this over and over. Now we are just re-affirming it.

[Peter Holmes]

The description of subjectivity as mind-dependence, and objectivity as mind-independence, perpetuates the myth that there are two substances: the mental and the physical - a myth still promoted by many dictionaries, both philosophical and general. (Mentalist talk gets everywhere.)

And that myth is at the root of - and still causes - much philosophical confusion, not least in the debate about the nature of morality - what we call moral rightness and wrongness: are they mind-dependent or mind-independent?

If instead we describe subjectivity as dependence on opinion, judgement or belief - and objectivity as dependence on facts - the whole debate changes in character.

Of course, the existence and nature of what we call facts can be challenged - as they have been here at enormous length - hence our digressions into ontology and epistemology. But at least there's no need to maintain the ancient and persistent delusion that there are two substances.

[Skepdick]

If instead we describe subjectivity as dependence on opinion, judgement or belief - and objectivity as dependence on facts - the whole debate changes in character.

I've never seen somebody so stupid that he continuously gets bamboozeled by his own sleight of hand.

The claim that the "debate changes in character" is nonsense - nothing changes because the arbitrary nature of the distinctions hasn't changed. The proposed distinctions fail to hold up precisely when it matters.

The subjective/objective distinction doesn't hold up because subjects are also objects! The "subjective" is empirically detectable which makes it objective and factual.
The fact/opinion distinction doesn't hold up because your opinions, judgments and beliefs are facts of your mental state. Subjective mental states are empirically detectable which makes them objective and factual.

It is my opinion that you are an idiot.
And it is a fact that it is my opinion that you are an idiot.

Since your idiocy has a dependence on the facts of my opinion, then by your definition it's objective.

[Peter Holmes]

Sigh.

It's a fact that, in my opinion, the dick is an unpleasant and intellectually-challenged troll.

Does that mean it's a fact that the dick is an unpleasant and intellectually-challenged troll? Or is that just my opinion?

Is it a fact that the distinction we make between facts and opinions doesn't hold up?

[Sculptor]

Duh, no.
Ergo morality is subjective.

It's external to; and intependent of your mind.

Not at all.

It's a fact about other people. It's objective. To you.

Why are you struggling with such basic English comprehension?

You can say the say things about anything that is not real.
Morality is all about values and opinions.
The fact that people hold moral views is not the question, idiot.
The existence of morality is not in question dip shit

You don't understand the question either.

But we've established this over and over. Now we are just re-affirming it.

The existence of morality is not in question dip shit.
It is the "facts" of morality that is in question.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The description of subjectivity as mind-dependence, and objectivity as mind-independence, perpetuates the myth that there are two substances: the mental and the physical - a myth still promoted by many dictionaries, both philosophical and general. (Mentalist talk gets everywhere.)

I have countered the above a "million" times yet you are so stuck dogmatically with your archaic thinking.

Yes, subjectivity is mind-dependence [entangled with the mind].
But objectivity is mind-independence at one level but mind-dependence at a higher level.

Note scientific facts are supposedly objective. You deny this?
As such they are independent of the scientist's or any subject's opinion and beliefs.
But objective scientific facts are subjective in a higher perspective, i.e. it is intersubjective based on the scientific FSK which is created and sustained by human subjects and mind, thus subjective.
There is no myth of two substance in this case.
So what is objectivity is intersubjectivity, i.e. fundamentally 'subjective'.
How do you counter this?

And that myth is at the root of - and still causes - much philosophical confusion, not least in the debate about the nature of morality - what we call moral rightness and wrongness: are they mind-dependent or mind-independent?

Which ever individual claim his rightness or wrongness is moral and based on his personal FSK, that is purely subjective.
But any claims of moral facts from a credible moral FSK of near credibility to the scientific FSK, is objective based on intersubjectivity, thus fundamentally subjective.
Thus moral facts are possible when they meet the above criteria.

You have not countered my claim here,

There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002

[Peter Holmes]

The description of subjectivity as mind-dependence, and objectivity as mind-independence, perpetuates the myth that there are two substances: the mental and the physical - a myth still promoted by many dictionaries, both philosophical and general. (Mentalist talk gets everywhere.)

I have countered the above a "million" times yet you are so stuck dogmatically with your archaic thinking.

Yes, subjectivity is mind-dependence [entangled with the mind].
But objectivity is mind-independence at one level but mind-dependence at a higher level.

Note scientific facts are supposedly objective. You deny this?
As such they are independent of the scientist's or any subject's opinion and beliefs.
But objective scientific facts are subjective in a higher perspective, i.e. it is intersubjective based on the scientific FSK which is created and sustained by human subjects and mind, thus subjective.
There is no myth of two substance in this case.
So what is objectivity is intersubjectivity, i.e. fundamentally 'subjective'.
How do you counter this?

And that myth is at the root of - and still causes - much philosophical confusion, not least in the debate about the nature of morality - what we call moral rightness and wrongness: are they mind-dependent or mind-independent?

Which ever individual claim his rightness or wrongness is moral and based on his personal FSK, that is purely subjective.
But any claims of moral facts from a credible moral FSK of near credibility to the scientific FSK, is objective based on intersubjectivity, thus fundamentally subjective.
Thus moral facts are possible when they meet the above criteria.

You have not countered my claim here,

There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002

The existence of a feature of reality (what we call a fact), such as the chemical composition of water, doesn't depend on a descriptive context. And it doesn't depend on our intersubjective consensus that it exists. So these two conditions for what constitutes a fact are not necessary - and therefore not jointly sufficient.

And the very reliabiity of natural science descriptions and the knowledge they embody - on which we agree - comes from an explicit rejection of these two conditions. A scientist who claimed that water is H2O simply because we agree it is, and agree how to describe it, would be rightly ignored or ridiculed.

Many of us have been suckered by a tired postmodern canard that was fashionable around seventy years ago: the arse-puckering, pernicious idea that scientists deal with merely polished conjectures about reality, not reality (nature) itself.

Meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with morality - opinions about moral rightness and wrongness.