Two Senses of 'Objective'

[Iwannaplato]

I have already argued extensively [in various threads] that the credibility and objectivity of ALL FSKs can be presented in a continuum in degrees from 0.0001 to 100%.

Yes, I even mentioned that.

At present, the Scientific FSK rated as the most credibility and objective, say assigned as a standard and a GIVEN rating 100/100.

You are using the passive voice here which is misleading. You rated it that way, assigning it as standard.

A Morality-Proper FSK exists inherently within human nature [..which I am arguing for] which can be used as the Standard to rate all other pseudo-moral-FSKs.

And there are less people who believe that than in Allah. If objectivity as you have said many times is intersubjectivty that would include the setting of criteria and epistemology. They trump your numbers on intersubjectivity.

Unless you are going to run the angle that PH does, which is that their intersubjectivity is wrong, because it isn't correct about the mind-independent reality. But as an antirealist you can't do that.

The various views on morality regarding the Hamas/Israel will have to be deliberated on an element to element basis and where necessary on an overall basis.
That Hamas are willing to torture and kill babies, we can rate their morality-FSK credibility and objectivity at 0.001/100, i.e. relative to the scientific FSK [100/100] and morality-proper FSK at say 90/100. [this will need detailed analysis, rating and computation] which I will not go into at present.

So many errors, so little time. More Palestinian babies have been killed than Israeli ones. Hamas is not the Palestinians, just as Israle is not the Jews. The issue of is Israel's millitary operation continuing moral or not has vast numbers on both sides. Both views have vast intersubjective support.

And my point is not to say one of these views is wrong. My point is that if intersubjectivty is what determines objectivity, we have conflicting objectivies. If you want to come with some way of determining object values to trump these conflicting objectivities, you need majority intersubjective support for YOUR VALUES AND PRIORITIES when creating that FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have already argued extensively [in various threads] that the credibility and objectivity of ALL FSKs can be presented in a continuum in degrees from 0.0001 to 100%.

Yes, I even mentioned that.

At present, the Scientific FSK rated as the most credibility and objective, say assigned as a standard and a GIVEN rating 100/100.

You are using the passive voice here which is misleading. You rated it that way, assigning it as standard.

There is nothing wrong with that if you understand the context.
I had argued the scientific FSK is the most credible and objective thus assigning it as the GIVEN standard.

Analogy:
If say you are exactly 250cm [almost 8 Feet] Tall at present.
To be meaningful I can assign your height of 250cm as the GIVEN standard at 100/100 within humanity.
So, a person of 200cm would be 80% in height with reference to the standard.
So, a person of 125cm would be 50% in height with reference to the standard and so on.
If there is a person who is 300cm that would be 120% the standard.
If I state a person height is 50%, then within the context, his height would be 125cm and so on.

Although we do not use the above sort of measurements and computations for height, the methodology is used effectively for other indicators.
I am proposing to use it for credibility and objective of FSKs.
There is nothing wrong with it?

A Morality-Proper FSK exists inherently within human nature [..which I am arguing for] which can be used as the Standard to rate all other pseudo-moral-FSKs.

And there are less people who believe that than in Allah. If objectivity as you have said many times is intersubjectivty that would include the setting of criteria and epistemology. They trump your numbers on intersubjectivity.

Not sure of what is your point here.

You understand we cannot rely on the fallacy of ad populum.
The scientific FSK is the most credible and objective but it is sustained by only a small group of scientists [whilst trusted by many laymen based on faith] and lesser if we refer to the science-physics FSK.
So yes, it is the criteria rating that counts not numbers of subjects within a FSK.

Unless you are going to run the angle that PH does, which is that their intersubjectivity is wrong, because it isn't correct about the mind-independent reality. But as an antirealist you can't do that.

Again not sure of your point.

The various views on morality regarding the Hamas/Israel will have to be deliberated on an element to element basis and where necessary on an overall basis.
That Hamas are willing to torture and kill babies, we can rate their morality-FSK credibility and objectivity at 0.001/100, i.e. relative to the scientific FSK [100/100] and morality-proper FSK at say 90/100. [this will need detailed analysis, rating and computation] which I will not go into at present.

So many errors, so little time. More Palestinian babies have been killed than Israeli ones. Hamas is not the Palestinians, just as Israle is not the Jews. The issue of is Israel's millitary operation continuing moral or not has vast numbers on both sides. Both views have vast intersubjective support.

And my point is not to say one of these views is wrong. My point is that if intersubjectivty is what determines objectivity, we have conflicting objectivies. If you want to come with some way of determining object values to trump these conflicting objectivities, you need majority intersubjective support for YOUR VALUES AND PRIORITIES when creating that FSK.

The above is a strawman.
There is a big difference between Palestinians and Hamas [a political group in GAZA].

According to the U.S. government and other sources, Palestinian residents of these territories are predominantly Sunni Muslims, with small Shia and Ahmadi Muslim communities.
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-repo ... -and-gaza/#:

ETA: deleted Hamas stated as purely shia.

I did not rate the Israeli's FSK at all.
If I have to do so, the Israeli's FSK would be a political FSK conditioned upon its constitution where the killing of civilians in a declared war is considered inevitable.
Where a political FSK provides for war and the killing of humans [children and adults] its morality rating [if rated] would be very low in contrast to morality-proper-FSK [say 20/100 to morality-proper 80/100.]

If any Israelite were to kill Palestinian on their own, that would be a punishable crime within Israel's.

For Hamas, anything goes with killing of those they regard as enemies as conditioned upon their own political FSK and that of the Quran.

Like what is truth, facts and knowledge within the highest credibility and objectivity of science [no majority of intersubjective support], what we need is the necessary criteria that make it credible and objective, see;
Objectivity: Science vs Theology Rated
viewtopic.php?t=41096

[FlashDangerpants]

I think you probably confused Hamas and Hezbollah there. Hamas is not Shia.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Agreed Hamas are not purely Shia.
I was misled by their main supporter, i.e. Iran who are ruled by Shia ideology.
Both Sunni and Shia are constituted by the Quran where non-believers ought to be killed upon the slightest threat. [Quran 5:33]

[Sculptor]

I have already explained how a FSK is objective.

Ideas that exist only in your head are by definition subective.

That is a truism and strawman.
Obviously ideas in my [one subject] mind are subjective.

But a human-based FSK which I discussed here is conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects, i.e. many minds [heads].

Who, exactly?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ideas that exist only in your head are by definition subective.

That is a truism and strawman.
Obviously ideas in my [one subject] mind are subjective.

But a human-based FSK which I discussed here is conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects, i.e. many minds [heads].

Who, exactly?

Who??
How is that you don't know?

It is undeniable that all share-prices quoted in the various Stock Exchange, e.g. the London Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange and others, are objective.
Do you deny this claim?

Objective Share Prices from a Stock Exchange is conditioned by a human-based Stock-Exchange-FSK which is grounded upon the consensus of a collective-of-subjects.

You asked 'who' are comprised within this collective-of-subjects that sustained the objectivity of the listed share-prices from these human-based FSK.

If you have studied Economics, you would have understood, what determined 'price' is a convergence of supply vs demands conditioned upon all relevant subjective sentiments and other psychological factors.

There are no objective share-prices if there are no humans establishing stock exchanges and people's demand and supply interacting within a human-based Economic FSK.

Therefore there is objectivity in the sense of a human-based FSK which is grounded on intersubjectivity, thus my original claim re 2 below;

'Objective' is a very loose term but most of the moral fact deniers [PH & gang] are stuck with a dogmatic view of 'what is objective' within the Philosophical Realism perspective;
There are Two Senses of Objective: i.e.

• 1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense
  2. Objectivity in the FSK Sense

Where you mocked my 2. based on your ignorance.

FSK seems to be your amusing invention and so meaning 2 is in your own head, therefore subjective.

Based on my explanation above, e.g. objective share-prices are objective in the human-based FSK sense, i.e. no humans no objective share-prices quoted in stock-exchanges.

Get it?

[Sculptor]

That is a truism and strawman.
Obviously ideas in my [one subject] mind are subjective.

But a human-based FSK which I discussed here is conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects, i.e. many minds [heads].

Who, exactly?

Who??
How is that you don't know?

But I know.
Because it's only you.
Can you not recognise a rhetorical question?