Two Senses of 'Objective'

[Walker]

Noted,
so
FORS (Framework Of Realization* System)
* realization of reality.

The way I figure it, FORS follows realization and as a system is a means of communicating what has been realized pre-language, aka, in the physical heart space. To understand that, recall any time you have felt something as an immediate, physical ache in the chest region. Experience reveals that under certain conditions this can expand to involuntary, surprising physical reactions to sensory input.

[Walker]

(continued, without constraint)

Heart-ache is a mild symptom of increased knowledge. Many folks have experienced physical distress in response to a major intellectual FORS deconstruction, such as ... hives, panic attack, vomiting, heart attack, hair turning white, and so on, which are all spontaneous, choiceless, objective physical reactions.

Dramatic realizations can have that effect until repetition kicks in some kind of numbing, insensitivity defense of self-image.

For example, a wife who listens to country music learns the real meaning of a lying, no-good cheating skunk of a two-timing husband, and the sudden physical meaning behind the clichés hits her FOKS system like a tornado, tearing up what she thought she knew, which causes an abrupt change in her self-concept causing her to finally, intellectually, admit her subterranean suspicions in language, and that can cause all kinds of involuntary and voluntary purging such as the aforementioned vomiting, and the more thoughtful chucking his stuff and dog out the back door, where he parks his obligatory country truck.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes FSK and FSR - systems for Veritas to look into Veritas' prejudices

You stated earlier,

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

I have demonstrated the FSK is a model that is generic in all system of knowledge, where it is evident as objective in the scientific FSK.

If there are prejudices or bias in any FSK, the onus is on you to prove it.
As usual you are merely handwaving and provide no justifications.

Proof: FSK does not exist outside your head. It is not a phrase accepted ouside your own mind.
Someone got there first buddy...

FSK stands for Frequency Shift Keying. It is a modulation technique used in telecommunications to transmit digital information over radio frequency signals. In FSK, digital data is transmitted by varying the frequency of the carrier signal between two different frequencies.

The basic idea behind FSK is that binary data (0s and 1s) are represented by different frequencies. For example, in a simple FSK system, one frequency might represent a binary '1' and another frequency might represent a binary '0'. As the data stream changes, the carrier frequency shifts accordingly between these predetermined frequencies.

There are two main types of FSK:

Binary FSK (BFSK): In BFSK, there are only two frequencies used to represent the binary states. One frequency represents a binary '1', and the other represents a binary '0'. This is the simplest form of FSK modulation.

Multiple Frequency Shift Keying (MFSK): MFSK extends FSK to use more than two frequencies, allowing it to transmit multiple bits simultaneously. Each combination of frequencies represents different combinations of bits, enabling higher data rates compared to BFSK.

FSK is commonly used in various communication systems, including telephone networks, radio transmission, data modems, and wireless technologies like Bluetooth and RFID (Radio-Frequency Identification) systems.

You are stooping so low.
Why can't we have another new FSK that has a separate meaning and context.

Where is the LAW that stipulates we cannot add more meanings to FSK or e.g. RAM?
Note:
There probably more than 100 meanings [acronyms] for R.A.M
https://www.acronymfinder.com/RAM.html
Here are some..

RAM Random-Access Memory
RAM Remote Area Medical
RAM Read And Modify (original meaning when referring to computer memory)
RAM Random Acts of Music
RAM Repair and Maintenance
RAM Royal Academy of Music
RAM Rabbit Anti-Mouse
RAM Research and Analysis of Media (marketing)
RAM Request for Approval of Material (Washington State Department of Transportation)
RAM Recent Advances in Manufacturing
RAM Rage Against the Machine (band)
RAM Round-A-Mount (RAM Mounting Systems)
RAM Restaurant Association of Maryland (Columbia, MD)

RAM Restricted Access Management (fishing program)
RAM Rectangular Approximation Method (calculus, integrals)
RAM Real Action Marker (paintball gun)
RAM Radioactive Material
RAM Restricted-Access Media
RAM Responsibility Assignment Matrix (project management)
RAM Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics (International Conference)
RAM Rothschild Asset Management (New York)
RAM Rest Are Mine (when playing hearts online)
RAM Real Audio Movie (file extension)
RAM Recherche et Applications En Marketing (French: Research and Applications in Marketing)
RAM Revenue Accounting and Management
RAM Reynolds Alberta Museum (Canada)
RAM Revista Argentina de Microbiología (Spanish: Argentina Journal of Microbiology)
RAM Russian Aviation Museum
RAM Riverside Art Museum (California)
RAM Regional Atmospheric Model (meteorology)
RAM Rolling Airframe Missile
RAM Reliability and Maintainability
RAM Rational Asset Manager (software)
RAM Remote Application Management
RAM Reverse Annuity Mortgage
RAM Raised Angle Marker (identifies point of impact for airdrop operations)
RAM Remote Account Management
RAM Revista del Aficionado a la Meteorologia (Spanish)
RAM Rochester Academy of Medicine (Rochester, NY)
RAM Right Attacking Midfielder (soccer)
RAM Royal Australian Mint
RAM Random Access Machine (informatics)
RAM Royal Ark Mariners (Masonic)
RAM Restricted Access Materials
RAM Royal Arch Mason (magazine)
RAM Royal Air Maroc, Morocco (ICAO code)
RAM Resistance-Associated Mutation
RAM Russo-American Mercantile (Buck Rogers RPG)
RAM Rockets And Missiles
RAM Richmond Art Museum (Richmond, IN)
RAM Regional Accounting Manager
RAM Risk Assessment Methodology
RAM Radar-Absorbing Material
RAM Radar Absorbent Material
RAM Remote Administration Module (computing)
RAM Regional Analysis Model
RAM Requirements Allocation Matrix
RAM Reliability, Availability, & Maintainability
RAM Remaking American Medicine (resource)
RAM Relative Atomic Mass (chemistry)
RAM Rating Agency Malaysia Bhd.
RAM Requirements Abstraction Model
RAM Ratscat Advanced Measurement
RAM Relais Assistances Maternelles (French childcare center)
RAM Radio Alpine Meilleure (French radio station)
RAM Rockets, Artillery and Mortars
RAM Radio Attenuation Measurement
RAM Random Antiterrorism Measures (US DoD)
RAM Research and Applications Module
RAM Radio Audience Measurement
RAM Remote Access Manager (Digital Lightwave)
RAM Root Apical Meristem
RAM Reform the Armed Forces Movement (Philippines)
RAM Risk Assessment Matrix
RAM Rechargeable Alkaline Manganese (battery)
RAM Reconnaissance Air Meet
.......

[Veritas Aequitas]

(continued, without constraint)

Heart-ache is a mild symptom of increased knowledge. Many folks have experienced physical distress in response to a major intellectual FORS deconstruction, such as ... hives, panic attack, vomiting, heart attack, hair turning white, and so on, which are all spontaneous, choiceless, objective physical reactions.

Dramatic realizations can have that effect until repetition kicks in some kind of numbing, insensitivity defense of self-image.

For example, a wife who listens to country music learns the real meaning of a lying, no-good cheating skunk of a two-timing husband, and the sudden physical meaning behind the clichés hits her FOKS system like a tornado, tearing up what she thought she knew, which causes an abrupt change in her self-concept causing her to finally, intellectually, admit her subterranean suspicions in language, and that can cause all kinds of involuntary and voluntary purging such as the aforementioned vomiting, and the more thoughtful chucking his stuff and dog out the back door, where he parks his obligatory country truck.

You get the idea.

FORS extend further than the heart space to 13.7 billion years of physical of change and 3.5 billion years of organic "programming" that is fundamental to enable the specific reality of entities to emerge.

I wrote this earlier;

Don't you believe that reality is a construct of the human mind?

It is not "construct" in the literal sense, like a builder constructing a house or any physical object.
It is more like self-programming with self-reference [or collective reference] that enable an emergence of reality.
If you more details refer to 'Constructivism'.

There is no absolute mind-independent reality.
The fundamental of reality [tentatively - there is more to it] is a 'soup of particles in motion' emerged 13.7 billion years ago. e.g. this;

From 3.5 billion years ago, living things with a will-to-live self-program their own version of "reality"

With an inherent algorithm of 'pattern-seeking' and other functions, each individual and species self-programmed and enabling their specific version of reality in terms of varying bundles in varying densities of particles.
No living species will cognize the same realities out of that 'soup of particles in motion' e.g. a bacteria, bats, dolphins, humans will view the same object differently.

[Iwannaplato]

Can you provide evidence of an antirealist who was killed by a realist - and where this had anything to do with their ontologies?

I have mentioned this many times.
Note in extreme cases where philosophical realism is related to theism, i.e. where God exists as an absolutely mind independent entity.
Try giving a speech in a square somewhere in Taliban country, that 'Allah is a man-made God' and 'see' [if only you can see after death] what happened.

And 1 - as has been pointed out many times - you don't understand the difference between correlation and cause. If you knew something about science, you would also know that one has to limit variables. For example, PH and his gang as you refer to them, they are all non-theists. So, you accusation, which is hysterical, is grounded in nothing.
2 - you give no example of an ontological antirealist being killed by a realist. Most atheists are ontological realists.

Most of the time I am the one who is presenting a thesis.
I don't mind if someone critique that I have not not thought wide or specific enough and give their views.

Not a defense of wasted insulting words. It does not move the discussion forward.

You are not doing that but instead,
For example in the case of the evolutionary default of externalness which I present as an primal instinct in all and with the extension that, that instinct is adopted as an ideology.
Despite my explanation you still don't get it but keep accusing me I am wrong or confused.
This is why I insist your thinking is very narrow and shallow.
I wonder you have got it, if need to comment do it in the other thread.

And, as usual, you do not integrate what I wrote in your response. You did not address my argument. You simply repeated your position. In a discussion your regular practice of doing this entails that discussion partners have no idea if you actually read their critique or understood it. Nor does it make your response a response to the critique. It simply dismisses it.

When I refer to THE Moral-FSK [THE Morality-proper-FSK], it is equivalent to the single main fundamental Scientific-FSK which has its sub-FSKs and sub-sub FSKs.

No, it's not the same. Those multiple scientific FSKs have different areas of focus. The multiple moral FSKs have the same area of focus, but different opinions. It would be like if in the chemistry FSK they drew conclusions about black holes that contradict the descriptions of black holes in astronomy.

Your Moral FSK is actually just one of many (small case) moral FSKs.


Since you have said that objectivity is intersubjectivity. Please find me a few other humans who believe that the morality FSK is a subset of the Science FSK.
[/quote]

I did not claim that morality FSK is a subset of the Science FSK.

OK, I misinterpreted 'equivalent'. My fault.

It is not me, but there are scientists who claimed that the morality-FSK should be a subset of the scientific FSK;
I raised this thread:
Sociobiology of Morality
viewtopic.php?p=627699&hilit=wilson#p627699

Ah, perhaps this added to the context of my misinterpretation. I have read that post and the other posts with the other scientists.

[Sculptor]

You stated earlier,


I have demonstrated the FSK is a model that is generic in all system of knowledge, where it is evident as objective in the scientific FSK.

If there are prejudices or bias in any FSK, the onus is on you to prove it.
As usual you are merely handwaving and provide no justifications.

Proof: FSK does not exist outside your head. It is not a phrase accepted ouside your own mind.
Someone got there first buddy...

FSK stands for Frequency Shift Keying. It is a modulation technique used in telecommunications to transmit digital information over radio frequency signals. In FSK, digital data is transmitted by varying the frequency of the carrier signal between two different frequencies.

The basic idea behind FSK is that binary data (0s and 1s) are represented by different frequencies. For example, in a simple FSK system, one frequency might represent a binary '1' and another frequency might represent a binary '0'. As the data stream changes, the carrier frequency shifts accordingly between these predetermined frequencies.

There are two main types of FSK:

Binary FSK (BFSK): In BFSK, there are only two frequencies used to represent the binary states. One frequency represents a binary '1', and the other represents a binary '0'. This is the simplest form of FSK modulation.

Multiple Frequency Shift Keying (MFSK): MFSK extends FSK to use more than two frequencies, allowing it to transmit multiple bits simultaneously. Each combination of frequencies represents different combinations of bits, enabling higher data rates compared to BFSK.

FSK is commonly used in various communication systems, including telephone networks, radio transmission, data modems, and wireless technologies like Bluetooth and RFID (Radio-Frequency Identification) systems.

You are stooping so low.
Why can't we have another new FSK that has a separate meaning and context.

Please furnish a reference for FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are stooping so low.
Why can't we have another new FSK that has a separate meaning and context.

Please furnish a reference for FSK.

We are doing philosophy here where neologism [evident throughout the history of philosophy] is a critical resultant.

FSK in my case is merely a repacking of something that is very common, i.e. the establishing of knowledge systematically within a framework of conditions.
A Framework and System of Knowledge is thus a more efficient concept to represent the above.
This is an application of intelligence, i.e. to be more efficient, productive and creative from whatever is available on hand.
The only reference for what is my FSK is within this forum not outside.
But I am confident the concept of FSK can easily be acceptable by anyone who is rational.

We discussed the topic of 'nutrition' somewhere.
Surely you cannot insist upon a nutritional information because you, mother, father or your grandmother said so it is true.
It is obvious, to be credible and objective 'nutrition' has to be discussed with a Framework and System of Knowledge with its conditions, i.e. within the science-nutrition-FSK which is most credible.

Whatever are astronomical facts would be most credible and objective is based on the science-astronomy-FSK with conditions set by the International Astronomical Union (IAU).
Any claims of facts from astrologers or any layperson would not be credible nor objective.

The above is applicable to all claims of knowledge, facts, and truths, i.e. they must be FSK-ed of varying credibility and objective.

Therefore, for any claims, the first thing to do is to find out what is the FSK and how credible and objective it is. Philosophically, this approach will never go wrong.

[Sculptor]

You are stooping so low.
Why can't we have another new FSK that has a separate meaning and context.

Please furnish a reference for FSK.

We are doing philosophy here where neologism [evident throughout the history of philosophy] is a critical resultant.

FSK in my case is merely a repacking of something that is very common, i.e. the establishing of knowledge systematically within a framework of conditions.
A Framework and System of Knowledge is thus a more efficient concept to represent the above.
This is an application of intelligence, i.e. to be more efficient, productive and creative from whatever is available on hand.
The only reference for what is my FSK is within this forum not outside.
But I am confident the concept of FSK can easily be acceptable by anyone who is rational.

We discussed the topic of 'nutrition' somewhere.
Surely you cannot insist upon a nutritional information because you, mother, father or your grandmother said so it is true.
It is obvious, to be credible and objective 'nutrition' has to be discussed with a Framework and System of Knowledge with its conditions, i.e. within the science-nutrition-FSK which is most credible.

Whatever are astronomical facts would be most credible and objective is based on the science-astronomy-FSK with conditions set by the International Astronomical Union (IAU).
Any claims of facts from astrologers or any layperson would not be credible nor objective.

The above is applicable to all claims of knowledge, facts, and truths, i.e. they must be FSK-ed of varying credibility and objective.

Therefore, for any claims, the first thing to do is to find out what is the FSK and how credible and objective it is. Philosophically, this approach will never go wrong.

You are making a claim it is objective. It is not objective if it exists only in your imagination.

Please furnish a reference for FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Please furnish a reference for FSK.

We are doing philosophy here where neologism [evident throughout the history of philosophy] is a critical resultant.

FSK in my case is merely a repacking of something that is very common, i.e. the establishing of knowledge systematically within a framework of conditions.
A Framework and System of Knowledge is thus a more efficient concept to represent the above.
This is an application of intelligence, i.e. to be more efficient, productive and creative from whatever is available on hand.
The only reference for what is my FSK is within this forum not outside.
But I am confident the concept of FSK can easily be acceptable by anyone who is rational.

We discussed the topic of 'nutrition' somewhere.
Surely you cannot insist upon a nutritional information because you, mother, father or your grandmother said so it is true.
It is obvious, to be credible and objective 'nutrition' has to be discussed with a Framework and System of Knowledge with its conditions, i.e. within the science-nutrition-FSK which is most credible.

Whatever are astronomical facts would be most credible and objective is based on the science-astronomy-FSK with conditions set by the International Astronomical Union (IAU).
Any claims of facts from astrologers or any layperson would not be credible nor objective.

The above is applicable to all claims of knowledge, facts, and truths, i.e. they must be FSK-ed of varying credibility and objective.

Therefore, for any claims, the first thing to do is to find out what is the FSK and how credible and objective it is. Philosophically, this approach will never go wrong.

You are making a claim it is objective. It is not objective if it exists only in your imagination.

Please furnish a reference for FSK.

I am not sure what reference you are asking for.

I have claimed science is conditioned within within a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge i.e. FSK.
In science and scientific knowledge, there is the Scientific Method which is systematic and all the conditions required for science are covered within a Framework.
Thus we have a human-based scientific Framework and System of Knowledge i.e. the scientific-FSK.

What is objective means independent of an individual subject's biasness, opinions, beliefs and judgment.
The facts, truth and knowledge from a FSK [science or otherwise] is objective because it is not dependent on an individual subject's biasness, opinions, beliefs and judgment.
Therefore a FSK is objective in that sense.

That 'water is H20' is objective from the human-based Science-Chemistry FSK, i.e. it is not dependent on an individual subject's biasness, opinions, beliefs and judgment.
Rather the human-based Science-Chemistry FSK is sustain by a collective-of-subjects [the scientific community, not one scientist]. This inter-subjectivity.

The scientific FSK is operating in real time in reality at present.
How can that be my imagination?

[Sculptor]

We are doing philosophy here where neologism [evident throughout the history of philosophy] is a critical resultant.

FSK in my case is merely a repacking of something that is very common, i.e. the establishing of knowledge systematically within a framework of conditions.
A Framework and System of Knowledge is thus a more efficient concept to represent the above.
This is an application of intelligence, i.e. to be more efficient, productive and creative from whatever is available on hand.
The only reference for what is my FSK is within this forum not outside.
But I am confident the concept of FSK can easily be acceptable by anyone who is rational.

We discussed the topic of 'nutrition' somewhere.
Surely you cannot insist upon a nutritional information because you, mother, father or your grandmother said so it is true.
It is obvious, to be credible and objective 'nutrition' has to be discussed with a Framework and System of Knowledge with its conditions, i.e. within the science-nutrition-FSK which is most credible.

Whatever are astronomical facts would be most credible and objective is based on the science-astronomy-FSK with conditions set by the International Astronomical Union (IAU).
Any claims of facts from astrologers or any layperson would not be credible nor objective.

The above is applicable to all claims of knowledge, facts, and truths, i.e. they must be FSK-ed of varying credibility and objective.

Therefore, for any claims, the first thing to do is to find out what is the FSK and how credible and objective it is. Philosophically, this approach will never go wrong.

You are making a claim it is objective. It is not objective if it exists only in your imagination.

Please furnish a reference for FSK.

I am not sure what reference you are asking for.

An objective one.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are making a claim it is objective. It is not objective if it exists only in your imagination.

Please furnish a reference for FSK.

I am not sure what reference you are asking for.

An objective one.

I have already explained how a FSK is objective.


Again,
My reference is Science, I have claimed science is evidently conditioned within within a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge i.e. FSK.
In science and scientific knowledge, there is the Scientific Method which is systematic and all the conditions required for science are covered within a Framework.
Thus we have a human-based scientific Framework and System of Knowledge i.e. the scientific-FSK.

What is objective means independent of an individual subject's biasness, opinions, beliefs and judgment.
The facts, truth and knowledge from a FSK [science or otherwise] is objective because it is not dependent on an individual subject's biasness, opinions, beliefs and judgment.
Therefore a FSK is objective in that sense.

That 'water is H20' is objective from the human-based Science-Chemistry FSK, i.e. it is not dependent on an individual subject's biasness, opinions, beliefs and judgment.
Rather the human-based Science-Chemistry FSK is sustain by a collective-of-subjects [the scientific community, not one scientist]. This inter-subjectivity.

The scientific FSK is operating in real time in reality at present.
How can that be my imagination?

[Sculptor]

I am not sure what reference you are asking for.

An objective one.

I have already explained how a FSK is objective.

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

[Veritas Aequitas]

An objective one.

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].
That is why the human-based scientific FSK is objective and produces objective knowledge, i.e. not dependent on one scientist's view but based on the intersubjective agreement between all participating scientists.

Similarly a morality-proper FSK in principle is conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects [not me alone] thus is objective but upon intersubjective agreement between many subjects.
In principle [theory] the morality-proper-FSK is based on agreement between ALL humans.
How can that be subjective [exists only in one [1] mind]?

Note the US Dollar, Sterling Pound, and all currencies are objective, but they are objective without any really real physical objects except intersubjective consensus.
You deny they are objective?
They are objective merely in people's head, i.e. not represented by actual physical reality like those in the olden day where currencies are equivalent [claimable] to some amount of gold or other assets.

However what is critical to note is, the US Dollar is objective only upon conditioned a human-based FSK within the US Constitution and Political and economic FSK, all these are supported by a collective of human mind.
If there are no humans, there is no US Dollars, but yet at present the US Dollar is an objective thing sustained by the minds of human subjective.
As such, this sort of objectivity is intersubjectivity.

So, if there are no collective of human-subject minds [heads - alive], there is no objective currency.

All other human based FSKs [as I had discussed] are objective but ultimately intersubjective, i.e. consensus among lots of subjects with a common interest.

Get it?

[Iwannaplato]

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].
That is why the human-based scientific FSK is objective and produces objective knowledge, i.e. not dependent on one scientist's view but based on the intersubjective agreement between all participating scientists.

Similarly a morality-proper FSK in principle is conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects [not me alone] thus is objective but upon intersubjective agreement between many subjects.
In principle [theory] the morality-proper-FSK is based on agreement between ALL humans.
How can that be subjective [exists only in one [1] mind]?

Get it?

Right now in the world we have intersubjective agreements on morality supporting quite opposed views, including the Hamas/Israel conflict. According to some of your writing, one could conclude that both opposed views are objective.
A and ¬A are true. That's a problem.

I actually think the idea of FSK is fine. It's not common usage, but once explained it can be useful. The problem comes in when you as an individual start telling people that FSKs are all objective but to different degrees. While at the same time presenting your own positions as objective even if they are not intersubjectively supported, which some of them are not.

And, again, there is no Morality FSK, but rather many competing ones. That is different frameworks with different priorities, values and even way sof viewing morality: deontological, consequentialist, character based and others. And many of these have extremely large numbers of beliefs - intersubjective support. That is, more than many of your beliefs that you consider objective.

And then these various FSKs do not agree with each other. What might happen in the future doesn't give you intersubjective agreement now. Evidence in the future is not evidence.

[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].
That is why the human-based scientific FSK is objective and produces objective knowledge, i.e. not dependent on one scientist's view but based on the intersubjective agreement between all participating scientists.

Similarly a morality-proper FSK in principle is conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects [not me alone] thus is objective but upon intersubjective agreement between many subjects.
In principle [theory] the morality-proper-FSK is based on agreement between ALL humans.
How can that be subjective [exists only in one [1] mind]?

Get it?

Right now in the world we have intersubjective agreements on morality supporting quite opposed views, including the Hamas/Israel conflict. According to some of your writing, one could conclude that both opposed views are objective.
A and ¬A are true. That's a problem.

I actually think the idea of FSK is fine. It's not common usage, but once explained it can be useful. The problem comes in when you as an individual start telling people that FSKs are all objective but to different degrees. While at the same time presenting your own positions as objective even if they are not intersubjectively supported, which some of them are not.

And, again, there is no Morality FSK, but rather many competing ones. That is different frameworks with different priorities, values and even way sof viewing morality: deontological, consequentialist, character based and others. And many of these have extremely large numbers of beliefs - intersubjective support. That is, more than many of your beliefs that you consider objective.

And then these various FSKs do not agree with each other. What might happen in the future doesn't give you intersubjective agreement now. Evidence in the future is not evidence.

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

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.

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.