What could make morality objective?

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't believe morality is even a vaguely similar thing to gravity

Spare me the rhetoric.

With respect to sufficiency having measurable consequences is a sufficient condition for asserting the objective existence of a phenomenon.
If it's sufficient for gravity, then it's sufficient for morality.

If it's sufficient for one but not the other you need to justify your double standard.

Yet again, your critique has no point because again you are challenging me to justify things which I am not claiming. Morals don't have objective existence.

[Skepdick]

Yet again, your critique has no point because again you are challenging me to justify things which I am not claiming. Morals don't have objective existence.

Look, dickhead. Gravity doesn't have objective existence either. it only has objective effects we attribute to it. That is a sufficient criterion for the objective existence of gravity.

The criterion for objective existence has been set as low as it can go, so when you make the claim that "morals have no objective existence" this amounts to the claiming that morals have no measurable effect on reality.

So what is this thing you believe in that has no causal influence on your or anyone's behavior?

[FlashDangerpants]

Gravity doesn't have objective existence either. it only has objective effects we attribute to it. That is a sufficient criterion for the objective existence of gravity.

Sufficient criterion for objective existence would be existing objectively. Why did you need any of those other sentences?

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, I don't deny it.
If facts are, as you say, polished opinions, then scientific facts are arguably the most polished we produce.

Noted your acceptance.

Scientific facts as polished via the scientific FSK is the most polished opinions [say 80/100 grade].

Note I am claiming the following;
Moral facts as polished via the Moral FSK is the more reasonable polished opinions [say 70/100 grade].

See the point?
What you are blinded and missed out is the FSK factor.

This is where you go wrong. Your argument is this: facts are polished opinions; therefore polished moral opinions are (or can be) facts.

To generalise, this means: all As are B; therefore all Bs are (or can be) A.
And this is a fallacy, if B is a predicate or property of A. 'All houses are dwellings; therefore all dwellings are (or can be) houses.'

So your argument is invalid - leaving aside its unsoundness: what we call facts are not what we call opinions, polished or not. Words can mean only what we use them to mean, and we clearly distinguish between what we call facts and what we call opinions.

You are being rhetorical here and deliberate ignore the critical factor, i.e. the FSK grounding. Note the proper argument,

1. All opinions [conjectures] polished via a credible FSK are facts.
2. Opinions [scientific] are polished via a credible scientific FSK
3. Therefore all scientific facts are polished opinions via a credible scientific FSK.

So for moral opinions;

1. All opinions [conjectures] polished via a credible FSK are facts.
2. Opinions [moral] are polished via a credible moral FSK
3. Therefore all moral facts are polished opinions via a credible moral FSK.

There is nothing wrong with the syllogism above.
The only question you can raised [as mentioned earlier] is whether the moral FSK as claim is credible or not.
I have already explain why the scientific FSK is credible [90/100] and had demonstrated the moral FSK I proposed is of near-credibility [80/100] to that of the scientific FSK.

Re your claims of 'facts' it is what Belinda has insinuated, i.e. you are chasing God-like illusions which are impossible to be real.
As I had explained this is a common and default psychological issue from a cognitive dissonance driven by the inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Point is you are totally ignorant about this fact about yourself as a human being.

This is worse than irrelevant in this context - it's intellectually reprehensible.

Your views above exposed your intellectual bankruptcy.

The survey was carried out by philpapers.org/ managed by David Chalmers.
If the survey is "intellectually reprehensible" the community of philosophers from https://philpapers.org would have raised a hell of a condemnation of the results, but there is no such thing.
So in contrast, your views above ["it's intellectually reprehensible"] exposed your intellectual bankruptcy.

PhilPapers is a comprehensive index and bibliography of philosophy maintained by the community of philosophers. We monitor all sources of research content in philosophy, including journals, books, open access archives, and personal pages maintained by academics. We also host the largest open access archive in philosophy. Our index currently contains 2,630,900 entries categorized in 5,723 categories. PhilPapers has over 290,000 registered users.
https://philpapers.org/

1 Your argument is unsound, because your premise - 'facts are (polished) opinions' - is false, or at least not shown to be true. This is not how we (English speakers) use the words 'fact' and 'opinion'. And words can mean only what we use them to mean. I notice you don't address this point. But, as you know, if even one premise of an argument is false, or at least not shown to be true, the argument collapses.

As usual you are rhetorical and using a strawman.

My premise is

Facts are [polished opinions] resulting from a specific FSK.
You deliberately leave out the FSK factor as I had been reminding you.

Btw, 'Speaker' English or otherwise, has no significance on this issue since one can speak of nonsense, opinions, beliefs and justified knowledge [conditioned upon a specific FSK].

Reminder: Don't leave out the FSK factor again.

2 You insist that the descriptive context (the 'FSK') of what we call a fact is critical. But if all facts are polished opinions, this applies to all descriptive contexts. So your premise is: all facts are polished opinions. The bare condition 'within a descriptive context' is redundant.

There you go again in excluding the FSK factor.
Whatever is descriptive can be nonsense, opinions, beliefs and justified knowledge [conditioned upon a specific FSK].

Whatever is descriptive if produced via a FSK is fact which is on a continuum of credibility depending on the credibility of the FSK.

You are caught in a mess and tangle here due to your Philosophical Realism stance, which again you have ignored and likely unable to grasp the point.

3 But you insist that the descriptive context (the 'FSK') of what we call a fact must be credible. But what makes an FSK credible is the empirical evidence for its factual assertions - which is why the natural sciences are arguably our most reliable FSKs.

True.
If science is the standard of credibility say 99/100, then the rest can be compared to this standard. Example legal facts from court judgments could be rated at 75/100, economic, financial, weather, etc. could be lower than the standard.

4 You claim that morality constitutes a credible FSK, which can therefore produce moral facts. But the so-called empirical evidence (see 3 above) for moral assertions turns out to be either more moral assertions, or facts with no moral implication, such as scientific facts about human physiology. And a so-called FSK with no facts is not an FSK. It's merely a discourse consisting of opinions, polished or otherwise.

I claimed MY [not others, e.g. utilitarianism] proposed Moral FSK is of near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.
My proposed Moral FSK rely heavily on scientific facts from the scientific FSK plus sound philosophical reasonings.
You are missing all my critical points.

Note:

1. ALL Facts are [polished opinions, conjectures] resulting from a specific FSK.
2. My proposed Moral FSK [credibility of 80/100] is a specific FSK.
3. My Moral FSK produce Moral Facts as polished opinions, conjectures.

I have argued how we obtain from my proposed Moral FSK,
the moral fact, i.e. It is morally wrong for a human to kill another human,
this is grounded on the empirical fact,
No normal human would want to be killed [by another humans or other reasons].
The philosophical reasonings for this is quite complex so I won't go into the details here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But it's total shit. VA's entire "moral FSK" is nothing but the autistic listing of things and then rating them out of 100 badness units, and calling that a scientific measuring event. Comparing his own scheme to science is lunacy, why are you encouraging him to make an idiot of himself?

You do understand that just as he imagines his FSK measures good and bad, he genuinely thinks that Miss World counts as a scientific measure of beauty, right? Is that the kind of silliness you want to tag along with?

Like the organisers of Miss World have to decide on criteria. A set of moral criteria is a frame of moral knowledge. The clue to the subjective aspect is the word 'frame'. I don't think he claims frames are objectively real does he?

He thinks it's broadly equivalent to physics, and if you ask he he will probably invent numbers to the effect that physics is 99% objective and his moral FSK is 95%. He might even rate zoology lower than his own thing.

Generally there is no absolute certainty [Wittgenstein, etc.] with regards to knowledge.

Physics has its own specific FSK which is a sub-FSK of the scientific FSK.
Whatever facts produced from the Physics FSK is objective but there are degrees of objectivity with respect to the specific facts of Physics.

Note facts of Physics are dependent on a specific 'Frame' i.e.

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2] The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.[3]
WIKI

Are the model or frames objectively real?
1st there is no absolute certainty, so the frames cannot be absolutely real.

However if the frames [models] are not real [major premise]
then their conclusion cannot be real
but facts of physics are taken as real, [note its utility that enable so much technology]
so the frames has to be real, else their conclusions cannot be real and objective.

However, the objectivity of the frames are based on intersubjective consensus, thus ultimately grounded on subjectivity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Like the organisers of Miss World have to decide on criteria. A set of moral criteria is a frame of moral knowledge. The clue to the subjective aspect is the word 'frame'. I don't think he claims frames are objectively real does he?

See my point in the above post.

What is critical with the Moral frames [FSK] is what criteria are used and the soundness and rationality of the philosophical reasonings employed.

[Skepdick]

Sufficient criterion for objective existence would be existing objectively. Why did you need any of those other sentences?

Because I am a charitable dude and I do everything in my power to improve your odds of success rather than setting you up for failure. But if you choose to play with a handicap - I'll take it.

Go ahead and persuade me - a gravity-skeptic - on the objective existence of gravity.

[Peter Holmes]

I claimed MY [not others, e.g. utilitarianism] proposed Moral FSK is of near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.
My proposed Moral FSK rely heavily on scientific facts from the scientific FSK plus sound philosophical reasonings.
You are missing all my critical points.

Note:

1. ALL Facts are [polished opinions, conjectures] resulting from a specific FSK.
2. My proposed Moral FSK [credibility of 80/100] is a specific FSK.
3. My Moral FSK produce Moral Facts as polished opinions, conjectures.

I have argued how we obtain from my proposed Moral FSK,
the moral fact, i.e. It is morally wrong for a human to kill another human,
this is grounded on the empirical fact,
No normal human would want to be killed [by another humans or other reasons].
The philosophical reasonings for this is quite complex so I won't go into the details here.

To repeat (ad nauseam): grounding or basing a moral opinion on a fact doesn't turn the moral opinion into a fact. So your argument doesn't even make it to the starting post. Here it is:

Premise: No normal human would want to be killed (...). Conclusion: Therefore it is morally wrong to kill a human being.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Even if it's true (which it isn't), the premise does not entail the conclusion. If it did, the following is valid:

No normal human being wants to be punished; therefore it is morally wrong to punish a human being.

Now, try to think very hard about this. The content of an argument has no bearing on its deductive validity (its structure). My example mirrors the structure of your example, so if yours is valid, then so is mine.

But I'm sure you disagree with my argument. So - what's gone wrong? Ah, it must be that 'what people want' can't be the deciding criterion for moral rightness and wrongness. And that's because people can want bad things - things that are morally wrong.

Your invented morality FSK has no moral facts. And non-moral facts can't entail moral conclusions. So your invented morality FSK is not an FSK at all - let alone a credible FSK. It's a dead duck in the water. No revival is possible.

[Age]

I claimed MY [not others, e.g. utilitarianism] proposed Moral FSK is of near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.
My proposed Moral FSK rely heavily on scientific facts from the scientific FSK plus sound philosophical reasonings.
You are missing all my critical points.

Note:

1. ALL Facts are [polished opinions, conjectures] resulting from a specific FSK.
2. My proposed Moral FSK [credibility of 80/100] is a specific FSK.
3. My Moral FSK produce Moral Facts as polished opinions, conjectures.

I have argued how we obtain from my proposed Moral FSK,
the moral fact, i.e. It is morally wrong for a human to kill another human,
this is grounded on the empirical fact,
No normal human would want to be killed [by another humans or other reasons].
The philosophical reasonings for this is quite complex so I won't go into the details here.

To repeat (ad nauseam): grounding or basing a moral opinion on a fact doesn't turn the moral opinion into a fact. So your argument doesn't even make it to the starting post. Here it is:

Premise: No normal human would want to be killed (...). Conclusion: Therefore it is morally wrong to kill a human being.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Even if it's true (which it isn't), the premise does not entail the conclusion. If it did, the following is valid:

No normal human being wants to be punished; therefore it is morally wrong to punish a human being.

Now, try to think very hard about this. The content of an argument has no bearing on its deductive validity (its structure). My example mirrors the structure of your example, so if yours is valid, then so is mine.

But I'm sure you disagree with my argument.

WHY would you be 'sure' of this?

Do you ASSUME or BELIEVE that it is all right for 'you', human beings, to punish 'you', human beings?

So - what's gone wrong?

The WAY you LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

Ah, it must be that 'what people want' can't be the deciding criterion for moral rightness and wrongness.

But, to you, there is absolutely NOTHING in the WHOLE Universe that could be the deciding criterion for moral rightness and wrongness correct?

If this is NOT correct, then what IS 'correct', to you, EXACTLY?

And that's because people can want bad things - things that are morally wrong.

But OF COURSE 'you', people, can WANT 'bad things'. This has ALREADY been PROVED to be an IRREFUTABLE Fact, in the days when this was being written.

But, you are FORGETTING, or PURPOSELY LEAVING OUT, the 'normal' word. NOT that that word would be ANY such word I would use. But, if you want to counter another's argument, then you have to use thee ACTUAL WORDS that they USE.

Your invented morality FSK has no moral facts. And non-moral facts can't entail moral conclusions. So your invented morality FSK is not an FSK at all - let alone a credible FSK. It's a dead duck in the water. No revival is possible.

ONCE AGAIN, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the WHOLE Universe that could create a 'moral fact', correct?

Your TOTAL Honesty here would VERY MUCH APPRECIATED.

[Age]

Like the organisers of Miss World have to decide on criteria. A set of moral criteria is a frame of moral knowledge. The clue to the subjective aspect is the word 'frame'. I don't think he claims frames are objectively real does he?

See my point in the above post.

What is critical with the Moral frames [FSK] is what criteria are used and the soundness and rationality of the philosophical reasonings employed.

I have ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED the ACTUAL criteria that works for obtaining 'objectivity', itself, which then leads on to finding and uncovering what are ACTUAL Truths or IRREFUTABLE Facts, and also, on to finding and uncovering ACTUAL moral Truths or IRREFUTABLE moral Facts.

And, the reason I ONLY PARTLY EXPLAIN 'things' is to DRAW OUT those who are Truly CURIOS and Truly INTELLIGENT beings.

[FlashDangerpants]

Like the organisers of Miss World have to decide on criteria. A set of moral criteria is a frame of moral knowledge. The clue to the subjective aspect is the word 'frame'. I don't think he claims frames are objectively real does he?

He thinks it's broadly equivalent to physics, and if you ask he he will probably invent numbers to the effect that physics is 99% objective and his moral FSK is 95%. He might even rate zoology lower than his own thing.

Generally there is no absolute certainty [Wittgenstein, etc.] with regards to knowledge.

Physics has its own specific FSK which is a sub-FSK of the scientific FSK.
Whatever facts produced from the Physics FSK is objective but there are degrees of objectivity with respect to the specific facts of Physics.

Well there facts derived from experimental observation of the objective world in physics.
In your moral FSK thing there are only opinion surveys.

If somebody makes up their own schema to explain the observations of a science in some completely different way, they will probably fall foul of objective fact.

If somebody decides your moral FSK is stupid and just makes their own competing one with different facts, their competing moral FSK would be exactly as credible as yours (which apparently you have measured at 80% now rather than the 95 I would expect you to give to your own homework).

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

However, the objectivity of the frames are based on intersubjective consensus, thus ultimately grounded on subjectivity.

Intersubjective consensus pertains to the coherence theory of truth.

[Peter Holmes]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

However, the objectivity of the frames are based on intersubjective consensus, thus ultimately grounded on subjectivity.

Intersubjective consensus pertains to the coherence theory of truth.

I disagree, because the coherence theory of truth is not specifically a consensus theory.

(A consensus theory of truth - intersubjective or not - is ridiculous anyway, but that's a different story. And anyway, a theory of truth can be nothing more than an explanation of how we do or could use the word 'truth', its cognates and related words, such as 'falsehood'. What we mean when we say a factual assertion is true constitutes what we call truth - and that specifically excludes any idea of consensus. And words can mean only what we use them to mean.)

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

However, the objectivity of the frames are based on intersubjective consensus, thus ultimately grounded on subjectivity.

Intersubjective consensus pertains to the coherence theory of truth.

I disagree, because the coherence theory of truth is not specifically a consensus theory.

(A consensus theory of truth - intersubjective or not - is ridiculous anyway, but that's a different story. And anyway, a theory of truth can be nothing more than an explanation of how we do or could use the word 'truth', its cognates and related words, such as 'falsehood'. What we mean when we say a factual assertion is true constitutes what we call truth - and that specifically excludes any idea of consensus. And words can mean only what we use them to mean.)

A theory is indeed an explanation. For some people truth does mean consensus. Truth to some other people including yourself means correspondence to a reality independent of what people mean.

If you use words too eccentrically nobody will understand you.

[Belinda]

FlashDangerpants wrote :

If somebody decides your moral FSK is stupid and just makes their own competing one with different facts, their competing moral FSK would be exactly as credible as yours (which apparently you have measured at 80% now rather than the 95 I would expect you to give to your own homework).

I refer again to theories of truth. Most of us here will agree some moral FSKs are better than others. For instance few philosophers think the medieval FSK involving a supernatural Person is a good FSK. Modern science is now popularly considered to be more reasoned, coherent, and fertile than medieval theism.Therefore FlashDP subscribes to the coherence theory of truth.