What is Philosophical Objectivity?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Fatuous claim: murder is immoral - prove me wrong.

No one can prove a moral assertion is true or false, right or wrong - because it isn't one or the other. It can't be verified of falsified, because it doesn't make a truth-claim about reality.

But the egotistical rage of moral realists and objectivists is inexhaustible.

Your above exudes ignorance, shallow, narrow, dogmatic and bigoted impulses.
You have this cow-sense of what is morality-proper.

Note,
within the political and legal FSK,

• 'murder [as enacted] is legally wrong, thus,
  not-murdering is legally right.

The above is enforced externally on the individual[s] by the political authority.

If the above is possible, why should it is not possible within a moral FSK, i.e.

• murder is a moral variance, thus
  not-murder is a moral compliance,
  against the moral standard represented by the justified moral fact,
  'no human ought to kill humans'

The above is NOT enforced on any individual externally but driven the individual's inherent conscience and moral self-development.

[Scott Mayers]

I believe the confusion regarding 'what is objectivity' is many are so brainwashed to relate objectivity to objects or physical things.

My above explanation above represent what Philosophical Objectivity essentially is.

Note Philosophical Objectivity has nothing to do with Ayn Rand's Objectivism or objectivity in the News and reporters.

Objectivity requires two or more people or it is simply 'subjective'. Realistically speaking, there is no 'object' observed without the 'subject' who observes. You are apparently trying to associate the observer as the 'object' and 'subject' without differentiating. And furthermore, without that 'objectivity' of Ayn Rand's or whatever that which news reporters are expected to have, you are also divorcing yourself from the meaning as it relates to science.

Other people are as much 'objects' also and so 'objectivity' is only a function of the social acceptance based upon AGREED observations and interpretations. This is why I use 'politics' to define reference to 'science' versus 'logic' that CAN be used independently and doesn't need conformity to presume your sensations 'true' apriori.

You just treat the INPUT sensations as symbolic representations AFTER you have them in memory so that you can attempt to 'measure' two or more of them and then draw a conclusion that you can OUTPUT as some resultant behavior. No input data is 'objective' to anyone BUT yourself. So while you can assimilate the subjective experience as also 'objective' TO YOU, it cannot later be used to EXTEND this to a conclusive rationale ABOUT the outside world. All you can do is to discuss 'logical' processes that others CAN borrow to experiment on their own ABOUT logic itself. [And why I stick to 'logic' to argue with philosophically]

For instance, you are trying to find something 'morally objective'. But this can ONLY be referenced to what one internally defines themselves as to what they believe is or is not good for them subjectively. Then you cannot speak about PARTICULAR 'objects of value' except as variables defined by any subject who fills in those variables with their own 'constants'. Thus, I see that you are making an error of assuming you can prove PARTICULAR (and Universal) 'constants' about values that are intrinsically 'variable' and never 'constant' EXCEPT for you as a subject. All you can do is to speak about 'values' absent the particular meanings in the same way as logic treats the inputs as 'variables'.

If you are wanting some kind of apriori type of argument about 'constant morals' you believe are shared universally, all you can deal with are those constants that are already pre-agreed among others who you are discussing them with. For me, I stick to concepts like 'nothingness' apriori which CAN be imagined as a constant universally. [It is the complement to 'somethingness', logically.] And given ANY subject who CAN sense (that 'sentient' being referred to in your link), they can at least understand things like 'something' or 'nothing' as values. Moral values however relate to actions and consequences if they are to be 'objectively' agreed upon as something constant. This is not logical except where both values of good/bad are treated as indeterminately one concept, namely, a variable only.

[Peter Holmes]

Fatuous claim: murder is immoral - prove me wrong.

No one can prove a moral assertion is true or false, right or wrong - because it isn't one or the other. It can't be verified of falsified, because it doesn't make a truth-claim about reality.

But the egotistical rage of moral realists and objectivists is inexhaustible.

Your above exudes ignorance, shallow, narrow, dogmatic and bigoted impulses.
You have this cow-sense of what is morality-proper.

Note,
within the political and legal FSK,

• 'murder [as enacted] is legally wrong, thus,
  not-murdering is legally right.

The above is enforced externally on the individual[s] by the political authority.

If the above is possible, why should it is not possible within a moral FSK, i.e.

• murder is a moral variance, thus
  not-murder is a moral compliance,
  against the moral standard represented by the justified moral fact,
  'no human ought to kill humans'

The above is NOT enforced on any individual externally but driven the individual's inherent conscience and moral self-development.

There can be a framework and system of knowledge (FSK) only if there's something in reality that can be known. So inventing a so-called moral FSK does nothing to demonstrate the existence of moral facts.

You never tire of insisting moral facts must be empirically and philosophically justified 'within' the moral FSK. But you never actually do it. And that's because you can't. The claim is incoherent. There are no moral things analogous to, say, the chemical composition of water - things which actually exist.

We can't empirically test for the moral rightness or wrongness of X, in the way that we can empirically test the chemical composition of water. So the claim that X is morally right or wrong isn't factual.

[Sculptor]

If it by me personally, then yes, that would be a subjective.

YES. Thanks for admitting it.
You did chose them.

How come you are so ignorant?
Did you read the big If?

You chose them.
Case closed

[Skepdick]

So instead of murder being wrong because people say so, murder is wrong because you say so.

The whole "there is no 'because'" is clearly going over your head.
You are muddying the water between facts and the linguistic expression of facts; and you end up confuckulating cause and effect.

When you are thirsty your thirst isn't the result of you uttering the sentence "I am thirsty". It's the thirst which causes the utterance.

Murder was wrong before anybody said it.

It's because murder was (and is) wrong is why we invented jurisprudence; and why we defined/outlawed murder; and why we invented the words "murder", "wrong" and why we say things like "murder is wrong".

[tillingborn]

So instead of murder being wrong because people say so, murder is wrong because you say so.

The whole "there is no 'because'" is clearly going over your head.

You can tell that from our conversation so far?

[Skepdick]

So instead of murder being wrong because people say so, murder is wrong because you say so.

The whole "there is no 'because'" is clearly going over your head.

You can tell that from our conversation so far?

You can't?

[tillingborn]

Talk to Walker.

[Skepdick]

Talk to Walker.

Monkeys randomly bashing keyboards can produce better ideas than Walker.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For instance, you are trying to find something 'morally objective'.
But this can ONLY be referenced to what one internally defines themselves as to what they believe is or is not good for them subjectively.
Then you cannot speak about PARTICULAR 'objects of value' except as variables defined by any subject who fills in those variables with their own 'constants'.

Thus, I see that you are making an error of assuming you can prove PARTICULAR (and Universal) 'constants' about values that are intrinsically 'variable' and never 'constant' EXCEPT for you as a subject.

All you can do is to speak about 'values' absent the particular meanings in the same way as logic treats the inputs as 'variables'.

Your above is a straw-man, thus is wrong on how I viewed 'something' as morally objective.

Note my points;

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

What are moral facts has nothing to do with variables [good for them] defined by any subject.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Fatuous claim: murder is immoral - prove me wrong.

No one can prove a moral assertion is true or false, right or wrong - because it isn't one or the other. It can't be verified of falsified, because it doesn't make a truth-claim about reality.

But the egotistical rage of moral realists and objectivists is inexhaustible.

Your above exudes ignorance, shallow, narrow, dogmatic and bigoted impulses.
You have this cow-sense of what is morality-proper.

Note,
within the political and legal FSK,

• 'murder [as enacted] is legally wrong, thus,
  not-murdering is legally right.

The above is enforced externally on the individual[s] by the political authority.

If the above is possible, why should it is not possible within a moral FSK, i.e.

• murder is a moral variance, thus
  not-murder is a moral compliance,
  against the moral standard represented by the justified moral fact,
  'no human ought to kill humans'

The above is NOT enforced on any individual externally but driven the individual's inherent conscience and moral self-development.

There can be a framework and system of knowledge (FSK) only if there's something in reality that can be known.
So inventing a so-called moral FSK does nothing to demonstrate the existence of moral facts.

You seem to have missed the critical point I explained above?

Are you sure "there is something in reality that can be known" or "even a reality that can be known" in the absolute sense.

Even Science the most reliable FSK do not make the above claim.
The scientific FSK merely ASSUME there is something ultimate in reality that can be known and an objective reality out there.
What science is doing is merely verifying, justifying and inferring from empirical evidences there is something real without 100% certainty of its claim.

The scientific FSK is established and maintained by humans via its implied constitutions and actual processes, and other requirements.

So what is the issue with the establishment of a moral FSK which is similar to the scientific FSK?

You never tire of insisting moral facts must be empirically and philosophically justified 'within' the moral FSK. But you never actually do it. And that's because you can't. The claim is incoherent. There are no moral things analogous to, say, the chemical composition of water - things which actually exist.

I have done that a '1000' times, it is just that you are so ignorant, habituated [drugged] with your confirmation bias, dogmatism, bigotry and all sorts of negativities, that you are unable to cognize what I have presented. Note, not seeing the 500 pounds gorilla right in front of you.

We can't empirically test for the moral rightness or wrongness of X, in the way that we can empirically test the chemical composition of water. So the claim that X is morally right or wrong isn't factual.

Each type of fact is FSK specific, e.g. the Chemistry FSK is not applicable to the Physics FSK
You are so ignorant to conflate the chemistry FSK with the moral FSK.

We can empirically tests actual moral behaviors against moral standards [justified moral facts] to determine the moral variance and that is factual.

The moral FSK can be macro and micro.
On the micro basis, you already have some semblance of it, i.e. that is why you don't have a moral variance in killing other humans because you have an inherent moral standard of 'ought not to kill other humans' existing as a fact within your brain/mind, body and self.

[Peter Holmes]

Your above exudes ignorance, shallow, narrow, dogmatic and bigoted impulses.
You have this cow-sense of what is morality-proper.

Note,
within the political and legal FSK,

• 'murder [as enacted] is legally wrong, thus,
  not-murdering is legally right.

The above is enforced externally on the individual[s] by the political authority.

If the above is possible, why should it is not possible within a moral FSK, i.e.

• murder is a moral variance, thus
  not-murder is a moral compliance,
  against the moral standard represented by the justified moral fact,
  'no human ought to kill humans'

The above is NOT enforced on any individual externally but driven the individual's inherent conscience and moral self-development.

There can be a framework and system of knowledge (FSK) only if there's something in reality that can be known.
So inventing a so-called moral FSK does nothing to demonstrate the existence of moral facts.

You seem to have missed the critical point I explained above?

Are you sure "there is something in reality that can be known" or "even a reality that can be known" in the absolute sense.

Even Science the most reliable FSK do not make the above claim.
The scientific FSK merely ASSUME there is something ultimate in reality that can be known and an objective reality out there.
What science is doing is merely verifying, justifying and inferring from empirical evidences there is something real without 100% certainty of its claim.

The scientific FSK is established and maintained by humans via its implied constitutions and actual processes, and other requirements.

So what is the issue with the establishment of a moral FSK which is similar to the scientific FSK?

You never tire of insisting moral facts must be empirically and philosophically justified 'within' the moral FSK. But you never actually do it. And that's because you can't. The claim is incoherent. There are no moral things analogous to, say, the chemical composition of water - things which actually exist.

I have done that a '1000' times, it is just that you are so ignorant, habituated [drugged] with your confirmation bias, dogmatism, bigotry and all sorts of negativities, that you are unable to cognize what I have presented. Note, not seeing the 500 pounds gorilla right in front of you.

We can't empirically test for the moral rightness or wrongness of X, in the way that we can empirically test the chemical composition of water. So the claim that X is morally right or wrong isn't factual.

Each type of fact is FSK specific, e.g. the Chemistry FSK is not applicable to the Physics FSK
You are so ignorant to conflate the chemistry FSK with the moral FSK.

We can empirically tests actual moral behaviors against moral standards [justified moral facts] to determine the moral variance and that is factual.

The moral FSK can be macro and micro.
On the micro basis, you already have some semblance of it, i.e. that is why you don't have a moral variance in killing other humans because you have an inherent moral standard of 'ought not to kill other humans' existing as a fact within your brain/mind, body and self.

I'm able to cognize what you've presented, and it's crap.

I don't 'conflate' the chemistry FSK with the moral FSK. THERE IS NO MORAL FSK. And that's because there are no moral facts.

Yes, we can empirically test for behavioral consistency with a moral standard. But to call that subjectively chosen moral standard a 'justified moral fact' begs the whole question.

Nul point.

[Scott Mayers]

For instance, you are trying to find something 'morally objective'.
But this can ONLY be referenced to what one internally defines themselves as to what they believe is or is not good for them subjectively.
Then you cannot speak about PARTICULAR 'objects of value' except as variables defined by any subject who fills in those variables with their own 'constants'.

Thus, I see that you are making an error of assuming you can prove PARTICULAR (and Universal) 'constants' about values that are intrinsically 'variable' and never 'constant' EXCEPT for you as a subject.

All you can do is to speak about 'values' absent the particular meanings in the same way as logic treats the inputs as 'variables'.

Your above is a straw-man, thus is wrong on how I viewed 'something' as morally objective.

Note my points;

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

What are moral facts has nothing to do with variables [good for them] defined by any subject.

It is expected of those asserting some fallacy to explain how and why it is such, not merely state it as though it suffices to declare. I did not set up anything that apparently hit home with you (or you would have expanded upon what error you think I made.)

Adding the term, "fact" to your "Moral Facts" doesn't make the concept elible to be about 'facts'. It begs the points I have in question. Morals are NOT 'facts' other than as statements about people's variable opinions. A 'fact' is a "constant". I interpret morals as "variables" relative to subjective perception of 'value' with respect to them (ie, 'good to me' versus 'bad to me'). "Facts about morals" would be more appropriate if it is your intent to discuss THAT people have specific claims of appropriate behavior.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There can be a framework and system of knowledge (FSK) only if there's something in reality that can be known.
So inventing a so-called moral FSK does nothing to demonstrate the existence of moral facts.

You seem to have missed the critical point I explained above?

Are you sure "there is something in reality that can be known" or "even a reality that can be known" in the absolute sense.

Even Science the most reliable FSK do not make the above claim.
The scientific FSK merely ASSUME there is something ultimate in reality that can be known and an objective reality out there.
What science is doing is merely verifying, justifying and inferring from empirical evidences there is something real without 100% certainty of its claim.

The scientific FSK is established and maintained by humans via its implied constitutions and actual processes, and other requirements.

So what is the issue with the establishment of a moral FSK which is similar to the scientific FSK?

You never tire of insisting moral facts must be empirically and philosophically justified 'within' the moral FSK. But you never actually do it. And that's because you can't. The claim is incoherent. There are no moral things analogous to, say, the chemical composition of water - things which actually exist.

I have done that a '1000' times, it is just that you are so ignorant, habituated [drugged] with your confirmation bias, dogmatism, bigotry and all sorts of negativities, that you are unable to cognize what I have presented. Note, not seeing the 500 pounds gorilla right in front of you.

We can't empirically test for the moral rightness or wrongness of X, in the way that we can empirically test the chemical composition of water. So the claim that X is morally right or wrong isn't factual.

Each type of fact is FSK specific, e.g. the Chemistry FSK is not applicable to the Physics FSK
You are so ignorant to conflate the chemistry FSK with the moral FSK.

We can empirically tests actual moral behaviors against moral standards [justified moral facts] to determine the moral variance and that is factual.

The moral FSK can be macro and micro.
On the micro basis, you already have some semblance of it, i.e. that is why you don't have a moral variance in killing other humans because you have an inherent moral standard of 'ought not to kill other humans' existing as a fact within your brain/mind, body and self.

I'm able to cognize what you've presented, and it's crap.

I don't 'conflate' the chemistry FSK with the moral FSK. THERE IS NO MORAL FSK. And that's because there are no moral facts.

Yes, we can empirically test for behavioral consistency with a moral standard. But to call that subjectively chosen moral standard a 'justified moral fact' begs the whole question.

Nul point.

How come you are so ignorant?

The theistic moral approach is a moral framework and system.

So is the Platonist moralists with their moral FSK.

The other moral FSK are that of the deontologists, the Utilitarianist, the consequentialists, the tribal moralists, and any groups that has a set of moral principles.

What is a Moral System?
http://sites.stedwards.edu/ursery/class ... al-system/

An moral system is a system of coherent, systematic, and reasonable principles, rules, ideals, and values which work to form one’s overall perspective.
Not just any rules, of course, but moral values?

Each one of you has a moral system to some extent although most probably do not have an ethical system.

In your justification or argumentative essay you are asked to choose an ethical system (for example, utilitarian ethics, Kantian ethics, etc.) and to use that system in your essay to defend your moral rule or system.

In order to satisfactory do this, you need to understand what a moral system is.
Your moral system is your morality.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that not all moral system are equally good any more than all opinions are equally good.

The following is a dialogue, carried on by two half-baked ethicists, concerning the nature of a moral system.
.....

Adding the term 'framework' to a moral system makes it more encompassing with other relevant features which strengthen the moral system.

How come you are so ignorant of the above, which justify my critique of your philosophical competence which is very kindergartenish.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For instance, you are trying to find something 'morally objective'.
But this can ONLY be referenced to what one internally defines themselves as to what they believe is or is not good for them subjectively.
Then you cannot speak about PARTICULAR 'objects of value' except as variables defined by any subject who fills in those variables with their own 'constants'.

Thus, I see that you are making an error of assuming you can prove PARTICULAR (and Universal) 'constants' about values that are intrinsically 'variable' and never 'constant' EXCEPT for you as a subject.

All you can do is to speak about 'values' absent the particular meanings in the same way as logic treats the inputs as 'variables'.

Your above is a straw-man, thus is wrong on how I viewed 'something' as morally objective.

Note my points;

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

What are moral facts has nothing to do with variables [good for them] defined by any subject.

It is expected of those asserting some fallacy to explain how and why it is such, not merely state it as though it suffices to declare. I did not set up anything that apparently hit home with you (or you would have expanded upon what error you think I made.)

Adding the term, "fact" to your "Moral Facts" doesn't make the concept elible to be about 'facts'. It begs the points I have in question.

Morals are NOT 'facts' other than as statements about people's variable opinions.
A 'fact' is a "constant".
I interpret morals as "variables" relative to subjective perception of 'value' with respect to them (ie, 'good to me' versus 'bad to me').

"Facts about morals" would be more appropriate if it is your intent to discuss THAT people have specific claims of appropriate behavior.

You don't have a good grasp of what is morality in general.

Scott: "Morals are NOT 'facts' other than as statements about people's variable opinions."
I believe you did not read the OP thoroughly.

Note I stated therein,
ii. Facts are objective, i.e. - i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and belief

What are moral facts is they are universal and generic to ALL humans.
To qualify as Justified True Moral Beliefs, they must be justified and verified empirically and philosophically from within a moral framework and system.
I have already done that a '1000' times in various thread in this section - will not be repeating the explanations.