I've come to discover that people who think morality is objective don't actually know what objectivity means.
>>18545717I've come to discover that brainlets who think morality is subjective don't actually know what subjectivity means.
>>18545717"Objective" means an attribute is in the object rather than in the subject. That's where the dichotomy is grounded. After subjecting science and natural philosophy to this dichotomy we started using the term "objective" to really mean anything factual and mind-independent. And that's what moral realists are saying - ethics are like physics in that they would still work the exact same way in our absence. We only described what we've discovered.
>>18545739>describe to someone what you've discovered they "objectively" ought to do>they don't feel like they ought to do it at all>try to prove to them they ought to do it>find out you literally can't
>>18545756Duh. Nobody can prove anything in absence of standardized methodology. As is currently the case in ethics.
>>18545864>my discoveries are "objective", i just can't prove them to anyone who doesn't already share my subjective opinionsOh.
>>18545717Nobody in meta-ethics uses the term "objective" to speak of morality. It's too loose of a term to describe something accurately when the nature of the subject is the core of the problematic>>18545738Ironically ethical subjectivism does exist unlike ethical objectivism. It's mostly used to group all moral positions that are inherently individual yet cognitive.>>18545739Not really because moral "naturalists" also treat their morality as "objective" despite it not being mind-independent. It's why people don't use the term. It can both denote someone thinking that morality is mind-independent and exists outside of us, while simultaneously also denote someone thinking that morality is mind-dependent yet similar across everyone's mind.>>18545756>they don't feel like they ought to do it at allI'm not a moral realist but you're smuggling in moral sentimentalism/subjectivism by saying that morality is based upon a "feeling".
>>18545989>methods are subjective opinionsSad.
>>18545717Technically speaking Divine Command theory is a form of moral Subjectivism. The subject just happens to be God, eternal sovereign of the universe. The Euthyphro dilemma was resolved by admitting that yes, if God commanded you to smash a baby with a rock it would be good and right to do so. Then finding reasons why God would never do that, which fair enough.
>>18546020You say "not really" and then you affirm all the usages of the term I listed. Yes, the usages differ without necessarily overlapping each time, that is granted. Are you telling me if I pick up an average moral realist publication, they will avoid using the term "objective"?
>>18546020>>18546028Yeah my bad I fucked up the formatting. What I meant to say was that objective morality can both mean naturalist and relativist positions, alongside other more bizarre positions (i.e. good/bad are attributes like colors).>Are you telling me if I pick up an average moral realist publication, they will avoid using the term "objective"?Objective is a commonly used word but yes, most people don't use that terminology outside of its typical usecase.
>>18546020>Ironically ethical subjectivism does existConceived by people with no grasp on what "subjective" means.>you're smuggling in moral sentimentalism/subjectivism by saying that morality is based upon a "feeling".That didn't happen. You hallucinated it.
>>18546023You've already conceded that the only people who accept your """methods""" would be the ones who share the subjective opinions that motivate them.
>>18546043It's too bad you're only here to b8. You know you could have genuine responses without ressorting to this. But yes, saying that they "feel" is still smuggling subjectivism in
>>18546045>saying that they "feel" is still smuggling subjectivism inNo, it isn't, you absolute token-stringing bioautomaton. Nothing was being smuggled. It was a pure statement of fact.
>>18546046lol so you disagree that saying that someone must "feel" to adequatly know morality isn't smuggling a presupposition that feelings is what morality boils down to ? This is stupid because I'm a ethical subjectivist. I agree that morality boils down to feelings (essentially), but you're being autistic because you want le heckin reddit debaterino
>>18546044I pointed out that proof is necessarily a product of methods. That methods are somehow equivalent to subjective opinions is a claim of your own, I don't really have much to do with it. You are certainly allowed to sacrifice science and most philosophy to subjectivity with your "methods are subjective" oneliner but at that point the thread is over.
>>18546051>a presupposition that feelings is what morality boils down toThere is no such presupposition anywhere in my post. Only a simple statement of fact: if you present your "objective" moral framework and they look at your basic premises and say just "nah", that's an impasse. There is nothing you can do to compel them, even if they're perfectly rational. This doesn't establish your feminine appeals to emotions as being a source for morality, it just rules out objective morality.
>>18546054>That methods are somehow equivalent to subjective opinions is a claim of your ownNo such claim was made. You have a severe mental illness. The problem is that the only people who accept your """methods""" would be the ones who share the subjective opinions that motivate them.
>>18546059The problem with /his/ is that people like you are genuinely sub80 iq. If we had a mandatory IQ screening to access this place, unironic shitposts like your would be filtered instantaneously>and they look at your basic premises and say just "nah", that's an impasseAnd ? That doesn't even contradict moral realist positions. It just posit that you can't force morality upon people. If that's honestly how you want to spin your original statement ("they don't feel like they ought to do it at all") then you're probably extra-retarded
>>18546063>And ?And read on, mentally ill cretin. That's not where that post ends.
>>18545738I've come to discover polysemy, and no one knows what anything means.
>>18546065You're literally saying that moral realism can't be true because "we can't hold people accountable to moral standards". Do you not realize how completely stupid this is ? Moral realist position have never been about whether or not we can enforce a moral position, it's always been about the nature of morality.
>>18546080>You're literally saying that moral realism can't be true because "we can't hold people accountable to moral standards".This literally didn't happen. I will note that you used the word "literally" there, implying you hallucinated that I actually said exactly what you're claiming. That suggests to me you're off your meds again.What I literally said - multiple times - is that the moment someone calls bullshit on your "objective" moral framework and puts the onus on you to actually prove it, i.e. make it rationally compelling to those who don't feel about your basic premises the way you do, you literally can't.
>>18546086>this literally didn't happen>"make it rationally compelling to those who don't feel about your basic premises the way you do">"feel"What part of my original post did you not understand ? What do you think is the logical chain here ?
>>18546096>token stringing biobot gets caught up on the same token again>it simply can't grasp it in the context of the whole post>it shuts down because it thinks my using the word is some kind of win condition
>>18546097Anon, there's only 2 possible outcomes for what you meant to say : A. You believe that morality is based on feelings, and that contrary feelings on the same moral claim indicate that morality is not objectiveB. Morality isn't based on feelings, but the lack of possibility of imposing one's morality upon others makes it non-objectiveI've already pointed both of those options to you.
>>18546147>there's only 2 possible outcomes for what you meant to say : Only in your disabled mind. In reality, I just meant what I wrote, which was this:>The moment someone calls bullshit on your "objective" moral framework and puts the onus on you to actually prove it, i.e. make it rationally compelling to those who don't feel about your basic premises the way you do, you literally can't.That doesn't happen if something is objectively true: you can deal with skepticism by autistically drilling down the issue until you find something to base your arguments on that no one rational can deny. >b-b-but that means morality is based on feelings!No, it doesn't. It only means morality is not objective.>you heckin' used the word "feel"!This doesn't matter, the actual point is about your inability to make a rationally compelling case, not about how people feel. But I might as well point out that "feel" doesn't necessarily mean the hormonal imbalances that drive your little bitchboy thinking and behavior. It can mean an intuitive grasp that your premises go against human nature. It can mean finding the entire framework disagreeable on philosophical-aesthetic grounds. It can mean anything deeper than pure analytical reason. Such objections can be more rationally defensible than whatever moral indignation spawned your "objective" moral framework in the first place.>b-b-but if something is not objective then it's subjectiveWrong. Something can be neither objective nor subjective. Regardless, I simply deny that subjectivity provides a basis for morality. It's an especially easy case to make when you keep trying to reduce the non-objective into "feelings". Your braindamaged philosophy makes it impossible for you to have an actual moral basis as far as I'm concerned.
I believe we have a base set of hyper abstract morals that stems from our evolution, but otherwise morals are a highly cultural concept and might look completely different to the point of being inverted when looking at for example an alien species that evolved differently. So objectively speaking morals highly depend on the subset we're talking, but this is not useful. In terms of human society, morals are something we can discuss regarding a direction that is evolutionarily useful to us. What view do I fall under?
>>18546633>What view do I fall under?Pop-evo rhetorical waffling.
>>18545738The fact that moral limits on acceptable behaviors changed and continue to change over the centuries proves that it is subjective, brainlet.
>>18546639>The fact that moral limits on acceptable behaviors changed and continue to change over the centuries proves that it is subjectiveThen you should be able to make a valid argument based on this premise.Protip: you will seethe and deflect instead.
>>18546594>This doesn't matter, the actual point is about your inability to make a rationally compelling caseYou're genuinely low IQ. The ability to make a rationally compelling case to people for your moral system will depend on how people are receptive to it. If you think that it is based on intuition, you're an intuitionnist, if you think it's based on feelings, you're an emotivist or a sentimentalist etc. You're being a little faggot because I called you out for saying that how people feel about a moral system is simply supposing that morality is already based on individuals and is discovered through individual means (i.e. intuition, feelings, sentiments etc). You refuse to admit this because it would be contrary to your naive understanding and force you into proving why this would be the case in the first place.>It can mean an intuitive grasp that your premises go against human natureAnd now you're just switching to some form of intuitionism. In both cases, you're being retarded because you're unable to see that you're smuggling the ethical system you think is true without justifying it.>Something can be neither objective nor subjectiveIt can't idiot. Either something is mind-dependent, in which case it's subjective, either it's mind-independent, in which case it's "objective". There is no "intermediate" position unless you're arguing semantics>>18546633Probably under some form of moral naturalism
>>18546649You're psychotically ill and I accept your full concession of all my points, on account of your arguing with the voices in your head instead of actually disputing them.
>>18546649>Either something is mind-dependent, in which case it's subjective, either it's mind-independent, in which case it's "objective"By the way 'subjective' implies subject-dependent, not "mind-dependent", so good job circling all the way back to this: >>18545738 and confirming my initial point. Everything else you wrote can thus be safely ignored.
>>18546651Moldovan schizo detected
>>18546651lmfaoo so no arguments ? I mean concession accepted but I expected more of you lol. This is disappointing to say the least.>>18546652>By the way 'subjective' implies subject-dependent, not "mind-dependent"not in meta-ethics where we say "mind" instead of subject. It's a naming convention anon. Do you know what that is ?>>18546653Is it him ? Man why does /his/ attract so many retarded third-worlders.
>>18545717>morality is objectiveCorrect
>>18546664>we say "mind" instead of subjectEverything you can conceive of is mind-dependent so you're not making a useful distinction. Maybe "we" wouldn't be shitting out so many retarded posts if "we" at least got the bare basics right.
>>18546664>I expected more of youI think the actual problem is that I gave you too much and your brown, primitive mind started to get tangled up in its own subjective red herrings. Let me dumb it down for you:If your moral framework produces objective truths, you should be able to prove that your moral claims are true even to someone who rejects your values and intuitions, so long as they use reason to judge the soundness of your argument.
>>18546664>Is it him ?I think these two posts >>18546670>>18546673should be telling kekHe just can't help himself but spam brainlet wojaks
>>18546676>He just can't help himself but spam brainlet wojaksI accept your seething concession.
>>18546670>Everything you can conceive of is mind-dependentObjective moralists BTFO with zero chance of recovery
>>18546670>>18546673lmfao you're so pathetic I actually wanted a fun debate with some dumbass on meta-ethics but you just concede straight away that you don't have any arguments lol. It's not even fun because there's just nothing to debate over kek>Everything you can conceive of is mind-dependent so you're not making a useful distinction>ERM ACKSHUALLY DA NAMING CONVENTION IS WRONGbooooooooring im not here to argue semantics or to see your rants on why it hurts your feelings that people use conventions. Go write a letter to the guy who made the convention>you should be able to prove that your moral claims are true even to someone who rejects your values and intuitionsYes, and you believe that to prove moral claims you need to rely on some form of intuition or feeling. You're just circling back to what was said earlier
>>18546701>i'm not here to argue semanticsOk. Then just explain what distinction you're making, brainlet.> you believe that to prove moral claims you need to rely on some form of intuition or feeling.You hallucinated this. That's a recurring theme with you. Either way, I accept your concession that morality is not objective.
>>18546707>Then just explain what distinction you're makingawww that's cute, the local third worlder moldovan doesn't understand what a naming convention is.Imagine 2 monkeys (shouldn't be hard since you're moldovan). They agree that banana = "ooh" sound. So when they see banana, monkey goes "ooh" "ooh". This is what a naming convention is. You agree on a specific name on a common object.In meta-ethics, aka the philosophy of morality, philosophers chose to name "subject" "mind" to avoid confusion, simply because "subject" was tied to sub-positions within this field, like "ethical subjectivism". However, they are in effect the same : some moral positions are true regardless of the mind that holds them, whilst some depend on this mind.>You hallucinated thisLet's start simple : how do you prove moral claims ?>your concession that morality is not objectivehuuuh anon you might be hallucinating, are you hearing voices again ? didn't you write earlier yourself that I was basing my morals on feelings ? Do you have trouble understanding the last line in >>18546051 ?
>>18546718>having a full-blown psychotic fitStill waiting for you to explain what distinction you're making, brainlet.>how do you prove moral claims ?You can't.
>>18546722>You can't.Why ? Why is it that having a moral intuition is sufficient to disprove a moral realist position ?
>>18546734>Why?Because no moral basis can be justified by reason alone. We've been over this.
>>18546645I just made it you moron. Learn how to read.
>>18546023thats not what he said
>>18546740>Because no moral basis can be justified by reason aloneWhy ? Furthermore, on what basis then do you think we can justify moral claims ?
>>18546746>I just made itYou're such a mentally ill retard you don't even know what an argument is supposed to be. Moving on.
>>18546748>Why ?Because even if there are basic facts no one can reasonably deny, they won't help you construct your proof as you'll run into the is-ought problem.
>>18546755Yes dipshit I did, you just can't come up with a response to it because you're an idiot. Morals changed over time and are different based on geography and culture so by definition they can't be objective. Care to make an argument or are you gonna seethe about it some more?
>>18546759>Morals changed over time and are different based on geography and culture so by definition they can't be objective.This is not a valid argument but even if it were, it's not showing what you want it to, namely:>it is subjective
>>18545717Yeah, moral realism is a load of crap.If you screwed with every single mind and twist their moral senses, the supposed universal moral principles are completely lost. There is no way for them to rediscover that murder is wrong.On the other hand, if you screw with everyone's perception of a plank of wood, making them thinking it was 5ft instead of 3ft, there are still knock-on effects that exist as a consequence of the true length.It gets worse when you realize that almost all moral realist argumentation can be given the ad lib treatment, and will just as convincingly argue for a position that other subjective things, like emotions, are actually objective. See the retard in this thread who tried to claim moral realism is about how morality works.
>>18546761It is valid but you can't counter it with anything meaningful because you're a retard. Morals are human made and they vary depending on individual preferences based on culture, geography, and time period. Eating meat in some parts of the world is completely okay while it is looked down upon and shunned in others. Same with how parents raise their children and the role of women in society.You don't have any rebuttal, just retarded seething and screeching.
>>18546767Not reading your mentally ill post but be sure to shit out another paragraph.
>>18546757Again, why is that ? What's the basis for this ?
>>18546768> I'm not gonna read that durrSo you're illiterate too? Makes sense, with the idiotic bullshit you've been posting.
>>18546768You didn't respond to me.>>18546763
>>18546771>What's the basis for this ?The basis for what? The is-ought problem? You need me to spoonfeed you about that? I thought "we" were highly educated on hypermetamoralology. :^)
>>18546774>You didn't respond to me.What's there to respond to? Moral realism IS a load of crap.
>>18546776Based
>>18546775Should be pretty easy to answer desu. Why is it that you can't justify moral claims through reason alone ? Your answer was >the is-ought problemBut this doesn't solve anything. So again, why is it that the is-ought problem prevents you from using reason alone to determine moral facts ? More over, on what basis do you determine moral facts ? The actual problem in your line of reasoning is that you're gesturing at something beyond reason, like personal appreciation or intuition to ground your moral facts. This is fine, but because you're retarded, you tried smuggling it in whilst debating another anon without justifying it. I've called you out and your little moldovian monkey brain chimped out topkek
>>18545717>don't actually know what objectivity means.So you think their opinion should be disregarded because of your personal opinion. Because there's no objective morality according to you, there's no reason for me to consider your opinion any more correct than theirs. Thus, your argument against objective morality fails.
>>18546788> Why is it that you can't justify moral claims through reason aloneYou can't do that either. If morality is objective then you'd be able to prove something morally right/wrong empirically but that isn't possible.
>>18546795So, on what do you determine moral claims and why is it that you can't justify it through reason alone ? >>18546789Except he's not making a normative claim. He's not telling you that you SHOULD but that it IS.
>>18546799personal experience and observation? Like how you learned too?
>>18546799>Except he's not making a normative claimThen it's not an objection to the existence objective morality, so there's no threat to defend it from.
>>18546788>why is it that the is-ought problem prevents you from using reason alone to determine moral facts ?No inference rule in logic takes a purely descriptive sentence and produces a normative one. If your premises don't already contain an 'ought' somewhere, there's no way for it to end up in your conclusion if you only make valid inferences. How are you getting filtered by this?
>>18546801>personal experienceAnd why is that ? What's the criteria? Seems a lot like you're hinting at intuition or feeling but can't do so because it'll btfo you lol>>18546805anon you cant make the difference between normative claims and descriptive claims
>>18546817>If your premises don't already contain an 'ought' somewhereAnd where does thie ought come from? You keep avoiding the question from where your moral validity comes from. Should I take this as a concession ?
>>18546818> Seems a lot like you're hinting at intuition or feelingNot at all, you're trying to force your dumbass assumption back into the argument.
>>18546818The only descriptive claim he made is that some people he has talked to didn't understand some words. Okay, so? What am I supposed to do with that claim. Clearly, he intends it as an argument against objective morality.
I’ve come to discover people who think morality is subjective don’t know what a woman is
>>18546820>And where does thie ought come from?You tell me. Two different people can arrive at two different moral conclusions, even if both are equally capable of making empirical observations, equally capable of reasoning about them and equally willing to do so. If they want to resolve their disagreement using reason, they can't just start each from his own 'ought', they have to start from the neutral 'is'. But then they run into this problem: >>18546817.>from where your moral validity comes fromWhat's "moral validity"? What are you even mumbling about?
>>18545739your words stray from the golden path
>>18545717I break morallity down in 2 items: What we should do, and evaluating if you are doing that.What we should do is subjective, based on goals blah blah everyones got an opinionEvaluating whether or not your actions comply with a plan is objective.
>>18546861To evaluate something, you should follow some procedure, so there is already what you call a subjective morality (should) baked into even your second kind of objective morality.
>>18546867>brainlet gets filtered by the idea that actions can objectively fail to conform to subjective values and goals
>>18546882To even make any distinction between actions and goals or anything else, you should follow a procedure. What you call subjective morality is baked into existence itself, so it is more objective than your objective morality.
>>18546901>nonsensical schizobabble
>>18546902No he is legit. The is-ought gap is imaginary because we've been existing on the ought side of things all along.
>>18546902You are blinding yourself to the Truth and to the objective Good.
>>18546913>>18546918You're a total retard. Sorry.
>>18546936Cope
>>18546942With what? You're basically just removing yourself from the discussion by rejecting the agreed-upon basics of rational discourse.
>>18546953With the role of ethics in human cognition. Rational discourse doesn't depend on the ought-is dichotomy, in fact we've been having rational discourse for centuries before this objection was ever put forth. And it was a legitimate objection for a while, until cognitive scientists established that you don't induce is-statements as though you were a detached objective observer. The very conclusion that there "is" an object is a result of a long coping-caring process that starts with ethics (valued action) and arguably even with aesthetics (irreducible values) depending on where you draw the line. All is-statements are propositional products of processes entirely rooted in pre-conceptual ought-sentiments. We don't need to bridge the gap from "is" to "ought", we are entirely dependent on "ought" and we occasionally derive correct "is" from it.
>>18546968>Rational discourse doesn't depend on the ought-is dichotomy,Take your meds, wait for a few hours and then quote the specific part of my post that implies anything like this.
>>18546970>>[I argue against the ought-is dichotomy]>You're basically just removing yourself from the discussion by rejecting the agreed-upon basics of rational discourse.I'm not sure where you got lost, my friend. But I am pretty sure how you know meds like that take hours to kick in.
>>18546968This is correct. There is no thinking which is free of moral considerations.
>>18546973This was your schizobabble "argument": >>18546867Neither it nor any of my replies mention any is-ought """dichotomy""". Meds first, respond later.
>>18546841>2 people can arrive at different moral conclusions You’re still smuggling a moral position in lol. Any moral realist would just say that one of them is wrong, and that simply arriving at different conclusions implies one of them is wrong.So again, which standard of validity can make two moral positions true ? I must say, you’re struggling a lot on basic questions Remember, this entire debate started because you denied that 2 people having contradictory moral values and being both «true» didnt require some anti-realist (subjective) position to refute moral realism
>>18547003I can tell you're very psychotically ill but my post stands completely unchallenged.
>>18547003>Any moral realist would just say that one of them is wrongWrong in what sense? What is the objective moral criteria that we're comparing their subjective morality against?
>>18547023It doesn't even matter. One or both of them can be wrong and everything I wrote still stands. You're arguing with an escaped mental patient literally refuting voices in his head about claims no one made.
>>18547026Prove it then, answer the question and justify yourself. We'll see if your postulates are reasonable.
>>18546633>I believe we have a base set of hyper abstract morals that stems from our evolutionThis argument has always been reductio ad absurdum. It's just erasing the category of subjectivity and trying to hide it.
>>18547006Concession accepted. It's always fun to debate tards but it becomes boring after a while, especially once their retardation becomes too obviousalso werent you sent into a psychiatric hospital in moldova ? seems like projection>>18547023>What is the objective moral criteria that we're comparing their subjective morality against?I'm not a moral realist but it can be any of them. Originally I had replied to the moldovan schizo because his answer to why moral realism was wrong was >if one person feels that the other's person morals is wrong then moral objectivity is debunkedThis relies either on presuming the idea that 2 moral positions can be true/that morality is based upon intuition/feelings, or that the inability to enforce moral norms makes your moral system invalid. I called him out for positing this without justification. He then coped in all sorts of ways which was fun but ultimatly made him concede in >>18547006.
>>18547090>>18547003Reminder that you're psychotically ill.>>2 people can arrive at different moral conclusions >You’re still smuggling a moral position in lolThe observation that two people can arrive at different moral conclusions is a simple statement of fact, not a moral position.> Any moral realist would just say that one of them is wrong, and that simply arriving at different conclusions implies one of them is wrong.One or both of them can be wrong and everything I wrote still applies.>which standard of validity can make two moral positions true ?I don't know. Which of the voices in your head made this claim?>you denied that 2 people having contradictory moral values and being both «true» didnt require some anti-realist (subjective) position to refute moral realismThis is a psychotic delusion. Nothing like this happened anywhere ITT.
>>18547099Are you really Moldovan?
>>18547099>0 (zero) counter-arguments provided Anon you've already conceded. This looks embarassing on you. At least try to write something instead of this.Cmon, try again. This time, don't forget the arguments !and btw stop projecting, you're the only one here that had to go in a moldovan mental hospital lmfao
>>18547090>>18547003>>18547105Reminder that you're psychotically ill.>> 2 people can arrive at different moral conclusions>You’re still smuggling a moral position in lolThe observation that two people can arrive at different moral conclusions is a simple statement of fact, not a moral position.> Any moral realist would just say that one of them is wrong, and that simply arriving at different conclusions implies one of them is wrong.One or both of them can be wrong and everything I wrote still applies.>which standard of validity can make two moral positions true ?I don't know. Which of the voices in your head made this claim?>you denied that 2 people having contradictory moral values and being both «true» didnt require some anti-realist (subjective) position to refute moral realismThis is a psychotic delusion. Nothing like this happened anywhere ITT.>you've already conceded.Quote something specific that I've conceded. Alternatively, take your psychiatric meds.
>>18545717"In most of its common uses, objective is contrasted with subjective, often as if it’s the opposite. Objective most commonly means not influenced by an individual’s personal viewpoint—unbiased (or at least attempting to be unbiased). It’s often used to describe things like observations, decisions, or reports that are based on an unbiased analysis."https://www.dictionary.com/articles/subjective-vs-objective
>>18547115>objectivity is when attempting to be unbiasedlol'd at normies
>>18547109Yup, another schizotic attack. Do you have any argument to make anon ? >Quote something specific that I've concededYou literally say "idk" in the previous lines lmfao. You have nothing to reply. >This is a psychotic delusion. Nothing like this happened anywhere ITT>>18546059, >>18546086, and >>18545756Again, why is it that someone "feeling" that they don't ought to follow your moral oughts is sufficient to discard moral realism? The only way it could be so would be if moral intuitions/feelings determine whether or not a moral position is true, or whether the validity of a moral position depends on your ability to enforce it
>>18547118>he disagrees with the dictionary
>>18547090>I'm not a moral realist but it can be any of them.My question was in response to a vague criteria. Providing the same vague criteria as an answer to the question is absurd.Let me cut to the point: Objective facts hold meaning even without a mind in the system, subjective facts do not.The event of Xerxes having a river whipped for a moral trespass is coherent only under specific conditions, and those are conditions that overwhelmingly moral realists do not hold. It is not a serious position within the psuedo-materialist standpoint of associative moral causation that a river is a moral agent. There is no serious argument to be made that justice must be rendered onto a rock for its instrumentation in murder, not without an entire metaphysical structure to provide a phantasmal moral agent.>This relies either on presuming the idea that 2 moral positions can be true/that morality is based upon intuition/feelingsI didn't write that, but not even moral realists argue against the idea that morality is based upon intuition/feelings.Moral realism argues its position by asserting that morality arises from objective, real structural underpinnings of the mind. This entire premise rests on the idea that objectivity is a zero-identity, or absorbing element, that because moral arising occurs from an objective medium within the mind (usually by way of neurobiological materialism, but not always), there are moral objective truths. This criteria is so absurd it raises schizophrenic delusion to objective fact.There's a reason that Kant never took the position of moral realism.
>>18547153You genuinely need professional help. You're incoherent and showing obvious signs of short-term memory loss. You also lack basic impulse control as demonstrated by your urge to address me again.
>>18547156https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Definition>Description: Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.
>>18547296I never said that was the only meaning.
>>18545864so you're just coping about the fact that you believe morality is objective otherwise it would contradict another belief of yours you haven't disclosed, that you believe in god or any other metamagical concept?
>>18547156definitions are fuzzy helpers, not law
>>18545739>ethics are like physics in that they would still work the exact same way in our absence.Yes.Any social species has "morality".The mathematics of any society demand that "morality" exists.
>>18547362>thread is about the definition of "objective">the definition of "objective" is posted>"definitions are fuzzy helpers, not law"
>>18547286>Objective facts hold meaning even without a mind in the systemNot objective moral facts. If men cease to exist, objective moral facts die alongside them (unless you consider animals moral individuals). >I didn't write that, but not even moral realists argue against the idea that morality is based upon intuition/feelings.I know, I was describing what that moldovan schizo was responding. In essence, his response to moral objectivism was "but people can disagree". So I told him that this was presuming that disagreement based on intuition on feeling were evidently enough was smuggling a meta-ethical position. And now he's seething as shown here : >>18547295
>>18545717>lets ignore that we have words that define exactly where their subjective acts fall on the line of objectivityThe reason why we can differentiate between murder and manslaughter is because above room temperature IQ people figured out subjective rationalizing retards shouldn't have a say in right and wrong to protect themselves and tard wrangle the retards from fucking the place up.
