VA vs. PH - Morality is Objective

[Veritas Aequitas]

But you also wrote this....
The resulting relativism is obvious.
You have thrown away your last chance of denying objectivity to mad shit with that change to "dictates".

You misinterpreted my point.
As long as whatever is FSK-ed objectivity is dictated and implied without exception.
I was comparing the degrees of objectivity of various FSKs relative to the scientific FSK as the standard.
What is relative in this case of the degrees of objectivity because the scientific FSK is used as a convenient standard [not absolute btw] not morality per se.
Morality per se is always conditioned upon a human-based FSK which dictates objectivity.

1. You have rejected what makes science a "credible FSK" according to everyone else: that it takes its data, and limits is discourse to the observable world around us (all that stuff that normies consider objective). You have cut yourself off from that line of reason which says that there is something fundamentally different in type or scope between the activity of science and that of astrology.

2. You have instead asserted that what makes science a "credible FSK" is really just the number of people who consider it appealing.

You missed the critical points.
I have never rejected what makes and why science is a "credible FSK".

I have always claimed, as long as whatever variable of reality is FSK-ed it dictates Objectivity.
The most objective FSK is the scientific FSK that dictates objective scientific facts.

Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585
where I had taken into account the features and attributes which make it the most credible and objective.

What Other Source of Knowledge is More Credible than Science?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40044

You have critiqued my points based on ignorance.

That every variable of reality is FSK-ed is very effective as a Completeness Control to bring every claim of reality into a common denominator of 'objectivity' such that we can put metaphysical, theological, magical, miraculous claims [low or negligible degrees of objectivity] in their place and reject them as credible in contrast to the credibility of the scientific FSK.

3. You have created the table-manner-X FSK monster above. And you have asserted that any time there might be an emergent FSK thing, there must be, your word of choice for that is "dictated".
You must be able to see where this inevitably goes.

Yes, as long as there is any variable that emerged out of reality, it is FSK-ed [human conditioned] and Objectivity is dictated [commanded, as in integral part of, entailed, created and the like] therefrom.

As such, "table-manner-X FSK monster" if FSK-ed, its credibility and objectivity will be assessed and rated in contrast to the scientific FSK -the standard.
Table-manner is a social etiquette -nothing to do with morality.

There is no denying the following is a FSK-ed 'fact' as conditioned within the Eating-food-FSK in Japan, thus objective.

• Slurping your noodles loudly is considered a compliment to the chef throughout Japan and China – a sign of deep appreciation for your one-bowl meal.
  https://www.jetstar.com/au/en/inspirati ... up-in-asia

But the above FSK-ed objectivity cannot have high objectivity as the scientific FSK because it is not universal and the FSK is not systematic.

To topic, the question is whether there are objective moral facts and morality is objective.

Briefly,
1. Whatever variable of reality is FSK-ed it dictates Objectivity.
2. Morality is a variable of reality
3. Morality is objective.

The next question how objective is FSK-ed morality in comparison to the scientific FSK as the standard objectivity.
I have argued, it is approximately 90% as objective as the scientific FSK. [detail argument given in various posts and threads in here]

[Veritas Aequitas]

But you have not justified that distinction.
But take it on face value.
The statement is not objective.
The right to kill humans exists, morally in all moral systems across the world.

What??
Can't you see the critical aspects of criminal laws is
no killing of humans [murder, genocides] with exceptions.
In all cases of moral consideration, no killing of humans is permissible and if there is any, they are only permitted in exceptional cases of self-defense.
In the case of morality-proper, the principle is 'no killings of humans-period!"

Show me cases where all humans has the absolute moral right to kill humans.

Name one country that has not gone to war.

Where a country goes to war, it is based on the political-FSK as grounded on their Constitution which dictates the relevant laws for engagement in wars.
Politics is independent from morality-proper.

Morality-proper is confined fundamentally to an individual's responsibility to be moral.
Morality is about you and your moral actions alone.

It is only in Meta-Ethics that morality is discussed as a group-subject.
You are ignorant of this, that is why your argument related to morality is all over.
If you disagree show me otherwise?

Here is a brief argument;

• 1. Whatever variable of reality is FSK-ed it dictates Objectivity.
  2. Morality [FSK-ed] is a variable of reality [FSK-ed]
  3. Morality [FSK-ed] is objective [FSK-ed].

[Sculptor]

What??
Can't you see the critical aspects of criminal laws is
no killing of humans [murder, genocides] with exceptions.
In all cases of moral consideration, no killing of humans is permissible and if there is any, they are only permitted in exceptional cases of self-defense.
In the case of morality-proper, the principle is 'no killings of humans-period!"

Show me cases where all humans has the absolute moral right to kill humans.

Name one country that has not gone to war.

Where a country goes to war, it is based on the political-FSK as grounded on their Constitution which dictates the relevant laws for engagement in wars.

Rubbish. No country has ever heard of a FSK
That is a pretty funny delusion you have

[FlashDangerpants]

You misinterpreted my point.
As long as whatever is FSK-ed objectivity is dictated and implied without exception.
I was comparing the degrees of objectivity of various FSKs relative to the scientific FSK as the standard.
What is relative in this case of the degrees of objectivity because the scientific FSK is used as a convenient standard [not absolute btw] not morality per se.
Morality per se is always conditioned upon a human-based FSK which dictates objectivity.

1. You have rejected what makes science a "credible FSK" according to everyone else: that it takes its data, and limits is discourse to the observable world around us (all that stuff that normies consider objective). You have cut yourself off from that line of reason which says that there is something fundamentally different in type or scope between the activity of science and that of astrology.

2. You have instead asserted that what makes science a "credible FSK" is really just the number of people who consider it appealing.

You missed the critical points.
I have never rejected what makes and why science is a "credible FSK".

I have always claimed, as long as whatever variable of reality is FSK-ed it dictates Objectivity.
The most objective FSK is the scientific FSK that dictates objective scientific facts.

Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585
where I had taken into account the features and attributes which make it the most credible and objective.

What Other Source of Knowledge is More Credible than Science?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40044

Again, there is a clear difference of type between the sciences, which discuss only data and phnomena of the external world, and quackery such as astrology or the pseudosciences. Everybody except you can see that.

You have critiqued my points based on ignorance.

That every variable of reality is FSK-ed is very effective as a Completeness Control to bring every claim of reality into a common denominator of 'objectivity' such that we can put metaphysical, theological, magical, miraculous claims [low or negligible degrees of objectivity] in their place and reject them as credible in contrast to the credibility of the scientific FSK.

Word salad. The actual way that you calculate "credibility" is by counting how many people are persuaded. Did you cook up some other measure while I wasn't looking?

3. You have created the table-manner-X FSK monster above. And you have asserted that any time there might be an emergent FSK thing, there must be, your word of choice for that is "dictated".
You must be able to see where this inevitably goes.

Yes, as long as there is any variable that emerged out of reality, it is FSK-ed [human conditioned] and Objectivity is dictated [commanded, as in integral part of, entailed, created and the like] therefrom.

As such, "table-manner-X FSK monster" if FSK-ed, its credibility and objectivity will be assessed and rated in contrast to the scientific FSK -the standard.

So you've trapped yourself. Where do you think this goes? Bear in mind that you are hoping to avoid locking relativism into your morality-proper fsk and I hjust had you do a bit about Japanese table manners. What do you think comes next?

Table-manner is a social etiquette -nothing to do with morality.

If that is so (and it is questionable if it is so) I would definitely be sweating right now if I was the one making a big deal of comparing it to science.

There is no denying the following is a FSK-ed 'fact' as conditioned within the Eating-food-FSK in Japan, thus objective.

• Slurping your noodles loudly is considered a compliment to the chef throughout Japan and China – a sign of deep appreciation for your one-bowl meal.
  https://www.jetstar.com/au/en/inspirati ... up-in-asia

But the above FSK-ed objectivity cannot have high objectivity as the scientific FSK because it is not universal and the FSK is not systematic.

Before we do the next bit though, I would like to understand why "systematic" has just enterred the chat?
Is it doing useful work, or just an expression of your compulsive tendency to sort things into meaningless categories?

To topic, the question is whether there are objective moral facts and morality is objective.

Briefly,
1. Whatever variable of reality is FSK-ed it dictates Objectivity.
2. Morality is a variable of reality
3. Morality is objective.

The next question how objective is FSK-ed morality in comparison to the scientific FSK as the standard objectivity.
I have argued, it is approximately 90% as objective as the scientific FSK. [detail argument given in various posts and threads in here]

There's about 8 billion versions of this morality as "variables" of reality. All of them are objective or not on the same basis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Name one country that has not gone to war.

Where a country goes to war, it is based on the political-FSK as grounded on their Constitution which dictates the relevant laws for engagement in wars.

Rubbish. No country has ever heard of a FSK
That is a pretty funny delusion you have

How did you ever become so ignorant?

Political system, the set of formal legal institutions that constitute a “government” or a “state.” This is the definition adopted by many studies of the legal or constitutional arrangements of advanced political orders.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-system

Frameworks of Political System Development
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 37336910_9

A systems framework for remedying dysfunction in US democracy

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2102154118

Systems Theory as a Framework for Analysis of the Politics of Adult Education
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 ... 8103100302

If you research further,
the concept of a Political Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] in theory or practice is a very common thing which any one with average intelligent can agree with.

[Sculptor]

Where a country goes to war, it is based on the political-FSK as grounded on their Constitution which dictates the relevant laws for engagement in wars.

Rubbish. No country has ever heard of a FSK
That is a pretty funny delusion you have

How did you ever become so ignorant?

FSK does not appear in the text.Please re-cite.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. You have rejected what makes science a "credible FSK" according to everyone else: that it takes its data, and limits is discourse to the observable world around us (all that stuff that normies consider objective). You have cut yourself off from that line of reason which says that there is something fundamentally different in type or scope between the activity of science and that of astrology.

2. You have instead asserted that what makes science a "credible FSK" is really just the number of people who consider it appealing.

You missed the critical points.
I have never rejected what makes and why science is a "credible FSK".

I have always claimed, as long as whatever variable of reality is FSK-ed it dictates Objectivity.
The most objective FSK is the scientific FSK that dictates objective scientific facts.

Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585
where I had taken into account the features and attributes which make it the most credible and objective.

What Other Source of Knowledge is More Credible than Science?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40044

Again, there is a clear difference of type between the sciences, which discuss only data and phnomena of the external world, and quackery such as astrology or the pseudosciences. Everybody except you can see that.

Strawman and ignorance.
Obviously I can understand the difference between the claims of sciences [natural and others*] and those claims of astrology and other pseudosciences.
There are many scientific claims even at present [and those rejected in the past] which are no better than quackery astrology or the various pseudosciences.

However all of them can be FSK-ed i.e. conditioned within a human-based FSK which dictates objectivity.
But this FSK-ed objectivity comes in degrees depending on the credibility and reliability of the respective FSK, of which the scientific FSK is the most objective.
You seem to miss out on this point of mine.

You have critiqued my points based on ignorance.
That every variable of reality is FSK-ed is very effective as a Completeness Control to bring every claim of reality into a common denominator of 'objectivity' such that we can put metaphysical, theological, magical, miraculous claims [low or negligible degrees of objectivity] in their place and reject them as credible in contrast to the credibility of the scientific FSK.

Word salad. The actual way that you calculate "credibility" is by counting how many people are persuaded. Did you cook up some other measure while I wasn't looking?

Strawman again.
I have never relied on the ad populum basis.
Off hand for any rational person, the credibility of the scientific-FSK [the best of, on empirical data] is way off more credible than the credibility of the theological-FSK[based on an illusion]

3. You have created the table-manner-X FSK monster above. And you have asserted that any time there might be an emergent FSK thing, there must be, your word of choice for that is "dictated".
You must be able to see where this inevitably goes.

Yes, as long as there is any variable that emerged out of reality, it is FSK-ed [human conditioned] and Objectivity is dictated [commanded, as in integral part of, entailed, created and the like] therefrom.
As such, "table-manner-X FSK monster" if FSK-ed, its credibility and objectivity will be assessed and rated in contrast to the scientific FSK -the standard.

So you've trapped yourself. Where do you think this goes? Bear in mind that you are hoping to avoid locking relativism into your morality-proper fsk and I hjust had you do a bit about Japanese table manners. What do you think comes next?

You are missing my point.
This has nothing to do with moral relativism.

Table-manner is a social etiquette -nothing to do with morality.

If that is so (and it is questionable if it is so) I would definitely be sweating right now if I was the one making a big deal of comparing it to science.

I don't see any issue here.
In this case, it has nothing to do with science at all.
It is not likely anyone at the present will link it to science.

There is no denying the following is a FSK-ed 'fact' as conditioned within the Eating-food-FSK in Japan, thus objective.

• Slurping your noodles loudly is considered a compliment to the chef throughout Japan and China – a sign of deep appreciation for your one-bowl meal.
  https://www.jetstar.com/au/en/inspirati ... up-in-asia

But the above FSK-ed objectivity cannot have high objectivity as the scientific FSK because it is not universal and the FSK is not systematic.

Before we do the next bit though, I would like to understand why "systematic" has just enterred the chat?
Is it doing useful work, or just an expression of your compulsive tendency to sort things into meaningless categories?

Note FSK = Framework and System of Knowledge.
Where have you been on this?
The scientific FSK has its scientific method which is very systematic.

To topic, the question is whether there are objective moral facts and morality is objective.

Briefly,
1. Whatever variable of reality is FSK-ed it dictates Objectivity.
2. Morality is a variable of reality
3. Morality is objective.

The next question how objective is FSK-ed morality in comparison to the scientific FSK as the standard objectivity.
I have argued, it is approximately 90% as objective as the scientific FSK. [detail argument given in various posts and threads in here]

There's about 8 billion versions of this morality as "variables" of reality. All of them are objective or not on the same basis.

Yes, there are > 8 x10 billion versions of finger prints but they have a common physical denominator as physical line patterns on the finger tips of every human being.
Thus when the term 'finger print' is mentioned, every rational person will understand what they are as one biological feature of all humans, and not resorting to the individual 8x10 billions of unique finger prints.

It is the same with morality which can be traced to the generic physical moral sense and function within all the >8 billion humans with variations in their activeness and moral competencies.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Rubbish. No country has ever heard of a FSK
That is a pretty funny delusion you have

How did you ever become so ignorant?

FSK does not appear in the text. Please re-cite.

I am resigning at as a teacher for such basic knowledge.

[Sculptor]

How did you ever become so ignorant?

FSK does not appear in the text. Please re-cite.

I am resigning at as a teacher for such basic knowledge.

Good. You'd never qualify as a teacher without a great deal of remedial help.

[FlashDangerpants]

You have critiqued my points based on ignorance.
That every variable of reality is FSK-ed is very effective as a Completeness Control to bring every claim of reality into a common denominator of 'objectivity' such that we can put metaphysical, theological, magical, miraculous claims [low or negligible degrees of objectivity] in their place and reject them as credible in contrast to the credibility of the scientific FSK.

Word salad. The actual way that you calculate "credibility" is by counting how many people are persuaded. Did you cook up some other measure while I wasn't looking?

Strawman again.
I have never relied on the ad populum basis.
Off hand for any rational person, the credibility of the scientific-FSK [the best of, on empirical data] is way off more credible than the credibility of the theological-FSK[based on an illusion]

Please explain in meaningful sentneces what actually determines this "credibility" score you award various things.
Don't explain why you think theology is less credible, explain what credibility itself actually is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Word salad. The actual way that you calculate "credibility" is by counting how many people are persuaded. Did you cook up some other measure while I wasn't looking?

Strawman again.
I have never relied on the ad populum basis.
Off hand for any rational person, the credibility of the scientific-FSK [the best of, on empirical data] is way off more credible than the credibility of the theological-FSK[based on an illusion]

Please explain in meaningful sentneces what actually determines this "credibility" score you award various things.
Don't explain why you think theology is less credible, explain what credibility itself actually is.

Credibility: the quality of being trusted and believed in.

As a rational person applying critical thinking, do you think the Scientific Cosmological FSK-ed fact of the Big Bang is more credible than the Biblical FSK-ed fact that the Universe was created in 6 days.

Is the legal FSK-ed fact that X is a serial rapist convicted based on general forensic evidences by a jury more or less credible than
the legal FSK-ed fact that Y is a serial rapist convicted based on general forensic with DNA evidence evidences by a jury.

Hope you get my drift, there can be millions of scenarios [within the linguistic, economics, history, astronomy, natural science, legal, political, sports, medicine, etc. FSKs] based on the above re the comparison of credibility and objectivity within different FSKs and different FSK-ed facts.

[Skepdick]

Please explain in meaningful sentneces what actually determines this "credibility" score you award various things.
Don't explain why you think theology is less credible, explain what credibility itself actually is.

Dumbus Philosophicus.

In the same way you are using your exact words please explain back to us (using meaningful sentences) what an explanation itself actually is.

Until you specify what your instruction means; what you expect in respose to your instruction; until you specify the criteria which he needs to aim for in order to satisfy you - nothing he ever says will ever be good enough.

Until you represent your own uncertainty in closed form you are unsatisfiable.

That is the oldest gambit in the fucking book. Open-ended, time-wasting infinite skepticism.

[FlashDangerpants]

Strawman again.
I have never relied on the ad populum basis.
Off hand for any rational person, the credibility of the scientific-FSK [the best of, on empirical data] is way off more credible than the credibility of the theological-FSK[based on an illusion]

Please explain in meaningful sentneces what actually determines this "credibility" score you award various things.
Don't explain why you think theology is less credible, explain what credibility itself actually is.

Credibility: the quality of being trusted and believed in.

As a rational person applying critical thinking, do you think the Scientific Cosmological FSK-ed fact of the Big Bang is more credible than the Biblical FSK-ed fact that the Universe was created in 6 days.

Is the legal FSK-ed fact that X is a serial rapist convicted based on general forensic evidences by a jury more or less credible than
the legal FSK-ed fact that Y is a serial rapist convicted based on general forensic with DNA evidence evidences by a jury.

Hope you get my drift, there can be millions of scenarios [within the linguistic, economics, history, astronomy, natural science, legal, political, sports, medicine, etc. FSKs] based on the above re the comparison of credibility and objectivity within different FSKs and different FSK-ed facts.

The rational reason for holding that DNA evidence can identify a person at a crime scene is based on objectivity in the terms I have defined. Objectivity that results from properties of objects in the world that are open to examination by anybody. This is a difference of type that you do not aknowledge.

Your explanation for the credibility you assign to science is just based on the number of people that think science is good at explaining stuff. The number of people that do the trusting, nothing to do with the quality of information to be trusted.

[Skepdick]

The rational reason for holding that DNA evidence can identify a person at a crime scene is based on objectivity in the terms I have defined. Objectivity that results from properties of objects in the world that are open to examination by anybody. This is a difference of type that you do not aknowledge.

Dumbus Philosophicus

You are talking about the process of identification. And as I keep explaining to you; you don't understand what identity/identification IS.
Mathematically speaking it's a Many-to-1 mapping.

DNA evidence cannot identify a person at a crime scene.

You are missing a few inference steps in between the DNA sample and the one, particular suspect being identified. It is always a probabilistic claim, while the notion of "reasonable doubt" is not probabilistically defined.

And I am glossing over all the complexity where the process could mis-identify a suspect. Identification is not immune to false positives.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Please explain in meaningful sentneces what actually determines this "credibility" score you award various things.
Don't explain why you think theology is less credible, explain what credibility itself actually is.

Credibility: the quality of being trusted and believed in.

As a rational person applying critical thinking, do you think the Scientific Cosmological FSK-ed fact of the Big Bang is more credible than the Biblical FSK-ed fact that the Universe was created in 6 days.

Is the legal FSK-ed fact that X is a serial rapist convicted based on general forensic evidences by a jury more or less credible than
the legal FSK-ed fact that Y is a serial rapist convicted based on general forensic with DNA evidence evidences by a jury.

Hope you get my drift, there can be millions of scenarios [within the linguistic, economics, history, astronomy, natural science, legal, political, sports, medicine, etc. FSKs] based on the above re the comparison of credibility and objectivity within different FSKs and different FSK-ed facts.

The rational reason for holding that DNA evidence can identify a person at a crime scene is based on objectivity in the terms I have defined. Objectivity that results from properties of objects in the world that are open to examination by anybody. This is a difference of type that you do not acknowledge.

You missed my point again.
I have acknowledged what you are stating above.

My points;
All facts must be conditioned upon a human-based FSK [collective of subjects].
A human-based FSK dictates Objectivity.
FSK-ed facts are FSK-ed objective*.

* I believe not in your sense and view of objectivity which is grounded on an illusion.

ALL specific human-based FSKs are of varying degrees of credibility, reliability and thus objectivity which rated based on the following features, i.e.

1. Testability & falsifiability
2. Verifiability
3. Ethical Neutrality
4. Systematic Exploration
5. Repeatability
6. Precision
7. Accuracy
8. Abstractness
9. internal consistency:
10. explanatory power
11. predictiveness / predictive power
12. Others [?]
see:
viewtopic.php?p=625050#p625050

viewtopic.php?p=625051#p625051

The human-based scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective based on the above criteria.

Other FSKs, e.g. the theological FSK lacks certain of the above features and where it has other features, they are of low qualities. As such, its resultant objectivity is very low in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.

When we do a rating exercise for all human-based FSKs [each at their best], other than mathematics, their rating will be lower than that of the scientific FSK [at its best].

Get the point?
From the above, I have acknowledged your point re the features that make the human-based scientific FSK having the highest credibility, reliability and therefrom objectivity.
Objectivity is not confined to science, but all variables of reality are conditioned to a human-based FSK with a range of objectivity.

Your explanation for the credibility you assign to science is just based on the number of people that think science is good at explaining stuff. The number of people that do the trusting, nothing to do with the quality of information to be trusted.

It is not about the number of people, if so, it would be an ad populum fallacy.

The base is the existence and qualification of a human-based FSK with its Constitution, structures, principles and processes as supported by sufficient members [not by one person or a loose group] who agreed and adopt the Constitution implicitly or explicitly.

The quality of information to be trusted by rational standard will depend on the overall rating of the specific human-based FSK in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.

The pragmatically and utility of the above approach is, based on the common denominator of objectivity, we have some quantified basis to dump theology, pseudoscience, miracle claims, moral opinions of rightness & wrongness and the like to the bottom of the pile of objectivity in contrast to the objectivity of scientific claims.
This completeness control will avoid the 'till the cows come home' scenario.

The point here those claims with low objectivity are not necessary useless, e.g. theology is of a critical necessity for the majority [which they cannot live comfortably without] due to their psychological state at present but not the future.
As such, theology [& others] can claim to be FSK-ed objective, but it should [or driven to] know and be aware of its FSK-Objectivity status [low or negligible].

One good example is the Santa-Claus-FSK as FSK-ed objective where every of its membership understand where its objectivity lies, i.e. negligible objectivity in contrast to the objectivity of the scientific FSK.

The above thesis is valid and sound.
You cannot find any serious holes in it?

Therefore morality can take the above path, i.e. the existence of a human-based moral FSK with near equivalent objectivity to the scientific FSK, thus dictating objective moral facts, so, FSK-ed Morality is FSK-ed Objective.

Note you non-FSK objectivity is grounded on an illusion, thus a non-starter.