What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What? I'm a pathological liar. And Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena is 'entirely consistent with both modern science and modern psychology'. And I don't want to admit that I exist.

Wtf are you talking about? Frankly, if this is what you've got, do one. Not interested.

Still more of the same routine, deliberately misunderstanding what I say (what I repeat), ignoring fields of science, ignoring psychology in general, playing the victim, running away etc.

This is weak. Will you tell us one day, what the actual reason is why you don't want to admit that you exist?

What do you expect from coming to such a philosophy forum? That people will assure you that you indeed don't exist?

Yep. Dick-for-brains, for sure. Note to everyone: don't bother with Atla any more.

Atla, Dick-for-brains, gnat, had been in my ignored list since a long time ago.

[Atla]

Well at least you two finally agree on something. After all you both live in some kind of alternative reality.

[Peter Holmes]

I've been accused of failing to provide any rational argument for my moral anti-objectivism. So, picking up Flash's strategy of setting out an argument sequentially, here's part 1 of a paper I've published: 'Arguments against moral objectivism' - dealing with preliminaries. Any pushback would be welcome.

Preliminaries

What we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions. Often, the word objective just means ‘factual’.

Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean. And this applies to the words fact and objectivity.

What we call a fact is a feature of reality – sometimes called a state-of-affairs - that is or was the case, regardless of anyone’s belief, judgement or opinion.

An opinion held by everyone is still an opinion, whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact.

Lack of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe a claim is true is irrational.

A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong, or that we should or ought to do something because it is morally right, or not do it because it is morally wrong.

We can use the words right, wrong, good, bad, should and ought to morally or non-morally. For example, the expressions the right answer, a bad experience, and we ought to leave need have nothing to do with morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I've been accused of failing to provide any rational argument for my moral anti-objectivism. So, picking up Flash's strategy of setting out an argument sequentially, here's part 1 of a paper I've published: 'Arguments against moral objectivism' - dealing with preliminaries. Any pushback would be welcome.
Preliminaries

I have already countered all your points but have not received any convincing counter-argument from you.

Your moral anti-realism has no rational standing until you are able to counter all my counters below;

What we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions. Often, the word objective just means ‘factual’.

Your sense of 'what is objectivity' is grounded on an illusion re independence of human conditions.
See my counter below;

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

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

Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean. And this applies to the words fact and objectivity.

Words and other signs are only effective within a specific human-based language game which is a subset of a FSERC. Because it is human-based it ultimately cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Language-game is a subset of FSERC.
viewtopic.php?t=41861

What we call a fact is a feature of reality – sometimes called a state-of-affairs - that is or was the case, regardless of anyone’s belief, judgement or opinion.

I have countered the above as follows;

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

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

PH: The Fact of the Matter; or Delusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

An opinion held by everyone is still an opinion, whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact.

Truism re opinion.
No one = no absolutely independent fact.
Your what is fact is grounded on an illusion;

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

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

Lack of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe a claim is true is irrational.

Your claim of what is fact is irrational because you do not provide direct evidence of your absolutely-independent-of-human-conditions fact.
When cornered you refer to science, but science is contingent upon a human based FSERC, so cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong, or that we should or ought to do something because it is morally right, or not do it because it is morally wrong.

True, whatever is asserted has its referent.
Moral assertions are grounded on objective moral referents, i.e. moral facts.

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

Objective Evil Facts and Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34737

We can use the words right, wrong, good, bad, should and ought to morally or non-morally. For example, the expressions the right answer, a bad experience, and we ought to leave need have nothing to do with morality.

The above view is because you do not understand what essential morality is.
What is 'ought' is a merely modal verb, not a noun.
The oughtness or oughtnot-ness that are represented by their neural referent are nouns which can be verified and justified as objective within the science-FSERC and thereupon the moral FSERC.

Point is ALL humans has an inherent moral function as a potential embedded within the human DNA; when expressed it is represented by is physical neural correlates.

The physical moral function activity is low in strength within the majority of humans.
Therein the physical moral function are the oughtness and oughtnot-ness [nouns not verbs] algorithms, e.g. the oughtnot-ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure and others.

Your moral anti-realism has no rational standing until you are able to counter all the above arguments.

[Peter Holmes]

I've been accused of failing to provide any rational argument for my moral anti-objectivism. So, picking up Flash's strategy of setting out an argument sequentially, here's part 1 of a paper I've published: 'Arguments against moral objectivism' - dealing with preliminaries. Any pushback would be welcome.
Preliminaries

I have already countered all your points but have not received any convincing counter-argument from you.

Your moral anti-realism has no rational standing until you are able to counter all my counters below;

What we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions. Often, the word objective just means ‘factual’.

Your sense of 'what is objectivity' is grounded on an illusion re independence of human conditions.
See my counter below;

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

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

Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean. And this applies to the words fact and objectivity.

Words and other signs are only effective within a specific human-based language game which is a subset of a FSERC. Because it is human-based it ultimately cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Language-game is a subset of FSERC.
viewtopic.php?t=41861

What we call a fact is a feature of reality – sometimes called a state-of-affairs - that is or was the case, regardless of anyone’s belief, judgement or opinion.

I have countered the above as follows;

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

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

PH: The Fact of the Matter; or Delusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

An opinion held by everyone is still an opinion, whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact.

Truism re opinion.
No one = no absolutely independent fact.
Your what is fact is grounded on an illusion;

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

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

Lack of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe a claim is true is irrational.

Your claim of what is fact is irrational because you do not provide direct evidence of your absolutely-independent-of-human-conditions fact.
When cornered you refer to science, but science is contingent upon a human based FSERC, so cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong, or that we should or ought to do something because it is morally right, or not do it because it is morally wrong.

True, whatever is asserted has its referent.
Moral assertions are grounded on objective moral referents, i.e. moral facts.

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

Objective Evil Facts and Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34737

We can use the words right, wrong, good, bad, should and ought to morally or non-morally. For example, the expressions the right answer, a bad experience, and we ought to leave need have nothing to do with morality.

The above view is because you do not understand what essential morality is.
What is 'ought' is a merely modal verb, not a noun.
The oughtness or oughtnot-ness that are represented by their neural referent are nouns which can be verified and justified as objective within the science-FSERC and thereupon the moral FSERC.

Point is ALL humans has an inherent moral function as a potential embedded within the human DNA; when expressed it is represented by is physical neural correlates.

The physical moral function activity is low in strength within the majority of humans.
Therein the physical moral function are the oughtness and oughtnot-ness [nouns not verbs] algorithms, e.g. the oughtnot-ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure and others.

Your moral anti-realism has no rational standing until you are able to counter all the above arguments.

Falsifying your claims and refuting your arguments - which we've done 'a million' times - is fruitless, because you either don't or can't afford to understand your mistakes. So it's a waste of time.

[Peter Holmes]

Arguments against moral objectivism

Following the preliminaries in my previous post, here's the first of my inter-related arguments.

1 The existence of moral facts

Moral objectivism is the claim that there are moral facts – moral things, properties or events - that are or were the case, regardless of anyone’s belief, judgement or opinion.

The burden of proof (demonstration) that there are moral facts is with moral objectivists – and unmet, so far, to my knowledge.

If there are no moral facts, then morality is not and cannot be objective.

Note. It is possible to deny the existence of what we call facts and, therefore, what we call objectivity. But if there are no facts, then there are no moral facts, and moral objectivism is incoherent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I've been accused of failing to provide any rational argument for my moral anti-objectivism. So, picking up Flash's strategy of setting out an argument sequentially, here's part 1 of a paper I've published: 'Arguments against moral objectivism' - dealing with preliminaries. Any pushback would be welcome.
Preliminaries

I have already countered all your points but have not received any convincing counter-argument from you.

Your moral anti-realism has no rational standing until you are able to counter all my counters below;

What we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions. Often, the word objective just means ‘factual’.

Your sense of 'what is objectivity' is grounded on an illusion re independence of human conditions.
See my counter below;

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

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

Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean. And this applies to the words fact and objectivity.

Words and other signs are only effective within a specific human-based language game which is a subset of a FSERC. Because it is human-based it ultimately cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Language-game is a subset of FSERC.
viewtopic.php?t=41861

What we call a fact is a feature of reality – sometimes called a state-of-affairs - that is or was the case, regardless of anyone’s belief, judgement or opinion.

I have countered the above as follows;

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

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

PH: The Fact of the Matter; or Delusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

An opinion held by everyone is still an opinion, whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact.

Truism re opinion.
No one = no absolutely independent fact.
Your what is fact is grounded on an illusion;

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

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

Lack of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe a claim is true is irrational.

Your claim of what is fact is irrational because you do not provide direct evidence of your absolutely-independent-of-human-conditions fact.
When cornered you refer to science, but science is contingent upon a human based FSERC, so cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong, or that we should or ought to do something because it is morally right, or not do it because it is morally wrong.

True, whatever is asserted has its referent.
Moral assertions are grounded on objective moral referents, i.e. moral facts.

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

Objective Evil Facts and Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34737

We can use the words right, wrong, good, bad, should and ought to morally or non-morally. For example, the expressions the right answer, a bad experience, and we ought to leave need have nothing to do with morality.

The above view is because you do not understand what essential morality is.
What is 'ought' is a merely modal verb, not a noun.
The oughtness or oughtnot-ness that are represented by their neural referent are nouns which can be verified and justified as objective within the science-FSERC and thereupon the moral FSERC.

Point is ALL humans has an inherent moral function as a potential embedded within the human DNA; when expressed it is represented by is physical neural correlates.

The physical moral function activity is low in strength within the majority of humans.
Therein the physical moral function are the oughtness and oughtnot-ness [nouns not verbs] algorithms, e.g. the oughtnot-ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure and others.

Your moral anti-realism has no rational standing until you are able to counter all the above arguments.

Falsifying your claims and refuting your arguments - which we've done 'a million' times - is fruitless, because you either don't or can't afford to understand your mistakes. So it's a waste of time.

I have given you a long list of counters to your argument.
Just show me one where you have solidly countered my argument.
Whatever mistakes you think I have committed is based the grounding of your reality on an illusion.

[Peter Holmes]

I have given you a long list of counters to your argument.
Just show me one where you have solidly countered my argument.
Whatever mistakes you think I have committed is based the grounding of your reality on an illusion.

Kant's supposedly anti-realist claim - that 'the human mind' constructs reality - is itself philosophically/ontologically/metaphysically realist. It says: 'this is the case'. So the claim falsifies itself - and the argument refutes itself. And substituting 'humans' for 'the human mind' makes no difference.

Your primary premise is false, so your whole argument - including your argument for moral objectivity - collapses. It fails at the first fence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Arguments against moral objectivism

Following the preliminaries in my previous post, here's the first of my inter-related arguments.

1 The existence of moral facts

Moral objectivism is the claim that there are moral facts – moral things, properties or events - that are or were the case, regardless of anyone’s belief, judgement or opinion.

The burden of proof (demonstration) that there are moral facts is with moral objectivists – and unmet, so far, to my knowledge.

If there are no moral facts, then morality is not and cannot be objective.

Note. It is possible to deny the existence of what we call facts and, therefore, what we call objectivity. But if there are no facts, then there are no moral facts, and moral objectivism is incoherent.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

1. The FSERC sense - e.g. scientific facts
2. The independent of humans sense - grounded on an illusion.

It is obvious from your sense 2, there are no moral facts because they are illusory in the first place.
Your argument is self-refuting because there are no moral facts in accordance with your definition of what is fact.
Not only there are no moral facts, there are also no natural facts as per your definition of what is fact which is illusory.

The only facts that are realistic are the human-based FSERC facts.
In this sense there are real natural facts [as in science] and similarly for moral facts.
Since FSERC dictates objectivity, the moral FSERC generate moral facts.

In this thread I have give a clue that Moral Realism is possible even from a scientific realism perspective; [mine is scientific realism but we still get to the same point with objective moral facts]

Boyd: How to be a Moral Realist
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29683
Boyd claimed moral facts exist in parallel to scientific facts.
His basis is that of Homeostatic property-cluster
For example 'health' [healthiness] is an objective fact represented by a cluster of natural properties which are objective.
Moral properties are similar, thus objective in that sense.

The fact is you approach your moral views from a VERY narrow perspective and is not up to date.

[Peter Holmes]

Boyd: How to be a Moral Realist
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29683
Boyd claimed moral facts exist in parallel to scientific facts.
His basis is that of Homeostatic property-cluster
For example 'health' [healthiness] is an objective fact represented by a cluster of natural properties which are objective.
Moral properties are similar, thus objective in that sense.

So, a 'cluster of natural properties' constitutes what we call health, or being healthy.

What 'cluster of natural properties' constitutes what we call moral rightness/wrongness, or goodness/badness, being morally right/wrong, etc?

This is a false analogy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have given you a long list of counters to your argument.
Just show me one where you have solidly countered my argument.
Whatever mistakes you think I have committed is based the grounding of your reality on an illusion.

Kant's supposedly anti-realist claim - that 'the human mind' constructs reality - is itself philosophically/ontologically/metaphysically realist.
It says: 'this is the case'.
So the claim falsifies itself - and the argument refutes itself.
And substituting 'humans' for 'the human mind' makes no difference.

Your primary premise is false, so your whole argument - including your argument for moral objectivity - collapses. It fails at the first fence.

see my response in this related post;

Kant: a Transcendental Idealist & Empirical Realist
viewtopic.php?p=708907&sid=688f11109878 ... 3d#p708907

[Veritas Aequitas]

Boyd: How to be a Moral Realist
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29683
Boyd claimed moral facts exist in parallel to scientific facts.
His basis is that of Homeostatic property-cluster
For example 'health' [healthiness] is an objective fact represented by a cluster of natural properties which are objective.
Moral properties are similar, thus objective in that sense.

So, a 'cluster of natural properties' constitutes what we call health, or being healthy.

What 'cluster of natural properties' constitutes what we call moral rightness/wrongness, or goodness/badness, being morally right/wrong, etc?

This is a false analogy.

Have you even read his argument?

How to be a Moral Realist? Boyd
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Realist

[Peter Holmes]

So, a 'cluster of natural properties' constitutes what we call health, or being healthy.

What 'cluster of natural properties' constitutes what we call moral rightness/wrongness, or goodness/badness, being morally right/wrong, etc?

This is a false analogy.

Have you even read his argument?

How to be a Moral Realist? Boyd
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Realist

No. Your summary is enough to dismiss it. Or didn't you describe it correctly?

[FlashDangerpants]

Have you even read his argument?

How to be a Moral Realist? Boyd
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Realist

No. Your summary is enough to dismiss it. Or didn't you describe it correctly?

In the intro for the paper Boyd wrote "It will not be my aim here to establish that moral realism is true", so... VA hasn't understood it well enough to be able to describe it correctly.