What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm not sure how the decsion about what constitutes a fundamental good there and how niceness and good manners escape, but I will be interested to read about it one day.

Perhaps you would be able to assist in the miseducation of Henry Quirk. He has a problem in that he has attempted a lossless reduction of the entirety of all moral thingumies into the property rights of the individual who "owns himself". But he has a need to incporporate reciprocity somewhere into that and it's a problem that he currently solves by adding people who notice it to his enemies list. If your method of sideloading fairness could be added to his theory, you would be doing him an enormous favour.

I don't understand any of this. I suspect it may be intended to be humour, but if it is, it goes right past me.

You had not discussed with Henry who believe that 'Slavery [Chattel] is immoral' period!
Henry believes slavery is immoral because "no human can own another legally" and so, can be traded legally in that sense; thus, his point 'only the person can own himself'.
However, Henry's views is merely intuitive, i.e. moral intuitionalism;

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_intuitionism
  Ethical intuitionism (also called moral intuitionism) is a view or family of views in moral epistemology (and, on some definitions, metaphysics). It is foundationalism applied to moral knowledge, the thesis that some moral truths can be known non-inferentially (i.e., known without one needing to infer them from other truths one believes). Such an epistemological view is by definition committed to the existence of knowledge of moral truths; therefore, ethical intuitionism implies cognitivism.

Moral Intuitionalism is based on one's intuition thus not verification nor justification that one's beliefs is factual and objective.

You, on the other hand, believes that as long as one is happy, suffer no pains and it is useful as a consequence, then, it is not immoral; thus slavery is acceptable even legally if people are happy, suffer no pains and has utility for themselves.
I believe such thinking that "slavery is acceptable" on that basis is a perversion from the norms that is inherent within human nature.

Henry's intuition re the immorality of slavery whilst not justified as factual is in alignment and inherent within nature, i.e. ALL humans has the natural inherent impulse to be FREE and not to be owned and be traded legally.
It is only because the majority do not have the capacity to live up to their inherent potential to be FREE yet that we have to have laws to ban slavery which is now in place in every sovereign nation.

[Skepdick]

I'm not sure how the decsion about what constitutes a fundamental good there and how niceness and good manners escape, but I will be interested to read about it one day.

Perhaps you would be able to assist in the miseducation of Henry Quirk. He has a problem in that he has attempted a lossless reduction of the entirety of all moral thingumies into the property rights of the individual who "owns himself". But he has a need to incporporate reciprocity somewhere into that and it's a problem that he currently solves by adding people who notice it to his enemies list. If your method of sideloading fairness could be added to his theory, you would be doing him an enormous favour.

I don't understand any of this. I suspect it may be intended to be humour, but if it is, it goes right past me.

You had not discussed with Henry who believe that 'Slavery [Chattel] is immoral' period!
Henry believes slavery is immoral because "no human can own another legally" and so, can be traded legally in that sense; thus, his point 'only the person can own himself'.
However, Henry's views is merely intuitive, i.e. moral intuitionalism;

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_intuitionism
  Ethical intuitionism (also called moral intuitionism) is a view or family of views in moral epistemology (and, on some definitions, metaphysics). It is foundationalism applied to moral knowledge, the thesis that some moral truths can be known non-inferentially (i.e., known without one needing to infer them from other truths one believes). Such an epistemological view is by definition committed to the existence of knowledge of moral truths; therefore, ethical intuitionism implies cognitivism.

Moral Intuitionalism is based on one's intuition thus not verification nor justification that one's beliefs is factual and objective.

I'd say Henry's view is pretty fucking empirical, factual and objectively verified.

When last did you sign up for any recreational slavery?

[Peter Holmes]

Correspondence or representationalist theories of truth are mistakes. The assertion 'the assertion 'snow is white' is true because what we call snow is what we call white' is obviously tautological - a purely linguistic matter. There's no correspondence whatsoever between the assertion 'snow is white' and the feature of reality it asserts. A name no more corresponds with what it names than an arrow corresponds with its target.

But here are some observations.

1 Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean. So what we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth or the truth.

2 Our languages evolved for us to describe and cope with reality - which involves being able to make true factual assertions. But - things we make excepted - we didn't create that reality. For example, our saying 'water is H2O' doesn't make water H2O. It just happens to be what (in context) we call H2O, and would be so if no one ever called it anything.

3 The existence of things and their properties has nothing to do with language. Outside language, reality is not linguistic. So if moral rightness and wrongness exist as real properties of things and actions, then the task of demonstrating their existence is with moral realists and objectivists. Saying something is so doesn't make it so.

[Skepdick]

Correspondence or representationalist theories of truth are mistakes.

Good thing I didn't appeal to correspondence; or representationalism. In fact - I happen to side with the anti-representationalists on the matter.

The assertion 'the assertion 'snow is white' is true because what we call snow is what we call white' is obviously tautological - a purely linguistic matter. There's no correspondence whatsoever between the assertion 'snow is white' and the feature of reality it asserts. A name no more corresponds with what it names than an arrow corresponds with its target.

Perfectly in agreement. So if yo have no representationalism/correspondence to appeal to - what makes is "snow is white" a fact?

What property of the sentence/language; which feature of us using that phrase for descriptive purposes is its "factuality"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't understand any of this. I suspect it may be intended to be humour, but if it is, it goes right past me.

You had not discussed with Henry who believe that 'Slavery [Chattel] is immoral' period!
Henry believes slavery is immoral because "no human can own another legally" and so, can be traded legally in that sense; thus, his point 'only the person can own himself'.
However, Henry's views is merely intuitive, i.e. moral intuitionalism;

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_intuitionism
  Ethical intuitionism (also called moral intuitionism) is a view or family of views in moral epistemology (and, on some definitions, metaphysics). It is foundationalism applied to moral knowledge, the thesis that some moral truths can be known non-inferentially (i.e., known without one needing to infer them from other truths one believes). Such an epistemological view is by definition committed to the existence of knowledge of moral truths; therefore, ethical intuitionism implies cognitivism.

Moral Intuitionalism is based on one's intuition thus not verification nor justification that one's beliefs is factual and objective.

I'd say Henry's view is pretty fucking empirical, factual and objectively verified.

When last did you sign up for any recreational slavery?

I agree with the intuition that slavery is immoral but that is not factual until say an experiment or survey is taken to confirm everyone or even the majority agree that slavery is immoral.
But there are people like CIN who do not agree with 'slavery is immoral'.

To be more precise the proof of factuality need to be trace to its physical correlates in terms of neural algorithms, genes, DNAs and whatever its physical representations that is inherent in ALL humans regardless of their opinions, beliefs and influence by other secondary psychological states.

[Peter Holmes]

I agree with the intuition that slavery is immoral but that is not factual until say an experiment or survey is taken to confirm everyone or even the majority agree that slavery is immoral.
But there are people like CIN who do not agree with 'slavery is immoral'.

To be more precise the proof of factuality need to be trace to its physical correlates in terms of neural algorithms, genes, DNAs and whatever its physical representations that is inherent in ALL humans regardless of their opinions, beliefs and influence by other secondary psychological states.

So, if an experiment or survey confirms that everyone, or just a majority, think (or have an intuition) that X is morally wrong, then (it's a fact that) X is morally wrong.

What nonsense. And so much for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts!

And whatever 'neural algorithms, genes, [and] DNA' all humans may have, the moral rightness or wrongness, goodness or badness (evil) - how ever defined - of human behaviour is a separate matter. Facts have no moral entailment.

[Skepdick]

I agree with the intuition that slavery is immoral but that is not factual until say an experiment or survey is taken to confirm everyone or even the majority agree that slavery is immoral.

I say you don't have to do that! I say you can take the contra-positive hypothesis and test that.

Lets assume that slavery is moral.

Invite a bunch of people to be your slaves. No pay, daily lashings, hard work. Denigration. Sexual exploitation etc.

See how many people sign up.

[henry quirk]

I agree with the intuition that slavery is immoral

To be clear: the intuition is not slavery is immoral.

The intuition of every man, any man, any-where or -when, is I am my own. My life, liberty, and property are mine.

That is the fundamental intuition, the moral fact.

From that he can surmise what is and isn't permissible between and among men.

I'd say Henry's view is pretty fucking empirical, factual and objectively verified.

Yep.

[Peter Holmes]

I agree with the intuition that slavery is immoral

To be clear: the intuition is not slavery is immoral.

The intuition of every man, any man, any-where or -when, is I am my own. My life, liberty, and property are mine.

That is the fundamental intuition, the moral fact.

From that he can surmise what is and isn't permissible between and among men.

I'd say Henry's view is pretty fucking empirical, factual and objectively verified.

Yep.

Reminder. Morality is about the rightness or goodness and wrongness or badness of behaviour. For example, we may think it's morally wrong to steal someone's car.

But it's not a moral fact that you own your car. It's just a fact. So, even if it's the case, it's not a moral fact that you own your self. And we may think it's morally wrong to own someone else as property. I certainly do.

[henry quirk]

Reminder. Morality is about the rightness or goodness and wrongness or badness of behaviour.

You're right.

As I say...

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).

Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).

I stand corrected.

-----

To be clear: the intuition is not slavery is immoral.

The intuition of every man, any man, any-where or -when, is I am my own. My life, liberty, and property are mine.

That is the fundamental intuition, the fundamental fact.

From that he can discern what is and isn't permissible (what is and isn't moral) between and among men.

[Harbal]

I am my own. My life, liberty, and property are mine.

This seems to be an issue that is always on your mind, henry. I don't want to pry, but has someone tried to steal you?

[henry quirk]

I am my own. My life, liberty, and property are mine.

This seems to be an issue that is always on your mind, henry. I don't want to pry, but has someone tried to steal you?

What a blessed, sheltered, life you must have.

[Harbal]

What a blessed, sheltered, life you must have.

Yes, I do have measures in place, henry.

[henry quirk]

What a blessed, sheltered, life you must have.

Yes, I do have measures in place, henry.

[Skepdick]

3 The existence of things and their properties has nothing to do with language. Outside language, reality is not linguistic.

I agree with this 100%

So if moral rightness and wrongness exist as real properties of things and actions, then the task of demonstrating their existence is with moral realists and objectivists. Saying something is so doesn't make it so.

Well, lets take it one step at a time! Things and their properties have absolutely nothing to do with language indeed!

You are speaking of "moral" wrongness and rightness; as opposed to all the other kinds of wrongness and rightness. This necessitates that the "moral" property exists (outside of language).

What or where is the moral property?