What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your ignorance [so the resistance] is due to the fact that the "drive-to-breathe" has never been equated with the 'oughtness-to-breathe' in a moral FSK.
Given 4, the scientific FSK-ed "drive-to-breathe" can be inputted into the moral FSK as 'oughtness-to-breathe' as a moral fact.

To clarify - VA claims that 'inputting' a physical fact into a moral 'framework and system of knowledge' produces a moral fact - here, 'oughtness-to-breathe' - which, however, has nothing to do with moral rightness or wrongness. What utter nonsense.

You are so ignorant you are the one who is talking nonsense and illusory elements.
Note you are critiquing my position based on your 'what is fact' which is grounded on an illusion.
You have yet to prove your 'what is fact' is really real.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992 Apr 23, 2023 8:06 am

Your point is off target.
Besides my morality-proper has nothing to do with rightness and wrongness.

I have given solid examples;
You also have not justified why
a scientific fact can be inputted into another non-scientific FSK to enable the latter fact?

[Peter Holmes]

Your ignorance [so the resistance] is due to the fact that the "drive-to-breathe" has never been equated with the 'oughtness-to-breathe' in a moral FSK.
Given 4, the scientific FSK-ed "drive-to-breathe" can be inputted into the moral FSK as 'oughtness-to-breathe' as a moral fact.

To clarify - VA claims that 'inputting' a physical fact into a moral 'framework and system of knowledge' produces a moral fact - here, 'oughtness-to-breathe' - which, however, has nothing to do with moral rightness or wrongness. What utter nonsense.

You are so ignorant you are the one who is talking nonsense and illusory elements.
Note you are critiquing my position based on your 'what is fact' which is grounded on an illusion.
You have yet to prove your 'what is fact' is really real.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992 Apr 23, 2023 8:06 am

Your point is off target.
Besides my morality-proper has nothing to do with rightness and wrongness.

I have given solid examples;
You also have not justified why
a scientific fact can be inputted into another non-scientific FSK to enable the latter fact?

Prove that what we call facts - features of reality that are or were the case - are illusions.

[Skepdick]

Prove that what we call facts - features of reality that are or were the case - are illusions.

Sure thing. What or where is "yesterday" ? Can you direct me there so I can see it for myself? Thanks.

[Peter Holmes]

'You can't show me yesterday, or today, or even now. So they must be illusions.'

[Skepdick]

'You can't show me yesterday, or today, or even now. So they must be illusions.'

waves hands vigirously gesturing at everything - everywhere - in any and all directions

This is now.
This is today.

Now point at yesterday.

[promethean75]

https://youtu.be/fCV9oqtwyVA

[Veritas Aequitas]

To clarify - VA claims that 'inputting' a physical fact into a moral 'framework and system of knowledge' produces a moral fact - here, 'oughtness-to-breathe' - which, however, has nothing to do with moral rightness or wrongness. What utter nonsense.

You are so ignorant you are the one who is talking nonsense and illusory elements.
Note you are critiquing my position based on your 'what is fact' which is grounded on an illusion.
You have yet to prove your 'what is fact' is really real.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992 Apr 23, 2023 8:06 am

Your point is off target.
Besides my morality-proper has nothing to do with rightness and wrongness.

I have given solid examples;
You also have not justified why
a scientific fact can be inputted into another non-scientific FSK to enable the latter fact?

Prove that what we call facts - features of reality that are or were the case - are illusions.

As usual, you are intellectually irresponsible and incompetent.
I have already provided 'proofs' in the above links [present >"1000" times].

Here are the "proofs" again,

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

...................
Intellectual Protocol basis, you as the positive claimant of 'what is fact' should prove your 'what is fact' is really-real.
Define what is real first, then prove your 'what is fact' is real.
Don't try this,
What is real is fact, what is fact is real.

[Peter Holmes]

Prove that what we call facts - features of reality that are or were the case - are illusions.

As usual, you are intellectually irresponsible and incompetent.
I have already provided 'proofs' in the above links [present >"1000" times].

Here are the "proofs" again,

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

...................
Intellectual Protocol basis, you as the positive claimant of 'what is fact' should prove your 'what is fact' is really-real.
Define what is real first, then prove your 'what is fact' is real.
Don't try this,
What is real is fact, what is fact is real.

1 Your links are to your own false claims and fallacious arguments, which I and others have refuted 'a thousand times'.

2 In this context, I'm happy with 'physical/spatio-temporal' as a description of what is real. Given that, prove that the physical/spatio-temporal is an illusion.

3 Then explain why you say the natural sciences are our most reliable source of knowledge, when it's merely empirical knowledge of illusions?

[Iwannaplato]

3 Then explain why you say the natural sciences are our most reliable source of knowledge, when it's merely empirical knowledge of illusions?

IN the context where most scientists are realists and VA believes objectivity is intersubjectivity.

This would seem to indicate that realism is objective within the science FSK.

Antirealism, while have a minority percentage of support (significatn, but minority) would be considered less objective, given that less scientists, given VA's criteria for objectivity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Prove that what we call facts - features of reality that are or were the case - are illusions.

As usual, you are intellectually irresponsible and incompetent.
I have already provided 'proofs' in the above links [present >"1000" times].

Here are the "proofs" again,

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

...................
Intellectual Protocol basis, you as the positive claimant of 'what is fact' should prove your 'what is fact' is really-real.
Define what is real first, then prove your 'what is fact' is real.
Don't try this,
What is real is fact, what is fact is real.

1 Your links are to your own false claims and fallacious arguments, which I and others have refuted 'a thousand times'.

Don't use the childish cowardly 'I and others' excuses without detailed justifications.
Just give one example of your claim of refutation above.

2 In this context, I'm happy with 'physical/spatio-temporal' as a description of what is real. Given that, prove that the physical/spatio-temporal is an illusion.

3 Then explain why you say the natural sciences are our most reliable source of knowledge, when it's merely empirical knowledge of illusions?

You don't seem to grasp what I have been arguing against scientific realism.

My principle as repeated a 'million' times;
Whatever is real, fact, truth must be conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK which dictates objectivity; the most credible and objective FSK is that of the scientific FSK.
As such what is most real is always conditioned upon the human-based scientific FSK.
What is most real cannot exists unconditionally by itself.
Something like 'no thing is an island by itself'.

In your case, 'what is a real thing' is not conditional upon anything, i.e. it exists by itself independent of all human conditions. In this case what is real exists regardless of whether there are humans [human-based science] or not.
In this case, you are speculating on the existence of something [metaphysical] which is beyond the empirical.
As such your 'what is a real thing' cannot be really real [solidly empirical] which must always be conditioned upon the human-based scientific FSK.

Note Hume's
Hume: External World is a Fabrication
viewtopic.php?t=40791

as supported by the many threads I have raised to support the above contention.

[Veritas Aequitas]

3 Then explain why you say the natural sciences are our most reliable source of knowledge, when it's merely empirical knowledge of illusions?

IN the context where most scientists are realists and VA believes objectivity is intersubjectivity.

This would seem to indicate that realism is objective within the science FSK.

Antirealism, while have a minority percentage of support (significatn, but minority) would be considered less objective, given that less scientists, given VA's criteria for objectivity.

Way off. You are exposing your low intelligence on this issue.

Philosophical Realism of mind-independence is an evolutionary default thus inherent in ALL human beings.
The majority of humans are still stuck with philosophical realism, e.g. appx. 90% of humans are theists [fundamentally realists].
As such, the majority of scientist still have realists inclinations which they cannot give up despite understanding the rationality that realism is illusory.

Philosophical Realism is very primal and primordial and instinctual for the majority.
It is only a small % of humans at present [a % from the 10% who are not theists] who are able to see through the contradictions and dilemmas within realism [and bear through the cold-turkey] that they venture to explore the ideas of anti-realism [more realistic].

That FSK-ed science is the most objective of all FSK has nothing to do with numbers but rather based on the criteria of what it takes for a FSK to be objective based on the agreed criteria with rationality and critical thinking.
P-realism objectivity is illusory.

[Peter Holmes]

My principle as repeated a 'million' times;
Whatever is real, fact, truth must be conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK which dictates objectivity; the most credible and objective FSK is that of the scientific FSK.
As such what is most real is always conditioned upon the human-based scientific FSK.
What is most real cannot exists unconditionally by itself.

Yes, this is your principle, you've repeated it a million times, AND IT'S FALSE. The expression 'conditioned upon' is undefined. But if it means anything, it's that a description - and so a truth-claim - is always contextual and conventional.

BUT A DESCRIPTION IS NOT THE DESCRIBED. A DESCRIPTION DOES NOT BRING THE DESCRIBED INTO EXISTENCE. IT DOESN'T MAKE THE DESCRIBED REAL, OR MORE OR LESS REAL. AND THE DESCRIBED WOULD EXIST EVEN IF THERE WERE NO HUMANS TO DESCRIBE IT.

So your 'principle' is a load of rubbish, and your whole argument collapses with your P1.

[Skepdick]

THE DESCRIBED WOULD EXIST EVEN IF THERE WERE NO HUMANS TO DESCRIBE IT.

How is the truth-value of this statement determined if there are no humans around to determine it?

How have you determined the truth-value of this statement given that its conditioned upon the counter-factual of our non-existence?

[Peter Holmes]

How can we determine the truth-value of the claim that there was a universe before humans evolved, would be one had humans not evolved, and will be one when we're gone?

Mmm. Chin-scratcher.

[Skepdick]

How can we determine the truth-value of the claim that there was a universe before humans evolved

That's what I am asking. How do you do it?

would be one had humans not evolved

How do you determine the truth-values of descriptions about counter-factual universes?

and will be one when we're gone?

How do you determine the truth-value of the future without humans in it?