What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Re, all the points you raised above, I have already explain the same thing over a "1000" times in this dumpster thread and in individual threads I have raised.
But you don't counter them effectively but keep repeating your questions.

The only thing that could make morality objective is the existence of moral facts.

Unable to produce one example of a moral fact, moral objectivists are forced to reject the existence of what we call facts - to reject the distinction between what we call facts and what we call opinions.

I have argued your "what is fact" that is independent of the human conditions is grounded on an illusion.
I have challenged you to prove your 'what is fact' is really real, but you have not done so.

Thus your claim;
"The only thing that could make morality objective is the existence of moral facts."
has no credibility because it is grounded on an illusion.

Your 'what is fact' in this case is your personal subjective opinion, belief and judgment.
It is has no objective grounds to deny other claims are not objective, i.e. objective moral facts.

By contrast, VA invokes philosophical antirealism, as though that has any more credibility than the supposed philosophical realism with which he charges those of us who reject moral objectivism. The idea is that, since reality is a human invention, we can invent moral facts - such as that homosexuality is morally wrong.

Strawman, I have not argued specifically "homosexuality is morally wrong".

• Philosophical Realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The main principle and definition of Philosophical Realism is the above, i.e. things are independent of mind, i.e. the human conditions.
Show me how is your definition of 'what is fact' not in alignment with the above?

If you insist your definition of 'what is fact' is not within the ambit of philosophical realism, then your definition is your own personal subjective opinion, beliefs and judgment.

'Strawman!' - cries VA. 'The moral wrongness of homosexuality is just a matter of opinion - whereas an actual moral fact is the wrongness of humans killing humans.' But VA can't explain the distinction between a moral fact and a mere moral opinion. The invocation of 'evil', 'as defined', fails to clarify the distinction. Why is homosexuality not 'to the net detriment of the individual and society'?

I have explained the moral opinion is a personal judgment or collective judgment which is not a FSK-ed or Hume's sort of matter-of-fact.
I have argued the objective moral fact conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK of the 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' is equivalent to a scientific-fact conditioned upon the human-based science FSK.

see:
Hume's Matters of Fact is Unique
viewtopic.php?t=40916

I stated above;
"Strawman, I have not argued specifically "homosexuality is morally wrong"."

A note for morons: I don't think it is. I'm trying to expose the nasty absurdity of the claim and belief that morality is objective. Objectivist morons, confronted with the fact that people have rationally justifiable but absolutely opposed moral opinions on issues such as abortion, capital punishment and eating animals, have no defence for their position. They just dodge and weave - and invent fatuous arguments.

You are dumb on this.
It is so evident linguistically, any opinions [moral or otherwise] cannot be a matter-of-fact, thus cannot be FSK-ed objective.

Re Morality, we cannot lump up the various moral variables e.g. abortion, capital punishment, homosexually and eating animals, to make a serious conclusion on morality.
Each individual moral element/variable must be considered in relation to morality.
Morality is confined to humans only, thus the 'eating of animals' is not a specific moral element nor issue.

Whatever is claimed by an individual or a loose group of unorganized peoples are subjective opinions and belief. This cannot be objective at all.

Whatever is objective [FSK-ed] is conditioned within a human-based FSR-FSK with is constitution and conditions.
To consider whether a moral claim is objective, we need to review the specific human-based FSR-FSK and the specific moral element/issue. [A]

Take for example Christianity Moral FSK, because it is constituted by the Bible and have billions of members, it qualify to be objective, but its objectivity is very low because it is grounded on an illusory God.
However, the moral element within Christian, e.g. 'Thou Shalt not Kill, Period!' itself whilst intuitive, can be proven to be an objective moral fact.

The same review based on A is applicable to all other moral FSKs.

[Magnus Anderson]

Try this analysis with 'water is H2O'. Its truth or falsehood has nothing to do with who it's 'true for. It just is or isn't true. Cos it's a factual assertion, unlike 'X is morally wrong'. Shot in the foot?

Try this with "X is morally wrong for Peter Holmes". That's a moral statement, isn't it? Its truth or falsehood has nothing to do with who it is "true for". If it's true for one person, it's true for everyone. And that's because it's a factual assertion.

You have to understand that every statement of the form "X is morally wrong" has an implicit "for Y" where Y is a set of people.

Wtf? As I've explained, 'X is morally wrong for me' has a trivial truth-value, in that I may or may not think X is morally wrong. But the whole point of moral objectivism is that an assertion such as 'X is morally wrong' has a truth-value regardless of what I or anyone thinks. That's what 'having a truth-value' means. And 'X is morally wrong' obviously doesn't have such an independent truth-value, which is why moral objectivism is untenable.

"X is morally wrong for me" does not mean "I think that X is morally wrong".

"X is morally wrong for me" means "If I choose to do X, the consequences of it will be worse for me than the consequences of choosing to do something else".

As an example, "Rape is morally wrong for me" means "If I choose to rape someone, the consequence of it will be worse for me than the consequences of choosing to do something other than rape".

Discovering the truth value of such statements is far from being a trivial task.

Try to produce a valid and sound argument for moral objectivity, and then I'll carefully listen to what you're saying. And then I'll show you why your argument is either invalid or unsound - because ( with one trivial exception) non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions.

You should definitely tone down your narcissism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am saying that language precedes perception, i.e. that we cannot perceive anything without employing some sort of language. The reason for that is because 1) to perceive means to represent a portion fo reality, and 2) a representation of reality is made out of symbols. You cannot construct a representation of reality if you don't have symbols with which to construct it.

Your knowledge base is rather shallow and narrow, hopefully not as dogmatic as PH or Atla.

Note this from ChatGpt [with reservations] which does not jive with your claims above;

In the context of evolutionary timelines, it is generally believed that perception predates language. The ability to perceive and interpret the environment is crucial for the survival and adaptation of organisms, and it likely evolved early in the history of life.

Primitive forms of perception, driven by basic sensory mechanisms, would have provided organisms with the means to navigate their surroundings, detect food sources, avoid dangers, and interact with others. This kind of perceptual processing is not unique to humans but is shared across many species.

Language, on the other hand, is considered a more recent evolutionary development. While other animals exhibit forms of communication, the complexity and flexibility of human language are unparalleled. The emergence of language is often associated with the evolution of Homo sapiens and is thought to have provided a significant advantage in terms of social cooperation, complex problem-solving, and the transmission of cultural knowledge.

It's important to note that the transition from basic communication systems, which exist in various forms in other animals, to the highly sophisticated and symbolic nature of human language is not fully understood. The evolution of language likely involved the gradual development of cognitive and neural structures that allowed for more complex communication and symbolic representation.

In summary, while perception, in the form of basic sensory processing, likely predates language in the evolutionary timeline, the development of language is a more recent and unique aspect of human evolution.

[Skepdick]

In this case, evaluative properties such as moral and aesthic qualities are at best relative

Lets play out this claim, shall we?

Suppose that True and False are evaluative properties and they are at best relative.

True is defined as not False.
False is defined as not True

The following claim evaluates to either True (not False) or False (not True):

It's not rational for this to work that way round.

Please justify how and why you are asserting it as True.

[Magnus Anderson]

Your knowledge base is rather shallow and narrow

Well, if you say so. I am actually pretty confident that it's the other way around. You're still stuck in Kant's philosophy and have a lot to learn.

Note this from ChatGpt [with reservations] which does not jive with your claims above

Chat GTP is talking about interpersonal languages, i.e. languages that are used to facilitate communication between different minds.

Your mind has its own intrapersonal language it uses to facilitate communication between different parts of your brain. Everything you see with your own eyes is a message sent to you by the lower chambers of your mind to your conscious mind. That message is expressed in certain intrapersonal language that your brain is using.

[Skepdick]

Chat GTP is talking about interpersonal languages, i.e. languages that are used to facilitate communication between different minds.

Every language fits that definition. That is what language is FOR.

If you are taking notes, writing memos or have a TODO list then you are using a language to facilitate communication with your future-mind.

Hamming keeps pointing this out: Storing/Remembering information is the same as transmitting information into the future.

-- R.Hamming, chapter 2, page 9, The Art of Doing Science and Engineering

We should note here transmission through space (typically signaling) is the same as transmission through time (storage). -- R.Hamming, chapter 2, page 9, The Art of Doing Science and Engineering

[Magnus Anderson]

Your mind is made out of many different parts and these different parts must communicate with each other. Hence the need for a language that is INTRA-personal rather than INTER-personal. It facilitates communication between different parts of one's mind, rather than between different minds ( even if it's merely between your present mind and your future mind. )

The most important bit is that every representation of reality is made out of symbols. So, if you want to represent some portion of reality, you need to choose a language with which you'll do it. It's unavoidable. There is no such thing as language-free perception of reality. All perception is language-laden. The belief in such a thing is merely a remnant of naive realism. And all these people who insist on language-free perception, all they are doing is carrying out a linguistic tyranny wherein they demand, for no legitimate reason at all, that everyone sticks to a very primitive language -- that of materialism. All it achieves is it retards intellectual development.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your knowledge base is rather shallow and narrow

Well, if you say so. I am actually pretty confident that it's the other way around. You're still stuck in Kant's philosophy and have a lot to learn.

Note this from ChatGpt [with reservations] which does not jive with your claims above

Chat GTP is talking about interpersonal languages, i.e. languages that are used to facilitate communication between different minds.

Your mind has its own intrapersonal language it uses to facilitate communication between different parts of your brain. Everything you see with your own eyes is a message sent to you by the lower chambers of your mind to your conscious mind. That message is expressed in certain intrapersonal language that your brain is using.

Your idea of intrapersonal language is your own invention.

General 'intrapersonal' is
"Unlike interpersonal communication, which is exchanged between two or more people, intrapersonal communication is communication with oneself. There are many other names for the same concept – self-talk, internal monologue, inner speech, inner experience, and internal discourse."

As ChatGPT stated;

Primitive forms of perception, driven by basic sensory mechanisms, would have provided organisms with the means to navigate their surroundings, detect food sources, avoid dangers, and interact with others. This kind of perceptual processing is not unique to humans but is shared across many species.

Language, on the other hand, is considered a more recent evolutionary development. While other animals exhibit forms of communication, the complexity and flexibility of human language are unparalleled. The emergence of language is often associated with the evolution of Homo sapiens and is thought to have provided a significant advantage in terms of social cooperation, complex problem-solving, and the transmission of cultural knowledge.

"Primitive forms of perception, driven by basic sensory mechanisms" refer to auto-reflex and instinctual reactions without any 'language' as understood in the general sense.

[Magnus Anderson]

Your idea of intrapersonal language is your own invention.

That's not much of an argument. I understand that you're highly uncreative and unoriginal, and that all of your ideas are borrowed from the people that you look up to, such as Kant and now even Chat GPT, but you have to understand that, if you're going to reject everything that is not endorsed by your chosen authorities, you will stagnate.

Try basic logic.

If "to perceive" means "to construct a representation of reality", and if every representation of reality is made out of symbols, how can you perceive something, i.e. construct a representation of it, without having a set of symbols at hand?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Try this analysis with 'water is H2O'. Its truth or falsehood has nothing to do with who it's 'true for. It just is or isn't true. Cos it's a factual assertion, unlike 'X is morally wrong'. Shot in the foot?

You are ignorant on this and Shot YOUR own foot.

Whether 'water is H20' is true or false is conditioned to the human-based FSR-FSK it is conditioned upon.

see:
"Water is Not H20"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844
where the FSR-FSK take into account isomers of H and O.

It is the same with all matters-of-facts [FSK-ed or Hume's] whether they are true or false is conditioned upon the specific human-based FSK.

[Atla]

All "perception" is happening in the head, so it doesn't mean much when people say that they perceive something as valuable. It doesn't follow at all that the value is an inherent property of the external object.

I think you're downplaying the role of language in perception, a mistake made by many in the past ( Locke, Berkeley, Kant, et al. ) It's a mistake typically made by people who lean too much on the side of empiricism.

There is no arguing with the fact that value is a property of physical objects. Why? Because it's something established by language. It's like arguing that there are bachelors who are married or squares that are circles. It's futile.

You can, however, argue that value does not merely denote the physical constitution of the objects it belong to -- something that FDP already did. That's true. Value describes the relation between the object and the subject. It denotes how useful something is to someone. However, that does not disprove the fact that value is a property of physical objects.

Some of our perceptions are created from a mixture of external and internal input, and some of perceptions are created from internal input only. Value is most likely in the latter category. It's entirely internal in origin, and then gets assigned to other perceptions that may have external inputs too. The brain/mind does this process automatically, so it seems as if the value was an inherent property of the external object, but that's probably just an illusion.

It does not matter how our perceptions are made. What matters is what the word "value" means. And that's an issue of language, not an issue of epistemology and / or neuroscience. And what the word "value" represents is a property of an object denoting how useful that object is to someone. How useful something is to someone has nothing to do with what anyone thinks about it. Water isn't useful to you because you think it is useful; it's useful because its physical constitution helps you survive and attain your goals.

Okay then you are only talking about a convention (which is based on an illusion), not what value actually is (ontologically). And calling this convention a fact, well yes it's a "fact" that that's how we usually use langage in everyday life.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your idea of intrapersonal language is your own invention.

That's not much of an argument. I understand that you're highly uncreative and unoriginal, and that all of your ideas are borrowed from the people that you look up to, such as Kant and now even Chat GPT, but you have to understand that, if you're going to reject everything that is not endorsed by your chosen authorities, you will stagnate.

Try basic logic.

If "to perceive" means "to construct a representation of reality", and if every representation of reality is made out of symbols, how can you perceive something, i.e. construct a representation of it, without having a set of symbols at hand?

I understand there is some sort of computation going on but I would not regard it as language in the general sense.

[Atla]

Your knowledge base is rather shallow and narrow, hopefully not as dogmatic as PH or Atla.

Says the champion of dogmatism lol..

[Magnus Anderson]

Okay then you are only talking about a convention (which is based on an illusion), not what value actually is (ontologically). And calling this convention a fact, well yes it's a "fact" that that's how we usually use langage in everyday life.

Language decides what something is. For example, language decides what unicorns are. The definition of the word "unicorn" tells us that unicorns are horses that have a straight horn on their forehead. No amount of observation can prove that wrong. The same goes for the word "value". It is language that tells us that a value is a property of an object denoting how useful that object is to someone. No amount of observation can prove that wrong. You can't argue with language.

[Atla]

Okay then you are only talking about a convention (which is based on an illusion), not what value actually is (ontologically). And calling this convention a fact, well yes it's a "fact" that that's how we usually use langage in everyday life.

Language decides what something is. For example, language decides what unicorns are. The definition of the word "unicorn" tells us that unicorns are horses that have a straight horn on their forehead. No amount of observation can prove that wrong. The same goes for the word "value". It is language that tells us that a value is a property of an object denoting how useful that object is to someone. No amount of observation can prove that wrong. You can't argue with language.

The language of everyday convention, yes.
Not the language of the more fundamental scientific picture, where value is not a property of external physical objects.