What is Constructivism? Common Denominators

[Veritas Aequitas]

"he murdered someone" is objective.

"We should put him in jail because he murdered someone" is not (although it could be IF you also specified your goals, but goals are subjective).

My principle;
All facts, truth, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific FSK.

"he murdered someone"
If the above is uttered by a person or a loose group of people, then is subjective and not objective [as defined].

If the above [X is a convicted murderer] is an official judgment of a criminal court [legal FSK] then it is objective [as defined].
The degree of objectivity will depend in the credibility and reliability of the legal FSK.

Imagine another legal framework which also uses scientific facts but just has entirely different values. Maybe this legal system sentences people to death for heterosexuality

This legal system, however, has a high bar of scientific evidence before convicting someone of heterosexuality. You have to prove conclusively that this person engaged in heterosexual sex before sentencing them to death.

This legal system is based on evidence that's EVEN MORE scientific than our own legal system. Does that make their legal system more objective? More scientific?

This is a total different scenario.

In terms of objectivity, the above system will have a higher degree of objectivity than one with similar objectives but not relying on solid scientific evidence, e.g. DNA evidence, etc.

But this objectivity re sentences people to death for heterosexuality is not related to morality at all, but rather to evil.
It would be the same if Hitler were to screen for the DNA of all Jews before killing them, thus ensuring greater objectivity and more scientific.

[Flannel Jesus]

But this objectivity re sentences people to death for heterosexuality is not related to morality at all, but rather to evil.

Prove it

[Flannel Jesus]

If humans construct all facts, because facts aren't objectively true independent of humans constructing them, and moral facts are part of those facts that humans construct, then...

why can't a society construct the moral fact that "heterosexuality is impermissible and is bad enough to warrant execution"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

But this objectivity re sentences people to death for heterosexuality is not related to morality at all, but rather to evil.

Prove it

I have gone through this many times re the inherent 'oughtness-not-kill-human' in ALL humans.

What is morality is the elimination of evil to enable its related good.
What is evil is any human act or thoughts that is a net-negative to the well-being of the individual and to humanity towards the preservation of the human species.
Thus the killing on any human or killing those who committed heterosexual acts is an anti-thesis to the above, thus is evil.

[Skepdick]

If humans construct all facts, because facts aren't objectively true independent of humans constructing them, and moral facts are part of those facts that humans construct, then...

why can't a society construct the moral fact that "heterosexuality is impermissible and is bad enough to warrant execution"?

They can.

Why haven't they done it already? Don't know. Ask every human and find out.

[Flannel Jesus]

But this objectivity re sentences people to death for heterosexuality is not related to morality at all, but rather to evil.

Prove it

I have gone through this many times re the inherent 'oughtness-not-kill-human' in ALL humans.

What is morality is the elimination of evil to enable its related good.
What is evil is any human act or thoughts that is a net-negative to the well-being of the individual and to humanity towards the preservation of the human species.
Thus the killing on any human or killing those who committed heterosexual acts is an anti-thesis to the above, thus is evil.

So there seems to be some sort of force limiting what sorts of facts humans can construct. They can't just construct any ol' fact. They can construct some facts but not others. Right? Not all ideas can be constructed into facts, apparently.

[Skepdick]

So there seems to be some sort of force limiting what sorts of facts humans can construct. They can't just construct any ol' fact. They can construct some facts but not others. Right?

Desire? Lack thereof? Getting bored with the idea? Political opposition? Social rejection?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If humans construct all facts, because facts aren't objectively true independent of humans constructing them, and moral facts are part of those facts that humans construct, then...

why can't a society construct the moral fact that "heterosexuality is impermissible and is bad enough to warrant execution"?

You are going to wayward off in defining terms as you like it on a arbitrary basis.

The above related to evil not moral-good.

[Flannel Jesus]

If humans construct all facts, because facts aren't objectively true independent of humans constructing them, and moral facts are part of those facts that humans construct, then...

why can't a society construct the moral fact that "heterosexuality is impermissible and is bad enough to warrant execution"?

You are going to wayward off in defining terms as you like it on a arbitrary basis.

The above related to evil not moral-good.

I'm not going wayward, I'm extremely focused.

[Skepdick]

I'm not going wayward, I'm extremely focused.

So focused you keep missing the forest fore the trees.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Prove it

I have gone through this many times re the inherent 'oughtness-not-kill-human' in ALL humans.

What is morality is the elimination of evil to enable its related good.
What is evil is any human act or thoughts that is a net-negative to the well-being of the individual and to humanity towards the preservation of the human species.
Thus the killing on any human or killing those who committed heterosexual acts is an anti-thesis to the above, thus is evil.

So there seems to be some sort of force limiting what sorts of facts humans can construct. They can't just construct any ol' fact. They can construct some facts but not others. Right? Not all ideas can be constructed into facts, apparently.

The principle is,
all facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific FSK, i.e. the main point is they cannot be absolutely independent of the human mind or human conditions.

Whether they are consciously or unconsciously 'constructed', emerged spontaneously, etc. is secondary to the issue in this case.

[Flannel Jesus]

It's not secondary to me. It's central. There's something apparently stopping people from constructing some facts and enabling them to construct other facts.

And even if an entire society in unison believes some particular idea, they still can't construct that fact.

This is pretty notable here. If humans construct all facts, why can humans construct some facts but not others? What is it stopping them from constructing any fact they want?

[Iwannaplato]

In principle [without consideration of the specifics],
In my case, I am claiming the objectivity my human-based moral FSK is very close to that of the human-based scientific FSK because all of its major inputs are [scientific facts] from the science-FSK.

That doesn't make something objective nor a science.

You don't have a minimum word count to achieve, you don't have to say "human based" every time. Obviously all of the knowledge we're discussing here was obtained by humans as opposed to, say, birds, crustaceans, or aliens. It really goes without saying.

He's being disingenous.....

I agree it would be clearer if I give examples to illustrate the workings of the principles, but at this point, relying in the principles are sufficient.
Note I am not banking on the concept of empathy and mirror neurons as the main point for my arguments, there are many elements [neural and others] of morality that can be justified via the scientific FSK.

1) He was banking on this for years. Again and again, despite the contradictions being pointed out, he used mirror neurons as the basis of his objectivity. Without EVER acknowledging criticism, he is now dropping mirror neurons as key to his position. Convenient.
2) Here he avoids replacing this with anything because, I think, whatever it would be is vulnerable to precisely the same thing.
3) Note: there is nothing about morality anymore in his argument. He has now taken any piece out of the argument related to morality. It's just a bare claim.

[Skepdick]

And even if an entire society in unison believes some particular idea, they still can't construct that fact.

That's LITERALLY how time works: Today is 17th May 2023 because everybody believes it. In unison.

It's the basis for Jungian synchronicity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's not secondary to me. It's central. There's something apparently stopping people from constructing some facts and enabling them to construct other facts.

And even if an entire society in unison believes some particular idea, they still can't construct that fact.

This is pretty notable here. If humans construct all facts, why can humans construct some facts but not others? What is it stopping them from constructing any fact they want?

You are engaging with some kind of mirroring, picturing and correspondence some pre-existing fact. i.e. typical of philosophical realism which is fundamentally illusory.

Note,
all facts are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.

A fact that cannot be constructed is not a fact per se.
What we called facts are what emerged after it has been processed within the FSK.

Before a FSK fact emerged, we can have ideas, hypothesis but never facts.