What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

And, this your opinion here, right?

Yes. In my opinion, 1 and 2 are facts about our use of the words objective and fact. And, in my opinion, given these facts about usage, 3 follows as metaphysically or ontologically true, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

So, if objectivity is reliance on facts, and facts are features of reality, regardless of opinions, then the actual fact of the matter here is regardless of your opinion here also, correct?

Yes.

Meanwhile, is the first list a correct expression of your opinion?

Yes.

Thanks. I'll mull over your assertions, which are as follows.

1 Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.
2 Despite #1, objectivity can be found and reached.
3 #1 and #2 have a bearing on morality.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, if you drop a brick down a well, you have to be extremely creative to conjure an infinity of descriptions of what happens.

And if the only way you know how to describe it is "drop a brick down a well" you'd lack any and all creativity.

Wouldn't you?

[Skepdick]

Well, if you drop a brick down a well, you have to be extremely creative to conjure an infinity of descriptions of what happens.

And if the only way you know how to describe it is "drop a brick down a well" you'd lack any and all creativity.

Wouldn't you?

Would I?

What's the difference between "drop" and "fall" was from a physics perspective?

[Age]

Yes. In my opinion, 1 and 2 are facts about our use of the words objective and fact. And, in my opinion, given these facts about usage, 3 follows as metaphysically or ontologically true, which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

So, if objectivity is reliance on facts, and facts are features of reality, regardless of opinions, then the actual fact of the matter here is regardless of your opinion here also, correct?

Yes.

Meanwhile, is the first list a correct expression of your opinion?

Yes.

Thanks. I'll mull over your assertions, which are as follows.

1 Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.
2 Despite #1, objectivity can be found and reached.
3 #1 and #2 have a bearing on morality.

Take your time and 'mull' over them for as long as you like "peter holmes", and then let us know if you can counter or refute them at all.

By the way do you want to let us know how you define the two words 'moral' and 'objective' here, exactly?

[Peter Holmes]

So, if objectivity is reliance on facts, and facts are features of reality, regardless of opinions, then the actual fact of the matter here is regardless of your opinion here also, correct?

Yes.

Meanwhile, is the first list a correct expression of your opinion?

Yes.

Thanks. I'll mull over your assertions, which are as follows.

1 Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.
2 Despite #1, objectivity can be found and reached.
3 #1 and #2 have a bearing on morality.

Take your time and 'mull' over them for as long as you like "peter holmes", and then let us know if you can counter or refute them at all.

By the way do you want to let us know how you define the two words 'moral' and 'objective' here, exactly?

I use those words in standard ways - explained in dictionaries - because that's how I learned to use them. What do you do?

[Age]

Thanks. I'll mull over your assertions, which are as follows.

1 Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.
2 Despite #1, objectivity can be found and reached.
3 #1 and #2 have a bearing on morality.

Take your time and 'mull' over them for as long as you like "peter holmes", and then let us know if you can counter or refute them at all.

By the way do you want to let us know how you define the two words 'moral' and 'objective' here, exactly?

I use those words in standard ways - explained in dictionaries - because that's how I learned to use them. What do you do?

If you want to play this little game, then you obviously cannot refute what I have said here. Therefore, you will have to agree with, and accept, that morality, itself, is just both subjective and objective

[Peter Holmes]

Take your time and 'mull' over them for as long as you like "peter holmes", and then let us know if you can counter or refute them at all.

By the way do you want to let us know how you define the two words 'moral' and 'objective' here, exactly?

I use those words in standard ways - explained in dictionaries - because that's how I learned to use them. What do you do?

If you want to play this little game, then you obviously cannot refute what I have said here. Therefore, you will have to agree with, and accept, that morality, itself, is just both subjective and objective

I'm not playing a game. Here's a definition of morality:
'principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour'
No mention of subjectivity or objectivity.

And I haven't got around to dismantling your argument yet - such as it is. But be patient.

[Age]

I use those words in standard ways - explained in dictionaries - because that's how I learned to use them. What do you do?

If you want to play this little game, then you obviously cannot refute what I have said here. Therefore, you will have to agree with, and accept, that morality, itself, is just both subjective and objective

I'm not playing a game. Here's a definition of morality:
'principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour'
No mention of subjectivity or objectivity.

And I haven't got around to dismantling your argument yet - such as it is. But be patient.

Of course there is no mention of subjectivity nor objectivity in that definition of the morality word. I noticed that you did not provide a definition for the 'objectivity' word. So, when you stop playing games you might get around to defining the 'objectivity' word, as well.

By the way, I can agree with and accept the definition that you have provided here, however, have I even provided my actual argument here, yet?

[Peter Holmes]

If you want to play this little game, then you obviously cannot refute what I have said here. Therefore, you will have to agree with, and accept, that morality, itself, is just both subjective and objective

I'm not playing a game. Here's a definition of morality:
'principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour'
No mention of subjectivity or objectivity.

And I haven't got around to dismantling your argument yet - such as it is. But be patient.

Of course there is no mention of subjectivity nor objectivity in that definition of the morality word. I noticed that you did not provide a definition for the 'objectivity' word. So, when you stop playing games you might get around to defining the 'objectivity' word, as well.

By the way, I can agree with and accept the definition that you have provided here, however, have I even provided my actual argument here, yet?

To repeat: what we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than opinions. So objective means 'fact-based', or often just 'factual'. And, to repeat, what we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion.

And it seems we agree that morality is about 'principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour'.

Are there any other terms in this discussion with which you need help? If not, we can return to your three assertions:

1 Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.
2 Despite #1, objectivity can be found and reached.
3 #1 and #2 have a bearing on morality.

By all means, please turn these claims into a valid and sound argument about morality.

[Skepdick]

To repeat: what we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than opinions.

Is that a fact, or an opinion?

And, to repeat, what we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion.

Is that a fact, or an opinion?

By all means, please turn these claims into a valid and sound argument about morality.

We've been through this exercise. You rejected the sound/valid argument for the wrongness of murder.

Why are you wasting other people's time?

[Will Bouwman]

And if the only way you know how to describe it is "drop a brick down a well" you'd lack any and all creativity.

Wouldn't you?

Would I?

Well, I wasn't referring to you specifically, but since you ask: yes you would.

[Age]

I'm not playing a game. Here's a definition of morality:
'principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour'
No mention of subjectivity or objectivity.

And I haven't got around to dismantling your argument yet - such as it is. But be patient.

Of course there is no mention of subjectivity nor objectivity in that definition of the morality word. I noticed that you did not provide a definition for the 'objectivity' word. So, when you stop playing games you might get around to defining the 'objectivity' word, as well.

By the way, I can agree with and accept the definition that you have provided here, however, have I even provided my actual argument here, yet?

To repeat: what we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than opinions. So objective means 'fact-based', or often just 'factual'. And, to repeat, what we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion.

And, to repeat, this is just your own personal opinion only. So, this is not necessarily objective at all and thus not necessarily a fact, at all.

Or, do you choose believe otherwise?

And it seems we agree that morality is about 'principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour'.

Are there any other terms in this discussion with which you need help? If not, we can return to your three assertions:

1 Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.
2 Despite #1, objectivity can be found and reached.
3 #1 and #2 have a bearing on morality.

By all means, please turn these claims into a valid and sound argument about morality.

Why?

They stand all by themselves, alone.

By the way, for now, I agree with, and accept, your definition here also.

So, now we wait while you take your time so-called 'mulling over' what has already been said and claimed here.

If you cannot counter nor refute what I have said and claimed here, then so be it.

Also, your condescending game playing above is not helping you at all here

[Skepdick]

Wouldn't you?

Would I?

Well, I wasn't referring to you specifically, but since you ask: yes you would.

I asked other stuff too... Did you run out of answers; or creativity?

[Will Bouwman]

Inclination.

[Peter Holmes]

Of course there is no mention of subjectivity nor objectivity in that definition of the morality word. I noticed that you did not provide a definition for the 'objectivity' word. So, when you stop playing games you might get around to defining the 'objectivity' word, as well.

By the way, I can agree with and accept the definition that you have provided here, however, have I even provided my actual argument here, yet?

To repeat: what we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than opinions. So objective means 'fact-based', or often just 'factual'. And, to repeat, what we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion.

And, to repeat, this is just your own personal opinion only. So, this is not necessarily objective at all and thus not necessarily a fact, at all.

Or, do you choose believe otherwise?

What I believe doesn't matter. The whole point about facts is that opinions about them are irrelevant. 'In my opinion, the earth orbits the sun.'

And it seems we agree that morality is about 'principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour'.

Are there any other terms in this discussion with which you need help? If not, we can return to your three assertions:

1 Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.
2 Despite #1, objectivity can be found and reached.
3 #1 and #2 have a bearing on morality.

By all means, please turn these claims into a valid and sound argument about morality.

Why?

They stand all by themselves, alone.

Fine, So you have no argument to present here, because these are just unconnected assertions.

By the way, for now, I agree with, and accept, your definition here also.

So, now we wait while you take your time so-called 'mulling over' what has already been said and claimed here.

If you cannot counter nor refute what I have said and claimed here, then so be it.

You offer no argument to refute. And your main claim - 'Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.' - is too banal to bother with, in my opinion.

Also, your condescending game playing above is not helping you at all here

My bad. But it looks like you have nothing to offer except some tired old empiricist skepticism, as I suspected.

Happy to leave it there.