What could make morality objective?

[Sculptor]

This topic drones on and on.
The same arguments are recycled.
The answer is simple enough.

The only way you can make morality objective is to demand a set of strict criteria. Since it is not possible to create any criteria that are not hopelessly personally, culturally and historically SUBJECTIVE, we would be forced to create an "objective" moral system which is static, unpresponsive and culturally and historically biased. Such a scheme would soon become hopelessly out of date.

There is a very good reason why morals differ from country to country, and through history. So-called "objective" moral systems are common enough, they are called the law.
Times change, people change and morals have had to change - sometimes clinging with fingernails to the past and ruining the lives of millions, until the law finally gets changed and people can breath again until the next moral fascist wants to impose their morality onto others.

Can anyone tell me what the objective of morality is? Since there seems no clear answer to that question which is time proof, the prospect of trying to create an objectively moral framework can only result in the desolation and suffering of millions

I believe you are ignorant of what is morality-proper and moral realism.

What you beleive is of no importance.
If you applied yourself more to reason and evidence and less to wish fulfilment you might equip yourself with some of the skills necessary to understand what every one here is telling you.

[Sculptor]

Sorry. This business of showing moral objectivists why they're wrong has a lurid fascination for me. VA is obviously a special case, but they're all strangely addicted to - and dazzled by - the idea that there are moral facts which, unsurprisingly, happen to be their own moral opinions made manifest. I feel that ignoring them and their delusion would be like ignoring Nazis and US Republicans. They're just too dangerous.

Yes like the black beasts of the church, they will end up giving themselves license to burn people at the stake, on purely, objective and unavoidably "true" grounds.

How come you are SO stupid?

Facts of history speak for themselves.

[Belinda]

"We are programmed----". wrote Peter. What or who programmed?

If somebody or something programmed you ought you to resist this indoctrination at least until you reflect?

I always used " " i.e. "programmed" but Peter lazily omitted the " ".

There is no programmer in terms of an agent.
Humans has loads of "program" within themselves via evolution.
A simple program code is like,
"if X then do Y."

Examples,
if low on nutrition, then trigger hunger,
if hungry, then hunt for food,
if cold, then trigger shivering
there would likely be 100 of thousands maybe in millions of 'if- then' codes either singularly or in combinations.

Surely you are not disputing the above and as such the term "programmed" in " " is very appropriate because the "program" is already embedded in humans since millions years ago.

That, VA, is partly what my complaint is about. When the idea of 'programmed' is raised the speaker should say whether he means programmed by natural selection , programmed by the culture in general, or programmed by individual(s). The passive voice cannot be explicit and explaining is what the active voice is for.

[henry quirk]

This business of showing moral objectivists why they're wrong has a lurid fascination for me...they're all strangely addicted to - and dazzled by - the idea that there are moral facts

you're luridly fascinated; we're addicted and dazzled

we all got our crosses to bear


They're just too dangerous.

that's what we say about you anti-realists

To be specific it is anti-moral-realists.
Anti-realists in other philosophical perspectives and contexts are not dangerous.

In your case as a moral realist within moral intuitionism, you accept the moral fact and standard , i.e. "no human ought to enslave humans" [re chattel slavery].

On the other hand, Peter Holmes and Sculptor stand are,
"humans can enslave humans"

Now we can see who are the ones who are a danger to humanity.

well, it's actually a two-parter, VA...

a man belongs to himself so it's wrong to treat him as property

there's the fact (a man belongs to himself); there's the moral fact (it's wrong to make a slave of a man)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope, morality is not PRIMARILY about judgment regarding the right or wrong of human behavior.

Morality is about how human ought to act which will contribute to the objectives of the well being of the individuals and that of humanity.

As such how one ought to act must be in alignment with "what in fact" ought to be acted upon to meet the above objectives.
The determination of "what in fact" is recognized and realized within a Moral Framework and System.

.... 'no human ought to kill another' is not a moral judgment, but a confirmation that it is a moral fact which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. This is not a process of moral judgment.

The moral fact exists within a moral framework which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable.
Morality is thus about how humans naturally ought to act in alignment with the ought-not-to or ought-to of these inherent moral facts.

Take for example the moral fact within the moral framework,
'no human should enslave humans' [say chattel].
this is a natural moral fact within the human DNA, brain/mind and the whole human psyche.

Humans can made all sorts of moral judgments and moral disputes surrounding the issue of slavery.
But the intrinsic inherent moral fact [state of ought-not-to] will unfold its potential as it has been doing over >50,000 or more regardless of what humans' moral judgment about slavery.
Note the trend of evident progress in slavery over the last 50,000 years within humanity.

The processes of verification, justification, testing, repeating the tests empirically and philosophically are merely to recognize and realize the existence of the intrinsic moral fact of human nature for the related knowledge and potential to expedite the processes.

1 The choice of goal - say, well-being - is subjective. It's not a fact that we should pursue well-being.

2 What ultimately constitutes well-being is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective.

3 That an action is consistent with a goal can be a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective.

4 That a moral assertion is consistent with a goal does not confer factual status on the moral assertion.

I hope that's all from me. Enough said. More than.

LOL... your above is laughable.
Upon the sighting of the term 'well being' you jumped into your blabbering, ignoring the context of my post.

The term 'well-being' is a VERY loose term.

In my post, the term 'well-being' in context is related to moral facts of which the examples I listed are related to killing/murder and slavery.
If a person is killed as in murder there is the end of well-being for the person.
If a normal person is enslaved as a chattel-slave by another human, obviously his well-being [in terms of freedom] is compromised.
The above usage of well-being in relation to the moral facts are applicable to ALL humans, thus objective.

In addition, the above whilst applicable initially to the individuals is extended to humanity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe you are ignorant of what is morality-proper and moral realism.

What you beleive is of no importance.
If you applied yourself more to reason and evidence and less to wish fulfilment you might equip yourself with some of the skills necessary to understand what every one here is telling you.

What I believe is justified from the contents of your posts.

Every one??
It is only you, Peter Holmes, Pantflasher [only 3] having the same moral anti-realist stance that opposed my stance on moral realism.
You are merely insulting and making yourself stupid [literally] with the above lie.

In contrast to your 3-gang members, note I hinted,
In a survey, 56% of >1000 philosophers agree with me in principles.
Survey: 56% of Philosophers Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30893

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes like the black beasts of the church, they will end up giving themselves license to burn people at the stake, on purely, objective and unavoidably "true" grounds.

How come you are SO stupid?

Facts of history speak for themselves.

What are you talking about??
You accuse me [my moral stance] like the black beasts of the Church,
where is your evidence to support your claim.
As usual you are lying.

[Atla]

I believe you are ignorant of what is morality-proper and moral realism.

What you beleive is of no importance.
If you applied yourself more to reason and evidence and less to wish fulfilment you might equip yourself with some of the skills necessary to understand what every one here is telling you.

What I believe is justified from the contents of your posts.

Every one??
It is only you, Peter Holmes, Pantflasher [only 3] having the same moral anti-realist stance that opposed my stance on moral realism.
You are merely insulting and making yourself stupid [literally] with the above lie.

In contrast to your 3-gang members, note I hinted,
In a survey, 56% of >1000 philosophers agree with me in principles.
Survey: 56% of Philosophers Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30893

You know those philosophers have to make a living right, coming up with nonsense? And among the moral realists, we usually have all the religious ones too, who think that God issues the moral laws.

Also the same survey showed:

Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?
Accept or lean toward: Platonism 366 / 931 (39.3%)
Accept or lean toward: nominalism 351 / 931 (37.7%)

Even though it's obvious that Platonists are wishful idiots.

[Sculptor]

I believe you are ignorant of what is morality-proper and moral realism.

What you beleive is of no importance.
If you applied yourself more to reason and evidence and less to wish fulfilment you might equip yourself with some of the skills necessary to understand what every one here is telling you.

What I believe is justified from the contents of your posts.

Every one??

Well no one agrees with you. And all valid objections are ignored by yourself.
Think it over.

[Sculptor]

How come you are SO stupid?

Facts of history speak for themselves.

What are you talking about??
You accuse me [my moral stance] like the black beasts of the Church,
where is your evidence to support your claim.
As usual you are lying.

Open a book for once in your life.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Nope, morality is not PRIMARILY about judgment regarding the right or wrong of human behavior.

Morality is about how human ought to act which will contribute to the objectives of the well being of the individuals and that of humanity.

As such how one ought to act must be in alignment with "what in fact" ought to be acted upon to meet the above objectives.
The determination of "what in fact" is recognized and realized within a Moral Framework and System.

.... 'no human ought to kill another' is not a moral judgment, but a confirmation that it is a moral fact which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. This is not a process of moral judgment.

The moral fact exists within a moral framework which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable.
Morality is thus about how humans naturally ought to act in alignment with the ought-not-to or ought-to of these inherent moral facts.

Take for example the moral fact within the moral framework,
'no human should enslave humans' [say chattel].
this is a natural moral fact within the human DNA, brain/mind and the whole human psyche.

Humans can made all sorts of moral judgments and moral disputes surrounding the issue of slavery.
But the intrinsic inherent moral fact [state of ought-not-to] will unfold its potential as it has been doing over >50,000 or more regardless of what humans' moral judgment about slavery.
Note the trend of evident progress in slavery over the last 50,000 years within humanity.

The processes of verification, justification, testing, repeating the tests empirically and philosophically are merely to recognize and realize the existence of the intrinsic moral fact of human nature for the related knowledge and potential to expedite the processes.
1 The choice of goal - say, well-being - is subjective. It's not a fact that we should pursue well-being.

2 What ultimately constitutes well-being is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective.

3 That an action is consistent with a goal can be a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective.

4 That a moral assertion is consistent with a goal does not confer factual status on the moral assertion.

I hope that's all from me. Enough said. More than.

Neither Peter or Veritas has it right. 'Morality' is a term that is defined by its use in talk between persons.
Moral codes and moral frameworks by contrast can be identified by what's in them.

Any moral framework is like any framework including those of natural sciences, and is defined by theory and method. As such the moral framework can and does change as and when culture of belief changes.

[Sculptor]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Nope, morality is not PRIMARILY about judgment regarding the right or wrong of human behavior.

Morality is about how human ought to act which will contribute to the objectives of the well being of the individuals and that of humanity.

As such how one ought to act must be in alignment with "what in fact" ought to be acted upon to meet the above objectives.
The determination of "what in fact" is recognized and realized within a Moral Framework and System.

.... 'no human ought to kill another' is not a moral judgment, but a confirmation that it is a moral fact which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. This is not a process of moral judgment.

The moral fact exists within a moral framework which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable.
Morality is thus about how humans naturally ought to act in alignment with the ought-not-to or ought-to of these inherent moral facts.

Take for example the moral fact within the moral framework,
'no human should enslave humans' [say chattel].
this is a natural moral fact within the human DNA, brain/mind and the whole human psyche.

Humans can made all sorts of moral judgments and moral disputes surrounding the issue of slavery.
But the intrinsic inherent moral fact [state of ought-not-to] will unfold its potential as it has been doing over >50,000 or more regardless of what humans' moral judgment about slavery.
Note the trend of evident progress in slavery over the last 50,000 years within humanity.

The processes of verification, justification, testing, repeating the tests empirically and philosophically are merely to recognize and realize the existence of the intrinsic moral fact of human nature for the related knowledge and potential to expedite the processes.
1 The choice of goal - say, well-being - is subjective. It's not a fact that we should pursue well-being.

2 What ultimately constitutes well-being is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective.

3 That an action is consistent with a goal can be a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective.

4 That a moral assertion is consistent with a goal does not confer factual status on the moral assertion.

I hope that's all from me. Enough said. More than.

Neither Peter or Veritas has it right. 'Morality' is a term that is defined by its use in talk between persons.
Moral codes and moral frameworks by contrast can be identified by what's in them.

Any moral framework is like any framework including those of natural sciences, and is defined by theory and method. As such the moral framework can and does change as and when culture of belief changes.

You three need to get a room.
You can't tell people they are wrong when your statements overlap.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Neither Peter or Veritas has it right. 'Morality' is a term that is defined by its use in talk between persons.

Since there are 7+ billion persons on Earth, then there could be billions of definition of what is 'Morality'.

Point is whatever is spoken as 'morality' by the billion person, there are standards and patterns of concepts which represent what "morality" is.
What morality is can only be traceable to moral facts that represent what morality-is.

Thus my earlier point;

• Morality is about how human ought to act which will contribute to the objectives of the well being of the individuals and that of humanity.
  
  As such how one ought to act must be in alignment with "what in fact" ought to be acted upon to meet the above objectives.
  The determination of "what in fact" is recognized and realized within a Moral Framework and System.
  
  .... 'no human ought to kill another' is not a moral judgment, but a confirmation that it is a moral fact which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. This is not a process of moral judgment.
  
  The moral fact exists within a moral framework which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable.
  Morality is thus about how humans naturally ought to act in alignment with the ought-not-to or ought-to of these inherent moral facts.

Show me where my above is wrong?

Moral codes and moral frameworks by contrast can be identified by what's in them.

Any moral framework is like any framework including those of natural sciences, and is defined by theory and method. As such the moral framework can and does change as and when culture of belief changes.

Agree with the above which confirm what is morality is dealt within its specific moral framework.
This is like what is scientific is dealt within its specific scientific framework.

A proper moral framework is generic to ALL humans and will not change easily and in a short span of time.
Those 'moral framework' that change with culture of beliefs are the pseudo ones, e.g. tribal, specific cultural traditions, divinity, etc.

[Peter Holmes]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Nope, morality is not PRIMARILY about judgment regarding the right or wrong of human behavior.

Morality is about how human ought to act which will contribute to the objectives of the well being of the individuals and that of humanity.

As such how one ought to act must be in alignment with "what in fact" ought to be acted upon to meet the above objectives.
The determination of "what in fact" is recognized and realized within a Moral Framework and System.

.... 'no human ought to kill another' is not a moral judgment, but a confirmation that it is a moral fact which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. This is not a process of moral judgment.

The moral fact exists within a moral framework which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable.
Morality is thus about how humans naturally ought to act in alignment with the ought-not-to or ought-to of these inherent moral facts.

Take for example the moral fact within the moral framework,
'no human should enslave humans' [say chattel].
this is a natural moral fact within the human DNA, brain/mind and the whole human psyche.

Humans can made all sorts of moral judgments and moral disputes surrounding the issue of slavery.
But the intrinsic inherent moral fact [state of ought-not-to] will unfold its potential as it has been doing over >50,000 or more regardless of what humans' moral judgment about slavery.
Note the trend of evident progress in slavery over the last 50,000 years within humanity.

The processes of verification, justification, testing, repeating the tests empirically and philosophically are merely to recognize and realize the existence of the intrinsic moral fact of human nature for the related knowledge and potential to expedite the processes.
1 The choice of goal - say, well-being - is subjective. It's not a fact that we should pursue well-being.

2 What ultimately constitutes well-being is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective.

3 That an action is consistent with a goal can be a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective.

4 That a moral assertion is consistent with a goal does not confer factual status on the moral assertion.

I hope that's all from me. Enough said. More than.

Neither Peter or Veritas has it right. 'Morality' is a term that is defined by its use in talk between persons.
Moral codes and moral frameworks by contrast can be identified by what's in them.

Any moral framework is like any framework including those of natural sciences, and is defined by theory and method. As such the moral framework can and does change as and when culture of belief changes.

You three need to get a room.
You can't tell people they are wrong when your statements overlap.

I protest unfair characterisation. The attribution above went wrong. Only the numbered points and following sentence are mine.

I agree with Belinda that words, such as morality, can mean only what we use them to mean - so there's an 'overlap'. (Meanwhile, this is why the claim that what we call knowledge, truth, facts and therefore objectivity aren't what we say they are - that claim designed to undermine the distinction between factual and non-factual assertions - is false.)

And we agree that morality is a cultural and historical phenomenon. Descriptive moral relativism is obviously correct.

But that 'moral codes and moral frameworks by contrast [with the use of words?] can be identified by what's in them' seems to me true but irrelevant - and not coherently a contrast anyway.

I reject all claims for moral realism, and therefore moral objectivity, as unsupported by evidence and inferentially unsound. No room required, thanks.

[Sculptor]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:


Neither Peter or Veritas has it right. 'Morality' is a term that is defined by its use in talk between persons.
Moral codes and moral frameworks by contrast can be identified by what's in them.

Any moral framework is like any framework including those of natural sciences, and is defined by theory and method. As such the moral framework can and does change as and when culture of belief changes.

You three need to get a room.
You can't tell people they are wrong when your statements overlap.

I protest unfair characterisation. The attribution above went wrong. Only the numbered points and following sentence are mine.

I agree with Belinda that words, such as morality, can mean only what we use them to mean - so there's an 'overlap'. (Meanwhile, this is why the claim that what we call knowledge, truth, facts and therefore objectivity aren't what we say they are - that claim designed to undermine the distinction between factual and non-factual assertions - is false.)

And we agree that morality is a cultural and historical phenomenon. Descriptive moral relativism is obviously correct.

But that 'moral codes and moral frameworks by contrast [with the use of words?] can be identified by what's in them' seems to me true but irrelevant - and not coherently a contrast anyway.

I reject all claims for moral realism, and therefore moral objectivity, as unsupported by evidence and inferentially unsound. No room required, thanks.

But she does not get to say this: "Neither Peter or Veritas has it right.(1) 'Morality' is a term that is defined by its use in talk between persons.
(2)Moral codes and moral frameworks by contrast can be identified by what's in them."
Since point 1 is obvious enough, and no one is denying that, and point 1 is just an empty platitude.
She then goes on to state your own (and my claim) that morals are changable - and therefore not objective.
But the whole debate is now clouded in mystery. Not only are people not listening to each other, they (or at least Veritas) is not listening to themselves.
When he says "Nope, morality is not PRIMARILY about judgment regarding the right or wrong of human behavior.
Morality is about how human ought to act which will contribute to the objectives of the well being of the individuals and that of humanity."
He's shooting himself in the foot.
What really amused my was this one:

"Survey: 56% of Philosophers Accept Moral Realism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30893"

This is thigh slappingly funny. Since the 56% is only accept or "LEAN TOWARDS", the idea that, and I quote from the original survey,; "ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world."
Well duh, "refer to objective features". Not "find objective rules, or demand objective morals", or anything like it.
It demonstrates Veritas' utter desperation to find someone out there that might support his wild claims.
Even purely subjective moral rules can "refer to" objective features of the world.
If I state that killing can be right or wrong, depending on the circumstances, I have to refer to the state of death which is pretty objective.
Veritas is worst that just a moral realist. Being a moral obejectivist is ignoring some of the most basic facts of the world.