* this is related to specific moral elements within morality [as defined].
Despite that we cannot deny it has contributed significantly to deter evil within humanity since its emergence.
I am only using post to PH as a reference point; this discussion is open to all.
I keep telling you, your above views are grounded on an illusion.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 3:56 pm Oh. My mistake. I thought there was an argument for moral objectivity, which must rely on a non-circular description of moral rightness and wrongness. 'X is morally right/wrong because...'
For example, 'Murder is morally wrong because...' Now, that's supposed to be a moral fact, so there's a factual reason why murder is morally wrong.
But, let's not hold our breath - because moral moral objectivists can't explain why murder is morally wrong.
Moral objectivism and realism is a fucking joke.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
Here is the factual 'what is fact';
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact [because the linguistic FSK said so], and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. [because the astronomical FSK said so] Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts. [because the US legal FSK said so]
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
Do you deny the above from WIKI with my added qualification of an FSK?Scientific facts [as the scientific FSK said so] are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means. ibid
From the above, re Christian morality, "Killing of another human is immoral' is moral fact because the Christian moral FSK said so.
You cannot deny this based on 'what is fact' re the WIKI article above.
Because the above facts are conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects within a FSR-FSK, they are independent of individuals' belief and of knowledge and opinion, thus they are objective [as defined].
Therefore, you cannot deny in placing "Killing of another human is immoral' is moral fact from the Christian Moral FSK and is objective on the starting block of being factual and objective.
However, it is evident there are difference in the degrees of objectivity between the scientific FSK [the most objective] and the linguistic, astronomical and historical.
As I had explained, whilst "Killing of another human is immoral' the qualifies [for the starting block] as a moral fact and is objective, it failed to get off the starting block because the whole of the Christian FSK is grounded on an illusory God. Therefore its degree of objectivity is negligible, say 0.0000001/100.
Analogy:
It is like an athlete qualified for an Olympics 100 meters final but he failed to get off the starting block, thus disqualified - no rating. However, there is no denial the athlete is an Olympian athlete.
The Christian Moral FSK degree of objectivity is negligible due to its grounding on an illusion.
Moral FSKs that do ground their claims on verifiable and justifiable empirical evidences and has near equivalent objectivity to the scientific FSK, the moral facts will have higher degree of objectivity.
For example [among many] Hume's moral FSK grounded on sympathy [empathy] do have some reasonable degrees of objectivity because empathy* can be traced [in some degrees] to mirror neurons which are represented by its physical neural correlates.
* empathy is not an absolute correlation to morality but in some ways it does.
Since I have justified against your OP, there are moral facts and morality is objective.
Do you have any counter for the above?
Discuss?
Views from others??