What could make morality objective?

[popeye1945]

Projection! Human creativity is the human psyche's extension into the outer world—projected meanings from the only source of meaning the conscious subject.

[Age]

I'd like to ask the one who calls herself/himself 'Age' to cut the crap and lay her/his cards on the table. Does she/he think morality is objective - that there are moral facts - so that a moral assertion such as 'eating animals is morally wrong' has a factual truth-value and so can be answered decisively one way or the other?

I have already explained that 'morality', itself, can be subjective AND objective. And, this is just because of what the words 'objective' AND 'subjective' can mean and/or refer to, exactly.

Now, as for the very simple assertion such as is, 'eating animals morally Wrong', a Factual Truth, and so is an objective moral Fact or Truth as well, and therefore can be answered decisively one way or another, then the answer is a resounding, 'Yes'.

I do not just 'think' there are moral Facts, I 'know' there are. And, this is because I 'know' how 'objectivity' is found, and reached. Thus, I 'know' what is, morally, Right, and, morally, Wrong, in Life, as well as what is, irrefutably, True in Life, also.

See, once agreement on what the words 'objective' and 'subjective' can mean and refer to is accomplished, then 'we' can move on to 'looking at' 'morality', Facts, and Truths.

Thanks - and thanks for the clarity. I have some comments.

1 Initial capitalisation is for proper nouns, which fact, truth and life are not. Initial caps for abstract nouns and their cognates is confusing. Trump does it, and he's a moron.

Things are and can be more confusing, for you, if and when you do not seek clarification and/nor clarity.

you did not seek clarity nor clarification here. Therefore, there is no wonder that you would be confused here.

2 We haven't accomplished agreement on the meaning (use) of subjective and objective. You don't explain your use of them here. And what you say suggests you don't use them in a standard way. Standardly: if there are moral facts, then morality isn't subjective - a matter of personal opinion.

And, 'we' have not accomplished agreement because, as you have shown, you have no interest to here.

3 Here's my retort: I don't just think there are no moral facts. I know there are no moral facts, so that morality isn't and can't be objective.

Do you find that persuasive?

Not at all.

And, if I was interested, then I would seek out clarification and ask you to show the definitions that you have and use here. I would also ask you what you are basing the word 'standardly' on here, exactly.

[Age]

Age and other moral objectivists claim that there are moral facts - things that just are morally right or wrong - regardless of anyone's opinion. But a simple question shows why this is incorrect.

Why is X morally right/wrong?

But, a simple question, especially like the one you have just shown here, certainly does not show that things just are not morally right nor wrong.

If the answer is another moral assertion - X is morally right/wrong because Y is morally right/wrong - then this merely kicks the can down the road: Why is Y morally right/wrong?

The, final, answer will and does reveal where and how objectivity fits in, perfectly, here.

And if the answer is a factual assertion - such as 'abortion is morally wrong because life begins at conception' - then this also kicks the can down the road: Why is it morally wrong to end [an innocent] human life?

The point is: a moral assertion as a conclusion stands alone, unless it follows from a moral premise, which also stands alone - and so on.

What can be clearly seen here, once more, is confirmation biases', at work, at play, and/or at its best.

To this one anyway, absolutely all answers to all questions will always fall back on proving its 'currently' held onto belief here 'more true'.

And that's why moral objectivists can do nothing more than cite moral opinions - such as 'it is wrong to end [an innocent] human life' - and then shout at anyone who asks why, as though that person must be immoral or amoral. That's what the argument for moral objectivism amounts to. Nothing.

Is this all anyone can do here, well to you anyway the so-called "moral subjectivist","peter holmes"?

So that leaves us with recognising our actual moral predicament - that we have been developing our (human) moral values and codes - and continue to develop them - as an evolved and evolving social species. And that's all there is to it.

Do, to this one, what it says and claims here is, 'all there is to it'. So, if there is absolutely any other human beings, forever more, who has another, subjective, view or opinion, the you are wrong. Well, according to "peter holmes" and its very personal and subjective opinion here.

The claim that there are moral facts is delusory - and can be (and often is) morally and practically harmful.

Okay.

If this is what you want to say and believe is true, then this very subjective and personal opinion of yours must be absolutely true and right, right?

[Veritas Aequitas]

@PH

You have not countered by claims convincingly.
I suggest you open a specific thread to counter my claim so we can refer to it easily. [your two large thread has become a skip full of shit]

This thread will do fine. I've countered your argument countless times. But here goes again.

Can you refer to the "countless times" you have countered my points in this thread and show the relevant posts where you have countered your points convincingly that I have accepted your argument as valid??

You will not be able to do it easily.

I bet you will be diving into your skip of shit to find the relevant needles therein.
You don't seem to have any sense of organization, neatness, systematicity and efficiency in retrieval of information.

[Peter Holmes]

@PH

You have not countered by claims convincingly.
I suggest you open a specific thread to counter my claim so we can refer to it easily. [your two large thread has become a skip full of shit]

This thread will do fine. I've countered your argument countless times. But here goes again.

Can you refer to the "countless times" you have countered my points in this thread and show the relevant posts where you have countered your points convincingly that I have accepted your argument as valid??

You will not be able to do it easily.

I bet you will be diving into your skip of shit to find the relevant needles therein.
You don't seem to have any sense of organization, neatness, systematicity and efficiency in retrieval of information.

I just set out an argument, yet again, showing why yours is fallacious. But, as usual, you don't or can't address it. All you say is: 'I have argued that...', as though that does the job. But it doesn't. And it's philosophically infantile.

Here's the question. Why was the universe before humans evolved not independent - absolutely or otherwise - from human beings? Or. If the universe before humans evolved was relatively independent from humans, which part of that universe was relatively dependent on humans?

Your refuse to answer these questions honestly, because to do so would explode your stupid FSRC theory.

[Peter Holmes]

I have already explained that 'morality', itself, can be subjective AND objective. And, this is just because of what the words 'objective' AND 'subjective' can mean and/or refer to, exactly.

Now, as for the very simple assertion such as is, 'eating animals morally Wrong', a Factual Truth, and so is an objective moral Fact or Truth as well, and therefore can be answered decisively one way or another, then the answer is a resounding, 'Yes'.

I do not just 'think' there are moral Facts, I 'know' there are. And, this is because I 'know' how 'objectivity' is found, and reached. Thus, I 'know' what is, morally, Right, and, morally, Wrong, in Life, as well as what is, irrefutably, True in Life, also.

See, once agreement on what the words 'objective' and 'subjective' can mean and refer to is accomplished, then 'we' can move on to 'looking at' 'morality', Facts, and Truths.

Thanks - and thanks for the clarity. I have some comments.

1 Initial capitalisation is for proper nouns, which fact, truth and life are not. Initial caps for abstract nouns and their cognates is confusing. Trump does it, and he's a moron.

Things are and can be more confusing, for you, if and when you do not seek clarification and/nor clarity.

you did not seek clarity nor clarification here. Therefore, there is no wonder that you would be confused here.

2 We haven't accomplished agreement on the meaning (use) of subjective and objective. You don't explain your use of them here. And what you say suggests you don't use them in a standard way. Standardly: if there are moral facts, then morality isn't subjective - a matter of personal opinion.

And, 'we' have not accomplished agreement because, as you have shown, you have no interest to here.

3 Here's my retort: I don't just think there are no moral facts. I know there are no moral facts, so that morality isn't and can't be objective.

Do you find that persuasive?

Not at all.

And, if I was interested, then I would seek out clarification and ask you to show the definitions that you have and use here. I would also ask you what you are basing the word 'standardly' on here, exactly.

You accuse me of not wanting to establish agreement on the use of terms, and of not wanting clarity and clarification. Au contraire, that's what I think we're here for, on a philosophy form.

May I suggest you try cutting the crap again? Set out your position and argument as clearly and simply as you can, so that the rest of us can assess it and respond if we want to.

[Peter Holmes]

Elsewhere, VA says this:

'My basic premise is this:
ALL of reality, truths, facts, knowledge [other than meta-FSK], objectivity are conditioned upon an embodied human-based language-game as a subset of a FSRC.'

Notice the blurring effect of the conjunction [reality, truths, facts, knowledge and objectivity]. Is there a 'master' category - a big set - of which the other conjuncts are elements? And if so, is the 'master' category perhaps reality or knowledge? That makes a huge difference.

And notice the question-begging conjunction of 'reality' and 'truths' - true factual assertions about reality, which are, of course, contextual and conventional - and so very much human productions.

Squeeze this basic premise for the pips, and perhaps this is what's left: 'All of reality is conditioned upon [?] human ways of knowing and describing reality.'

And, given any interpretation of 'conditioned upon', this is patently and demonstrably false. For example, the universe existed long before humans evolved, so it cannot have been in any way dependent on humans, or 'conditioned upon' human knowledge or description.

The rest is obfuscatory blather.

(Just bites from a philosophical gnat called Keter.)

[Age]

Thanks - and thanks for the clarity. I have some comments.

1 Initial capitalisation is for proper nouns, which fact, truth and life are not. Initial caps for abstract nouns and their cognates is confusing. Trump does it, and he's a moron.

Things are and can be more confusing, for you, if and when you do not seek clarification and/nor clarity.

you did not seek clarity nor clarification here. Therefore, there is no wonder that you would be confused here.

2 We haven't accomplished agreement on the meaning (use) of subjective and objective. You don't explain your use of them here. And what you say suggests you don't use them in a standard way. Standardly: if there are moral facts, then morality isn't subjective - a matter of personal opinion.

And, 'we' have not accomplished agreement because, as you have shown, you have no interest to here.

3 Here's my retort: I don't just think there are no moral facts. I know there are no moral facts, so that morality isn't and can't be objective.

Do you find that persuasive?

Not at all.

And, if I was interested, then I would seek out clarification and ask you to show the definitions that you have and use here. I would also ask you what you are basing the word 'standardly' on here, exactly.

You accuse me of not wanting to establish agreement on the use of terms, and of not wanting clarity and clarification. Au contraire, that's what I think we're here for, on a philosophy form.

Really?

If yes, then how do you define the two words 'moral' and 'objective' here, exactly?

May I suggest you try cutting the crap again?

Yes you may.

Set out your position and argument as clearly and simply as you can, so that the rest of us can assess it and respond if we want to.

If you tell me what to do, then there is less chance of me doing that. If, however, you seek out and ask for things from me, then there is more chance you will get that, if I want to.

My so-called 'position' is irrefutable anyway. And, I am certainly in no rush to share it with.

In the meantime I suggest that you think about how absolutely every thing is relative, and thus is subjective, to the observer, as well as consider how objectivity is found and reached and how this could and does relate to morality itself.

When, and if, you ever do, then feel free to let us know what you individually arrived at.

[Peter Holmes]

Things are and can be more confusing, for you, if and when you do not seek clarification and/nor clarity.

you did not seek clarity nor clarification here. Therefore, there is no wonder that you would be confused here.


And, 'we' have not accomplished agreement because, as you have shown, you have no interest to here.


Not at all.

And, if I was interested, then I would seek out clarification and ask you to show the definitions that you have and use here. I would also ask you what you are basing the word 'standardly' on here, exactly.

You accuse me of not wanting to establish agreement on the use of terms, and of not wanting clarity and clarification. Au contraire, that's what I think we're here for, on a philosophy form.

Really?

If yes, then how do you define the two words 'moral' and 'objective' here, exactly?

May I suggest you try cutting the crap again?

Yes you may.

Set out your position and argument as clearly and simply as you can, so that the rest of us can assess it and respond if we want to.

If you tell me what to do, then there is less chance of me doing that. If, however, you seek out and ask for things from me, then there is more chance you will get that, if I want to.

My so-called 'position' is irrefutable anyway. And, I am certainly in no rush to share it with.

In the meantime I suggest that you think about how absolutely every thing is relative, and thus is subjective, to the observer, as well as consider how objectivity is found and reached and how this could and does relate to morality itself.

When, and if, you ever do, then feel free to let us know what you individually arrived at.

So, are these your claims?

1 Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.
2 Despite #1, objectivity can be found and reached.
3 #1 and #2 have a bearing on morality.

By all means, please reformulate them if I've misunderstood. And here's my position.

1 What we call objectivity is reliance on facts rather than opinions.
2 What we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion.
3 There are no moral features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion.

[Age]

You accuse me of not wanting to establish agreement on the use of terms, and of not wanting clarity and clarification. Au contraire, that's what I think we're here for, on a philosophy form.

Really?

If yes, then how do you define the two words 'moral' and 'objective' here, exactly?

May I suggest you try cutting the crap again?

Yes you may.

Set out your position and argument as clearly and simply as you can, so that the rest of us can assess it and respond if we want to.

If you tell me what to do, then there is less chance of me doing that. If, however, you seek out and ask for things from me, then there is more chance you will get that, if I want to.

My so-called 'position' is irrefutable anyway. And, I am certainly in no rush to share it with.

In the meantime I suggest that you think about how absolutely every thing is relative, and thus is subjective, to the observer, as well as consider how objectivity is found and reached and how this could and does relate to morality itself.

When, and if, you ever do, then feel free to let us know what you individually arrived at.

So, are these your claims?

1 Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.
2 Despite #1, objectivity can be found and reached.
3 #1 and #2 have a bearing on morality.

By all means, please reformulate them if I've misunderstood. And here's my position.

1 What we call objectivity is reliance on facts rather than opinions.
2 What we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion.
3 There are no moral features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion.

And, this your opinion here, right?

[Peter Holmes]

Really?

If yes, then how do you define the two words 'moral' and 'objective' here, exactly?


Yes you may.



If you tell me what to do, then there is less chance of me doing that. If, however, you seek out and ask for things from me, then there is more chance you will get that, if I want to.

My so-called 'position' is irrefutable anyway. And, I am certainly in no rush to share it with.

In the meantime I suggest that you think about how absolutely every thing is relative, and thus is subjective, to the observer, as well as consider how objectivity is found and reached and how this could and does relate to morality itself.

When, and if, you ever do, then feel free to let us know what you individually arrived at.

So, are these your claims?

1 Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.
2 Despite #1, objectivity can be found and reached.
3 #1 and #2 have a bearing on morality.

By all means, please reformulate them if I've misunderstood. And here's my position.

1 What we call objectivity is reliance on facts rather than opinions.
2 What we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion.
3 There are no moral features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion.

And, this your opinion here, right?

Yes. In my opinion, 1 and 2 are facts about our use of the words objective and fact. And, in my opinion, given these facts about usage, 3 follows as metaphysically or ontologically true, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

Meanwhile, is the first list a correct expression of your opinion? Please be clear. And if it is, then I and maybe others can assess it and respond if we want to.

[Veritas Aequitas]

@PH

This thread will do fine. I've countered your argument countless times. But here goes again.

Can you refer to the "countless times" you have countered my points in this thread and show the relevant posts where you have countered your points convincingly that I have accepted your argument as valid??

You will not be able to do it easily.

I bet you will be diving into your skip of shit to find the relevant needles therein.
You don't seem to have any sense of organization, neatness, systematicity and efficiency in retrieval of information.

I just set out an argument, yet again, showing why yours is fallacious. But, as usual, you don't or can't address it. All you say is: 'I have argued that...', as though that does the job. But it doesn't. And it's philosophically infantile.

Here's the question. Why was the universe before humans evolved not independent - absolutely or otherwise - from human beings? Or. If the universe before humans evolved was relatively independent from humans, which part of that universe was relatively dependent on humans?

Your refuse to answer these questions honestly, because to do so would explode your stupid FSRC theory.

What?? Where have you been?
I requested you to start a thread so we can focus on the above particular issue.
I told you it is not effectiveness to discuss the issue within this thread as the relevant posts will be dumped with shits all over.
You refused, so I started one for you and posted forth a detailed argument to counter your above point.

See: PH Counter VA re FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=42080
which is linked to your posts, surely you are notified of it, but you ignored it[?] and made the above accusation.
I took some effort to present the 'few-pages' arguments.
Why are you so fearful to deal with it within a specific thread?

Apparently you quoted from the above thread in your post:
viewtopic.php?p=705081#p705081
yet you accuse me of not addressing your question.
Something is very wrong with you.

[Peter Holmes]

@PH


Can you refer to the "countless times" you have countered my points in this thread and show the relevant posts where you have countered your points convincingly that I have accepted your argument as valid??

You will not be able to do it easily.

I bet you will be diving into your skip of shit to find the relevant needles therein.
You don't seem to have any sense of organization, neatness, systematicity and efficiency in retrieval of information.

I just set out an argument, yet again, showing why yours is fallacious. But, as usual, you don't or can't address it. All you say is: 'I have argued that...', as though that does the job. But it doesn't. And it's philosophically infantile.

Here's the question. Why was the universe before humans evolved not independent - absolutely or otherwise - from human beings? Or. If the universe before humans evolved was relatively independent from humans, which part of that universe was relatively dependent on humans?

Your refuse to answer these questions honestly, because to do so would explode your stupid FSRC theory.

What?? Where have you been?
I requested you to start a thread so we can focus on the above particular issue.
I told you it is not effectiveness to discuss the issue within this thread as the relevant posts will be dumped with shits all over.
You refused, so I started one for you and posted forth a detailed argument to counter your above point.

See: PH Counter VA re FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=42080
which is linked to your posts, surely you are notified of it, but you ignored it[?] and made the above accusation.
I took some effort to present the 'few-pages' arguments.
Why are you so fearful to deal with it within a specific thread?

Apparently you quoted from the above thread in your post:
viewtopic.php?p=705081#p705081
yet you accuse me of not addressing your question.
Something is very wrong with you.

My bad. I'm just a philosophical gnat, with a minuscule attention span. I like very simple and very short arguments that validly and soundly reach persuasive conclusions.

Perhaps somewhere you have shown why the universe before humans evolved was or is 'conditioned by' a human way of knowing and describing it. I just missed it, and that's my loss. But maybe you've persuaded others, and that's a success.

I think I've shown why your basic premise is false, countless times - and why your conclusion about morality wouldn't follow from that premise, even if it were true. But, hey, the easiest person you can delude is yourself - so I could be wrong about all of it.

[Age]

So, are these your claims?

1 Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.
2 Despite #1, objectivity can be found and reached.
3 #1 and #2 have a bearing on morality.

By all means, please reformulate them if I've misunderstood. And here's my position.

1 What we call objectivity is reliance on facts rather than opinions.
2 What we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion.
3 There are no moral features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion.

And, this your opinion here, right?

Yes. In my opinion, 1 and 2 are facts about our use of the words objective and fact. And, in my opinion, given these facts about usage, 3 follows as metaphysically or ontologically true, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

So, if objectivity is reliance on facts, and facts are features of reality, regardless of opinions, then the actual fact of the matter here is regardless of your opinion here also, correct?

Meanwhile, is the first list a correct expression of your opinion?

Yes.

Please be clear.

Could I be any clearer here, for you?

And if it is, then I and maybe others can assess it and respond if we want to.

[Skepdick]

You're welcome.

A self-congratulatory twat then.

Well, if you drop a brick down a well, you have to be extremely creative to conjure an infinity of descriptions of what happens.

And if the only way you know how to describe it is "drop a brick down a well" you'd lack any and all creativity.

Much easier to come up with an infinity of models for why it happens.

Why what happens? You haven't told us yet...

But I'd imagine the simplest answer (given the information you've given us thus far) is "because you dropped it."