What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

As you know, if even one premise of an argument is false or unsupported, then the argument is unsound.

And your argument that, in your fantasy moral FSK, there are moral facts, such as 'x is morally wrong' is utterly fatuous. Your supposed moral FSK facts are merely moral assertions which are, as always, unentailed by the facts you claim entail them.

Try again, with premises that really are all factual. And don't include the premise that, in the moral FSK, this is a moral fact. That just begs the question.

Why not?
I did not simply claim is moral fact is a moral fact, but I have provided the justification for the premise how a moral FSK produce moral facts.

I have demonstrate here, facts are contextual to their respective FSK,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
supported by the arguments from the various threads I listed.

You are the problematic one because you are stuck in one dogmatic perspective of what is fact.

Yes, facts are contextual. No, not all contexts can produce facts. A fact - a true factual assertion - in any context - requires empirical evidence. If 'slavery is morally wrong' is a fact, then it must have empirical evidence. There must be evidence for the existence of the moral wrongness of slavery. But there's no such thing. The moral wrongness of slavery isn't a feature of reality.

Saying " 'slavery is morally wrong' is a fact in the moral framework and system of knowledge" is fatuous, specious nonsense. It's an empty, useless claim. It isn't empirical evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery. Your claim is ridiculous and your argument absurd. But hey, why not keep going?

Again you don't realize, like the logical positivists you are using your own specific meanings of what is fact to try to dominate philosophy and truths. Quine had already shown this intent is stupidity and madness.

I have argued facts are contextual upon its specific FSK.
All FSK produce 'facts' but of degree of veracity, from low-zero to high-99.99%
Therefore a moral FSK produce Justified True Moral facts [beliefs].

Whatever is Justified as True Beliefs must be justified empirically and philosophically.

'Slavery is morally wrong' as justified from a Moral FSK is a moral fact [as argued above].

So where, what and how is the justification for 'slavery is morally wrong'?
I have already provided the details of the empirical evidences and philosophical justifications a 'thousand' times, so I am not repeating them again.

One point to note is, this moral fact is a mental state of 'ought' that is inherent in all human and represented by a neural algorithm.
This like [analogically] stating 'the hunger drive inherent in all humans' is a biological fact.
Thus there is a biological drive that no humans want to be enslaved by another, and this is a biological fact which when processed by the Moral FSK produce the moral fact,
"no human ought to enslave another'.

In a way this is a universal state of ought-not or inhibition with the human brain.
This neural inhibition is also represented by neural inhibitors.
Since the above is inherent in ALL humans [dormant in some, active in others] are grounded by neural inhibitors and neural algorithms the related moral facts are objective.
This is in addition to the the empirical evidences and philosophical justifications I mentioned above.

[Peter Holmes]

Why not?
I did not simply claim is moral fact is a moral fact, but I have provided the justification for the premise how a moral FSK produce moral facts.

I have demonstrate here, facts are contextual to their respective FSK,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
supported by the arguments from the various threads I listed.

You are the problematic one because you are stuck in one dogmatic perspective of what is fact.

Yes, facts are contextual. No, not all contexts can produce facts. A fact - a true factual assertion - in any context - requires empirical evidence. If 'slavery is morally wrong' is a fact, then it must have empirical evidence. There must be evidence for the existence of the moral wrongness of slavery. But there's no such thing. The moral wrongness of slavery isn't a feature of reality.

Saying " 'slavery is morally wrong' is a fact in the moral framework and system of knowledge" is fatuous, specious nonsense. It's an empty, useless claim. It isn't empirical evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery. Your claim is ridiculous and your argument absurd. But hey, why not keep going?

Again you don't realize, like the logical positivists you are using your own specific meanings of what is fact to try to dominate philosophy and truths. Quine had already shown this intent is stupidity and madness.

I have argued facts are contextual upon its specific FSK.
All FSK produce 'facts' but of degree of veracity, from low-zero to high-99.99%
Therefore a moral FSK produce Justified True Moral facts [beliefs].

Whatever is Justified as True Beliefs must be justified empirically and philosophically.

'Slavery is morally wrong' as justified from a Moral FSK is a moral fact [as argued above].

So where, what and how is the justification for 'slavery is morally wrong'?
I have already provided the details of the empirical evidences and philosophical justifications a 'thousand' times, so I am not repeating them again.

One point to note is, this moral fact is a mental state of 'ought' that is inherent in all human and represented by a neural algorithm.
This like [analogically] stating 'the hunger drive inherent in all humans' is a biological fact.
Thus there is a biological drive that no humans want to be enslaved by another, and this is a biological fact which when processed by the Moral FSK produce the moral fact,
"no human ought to enslave another'.

In a way this is a universal state of ought-not or inhibition with the human brain.
This neural inhibition is also represented by neural inhibitors.
Since the above is inherent in ALL humans [dormant in some, active in others] are grounded by neural inhibitors and neural algorithms the related moral facts are objective.
This is in addition to the the empirical evidences and philosophical justifications I mentioned above.

To assume morality is an epistemological matter begs the question. So this whole argument is unsound.

'Humans are wired (programmed) to want not to be enslaved; therefore slavery is morally wrong.' The conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is logic 101.

[Skepdick]

To assume morality is an epistemological matter begs the question. So this whole argument is unsound.

'Humans are wired (programmed) to want not to be enslaved; therefore slavery is morally wrong.' The conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is logic 101.

Logic is invented.
Morality isn't.

To insist that logic can justify morality is putting the cart before the horse.

Dumb fucking philosopher. We live in the era of empiricism now. Valid/sound arguments aren't worth shit.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, facts are contextual. No, not all contexts can produce facts. A fact - a true factual assertion - in any context - requires empirical evidence. If 'slavery is morally wrong' is a fact, then it must have empirical evidence. There must be evidence for the existence of the moral wrongness of slavery. But there's no such thing. The moral wrongness of slavery isn't a feature of reality.

Saying " 'slavery is morally wrong' is a fact in the moral framework and system of knowledge" is fatuous, specious nonsense. It's an empty, useless claim. It isn't empirical evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery. Your claim is ridiculous and your argument absurd. But hey, why not keep going?

Again you don't realize, like the logical positivists you are using your own specific meanings of what is fact to try to dominate philosophy and truths. Quine had already shown this intent is stupidity and madness.

I have argued facts are contextual upon its specific FSK.
All FSK produce 'facts' but of degree of veracity, from low-zero to high-99.99%
Therefore a moral FSK produce Justified True Moral facts [beliefs].

Whatever is Justified as True Beliefs must be justified empirically and philosophically.

'Slavery is morally wrong' as justified from a Moral FSK is a moral fact [as argued above].

So where, what and how is the justification for 'slavery is morally wrong'?
I have already provided the details of the empirical evidences and philosophical justifications a 'thousand' times, so I am not repeating them again.

One point to note is, this moral fact is a mental state of 'ought' that is inherent in all human and represented by a neural algorithm.
This like [analogically] stating 'the hunger drive inherent in all humans' is a biological fact.
Thus there is a biological drive that no humans want to be enslaved by another, and this is a biological fact which when processed by the Moral FSK produce the moral fact,
"no human ought to enslave another'.

In a way this is a universal state of ought-not or inhibition with the human brain.
This neural inhibition is also represented by neural inhibitors.
Since the above is inherent in ALL humans [dormant in some, active in others] are grounded by neural inhibitors and neural algorithms the related moral facts are objective.
This is in addition to the the empirical evidences and philosophical justifications I mentioned above.

To assume morality is an epistemological matter begs the question. So this whole argument is unsound.

'Humans are wired (programmed) to want not to be enslaved; therefore slavery is morally wrong.' The conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is logic 101.

I have to say you are very blind and stupid.
You are lying, show me where I have I produced the above logic.

In my case, I have always provided an intermediate premise, i.e. the workings of a moral framework and system that produce moral facts.

[Peter Holmes]

Again you don't realize, like the logical positivists you are using your own specific meanings of what is fact to try to dominate philosophy and truths. Quine had already shown this intent is stupidity and madness.

I have argued facts are contextual upon its specific FSK.
All FSK produce 'facts' but of degree of veracity, from low-zero to high-99.99%
Therefore a moral FSK produce Justified True Moral facts [beliefs].

Whatever is Justified as True Beliefs must be justified empirically and philosophically.

'Slavery is morally wrong' as justified from a Moral FSK is a moral fact [as argued above].

So where, what and how is the justification for 'slavery is morally wrong'?
I have already provided the details of the empirical evidences and philosophical justifications a 'thousand' times, so I am not repeating them again.

One point to note is, this moral fact is a mental state of 'ought' that is inherent in all human and represented by a neural algorithm.
This like [analogically] stating 'the hunger drive inherent in all humans' is a biological fact.
Thus there is a biological drive that no humans want to be enslaved by another, and this is a biological fact which when processed by the Moral FSK produce the moral fact,
"no human ought to enslave another'.

In a way this is a universal state of ought-not or inhibition with the human brain.
This neural inhibition is also represented by neural inhibitors.
Since the above is inherent in ALL humans [dormant in some, active in others] are grounded by neural inhibitors and neural algorithms the related moral facts are objective.
This is in addition to the the empirical evidences and philosophical justifications I mentioned above.

To assume morality is an epistemological matter begs the question. So this whole argument is unsound.

'Humans are wired (programmed) to want not to be enslaved; therefore slavery is morally wrong.' The conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is logic 101.

I have to say you are very blind and stupid.
You are lying, show me where I have I produced the above logic.

In my case, I have always provided an intermediate premise, i.e. the workings of a moral framework and system that produce moral facts.

Yes, and the intermediate premise destroys your argument. You're trying to show that a fact or facts can entail a factual moral conclusion. So if one of your premises is that there are moral facts, you're using your conclusion to justify that premise, which is called begging the question.

What you're saying is: one reason why there are moral facts (conclusion) is that the moral FSK can produce facts (premise). Does that look like sound reasoning to you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

To assume morality is an epistemological matter begs the question. So this whole argument is unsound.

'Humans are wired (programmed) to want not to be enslaved; therefore slavery is morally wrong.' The conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is logic 101.

I have to say you are very blind and stupid.
You are lying, show me where I have I produced the above logic.

In my case, I have always provided an intermediate premise, i.e. the workings of a moral framework and system that produce moral facts.

Yes, and the intermediate premise destroys your argument. You're trying to show that a fact or facts can entail a factual moral conclusion. So if one of your premises is that there are moral facts, you're using your conclusion to justify that premise, which is called begging the question.

What you're saying is: one reason why there are moral facts (conclusion) is that the moral FSK can produce facts (premise). Does that look like sound reasoning to you?

It is not as apparent as what you think.

Let me give you a simpler example.
A legal FSK generate legal facts.
But a legal FSK also take in Scientific and other facts and process within its system to produce legal facts.
You will note the input facts are filtered within the consciousness of various humans and mechanisms of the courts and ending as justified legal facts.

Note this analogy of ought with the making of criminal laws.
From where did the various criminal systems derive their enforceable 'ought' if not from empirical evidence, scientific facts, biological facts?
This is a case of arguing for 'ought' is derived from 'is' but I am not relying on this because what legal [politics] is not morality.

However, in principle, it is the same with a Moral FSK where empirical and scientific facts are taken into its system and justified as moral facts.
Obviously there must be a justification process to convert the scientific and other facts within the mechanisms of the moral FSK to produce moral facts.
I have already given an example, i.e. justifying the scientific fact within the principle of universality and other principles to justify a moral fact. This is not the only justification but there are many others within a FSK.

Note the other mode of justification via Speech Acts and Constitutional Facts as premises which contain both descriptive and prescriptive elements, thus the conclusion can be prescriptive as in the Searle's argument.

[Belinda]

Yes, facts are contextual. No, not all contexts can produce facts. A fact - a true factual assertion - in any context - requires empirical evidence. If 'slavery is morally wrong' is a fact, then it must have empirical evidence. There must be evidence for the existence of the moral wrongness of slavery. But there's no such thing. The moral wrongness of slavery isn't a feature of reality.

Saying " 'slavery is morally wrong' is a fact in the moral framework and system of knowledge" is fatuous, specious nonsense. It's an empty, useless claim. It isn't empirical evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery. Your claim is ridiculous and your argument absurd. But hey, why not keep going?

Again you don't realize, like the logical positivists you are using your own specific meanings of what is fact to try to dominate philosophy and truths. Quine had already shown this intent is stupidity and madness.

I have argued facts are contextual upon its specific FSK.
All FSK produce 'facts' but of degree of veracity, from low-zero to high-99.99%
Therefore a moral FSK produce Justified True Moral facts [beliefs].

Whatever is Justified as True Beliefs must be justified empirically and philosophically.

'Slavery is morally wrong' as justified from a Moral FSK is a moral fact [as argued above].

So where, what and how is the justification for 'slavery is morally wrong'?
I have already provided the details of the empirical evidences and philosophical justifications a 'thousand' times, so I am not repeating them again.

One point to note is, this moral fact is a mental state of 'ought' that is inherent in all human and represented by a neural algorithm.
This like [analogically] stating 'the hunger drive inherent in all humans' is a biological fact.
Thus there is a biological drive that no humans want to be enslaved by another, and this is a biological fact which when processed by the Moral FSK produce the moral fact,
"no human ought to enslave another'.

In a way this is a universal state of ought-not or inhibition with the human brain.
This neural inhibition is also represented by neural inhibitors.
Since the above is inherent in ALL humans [dormant in some, active in others] are grounded by neural inhibitors and neural algorithms the related moral facts are objective.
This is in addition to the the empirical evidences and philosophical justifications I mentioned above.

To assume morality is an epistemological matter begs the question. So this whole argument is unsound.

'Humans are wired (programmed) to want not to be enslaved; therefore slavery is morally wrong.' The conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is logic 101.

1. Harmony with nature is the ultimate reason for morality.
Humans are wired not to be enslaved.

Slavery is morally wrong.

2. Harmony with nature is the ultimate reason for morality.
Humans are wired to enslave other humans.

Slavery is morally just.

3. Harmony with nature is the ultimate reason for morality,
Nobody knows what human nature is.

The morality of slavery is a political matter. When the last humans have died off then some all-knowing alien will be able to proclaim "This was human nature".

[Peter Holmes]

Again you don't realize, like the logical positivists you are using your own specific meanings of what is fact to try to dominate philosophy and truths. Quine had already shown this intent is stupidity and madness.

I have argued facts are contextual upon its specific FSK.
All FSK produce 'facts' but of degree of veracity, from low-zero to high-99.99%
Therefore a moral FSK produce Justified True Moral facts [beliefs].

Whatever is Justified as True Beliefs must be justified empirically and philosophically.

'Slavery is morally wrong' as justified from a Moral FSK is a moral fact [as argued above].

So where, what and how is the justification for 'slavery is morally wrong'?
I have already provided the details of the empirical evidences and philosophical justifications a 'thousand' times, so I am not repeating them again.

One point to note is, this moral fact is a mental state of 'ought' that is inherent in all human and represented by a neural algorithm.
This like [analogically] stating 'the hunger drive inherent in all humans' is a biological fact.
Thus there is a biological drive that no humans want to be enslaved by another, and this is a biological fact which when processed by the Moral FSK produce the moral fact,
"no human ought to enslave another'.

In a way this is a universal state of ought-not or inhibition with the human brain.
This neural inhibition is also represented by neural inhibitors.
Since the above is inherent in ALL humans [dormant in some, active in others] are grounded by neural inhibitors and neural algorithms the related moral facts are objective.
This is in addition to the the empirical evidences and philosophical justifications I mentioned above.

To assume morality is an epistemological matter begs the question. So this whole argument is unsound.

'Humans are wired (programmed) to want not to be enslaved; therefore slavery is morally wrong.' The conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is logic 101.

1. Harmony with nature is the ultimate reason for morality.
Humans are wired not to be enslaved.

Slavery is morally wrong.

2. Harmony with nature is the ultimate reason for morality.
Humans are wired to enslave other humans.

Slavery is morally just.

3. Harmony with nature is the ultimate reason for morality,
Nobody knows what human nature is.

The morality of slavery is a political matter. When the last humans have died off then some all-knowing alien will be able to proclaim "This was human nature".

I see what you mean. But I'd put it the other way around: politics is ultimately a moral matter. Moral values and judgements inform the way we organise ourselves - including insider/outsider and free citizen/slave distinctions - in society.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I see what you mean. But I'd put it the other way around: politics is ultimately a moral matter. Moral values and judgements inform the way we organise ourselves - including insider/outsider and free citizen/slave distinctions - in society.

There is where you get your thoughts on morality in a mess.
Morality is an inherent function, i.e. generating moral sense within the brain.
Politics re external governance and power is independent of morality which is related to internal governance.
Morality guides every aspects of humanity, medicine, social, economics, finance, etc. and politics is just one of those.

[Sculptor]

I see what you mean. But I'd put it the other way around: politics is ultimately a moral matter. Moral values and judgements inform the way we organise ourselves - including insider/outsider and free citizen/slave distinctions - in society.

There is where you get your thoughts on morality in a mess.
Morality is an inherent function, i.e. generating moral sense within the brain.
Politics re external governance and power is independent of morality which is related to internal governance.
Morality guides every aspects of humanity, medicine, social, economics, finance, etc. and politics is just one of those.

Both is true to some degree.
Buy if your concept of morality were true, morality would be as static as the shape of our fingernails; it is not. Whilst we have an innate propensity to act in moral ways, there is nothing in the genes to demand which direction that morality will take. As all human fingernails are much the same, it is clear from studying culture and society in the world today and throughout history that morals are DIFFERENT. Not only are they shaped slightly differently but moral rules can be the exact opposite of each other.
Holmes has the sense of it. It is pointless debating the value of this moral rule or the other by assuming its all innate. There is nothing we can do to effect innate propensity. Humans are moral animals. What is important is arguing the political and moral distinctions that plague humanity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I see what you mean. But I'd put it the other way around: politics is ultimately a moral matter. Moral values and judgements inform the way we organise ourselves - including insider/outsider and free citizen/slave distinctions - in society.

There is where you get your thoughts on morality in a mess.
Morality is an inherent function, i.e. generating moral sense within the brain.
Politics re external governance and power is independent of morality which is related to internal governance.
Morality guides every aspects of humanity, medicine, social, economics, finance, etc. and politics is just one of those.

Both is true to some degree.
Buy if your concept of morality were true, morality would be as static as the shape of our fingernails; it is not. Whilst we have an innate propensity to act in moral ways, there is nothing in the genes to demand which direction that morality will take. As all human fingernails are much the same, it is clear from studying culture and society in the world today and throughout history that morals are DIFFERENT. Not only are they shaped slightly differently but moral rules can be the exact opposite of each other.
Holmes has the sense of it. It is pointless debating the value of this moral rule or the other by assuming its all innate. There is nothing we can do to effect innate propensity. Humans are moral animals. What is important is arguing the political and moral distinctions that plague humanity.

Your view are too rigid.
Finger nails??

The inherent moral function and competence is like the intelligence, wisdom function.
When the individual moral competence is well developed he should be able to adapt the various moral principles to different situations where necessary but the justified moral laws will always be the guiding standard.

For example the moral law;
'no human ought to kill another'
but this is merely a guide,

if a person, due to the current situation has to kill with justifiable reasons, then he can kill, but he has to make sure, he strive to adhere to the moral law the next time.
But if he is a soldier and has to kill in a war, then the onus is on the whole of humanity and groups to prevent wars [this is not an impossibility] in the future, etc. so that there is no situation where a soldier has to kill.
Re murders, humanity must in the future strive to find ways to ensure no humans will have the human potential algorithm within them, thus aligning with the moral standard.

Thus the effectiveness of justified inherent moral facts as moral standards is to drive humanity to deal with the root causes [towards the future] of evil rather than fire-fighting with enforcements, threat of hell and pseudo-moral approaches.

Humans are not perfect, thus there will always be non-compliances, but because we keep the moral standard intact at all times, humanity will strive to get as close as possible to the ideal [impossible to achieve perfectly in practice].

[Sculptor]

There is where you get your thoughts on morality in a mess.
Morality is an inherent function, i.e. generating moral sense within the brain.
Politics re external governance and power is independent of morality which is related to internal governance.
Morality guides every aspects of humanity, medicine, social, economics, finance, etc. and politics is just one of those.

Both is true to some degree.
Buy if your concept of morality were true, morality would be as static as the shape of our fingernails; it is not. Whilst we have an innate propensity to act in moral ways, there is nothing in the genes to demand which direction that morality will take. As all human fingernails are much the same, it is clear from studying culture and society in the world today and throughout history that morals are DIFFERENT. Not only are they shaped slightly differently but moral rules can be the exact opposite of each other.
Holmes has the sense of it. It is pointless debating the value of this moral rule or the other by assuming its all innate. There is nothing we can do to effect innate propensity. Humans are moral animals. What is important is arguing the political and moral distinctions that plague humanity.

Your view are too rigid.

Pure projection.
This is the laugh of the week

[Skepdick]

I see what you mean. But I'd put it the other way around: politics is ultimately a moral matter. Moral values and judgements inform the way we organise ourselves - including insider/outsider and free citizen/slave distinctions - in society.

And the way we organize ourselves have certain, recurring structures.

It's almost as if seemingly random self-organization yields order or something. Almost... as if the structures which emerge from our politicising (moralising?) are objective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

[Belinda]

To assume morality is an epistemological matter begs the question. So this whole argument is unsound.

'Humans are wired (programmed) to want not to be enslaved; therefore slavery is morally wrong.' The conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is logic 101.

1. Harmony with nature is the ultimate reason for morality.
Humans are wired not to be enslaved.

Slavery is morally wrong.

2. Harmony with nature is the ultimate reason for morality.
Humans are wired to enslave other humans.

Slavery is morally just.

3. Harmony with nature is the ultimate reason for morality,
Nobody knows what human nature is.

The morality of slavery is a political matter. When the last humans have died off then some all-knowing alien will be able to proclaim "This was human nature".

I see what you mean. But I'd put it the other way around: politics is ultimately a moral matter. Moral values and judgements inform the way we organise ourselves - including insider/outsider and free citizen/slave distinctions - in society.

I'd combine both ways round , and say politics, morality, the "way we organise ourselves" are all determined by means of subsistence plus traditional inertia.
This does not prevent me personally as a free enough individual from having opinions of my own and hoping my political choice will gain the power.

[surreptitious57]

Harmony with nature is the ultimate reason for morality
Humans are wired not to be enslaved

[ Slavery is morally wrong ]

Harmony with nature is the ultimate reason for morality
Humans are wired to enslave other humans

[ Slavery is morally just ]

Harmony with nature is the ultimate reason for morality
Nobody knows what human nature is

Practical co existence with other humans is the ultimate reason for morality
Harmony with nature is a far less important reason by comparison

Slavery does not have to be physical it can be psychological too
Some human beings have a natural disposition to being enslaved
Some human beings have a natural disposition to enslaving others
Some human beings have a natural disposition for neither of these

Psychology and neuro science do not fully know what human nature is
Common traits do exist but each individual is entirely unique and complex and no two personalities are the same