What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

You are mistaken; I do not lie.

It this just your opinion; or is it objectively true?

Yes, that is correct.

That seems like a moral statement...

According to you it's not objectively true

[Harbal]

It this just your opinion; or is it objectively true?

Yes, that is correct.

That seems like a moral statement...

According to you it's not objectively true

Yes, I agree; pubic hair can be very sexy.

[Skepdick]

Yes, I agree; pubic hair can be very sexy.

I think there's a pube stuck in your teeth...

[Harbal]

Yes, I agree; pubic hair can be very sexy.

I think there's a pube stuck in your teeth...

How it could have remained there since a week last Wednesday is a mystery to me.

[Immanuel Can]

Animals get along with no morality. Human beings are animals. Therefore, why shouldn't human beings get along without morality? The logic is easy.

Because human beings have evolved the ability to interact and cooperate socially to a level of sophistication far beyond that of any other species.

That still doesn't mean one of them ought not to choose to do otherwise, anytime it's to his advantage. So that makes morality a mere inconvenience imposed on the majority, but which the minority can violate at will, without compunction. And that's pretty much what we have now.

[Harbal]

Animals get along with no morality. Human beings are animals. Therefore, why shouldn't human beings get along without morality? The logic is easy.

Because human beings have evolved the ability to interact and cooperate socially to a level of sophistication far beyond that of any other species.

That still doesn't mean one of them ought not to choose to do otherwise, anytime it's to his advantage. So that makes morality a mere inconvenience imposed on the majority, but which the minority can violate at will, without compunction. And that's pretty much what we have now.

Morality of the sort you advocate probably worked "better" when our social structures were more rigid.

[Immanuel Can]

Because human beings have evolved the ability to interact and cooperate socially to a level of sophistication far beyond that of any other species.

That still doesn't mean one of them ought not to choose to do otherwise, anytime it's to his advantage. So that makes morality a mere inconvenience imposed on the majority, but which the minority can violate at will, without compunction. And that's pretty much what we have now.

Morality of the sort you advocate probably worked "better" when our social structures were more rigid.

Objective morality cannot be founded on "structures of society," whether "rigid" or "flexible." Society is manifestly always in a condition of flux, to one degree or another, and all societies perish, inevitably; meanwhile, there's no objective duty for anybody to obey its dictates, even if they were unchanging.

Any objective duty to obey the dictates of a particular society would have to be superordinate (i.e. higher than and above all) to the particular dictates and to the societies themselves. And if one has already denied that such duties can even exist, where does one turn for such a superordinate axiom?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Objective morality cannot be founded on "structures of society," whether "rigid" or "flexible." Society is manifestly always in a condition of flux, to one degree or another, and all societies perish, inevitably; meanwhile, there's no objective duty for anybody to obey its dictates, even if they were unchanging.

Any objective duty to obey the dictates of a particular society would have to be superordinate (i.e. higher than and above all) to the particular dictates and to the societies themselves. And if one has already denied that such duties can even exist, where does one turn for such a superordinate axiom?

What is objective is generally defined as that claim that is independent of one subject's [or a loose group of people] opinions, beliefs and judgments.

There are Two Senses [Views] of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

1. Mind-Independent View [philosophical realists and theists]
2. Human-based FSK-ed Views.

1. Mind-Independent View [philosophical realists and theists]
The theists' [yours] and the philosophical realists' view is reality and things are absolutely independent from any human interactions.
The philosophical-realists assume a thing-in-itself or thing-by-itself which is absolutely unconditional upon human conditions, while the thing-in-itself is an absolute independent God who has created things which are independent of the individuals.
The above objectivity re mind-independent is grounded on an illusion.

Why Philosophical Realism [thing-in-itself] is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167


2. Human-based FSK-ed Views of Objectivity.
In this case, whatever of reality and facts are claimed, they are objective [as defined] because it is independent of one subject's beliefs or a loose unorganized group of subjects.
For example scientific facts as conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK are independent of the individual scientist's beliefs, thus that is objective.
But because the grounding is human-based, logically it follows, ultimately whatever is claimed as objective CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent.
Thus objective in this case is grounded on subjectivity, albeit on a collective of subjects in consensus agreement, thus intersubjective.

The basis of a FSK-ed objectivity is most realistic because it is grounded on real empirical evidence supported by critical thinking and rationality.
The human-based scientific FSK with its very systematic, rational structure and self-check mechanisms is the most credible and objective even it has serious limitations.
My proposed morality is based on a reliable, credible and objective human-based moral FSK which has near equivalent objectivity as the scientific FSK.
In this case of a credible human-based moral FSK, there are objective moral facts, thus morality is objective.

Theological morality can be FSK-ed upon a theological constitution grounded on God. Because God is impossible to be real, i.e. an illusion, its moral FSK whilst is objective, its degree of objectivity is negligible; despite that, it is still useful for the present [not future].

[Iwannaplato]

Objective morality cannot be founded on "structures of society," whether "rigid" or "flexible." Society is manifestly always in a condition of flux, to one degree or another, and all societies perish, inevitably; meanwhile, there's no objective duty for anybody to obey its dictates, even if they were unchanging.

The implication is that objective duty compels people. But if it exists, objective duty did was not followed by everyone, nor is it now. This comes up regularly. Those who do not believe in objective values are allowing for, expecting, assuming there are only subjective and intersubjective values. But people might not listen to those. Well, that's true of all the things that have been claimed to be objective values and duties. People ignored them OR they following them and tortured, raped, killed, enslaved and so on. So REGARDLESS, there is nothing that makes people follow morals, whether they are viewed objective or subjective or whatever.

Any objective duty to obey the dictates of a particular society would have to be superordinate (i.e. higher than and above all) to the particular dictates and to the societies themselves. And if one has already denied that such duties can even exist, where does one turn for such a superordinate axiom?

Precisely the same measures are taken by subjective and objective moralists. They cannot control others or they use power.

[Skepdick]

They cannot control others or they use power.

I don't understand the "or". Control is identical to power. It's the ability to manipulate stuff.

It's built into the logical dichotomy of True and False. It's a steering wheel for human minds.

Truth good (do more of that).
Falsehood bad (do less of that).

It's when people get tired of being mind-controlled is when they erase the distinction and begin searching for that free will of theirs (which they immediately acquire); but if they ever work their way up to objective morality again and attain a sense of moral duty to re-establish the barrier between Truth and Falsehood then they become the mind-controllers. And the cycle continues.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't understand the "or". Control is identical to power. It's the ability to manipulate stuff.

Sure, I was contrasting control via propaganda, use of scripture, shunning, whatever and police, pogroms, stuff like that. Yes, both are forms of control. And neither guarantess people following the morals.

It's built into the logical dichotomy of True and False. It's a steering wheel for human minds.

Truth good (do more of that).
Falsehood bad (do less of that).

I don't know any society that works in such a binary fashion. All the etiquette and indirectness and fabrication and white lies that are considered good and we don't have to go to Japan.

It's when people get tired of being mind-controlled is when they erase the distinction and begin searching for that free will of theirs (which they immediately acquire); but if they ever work their way up to objective morality again and attain a sense of moral duty to re-establish the barrier between Truth and Falsehood then they become the mind-controllers. And the cycle continues.

I didn't understand this. Perhaps some concrete examples.

[Immanuel Can]

Objective morality cannot be founded on "structures of society," whether "rigid" or "flexible." Society is manifestly always in a condition of flux, to one degree or another, and all societies perish, inevitably; meanwhile, there's no objective duty for anybody to obey its dictates, even if they were unchanging.

The implication is that objective duty compels people.

It depends on what you mean by "compels."

Objective morals do not "force" people to do anything, nor even "incentivize" or "motivate" the doing of it. What they tell us is what rightness requires us to do, but which we may or may not choose to obey -- at the cost, of course, of being morally wrong or evil for having disregarded a duty that was genuinely obligatory on us.

But if it exists, objective duty did was not followed by everyone, nor is it now.

Exactly.

Having a law doesn 't force anybody to obey it. It just tells you you're in the wrong when you don't obey it, and makes it clear why you're going to be prosecuted by the authorities, subsequent to your refusal to do it, or praised by your peers when you do fulfill that duty. It provides moral clarity, not personal motivation.

Those who do not believe in objective values are allowing for, expecting, assuming there are only subjective and intersubjective values. But people might not listen to those.

Right, too.

But the difference is profound: the person who disregards or violates a subjective "duty" hasn't even violated a real "duty." He's not guilty of any badness, or negligence or even callousness, since nobody owes it to anybody else to follow a purely subjective morality. But the violator of an objective duty is not only objectively wrong to do so, but worthy of reproach or correction by his peers or society, and under the ultimate judgment of God, for having failed to obey what was his objective duty to obey.

Vive la difference!

...there is nothing that makes people follow morals, whether they are viewed objective or subjective or whatever.

True; but we are not talking about what motivates or makes people follow morals. We're really talking about what morals they ought to obey, whether they feel motivated or not, and what is due to them when they fail to do so, or succeed in fulfilling their objective moral duties.

That's quite a different problem, and one in which motivation is a very secondary question, if we can bring it in at all. The primary one, the moral one, is "What duty has been fulfilled or violated?"

Another, simpler way of saying this is to say, if a traffic sign says 100km /60 mph, that does not make somebody go only 100/ 60, nor does it explain why they chose instead to go 120 km / 70 mph. It only tells them what truly was their duty to be doing, and explains to them why the policeman gave them the ticket.

[iambiguous]

Objective morals do not "force" people to do anything, nor even "incentivize" or "motivate" the doing of it. What they tell us is what rightness requires us to do, but which we may or may not choose to obey -- at the cost, of course, of being morally wrong or evil for having disregarded a duty that was genuinely obligatory on us.

In other words, no one forces you to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. No one forces you to embrace the Christian Bible as the foundation for objective morality.

You might be more inclined [existentially] to embrace one of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...spiritual paths to objective morality, immortality and salvation instead.

On the other hand, if you don't embrace Christianity, some here will insist your fate is nothing less than Hell itself. Eternal damnation.

But at least no one actually forces you to save your own soul.

[Immanuel Can]

Objective morals do not "force" people to do anything, nor even "incentivize" or "motivate" the doing of it. What they tell us is what rightness requires us to do, but which we may or may not choose to obey -- at the cost, of course, of being morally wrong or evil for having disregarded a duty that was genuinely obligatory on us.

In other words, no one forces you to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. No one forces you to embrace the Christian Bible as the foundation for objective morality.

Quite right.

One can always do the wrong thing -- and accept the consequences. That's what free will entails...free to do the right thing, and also free to do the wrong one. There's no other way free will can even be real.

But at least no one actually forces you to save your own soul.

Nobody forces us not to do anything. Nobody forces us not to enslave people, to commit suicide, or even to rail against God as much as we want. But that's not the same thing as to say these choices have no natural consequences entailed in the choice, nor to say that we will be free from ultimate justice if we make bad choices.

So morally speaking, we are forced to grow up. And that means that we take responsibility for the choices we have made. We don't blame others, or act as if we had no choice. We do. We just don't have infinite lease on bad choices having no consequences.

[Magnus Anderson]

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.

Language does and should change. But you have to understand that it can change in more than one way and that not every kind of change is good. Why change the meaning of existing words if you can introduce new words? What's the point of that? Why do you think that scientists should be in the business of changing the meaning of existing words? What does that achieve? That sort of thing can easily mislead everyone including scientists themselves.

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.

Words can, and they often do, have more than one meaning. That does not mean there are better and worse meanings. A word does not have to have a single meaning.

But the more important thing is that definitions aren't propositions. In other words, a definition is NOT a description of a portion of our existence. When you define a word, what you do is you attach to it certain concept. What you do is you decide what the word will mean when you use it. That's an entirely arbitrary thing, guided only by use value / convenience. You can attach any concept to any word. You don't have to use the word "unicorn" to mean "a horse with a straight horn on its forehead". You can use it to mean "a dog with four legs". There are no true and false definitions.

When we talk about value, we're all pretty much talking about a property of an object that denotes how useful that object is to someone.

And sure, you can use that word any other way you like. For example, you can use it to mean the same thing as the word "unicorn". But in that case, you'd be talking about a different thing, one that isn't relevant to this thread.