What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

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.

Here's the conventional ontology of 2023 represented in a computational language.

Of what value is it exactly?

[Magnus Anderson]

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.

Are you saying that scientists redefined the word "value" and that we should care about it? Why should we?

[Peter Holmes]

Here's a claim: 'Language decides what something is.'

This is a fundamental mistake. Features of reality - such as cats and dogs - are what they are, how ever we identify, name and describe them. They are not obliged to conform to our ways of talking about them. Outside language, reality is not linguistic.

That's why, though it's necessary for communication, agreement on the use of signs does not constitute what we call facts and, therefore, objectivity. For example, agreement on the use of signs in the assertion 'there are pink unicorns on the moon' does not constitute a fact. And the fact that water is H2O isn't the case simply because we call water H2O.

The 'red square experiment' actually demolishes the argument for antirealism, constructivism, model-dependent realism, and other recently fashionable isms.

[Magnus Anderson]

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

Let's try this analogy. One and the same bitmap image can be accurately stored in computer memory in more than one way. A bitmap image is a two-dimensional grid of tiny dots called pixels each of which has certain color. Suppose that you want to store it in computer memory, i.e. represent it, as a one-dimensional array of bytes. There is more than one way to do it. For example, you can flatten the grid by placing one row of pixels after another, starting with the top row and ending with the bottom; or you can flatten it by placing one column of pixels after another, starting with the left column and ending with the right. It does not matter how you're going to do it. The only thing that matters is that the program that you're going to use to reproduce that image on your screen can understand your format, i.e. the language that you used to represent the bitmap image. If it does not, it will give you an incorrect result; it will display a noisy image.

[Atla]

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.

Are you saying that scientists redefined the word "value" and that we should care about it? Why should we?

It's not just science, but subjectivists on values in general.

I didn't say that it's necessary to care about it. To some people, philosophy means the search for truth out of the love of wisdom, and this is arguably one of the places where the search leads us.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

Language is ambiguous about 'value.'

the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

Here we have value extrinsic and intrinsic ideas about value.

But this about words and how they are used. That doesn't tell us what something is. Dictionaries reify meaning. We use language as a set of tools to elicit a wide variety of experiences in others. Language is certainly not deciding what something is, given it's not an agent. People may then think interms of definitions of words at some point in the communication process, but if we want to find out what things are, we are forced into a philosophical position by language. We can weigh in on either side, for example, of whether X's value is a quality of X or has to do with the attitude of humans.

If we look up the word 'gravity' and it says it is a force, does this mean Einstein is wrong? Or could we have a discussion of what gravity really is and rationally side with Einstein?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

Let's try this analogy. One and the same bitmap image can be accurately stored in computer memory in more than one way. A bitmap image is a two-dimensional grid of tiny dots called pixels each of which has certain color. Suppose that you want to store it in computer memory, i.e. represent it, as a one-dimensional array of bytes. There is more than one way to do it. For example, you can flatten the grid by placing one row of pixels after another, starting with the top row and ending with the bottom; or you can flatten it by placing one column of pixels after another, starting with the left column and ending with the right. It does not matter how you're going to do it. The only thing that matters is that the program that you're going to use to reproduce that image on your screen can understand your format, i.e. the language that you used to represent the bitmap image. If it does not, it will give you an incorrect result; it will display a noisy image.

The point in our earlier primordial perception, we do not use language you described as above.
Note the evolutionary perception machinery in humans do not emerge in humans by in organisms billions of years prior to humans.
There is no sense of what you deemed as 'language' then.

There are electrical potentials flowing from high to low, but that is not language.
When you turn a switch to turn on a light, there are flow of electrical impulses but we do not regard that as 'language'.
There are flow of electrical impulses between potential within slugs and other organisms [even bacteria], but we do regard that as language.

[Magnus Anderson]

This is a fundamental mistake. Features of reality - such as cats and dogs - are what they are, how ever we identify, name and describe them. They are not obliged to conform to our ways of talking about them. Outside language, reality is not linguistic.

You're missing the point. And you're making a very basic mistake ( no doubt due to lack of proper effort to understand what the other side is saying. )

If you say that the word "unicorn" means "a horse with a horn", a unicorn will never be able to be anything other than a horse with a horn.

Similarly, if you say that the word "value" means "a property of an object that denotes how useful that object is to someone", a value will never be able to be anything other than that.

No amount of observation can refute definitions. Definitions aren't propositions. They have no truth value.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's a claim: 'Language decides what something is.'

This is a fundamental mistake. Features of reality - such as cats and dogs - are what they are, how ever we identify, name and describe them. They are not obliged to conform to our ways of talking about them. Outside language, reality is not linguistic.

What are cats and dogs or any biological entity is because the science-biology FSK said so, thus conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
Since it is human-based, logically, it follows, it cannot be absolutely independent of humans.

They are also conditioned to a human-based FS of Realization that realizes whatever the reality of anything.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

That's why, though it's necessary for communication, agreement on the use of signs does not constitute what we call facts and, therefore, objectivity. For example, agreement on the use of signs in the assertion 'there are pink unicorns on the moon' does not constitute a fact. And the fact that water is H2O isn't the case simply because we call water H2O.

You ignored this?

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.

The 'red square experiment' actually demolishes the argument for antirealism, constructivism, model-dependent realism, and other recently fashionable isms.

The 'red square experiment' in my view satisfy the FSR-FSK principle.

You did not justify your claim how it demolishes anti-Philosophical_Realism?

[Skepdick]

This is a fundamental mistake

I am sorry. What fundamental distinction between mistake and non-mistake are you appealing to?

Fundamental or not - it's still subjective. So why should we care if you think it's a "mistake"?

[Skepdick]

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

Computation is manipulation.

Manipulation of what? Anything.
Symbols.
Matter.
Minds.
Language.
People.
Reality.

[Harbal]

I would respond by saying that the subjectivity of morality is in its definition,

Except it's not. Historically, people have thought in moral objectivist terms. Subjectivism is a conceit of the modern and postmodern eras, and one that can't be sustained.

As far as I've always been aware, morality is about what people think is right and wrong, and no dictionary definition I've ever seen has suggested otherwise. Even if absolutely every human being was born believing -and maintaining throughout his life- that X was morally wrong, I still don't see how that would make X objectively wrong, because there is nowhere outside of human opinion to look for confirmation or proof of it. Things like murder and rape certainly feel objectively wrong to most of us, which is no doubt responsible for the misconception about there being moral facts, but when we look at more trivial moral issues, such as sexual behaviour, it is easier to see that morals are a matter of opinion.

The only way a moral precept could be proved true, is by giving the term, morality, a different definition to the one I accept as the correct definition.

Then you've done much the same trick as Peter: you've tried to eliminate morality a priori. He's done it presumptively, and you've tried to do it with an arbitrary personal definition.

If you look in any reputable dictionary, I think you will find that the word, morality, is defined more closely to the way I define it than to the way you do.

But in both cases, what you've done is only to eliminate all basis of justification from consideration, then claim the fact that you can't find justification should make us believe in subjectivism.

I think morality is a matter of opinion, and I have tried to explain why I think that, but I am not telling anyone else what they should believe.

But I wonder: do you, like him, think we're objectively wrong if we dismiss your strategy?

I'm not aware of having a strategy. All I am doing is defending logic -as I see it- for its own sake, and, unlike you, have no vested interest in convincing anyone for any other reason. You are the one with a strategy, not I.

[Atla]

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.

Are you saying that scientists redefined the word "value" and that we should care about it? Why should we?

It's not just science, but subjectivists on values in general.

I didn't say that it's necessary to care about it. To some people, philosophy means the search for truth out of the love of wisdom, and this is arguably one of the places where the search leads us.

I'm just stating the obvious here, but language and definitons change over time, especially now with this scientific explosion of the last few centuries. We can't freeze language in time, in that case we would still be talking caveman language, and had no good way of going beyond the very basic thinking of cavemen.

And words like "value" typically have more than one definition that is actively in use. We can argue about which definition is better, which one more accurately describes how a part of our existence works.

[Skepdick]

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

Ehhh, so fundamental scientific theories (expressed in the language of Mathematics) are not valuable in the conventional sense of "valuable"?
Mathematics is not valuable in the conventional sense of "valuable"

The fuck?

[Skepdick]

And words like "value" typically have more than one definition that is actively in use.

So the multiple definitions of "value" are NOT valuable ?!?!

Values are valuable.
Anything that is valued is valuable.

You are literally admitting that they have utility-value.