What could make morality objective?

[Will Bouwman]

Adult human beings, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written, would, instead of just 'looking for' what it was that was 'in agreement' they would rather believe that their own individual views, beliefs, and perceptions were the only true and right ones, and so would spend all of 'their time' arguing and fight for and over 'their own personal positions'.

This sanctimonious loon being an example.

[Age]

Adult human beings, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written, would, instead of just 'looking for' what it was that was 'in agreement' they would rather believe that their own individual views, beliefs, and perceptions were the only true and right ones, and so would spend all of 'their time' arguing and fight for and over 'their own personal positions'.

This sanctimonious loon being an example.

Who that is referring to noone else knows, as it could be that one "itself". Anyway, only human beings describes things, as can be seen here once more. So, until this one expresses, clearly, who, exactly, those words were intended for, they could be meant about anyone here. As can be clearly seen by the way all of you speak and write here.

[Peter Holmes]

Adult human beings, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written, would, instead of just 'looking for' what it was that was 'in agreement' they would rather believe that their own individual views, beliefs, and perceptions were the only true and right ones, and so would spend all of 'their time' arguing and fight for and over 'their own personal positions'.

This sanctimonious loon being an example.

Who that is referring to noone else knows, as it could be that one "itself". Anyway, only human beings describes things, as can be seen here once more. So, until this one expresses, clearly, who, exactly, those words were intended for, they could be meant about anyone here. As can be clearly seen by the way all of you speak and write here.

I'd like to ask the one who calls herself/himself 'Age' to cut the crap and lay her/his cards on the table. Does she/he think morality is objective - that there are moral facts - so that a moral assertion such as 'eating animals is morally wrong' has a factual truth-value and so can be answered decisively one way or the other?

[Age]

This sanctimonious loon being an example.

Who that is referring to noone else knows, as it could be that one "itself". Anyway, only human beings describes things, as can be seen here once more. So, until this one expresses, clearly, who, exactly, those words were intended for, they could be meant about anyone here. As can be clearly seen by the way all of you speak and write here.

I'd like to ask the one who calls herself/himself 'Age' to cut the crap and lay her/his cards on the table. Does she/he think morality is objective - that there are moral facts - so that a moral assertion such as 'eating animals is morally wrong' has a factual truth-value and so can be answered decisively one way or the other?

I have already explained that 'morality', itself, can be subjective AND objective. And, this is just because of what the words 'objective' AND 'subjective' can mean and/or refer to, exactly.

Now, as for the very simple assertion such as is, 'eating animals morally Wrong', a Factual Truth, and so is an objective moral Fact or Truth as well, and therefore can be answered decisively one way or another, then the answer is a resounding, 'Yes'.

I do not just 'think' there are moral Facts, I 'know' there are. And, this is because I 'know' how 'objectivity' is found, and reached. Thus, I 'know' what is, morally, Right, and, morally, Wrong, in Life, as well as what is, irrefutably, True in Life, also.

See, once agreement on what the words 'objective' and 'subjective' can mean and refer to is accomplished, then 'we' can move on to 'looking at' 'morality', Facts, and Truths.

[Peter Holmes]

Who that is referring to noone else knows, as it could be that one "itself". Anyway, only human beings describes things, as can be seen here once more. So, until this one expresses, clearly, who, exactly, those words were intended for, they could be meant about anyone here. As can be clearly seen by the way all of you speak and write here.

I'd like to ask the one who calls herself/himself 'Age' to cut the crap and lay her/his cards on the table. Does she/he think morality is objective - that there are moral facts - so that a moral assertion such as 'eating animals is morally wrong' has a factual truth-value and so can be answered decisively one way or the other?

I have already explained that 'morality', itself, can be subjective AND objective. And, this is just because of what the words 'objective' AND 'subjective' can mean and/or refer to, exactly.

Now, as for the very simple assertion such as is, 'eating animals morally Wrong', a Factual Truth, and so is an objective moral Fact or Truth as well, and therefore can be answered decisively one way or another, then the answer is a resounding, 'Yes'.

I do not just 'think' there are moral Facts, I 'know' there are. And, this is because I 'know' how 'objectivity' is found, and reached. Thus, I 'know' what is, morally, Right, and, morally, Wrong, in Life, as well as what is, irrefutably, True in Life, also.

See, once agreement on what the words 'objective' and 'subjective' can mean and refer to is accomplished, then 'we' can move on to 'looking at' 'morality', Facts, and Truths.

Thanks - and thanks for the clarity. I have some comments.

1 Initial capitalisation is for proper nouns, which fact, truth and life are not. Initial caps for abstract nouns and their cognates is confusing. Trump does it, and he's a moron.

2 We haven't accomplished agreement on the meaning (use) of subjective and objective. You don't explain your use of them here. And what you say suggests you don't use them in a standard way. Standardly: if there are moral facts, then morality isn't subjective - a matter of personal opinion.

3 Here's my retort: I don't just think there are no moral facts. I know there are no moral facts, so that morality isn't and can't be objective.

Do you find that persuasive?

[Peter Holmes]

Age and other moral objectivists claim that there are moral facts - things that just are morally right or wrong - regardless of anyone's opinion. But a simple question shows why this is incorrect.

Why is X morally right/wrong?

If the answer is another moral assertion - X is morally right/wrong because Y is morally right/wrong - then this merely kicks the can down the road: Why is Y morally right/wrong?

And if the answer is a factual assertion - such as 'abortion is morally wrong because life begins at conception' - then this also kicks the can down the road: Why is it morally wrong to end [an innocent] human life?

The point is: a moral assertion as a conclusion stands alone, unless it follows from a moral premise, which also stands alone - and so on.

And that's why moral objectivists can do nothing more than cite moral opinions - such as 'it is wrong to end [an innocent] human life' - and then shout at anyone who asks why, as though that person must be immoral or amoral. That's what the argument for moral objectivism amounts to. Nothing.

So that leaves us with recognising our actual moral predicament - that we have been developing our (human) moral values and codes - and continue to develop them - as an evolved and evolving social species. And that's all there is to it.

The claim that there are moral facts is delusory - and can be (and often is) morally and practically harmful.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Age and other moral objectivists [except VA's] claim that there are moral facts - things that just are morally right or wrong - regardless of anyone's opinion. But a simple question shows why this is incorrect.

The claim that there are moral facts is delusory - and can be (and often is) morally and practically harmful.

You need to qualify the above with "except VA's version".

You also need to edit the below as such;
The claim that there are moral facts is delusory [based on my definition of 'what is fact'] ...

But I have argued your 'what is fact' is illusory, therefore your above claim is false and illusory.

PH's Fact is Delusional
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

You have not countered by claims convincingly.

I suggest you open a specific thread to counter my claim so we can refer to it easily. [your two large thread has become a skip full of shit]

[FlashDangerpants]

Age and other moral objectivists [except VA's] claim that there are moral facts - things that just are morally right or wrong - regardless of anyone's opinion. But a simple question shows why this is incorrect.

The claim that there are moral facts is delusory - and can be (and often is) morally and practically harmful.

You need to qualify the above with "except VA's version".

You also need to edit the below as such;
The claim that there are moral facts is delusory [based on my definition of 'what is fact'] ...

But I have argued your 'what is fact' is illusory, therefore your above claim is false and illusory.

PH's Fact is Delusional
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

You have not countered by claims convincingly.

I suggest you open a specific thread to counter my claim so we can refer to it easily.

You need those particular exceptions because you aren't an actual objectivist. You are a confused relativist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Age and other moral objectivists [except VA's] claim that there are moral facts - things that just are morally right or wrong - regardless of anyone's opinion. But a simple question shows why this is incorrect.

The claim that there are moral facts is delusory - and can be (and often is) morally and practically harmful.

You need to qualify the above with "except VA's version".

You also need to edit the below as such;
The claim that there are moral facts is delusory [based on my definition of 'what is fact'] ...

But I have argued your 'what is fact' is illusory, therefore your above claim is false and illusory.

PH's Fact is Delusional
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

You have not countered by claims convincingly.

I suggest you open a specific thread to counter my claim so we can refer to it easily.

You need those particular exceptions because you aren't an actual objectivist. You are a confused relativist.

Educate yourself with the following;

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

The Two Faces of Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=41214

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286 Jan 13, 2023

What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

[FlashDangerpants]

You need to qualify the above with "except VA's version".

You also need to edit the below as such;
The claim that there are moral facts is delusory [based on my definition of 'what is fact'] ...

But I have argued your 'what is fact' is illusory, therefore your above claim is false and illusory.

PH's Fact is Delusional
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

You have not countered by claims convincingly.

I suggest you open a specific thread to counter my claim so we can refer to it easily.

You need those particular exceptions because you aren't an actual objectivist. You are a confused relativist.

Educate yourself with the following;

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

The Two Faces of Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=41214

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286 Jan 13, 2023

What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

I am familiar with all of those. Your entire frameworks deal is realativistic, but you have a need to tell everyone else they are wrong, and relativism is no good for that. So instead of dropping the frameworks and the relativism, you added a special get-out for yourself to be right and everyone else to be wrong. For that you use a circular meta-framework that is nothing but you making up fake numbers to sort an imaginary and impossible list. The only point of any of that is so that you are right about everything according to the numbers you just make up to suit yourself and everyone who laughs at your silly numbers is a "kindi-gnat".

Once you drop the credibility scoring bullshit, you are a bog-standard realtivist. Until then, you are a confused relativist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You need those particular exceptions because you aren't an actual objectivist. You are a confused relativist.

Educate yourself with the following;

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

The Two Faces of Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=41214

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286 Jan 13, 2023

What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

I am familiar with all of those. Your entire frameworks deal is realativistic, but you have a need to tell everyone else they are wrong, and relativism is no good for that. So instead of dropping the frameworks and the relativism, you added a special get-out for yourself to be right and everyone else to be wrong. For that you use a circular meta-framework that is nothing but you making up fake numbers to sort an imaginary and impossible list. The only point of any of that is so that you are right about everything according to the numbers you just make up to suit yourself and everyone who laughs at your silly numbers is a "kindi-gnat".

Once you drop the credibility scoring bullshit, you are a bog-standard realtivist. Until then, you are a confused relativist.

I posted this thread:
Relativism, Contextualism, Perspectivism & FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=41979

Ultimately everything is relative in one sense, including my objective-morality in another sense.
It is the same with me claiming to be a realist in one sense, i.e. empirical-realist which is ultimately anti-realist in another sense.

But to claim morality cannot be objective, period! in any sense is delusional, because such claim is grounded on an illusion.

[FlashDangerpants]

Educate yourself with the following;

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

The Two Faces of Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=41214

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286 Jan 13, 2023

What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

I am familiar with all of those. Your entire frameworks deal is realativistic, but you have a need to tell everyone else they are wrong, and relativism is no good for that. So instead of dropping the frameworks and the relativism, you added a special get-out for yourself to be right and everyone else to be wrong. For that you use a circular meta-framework that is nothing but you making up fake numbers to sort an imaginary and impossible list. The only point of any of that is so that you are right about everything according to the numbers you just make up to suit yourself and everyone who laughs at your silly numbers is a "kindi-gnat".

Once you drop the credibility scoring bullshit, you are a bog-standard realtivist. Until then, you are a confused relativist.

I posted this thread:
Relativism, Contextualism, Perspectivism & FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=41979

Ultimately everything is relative in one sense, including my objective-morality in another sense.
It is the same with me claiming to be a realist in one sense, i.e. empirical-realist which is ultimately anti-realist in another sense.

But to claim morality cannot be objective, period! in any sense is delusional, because such claim is grounded on an illusion.

Your entire frameworks deal is realativistic, but you have a need to tell everyone else they are wrong, and relativism is no good for that. So instead of dropping the frameworks and the relativism, you added a special get-out for yourself to be right and everyone else to be wrong. For that you use a circular meta-framework that is nothing but you making up fake numbers to sort an imaginary and impossible list. The only point of any of that is so that you are right about everything according to the numbers you just make up to suit yourself and everyone who laughs at your silly numbers is a "kindi-gnat".

Once you drop the credibility scoring bullshit, you are a bog-standard realtivist. Until then, you are a confused relativist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am familiar with all of those. Your entire frameworks deal is realativistic, but you have a need to tell everyone else they are wrong, and relativism is no good for that. So instead of dropping the frameworks and the relativism, you added a special get-out for yourself to be right and everyone else to be wrong. For that you use a circular meta-framework that is nothing but you making up fake numbers to sort an imaginary and impossible list. The only point of any of that is so that you are right about everything according to the numbers you just make up to suit yourself and everyone who laughs at your silly numbers is a "kindi-gnat".

Once you drop the credibility scoring bullshit, you are a bog-standard realtivist. Until then, you are a confused relativist.

I posted this thread:
Relativism, Contextualism, Perspectivism & FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=41979

Ultimately everything is relative in one sense, including my objective-morality in another sense.
It is the same with me claiming to be a realist in one sense, i.e. empirical-realist which is ultimately anti-realist in another sense.

But to claim morality cannot be objective, period! in any sense is delusional, because such claim is grounded on an illusion.

Your entire frameworks deal is relativistic, ..

You are dogmatically ignorant ..

Yes, my FSRC is ultimately relativistic and subjective but is it based on a collective-of-subjects that enable objectivity, e.g. scientific objectivity.
The objectivity that is based on a collective-of-subjects is intersubjectivity and relativistic.

The above objectivity as intersubjectivity is undeniable.


The problem with your gnat objectivity is grounded on an illusion that there are absolutely mind-independent objects-in-themselves out there.

[FlashDangerpants]

I posted this thread:
Relativism, Contextualism, Perspectivism & FSRC
viewtopic.php?t=41979

Ultimately everything is relative in one sense, including my objective-morality in another sense.
It is the same with me claiming to be a realist in one sense, i.e. empirical-realist which is ultimately anti-realist in another sense.

But to claim morality cannot be objective, period! in any sense is delusional, because such claim is grounded on an illusion.

Your entire frameworks deal is relativistic, ..

You are dogmatically ignorant ..

Yes, my FSRC is ultimately relativistic and subjective but is it based on a collective-of-subjects that enable objectivity, e.g. scientific objectivity.
The objectivity that is based on a collective-of-subjects is intersubjectivity and relativistic.

The above objectivity as intersubjectivity is undeniable.


The problem with your gnat objectivity is grounded on an illusion that there are absolutely mind-independent objects-in-themselves out there.

Your entire frameworks deal is realativistic, but you have a need to tell everyone else they are wrong, and relativism is no good for that. So instead of dropping the frameworks and the relativism, you added a special get-out for yourself to be right and everyone else to be wrong. For that you use a circular meta-framework that is nothing but you making up fake numbers to sort an imaginary and impossible list. The only point of any of that is so that you are right about everything according to the numbers you just make up to suit yourself and everyone who laughs at your silly numbers is a "kindi-gnat".

Once you drop the credibility scoring bullshit, you are a bog-standard realtivist. Until then, you are a confused relativist.

[Peter Holmes]

Age and other moral objectivists [except VA's] claim that there are moral facts - things that just are morally right or wrong - regardless of anyone's opinion. But a simple question shows why this is incorrect.

The claim that there are moral facts is delusory - and can be (and often is) morally and practically harmful.

You need to qualify the above with "except VA's version".

You also need to edit the below as such;
The claim that there are moral facts is delusory [based on my definition of 'what is fact'] ...

But I have argued your 'what is fact' is illusory, therefore your above claim is false and illusory.

PH's Fact is Delusional
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

You have not countered by claims convincingly.

I suggest you open a specific thread to counter my claim so we can refer to it easily. [your two large thread has become a skip full of shit]

This thread will do fine. I've countered your argument countless times. But here goes again.

The Concise Oxford has this disjunctive definition of fact: 'a thing that exists, or has occurred, or is true.' Of course, a dictionary definition is always a snapshot explanation of how we use a word - it asserts a fact about that usage.

For now, let's leave aside the 'or is true' disjunct - though it's very important in my refutation. So a fact is: a thing that exists, or has occurred.

Now, your claim is that there's no such thing as 'a thing that exists or has occurred' which is absolutely independent from humans. You say such a thing is an illusion. For example, this means you say that everything that existed and occurred in the universe before humans evolved was not absolutely independent from humans.

And I say that is patent and demonstrable nonsense, for which there's no evidence of any kind. And I explain where this nonsense - which you've bought into - comes from, as follows.

The third disjunct in the above definition of fact is: 'or is true'. But, in this context, the only thing that can be true or false is a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression. And language is, of course, a human phenomenon - though not exclusively, because other species arguably have at least 'proto-languages'.

So this kind of fact - a linguistic expression - isn't and can't be absolutely independent from humans. But it's a radically different kind of thing. A linguistic expression is obviously 'a thing that exists'. But outside language, reality - consisting of things that exist or have occurred - is not linguistic.

So I think you mistake what we humans believe, know and say about reality - things that exist or have occurred - for reality itself - the facts of reality. Hence your absurd conclusion that reality isn't absolutely independent from humans.

And if you want to get out of this confusion by claiming that reality is 'relatively' independent from humans - ie, not 'absolutely' independent - then what is it that is independent? Oh - it must be things that exist or have occurred.

In this context, the things that are indeed dependent on humans are human knowledge-claims and truth-claims about reality. Not reality itself.

So, as I've said many times, your primary premise is false. From which it follows that the rest of your argument about morality is incoherent.