What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

I think that one feature common to the many and various versions of epistemological skepticism, including the many and various kinds of antirealism, is the foundational myth of 'the observer' or 'the subject' or 'the conscious subject' or 'the mind'.

In different ways, the idea is always that there's an 'I' - variously defined - that's radically cut off from everything else, including every other 'I'. For example, the one who calls herself/himself/itself 'Age' thinks that the following is a deal-breaking truth: ' Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.'

Why is every thing relative to 'the observer'? Who or what is 'the observer'? Is an amoeba 'an observer'? What does 'relative to' mean here? Does it really and merely mean that an observer has to observe things in a certain way? (No argument.) Or does it mean that, if there were no observer - for example, before life evolved in the universe - there would be nothing? (Patent nonsense.)

And if the foundational myth of the isolated 'knower' is correct, who came up with this myth? Or: is it a fact that there are no facts, but only opinions - which entails an immediate contradiction? Or is it an opinion, and if so whose - and why give it credence?

The remedy is to abandon the subject/object - perceiver/perceived - observer/observed - experiencer/experienced - mind/body - epistemological myth, because it's a conceptual distortion with ancient, supernaturalist baggage.

Suppose 'knowing' can be just one kind of object coming into contact with another kind of object. Suppose an amoeba knows there's a food item within reach of its enveloping arms. Suppose trees expel leaves because they know winter is coming.

[Age]

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.

Very True.

The whole point about facts is that opinions about them are irrelevant. 'In my opinion, the earth orbits the sun'.

Okay, this and the former are both obviously your opinions, right?

Why?

They stand all by themselves, alone.

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

Why did you even begin to presume such a thing as this here?

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.

You previously claimed that I offered an argument, but now you claim I have not. So, which one is it, actually?

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.

If this is true, then why did it take you so long to 'mull over'?

What was 'it' that you had to, supposedly, 'mull over' before, exactly?

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.

Of course you are, because how and why your opinion here is Wrong I have already shown, and because you are showing that you cannot counter nor refute.what I have said and written here, you are very happy to leave, and to leave it here.

So, once again, what it is that I said and wrote 'stands', and remains so

[Peter Holmes]

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.

Very True.

The whole point about facts is that opinions about them are irrelevant. 'In my opinion, the earth orbits the sun'.

Okay, this and the former are both obviously your opinions, right?

Why?

They stand all by themselves, alone.

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

Why did you even begin to presume such a thing as this here?

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.

You previously claimed that I offered an argument, but now you claim I have not. So, which one is it, actually?

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.

If this is true, then why did it take you so long to 'mull over'?

What was 'it' that you had to, supposedly, 'mull over' before, exactly?

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.

Of course you are, because how and why your opinion here is Wrong I have already shown, and because you are showing that you cannot counter nor refute.what I have said and written here, you are very happy to leave, and to leave it here.

So, once again, what it is that I said and wrote 'stands', and remains so

Whatever. Congratulations.

[Age]

I think that one feature common to the many and various versions of epistemological skepticism, including the many and various kinds of antirealism, is the foundational myth of 'the observer' or 'the subject' or 'the conscious subject' or 'the mind'.

In different ways, the idea is always that there's an 'I' - variously defined - that's radically cut off from everything else, including every other 'I'. For example, the one who calls herself/himself/itself 'Age' thinks that the following is a deal-breaking truth: ' Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.'

Why is every thing relative to 'the observer'?

How could any thing not be relative to the observer?

Are you able to list any thing that you think or believe is not relative to the observer?

Who or what is 'the observer'?

Here we have another prime example of one asking a question while it believes that it already knows the answer to and believes that others also already knows the answer to, or should know the answer to.

Yet, this one will not commit "itself" here by just stating what it tinks, believes, or knows instead.

Now, the actual answer to the actual question here is the Mind, Itself, which is the who, of which, again, there is only One, as well as the Universe, Itself, which there is also only One of, and which is the what, here.

Is an amoeba 'an observer'?

Do you want 'me' to answer this for 'you' also? Or, would you like to have a discussion instead here?

What does 'relative to' mean here? Does it really and merely mean that an observer has to observe things in a certain way? (No argument.) Or does it mean that, if there were no observer - for example, before life evolved in the universe - there would be nothing? (Patent nonsense.)

And if the foundational myth of the isolated 'knower' is correct, who came up with this myth? Or: is it a fact that there are no facts, but only opinions - which entails an immediate contradiction? Or is it an opinion, and if so whose - and why give it credence?[/quote]

The irrefutable answers to all of these questions, and many more questions, come-to-light, as some would say, when one learns how to 'look at' and 'see' things properly and Correctly.

The remedy is to abandon the subject/object - perceiver/perceived - observer/observed - experiencer/experienced - mind/body - epistemological myth, because it's a conceptual distortion with ancient, supernaturalist baggage.

If you say and believe this, then this must be true, and so not just an opinion but a fact also, well to you anyway, right?

Suppose 'knowing' can be just one kind of object coming into contact with another kind of object. Suppose an amoeba knows there's a food item within reach of its enveloping arms. Suppose trees expel leaves because they know winter is coming.

you are free to 'suppose' absolutely ANY thing at all. But, suppose you came-to-learn how to 'look at', 'see', and thus 'know, what the actual and irrefutable Truth of things really are, and how this will effect those opinions of yours here.

you would be able to tell the actual difference between what is actually True and Right in Life, finally, from what you only think or believe now, currently.

[Peter Holmes]

I think that one feature common to the many and various versions of epistemological skepticism, including the many and various kinds of antirealism, is the foundational myth of 'the observer' or 'the subject' or 'the conscious subject' or 'the mind'.

In different ways, the idea is always that there's an 'I' - variously defined - that's radically cut off from everything else, including every other 'I'. For example, the one who calls herself/himself/itself 'Age' thinks that the following is a deal-breaking truth: ' Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.'

Why is every thing relative to 'the observer'?

How could any thing not be relative to the observer?

Are you able to list any thing that you think or believe is not relative to the observer?

Any unobserved thing.

Who or what is 'the observer'?

Now, the actual answer to the actual question here is the Mind, Itself, which is the who, of which, again, there is only One, as well as the Universe, Itself, which there is also only One of, and which is the what, here.

Okay. So 'the observer' is the One Mind Itself and the One Universe Itself. And that's why absolutely every thing is relative to, and 'subjective to', the observer.

That's nuff said, at least for me. Thanks for the conversation - and your willingness to cut the crap.

I just have no interest in hippy-wu, unfalsifiable mystical claptrap.

[Age]

I think that one feature common to the many and various versions of epistemological skepticism, including the many and various kinds of antirealism, is the foundational myth of 'the observer' or 'the subject' or 'the conscious subject' or 'the mind'.

In different ways, the idea is always that there's an 'I' - variously defined - that's radically cut off from everything else, including every other 'I'. For example, the one who calls herself/himself/itself 'Age' thinks that the following is a deal-breaking truth: ' Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer, and thus is subjective to the observer.'

Why is every thing relative to 'the observer'?

How could any thing not be relative to the observer?

Are you able to list any thing that you think or believe is not relative to the observer?

Any unobserved thing.

That it is unobserved is, obviously, relative to the observer

Okay. So 'the observer' is the One Mind Itself and the One Universe Itself. And that's why absolutely every thing is relative to, and 'subjective to', the observer.

That's nuff said, at least for me. Thanks for the conversation - and your willingness to cut the crap.

I just have no interest in hippy-wu, unfalsifiable mystical claptrap.

So, once again, this one cannot even comprehend and understand here, let alone counter nor refute what I have said and written here.

[Peter Holmes]

How could any thing not be relative to the observer?

Are you able to list any thing that you think or believe is not relative to the observer?

Any unobserved thing.

That it is unobserved is, obviously, relative to the observer

Which strips the relation 'relative to' of any meaning.

Okay. So 'the observer' is the One Mind Itself and the One Universe Itself. And that's why absolutely every thing is relative to, and 'subjective to', the observer.

That's nuff said, at least for me. Thanks for the conversation - and your willingness to cut the crap.

I just have no interest in hippy-wu, unfalsifiable mystical claptrap.

So, once again, this one cannot even comprehend and understand here, let alone counter nor refute what I have said and written here.

Say something falsifiable or refutable, and I'll falsify or refute it. Nothing to see here. You're just preaching doctrine, like any other snake-oil peddler.

[Age]

Any unobserved thing.

That it is unobserved is, obviously, relative to the observer

Which strips the relation 'relative to' of any meaning.

Okay. So 'the observer' is the One Mind Itself and the One Universe Itself. And that's why absolutely every thing is relative to, and 'subjective to', the observer.

That's nuff said, at least for me. Thanks for the conversation - and your willingness to cut the crap.

I just have no interest in hippy-wu, unfalsifiable mystical claptrap.

So, once again, this one cannot even comprehend and understand here, let alone counter nor refute what I have said and written here.

Say something falsifiable or refutable, and I'll falsify or refute it. Nothing to see here. You're just preaching doctrine, like any other snake-oil peddler.

So, what you are saying here is that what I said and wrote here, which counters and refutes what you said and claimed cannot be falsified, nor refuted.

[Peter Holmes]

That it is unobserved is, obviously, relative to the observer

Which strips the relation 'relative to' of any meaning.

So, once again, this one cannot even comprehend and understand here, let alone counter nor refute what I have said and written here.

Say something falsifiable or refutable, and I'll falsify or refute it. Nothing to see here. You're just preaching doctrine, like any other snake-oil peddler.

So, what you are saying here is that what I said and wrote here, which counters and refutes what you said and claimed cannot be falsified, nor refuted.

You haven't countered or refuted anything I've said.

You've just asserted that the mythical 'observer' is 'the Mind, Itself, which is the who, of which, again, there is only One, as well as the Universe, Itself, which there is also only One of, and which is the what, here.'

And that's pseudo-religious, mystical claptrap. And if it floats your boat on the sea of nothingness, that's fine.

[Age]

Which strips the relation 'relative to' of any meaning.
Say something falsifiable or refutable, and I'll falsify or refute it. Nothing to see here. You're just preaching doctrine, like any other snake-oil peddler.

So, what you are saying here is that what I said and wrote here, which counters and refutes what you said and claimed cannot be falsified, nor refuted.

You haven't countered or refuted anything I've said.

You've just asserted that the mythical 'observer' is 'the Mind, Itself, which is the who, of which, again, there is only One, as well as the Universe, Itself, which there is also only One of, and which is the what, here.'

And that's pseudo-religious, mystical claptrap. And if it floats your boat on the sea of nothingness, that's fine.

And, if you want to keep maintaining your pseudo-religious belief and opinion that morality can only ever be subjective only, then okay.

But, if absolutely anyone would like to see who has the the proof for their claims here, and thus is holding the irrefutable Truth here, then by all means I am up for this.

See, what I have said and claimed here, which you have already acknowledged cannot be countered nor refuted, and which fits in perfectly with how morality, itself, can be subjective and objective, means that morality is objective.

Which, again, is so very easily and so very simply proved irrefutably True.

[Age]

What could, and does, make morality is the exact same thing that could, and does, makes absolutely every thing else objective.

Does anyone here know what makes any thing objective?

See, once one also learns and understands how objectivity is obtained, then they too will be able to also see crystal clearly not just how morality can be objective, but also what in morality is, exactly, objectively, and thus irrefutably, Right and Wrong in Life.

[Peter Holmes]

What could, and does, make morality is the exact same thing that could, and does, makes absolutely every thing else objective.

Does anyone here know what makes any thing objective?

See, once one also learns and understands how objectivity is obtained, then they too will be able to also see crystal clearly not just how morality can be objective, but also what in morality is, exactly, objectively, and thus irrefutably, Right and Wrong in Life.

Physical things aren't objective or subjective. For example, a dog isn't objective or subjective.

To repeat: what we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than opinions. And what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion. And I think you agree with these explanations of the terms

It follows that the only thing that could 'make' morality objective is the existence of moral facts: moral features of reality that are or were the case, regardless of opinion.

Given this, I suggest you demonstrate the existence of any moral fact - which means showing that any moral assertion is true. Choose one you're convinced is a fact - and just do it.

Then you won't need to make unsubstantiated claims about it being easy to prove that morality is objective.

[Sculptor]

What could, and does, make morality is the exact same thing that could, and does, makes absolutely every thing else objective.

Does anyone here know what makes any thing objective?

See, once one also learns and understands how objectivity is obtained, then they too will be able to also see crystal clearly not just how morality can be objective, but also what in morality is, exactly, objectively, and thus irrefutably, Right and Wrong in Life.

Objectivity can only be attributed to a relationship, not the thing in itself.
Whether a thing is objective or subjective talks to the relationship between the observer and the observed.

Subjective is when we make comments about or apprend something and make it subject to our point of view.

Objective is a much harder to claim to ever make. This is when we try to make statements about something are pretend to delete our personal view point. To do this we are forced to reference others' opinions (which are subjective), or try to establish criteria with which to describe that thing and are agreed by "all".
The problems with this are legion. SInce objectivity has to entail inter-subjective agreement we can never be sure whether or no our language community or peer group's criteria are those which best describe the thing of interest.

Subjectivity and objectivity are about judgements, and values.

[Peter Holmes]

What could, and does, make morality is the exact same thing that could, and does, makes absolutely every thing else objective.

Does anyone here know what makes any thing objective?

See, once one also learns and understands how objectivity is obtained, then they too will be able to also see crystal clearly not just how morality can be objective, but also what in morality is, exactly, objectively, and thus irrefutably, Right and Wrong in Life.

Objectivity can only be attributed to a relationship, not the thing in itself.
Whether a thing is objective or subjective talks to the relationship between the observer and the observed.

Subjective is when we make comments about or apprend something and make it subject to our point of view.

Objective is a much harder to claim to ever make. This is when we try to make statements about something are pretend to delete our personal view point. To do this we are forced to reference others' opinions (which are subjective), or try to establish criteria with which to describe that thing and are agreed by "all".
The problems with this are legion. SInce objectivity has to entail inter-subjective agreement we can never be sure whether or no our language community or peer group's criteria are those which best describe the thing of interest.

Subjectivity and objectivity are about judgements, and values.

Thanks for this. Here are a few counters.

1 To make a factual assertion - such as 'water is H2O' - is not to pretend to delete one's personal viewpoint. We can 'prefix' any factual assertion with adverbial 'In my (our) opinion...', and that has no bearing on the truth-value of the assertion - and that's what objectivity is all about.

2 It's a mistake to confuse the way we may reach a factual conclusion with the nature of the conclusion. For example, if (in context), water is H2O, that's just a fact of reality - and would remain one how ever wide or complete our 'subjective consensus opinion' may be that it isn't. Consensus theories of truth are incorrect.

3 That a factual conclusion may be incorrect - perhaps because of the problem of induction - does not mean the conclusion can't be objective - based on facts. New facts may falsify a conclusion, but they are still facts, and so conclusions can be objective.

4 That we value objectivity - the reliance on facts - does not mean that facts are values.

[Sculptor]

What could, and does, make morality is the exact same thing that could, and does, makes absolutely every thing else objective.

Does anyone here know what makes any thing objective?

See, once one also learns and understands how objectivity is obtained, then they too will be able to also see crystal clearly not just how morality can be objective, but also what in morality is, exactly, objectively, and thus irrefutably, Right and Wrong in Life.

Objectivity can only be attributed to a relationship, not the thing in itself.
Whether a thing is objective or subjective talks to the relationship between the observer and the observed.

Subjective is when we make comments about or apprend something and make it subject to our point of view.

Objective is a much harder to claim to ever make. This is when we try to make statements about something are pretend to delete our personal view point. To do this we are forced to reference others' opinions (which are subjective), or try to establish criteria with which to describe that thing and are agreed by "all".
The problems with this are legion. SInce objectivity has to entail inter-subjective agreement we can never be sure whether or no our language community or peer group's criteria are those which best describe the thing of interest.

Subjectivity and objectivity are about judgements, and values.

Thanks for this. Here are a few counters.

1 To make a factual assertion - such as 'water is H2O' - is not to pretend to delete one's personal viewpoint. We can 'prefix' any factual assertion with adverbial 'In my (our) opinion...', and that has no bearing on the truth-value of the assertion - and that's what objectivity is all about.

This is just nomination and tautology. Nothing to do with objectivity and subjectivity, except to the degree that people have agreed upo the convention of calling water H2O. Other opinons may differ. eau no they don't . eau yes they DO!!

2 It's a mistake to confuse the way we may reach a factual conclusion with the nature of the conclusion. For example, if (in context), water is H2O, that's just a fact of reality - and would remain one how ever wide or complete our 'subjective consensus opinion' may be that it isn't. Consensus theories of truth are incorrect.

No. "water is H2O" is not a fact of reality. It is a fact of our scientific culture, and only true in the last couple of 100 years.
It is exactly a consensus of our langauge community.

3 That a factual conclusion may be incorrect - perhaps because of the problem of induction - does not mean the conclusion can't be objective - based on facts. New facts may falsify a conclusion, but they are still facts, and so conclusions can be objective.

Water is H2O is not about induction. It is based on a chemical theory of matter. It is deductive.

4 That we value objectivity - the reliance on facts - does not mean that facts are values.

Since all facts can be challenged and that their existence is useful, all facts are values, since they are valued.

THough it may be hard to imagine, it is at least possible that our current chemical theory could be found wanting and H2O is water could fall intto disuse and ridicule. Such is the case for all discredited scientific theories.
Water is ond of 4 elements of nature was "objective", and factual, Yet no longer has value.