What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

• Conclusions. These results confirm that there is a genetic component to cilantro taste perception and suggest that cilantro dislike may stem from genetic variants in olfactory receptors.
  
  Soapy taste of coriander linked to genetic variants
  https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11398

The above dislike for cilantro is not a subjective thing but objectively link to a specific gene.

Peter Holmes is fond of dispensing what appear to be subjective to denounce the existence of moral facts but that is due to his high ignorant factor.
The above example re the deliciousness of Marmite and this distaste for Cilantro show otherwise.

While it seem obvious to many moral oughts are subjective, that is only due to their ignorance and dogmatic thinking.
For many moral elements and oughtness, upon deeper thoughts, there are elements of objectivity therein.
These objective moral facts are not related to the question of right or wrong nor they are to be enforced on individuals or groups but rather to act as Guides for moral progress.

[Peter Holmes]

Parts of the verb to be are linking verbs. Conjunctions are the words and, but, or, if, when, and so on.

Verbs and conjunctions are different parts of speech, with different functions. Grammar 101.

[Skepdick]

Parts of the verb to be are linking verbs. Conjunctions are the words and, but, or, if, when, and so on.

Verbs and conjunctions are different parts of speech, with different functions. Grammar 101.

From The Oxford dictionary:

conjunction noun 1. GRAMMAR a word used to connect clauses or sentences or to coordinate words in the same clause

From Meriam-Webster

conjunction noun an uninflected linguistic form that joins together sentences, clauses, phrases, or words

From dictionary.com

conjunction noun Grammar.
a. any member of a small class of words distinguished in many languages by their function as connectors between words, phrases, clauses, or sentences, as and, because, but, however.
b. any other word or expression of similar function, as in any case.

From Wikipedia

In grammar, a conjunction (abbreviated conj or cnj) is a part of speech that connects words, phrases, or clauses that are called the conjuncts of the conjunctions.

Earth IS (being!) round. The "IS" connects "Earth" with "roundness" therefore the "IS" acts as a conjuncton.
Marmite IS (being!) delicious. The "IS" connects "Marmite" with "deliciousness" therefore the "IS" acts as a conjuncton.
Slavery IS (being!) wrong. The "IS" connects "slavery" with "wrongness" therefore the "IS" acts as a conjuncton.

Peter Holmes IS (being!) stupid. The "IS" connects "Peter Holmes" with "stupidity" therefore the "IS" acts as a conjuncton.
Peter Holmes IS NOT (being!) smart. The "IS NOT" disconnects "Peter Holmes" from "smartness" therefore the "IS NOT" acts as a disjunction.

It's Grammar 101 alright, but did you actually pass it? Stupid.

[Belinda]

Have you considered that morality might be an invention not a discovery?

Have you considered that the distinction doesn't matter?

Airplanes are invented, not discovered. What could make airplanes objective?

Oh. Wait!

Everything you know about aeroplanes, flying aeroplanes, building aeroplanes, and theory of aviation is down to your experience. You may claim your experiences all pertain to your body and its organs of special sense, and that too is down to experience.

[Skepdick]

Everything you know about aeroplanes, flying aeroplanes, building aeroplanes, and theory of aviation is down to your experience.

That's not actually the case. Aviation came before the theory of aviation. Furthermore the accepted theory of aviation (the answer to the question "Why do airplanes fly?") has changed a bunch of times in the last 100 years.

The theory of aviation is merely our human attempt at justifying; or explaining WHY airplanes fly without disputing THAT airplanes fly.

All theories of aviation seem plausible, but it's not possible to determine which is "true" with empiricism alone - they predict the same outcomes.

[Belinda]

Everything you know about aeroplanes, flying aeroplanes, building aeroplanes, and theory of aviation is down to your experience.

That's not actually the case. Aviation came before the theory of aviation. Furthermore the accepted theory of aviation (the answer to the question "Why do airplanes fly?") has changed a bunch of times in the last 100 years.

The theory of aviation is merely our human attempt at justifying; or explaining WHY airplanes fly without disputing THAT airplanes fly.

All theories of aviation seem plausible, but it's not possible to determine which is "true" with empiricism alone - they predict the same outcomes.

Not only thinking or inventing theories, but also flying in aeroplanes, hoping our aeroplane will stay aloft and land safely, climbing aboard, etc etc are all experiences. Empiricism is incomplete knowledge but , apart from inherent instincts like Chomsky's theory of language, empiricism is all we've got.

[Skepdick]

Not only thinking or inventing theories, but also flying in aeroplanes, hoping our aeroplane will stay aloft and land safely, climbing aboard, etc etc are all experiences. Empiricism is incomplete knowledge but , apart from inherent instincts like Chomsky's theory of language, empiricism is all we've got.

Sure but I am pointing specifically at the "knowledge" as to WHY airplanes fly. That's not empirical.

We have three theories and they all work.

[Belinda]

Not only thinking or inventing theories, but also flying in aeroplanes, hoping our aeroplane will stay aloft and land safely, climbing aboard, etc etc are all experiences. Empiricism is incomplete knowledge but , apart from inherent instincts like Chomsky's theory of language, empiricism is all we've got.

Sure but I am pointing specifically at the "knowledge" as to WHY airplanes fly. That's not empirical.

We have three theories and they all work.

You are reifying what is an activity. The English language and doubtless many other languages do tend towards overuse of the noun. I submit there is no such thing as knowledge; instead there is knowing (present participle).

[Skepdick]

You are reifying what is an activity. The English language and doubtless many other languages do tend towards overuse of the noun. IK submit there is no such thing as knowledge; instead there is knowing (present participle).

I don't think that makes a diference to what I am saying.

Knowing WHY airplanes fly is not the same thing as knowing THAT airplanes fly.

THAT is empirical knowledge.
WHY is theoretical knowledge.

[Belinda]

You are reifying what is an activity. The English language and doubtless many other languages do tend towards overuse of the noun. IK submit there is no such thing as knowledge; instead there is knowing (present participle).

I don't think that makes a diference to what I am saying.

Knowing WHY airplanes fly is not the same thing as knowing THAT airplanes fly.

THAT is empirical knowledge.
WHY is theoretical knowledge.

I used to know aeroplanes fly because the air rushing along beneath the wings is thicker more compressed air and holds them up. Then , about twenty years ago a man who could fly small aeroplanes and could understand physics told me it's because the air rushing past the upper surface of the wings creates a vacuum. So I changed my mind. WHY aeroplanes fly is as subjective as THAT aeroplanes fly and vice versa.

[Skepdick]

I used to know aeroplanes fly because the air rushing along beneath the wings is thicker more compressed air and holds them up. Then , about twenty years ago a man who could fly small aeroplanes and could understand physics told me it's because the air rushing past the upper surface of the wings creates a vacuum. So I changed my mind. WHY aeroplanes fly is as subjective as THAT aeroplanes fly and vice versa.

Right! The "why" keeps changing, the "that" doesn't.

There is no escaping this problem. We, humans are forever stuck updating our justifications as to why stuff keeps happening.

[Belinda]

I used to know aeroplanes fly because the air rushing along beneath the wings is thicker more compressed air and holds them up. Then , about twenty years ago a man who could fly small aeroplanes and could understand physics told me it's because the air rushing past the upper surface of the wings creates a vacuum. So I changed my mind. WHY aeroplanes fly is as subjective as THAT aeroplanes fly and vice versa.

Right! The "why" keeps changing, the "that" doesn't.

The " that" changes from species to species and from culture to culture. The "that" vis a vis powered flight changed for most people after Wilbur and Orville Wright did it.

[Skepdick]

The " that" changes from species to species and from culture to culture. The "that" vis a vis powered flight changed for most people after Wilbur and Orville Wright did it.

I can't speak for other species, but from human perspective I don't think the "that" changes. Birds fly. Airplanes fly.

HOW they fly differs, but not THAT they fly.

[Belinda]

The " that" changes from species to species and from culture to culture. The "that" vis a vis powered flight changed for most people after Wilbur and Orville Wright did it.

I can't speak for other species, but from human perspective I don't think the "that" changes. Birds fly. Airplanes fly.

HOW they fly differs, but not THAT they fly.

The story of man's past tells it otherwise. Before Wilbur and Orville Wright most people were like " Powered flight is impossible".

[Skepdick]

The story of man's past tells it otherwise. Before Wilbur and Orville Wright most people were like " Powered flight is impossible".

Their claims of impossibility were clearly exaggerated and overly-dramatic.

It should've been trivial to dismiss the nay-sayers with a paper airplane. The lack of know-how is just a matter of trial&error.