One sentence that throws the problem of evil out of the window.

[The Grand Nudger]

Therefore all things produced by our brains are subjective.  That's not a meaningful subjectivity in any context, nor is it one that a moral objectivist has to deny.

You're using the definition of subjective out of scope of how it is commonly used to apply it to vision, homoeostasis etc. I was only referring to personal feelings, tastes and opinions, which can only be produced by a brain.

Can you possess an opinion that correlates to a fact?  Do you think that's possible?  If it is, then it's at least conceivable that some moral opinions correlate to moral facts.  

I keep trying to tell you that the way that the terms subjective and objective are used in moral theory don;t refer to whether or not they are your opinions.  You have opinions I have opinions we all have opinions.  Everything I;m about to say to you can, in the sense that you're using the word subjective, be reduced to an opinion. This tells us nothing.

Do some of them relate to facts? Do you base your moral opinion of livestock processing on facts?

[Edwardo Piet]

Whether we can find out answers is irrelevant. Answers in practice is separate to answers in principle.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Can you possess an opinion that correlates to a fact?  Do you think that's possible?  If it is, then it's at least conceivable that some moral opinions correlate to moral facts.  

I keep trying to tell you that the way that the terms subjective and objective are used in moral theory don;t refer to whether or not they are your opinions.  You have opinions I have opinions we all have opinions.  Everything I;m about to say to you can, in the sense that you're using the word subjective, be reduced to an opinion.  This tells us nothing.

Do some of them relate to facts?  Do you base your moral opinion of livestock processing on facts?

And I keep trying to tell you that an objective fact can be measured without the use of brain based personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

You can't do this for morality.

Even if you were to use a machine learning approach to recognise neural firing patterns, you would still have to use those brain based personal feelings, tastes and opinions to train it on what was right or wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can you possess an opinion that correlates to a fact?  Do you think that's possible?  If it is, then it's at least conceivable that some moral opinions correlate to moral facts.  

I keep trying to tell you that the way that the terms subjective and objective are used in moral theory don;t refer to whether or not they are your opinions.  You have opinions I have opinions we all have opinions.  Everything I;m about to say to you can, in the sense that you're using the word subjective, be reduced to an opinion.  This tells us nothing.

Do some of them relate to facts?  Do you base your moral opinion of livestock processing on facts?

And I keep trying to tell you that an objective fact can be measured without the use of brain based personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

So, too..then, could a moral fact.  That;s what;s being discussed in objective morality. Moral facts of a matter x. Those opinions, as you'd put it, which correlate to facts, and can be demonstrated by reference to them.

You can't do this for morality.

Why not?

Even if you were to use a machine learning approach to recognise neural firing patterns, you would still have to use those brain based personal feelings, tastes and opinions to train it on what was right or wrong.

So your moral opinion of livestock processing isn't based on facts, then, because there are none to be had and/or no way to access them?

[Edwardo Piet]

People's personal biases and their feelings can get in the way of other objective facts too, that's why scientists have double blind trials.

If the neurology shows that people feel X way and they claim to feel otherwise then isn't that just a case of someone being wrong about their feelings?

[I_am_not_mafia]

And I keep trying to tell you that an objective fact can be measured without the use of brain based personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

So, too..then, could a moral fact.  That;s what;s being discussed in objective morality.  Moral facts of a matter x.  Those opinions, as you'd put it, which correlate to facts, and can be demonstrated by reference to them.

What is a moral fact?

You can't do this for morality.

Why not?

I am quite happy to admit to being wrong if you can tell me how the morality of an action can be determined without the use of brain based based personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

Even if you were to use a machine learning approach to recognise neural firing patterns, you would still have to use those brain based personal feelings, tastes and opinions to train it on what was right or wrong.

So your moral opinion of livestock processing isn't based on facts, then, because there are none to be had and/or no way to access them?

Moral opinions and facts are not the same thing.

Objective facts are independent of any moral opinion I or anyone else will form. Nor do objective facts change because of the moral opinions that people have. Science wouldn't work otherwise.

[The Grand Nudger]

What is a moral fact?

 A fact relevant to whatever it is we're discussing when we discuss morality.  

I am quite happy to admit to being wrong if you can tell me how the morality of an action can be determined without the use of brain based based personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

I can't tell you how -anything- can be determined without the use of a brain based on personal feelings, tastes or opinions..Mathilda.  I could certainly point out that everything you know is just as much the product of that as any moral fact of any matter I'd ever present to you, though.  Either that;s a problem or it;s not.  You don't get to decide that it's a problem for moral facts but not other facts.  

Moral opinions and facts are not the same thing.

Agreed, just tailoring my language to suit, and again asking you whether or not you have any opinions that correlate to or are based in facts? If you think that's even possible?

Objective facts are independent of any moral opinion I or anyone else will form. Nor do objective facts change because of the moral opinions that people have. Science wouldn't work otherwise.

Sure, and a moral fact would be a fact which is true regardless of anyone's opinion of the matter.  Let's say you think thing x is wrong and I don't.  What does that change about thing x?  Nada, right?  Moral facts of a matter, objective morality itself, refers to facts of x..not your opinion or my opinion.  Things that aren't altered or changed by our opinions of them.

For example, that homosexuality is wrong.  That would be a subjective moral statement.  An opinion.  The "wrongness" of homosexuality dissipates as soon as you leave the presence of a person who believes as much.  There's nothing about homosexuality, itself, that's objectively wrong.

Is the same true of rape?  Is the same true of livestock processing?  Is whatever you're referring to when you tell us that either thing is wrong something that will change if you leave the room, or if you held a different opinion on the matter?

[I_am_not_mafia]

So what exactly are you trying to say Khemikal or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

[The Grand Nudger]

You're asking me to demonstrate something to you, and I'm trying to explain the basics of objective moral theory without making any presumptions upon you..but it;s not like we're going to get anywhere if you refuse to participate, right?

If you, for example, refer to the products of a brain as a disqualifier for objective facts..then okay, there are no objective facts.  Not just moral ones, none of them.  At least none that we're capable of apprehending....we use our brains to apprehend all "fact", it all breaks down there, and no amount of machines or measurement can rescue that.  It doesn;t really matter that the things I would point to as relevant facts, moral facts of a matter -could- be measured, that an experiment could be used to demonstrate them, or falsify them.

If you, for example...don't agree that it;s at least conceivable for our opinions to correlate to fact, then none of my opinions could possibly correlate to a fact, but neither could yours.  It isn't facts upon which you base your moral appraisal of livestock production..but that's hardly surprising, since, given the above, there are no facts to which you or I have access anyway...moral or otherwise.

Without some baseline participation and agreement we can't communicate.

[I_am_not_mafia]

OK well at least I know what you are getting at now.

Personally I think that this is overthinking it. The discussion is about whether morality is objective or subjective and it's very easy to take it out of scope. These are common place terms, not strict scientific definitions. But as with anything philosophical, disagreement always seems to come when people apply a different scope for the definitions that they use. My yardstick is whether a definition is useful. I am not particularly interested in arguing semantics and fleshing out at what point a concept is no longer useful.

The scope we're arguing here is waaay beyond the kind of debate about subjective vs objective morality that religionists think about. They seem to have some sort of idea of some ethereal force that exists as part of some cosmic battle of good vs evil. They can't ever measure evil or even have a clear concept of what it could possibly be. Like a soul, a god or free will, it's a vague undefinable concept that they can believe in because it can't be tested. Yet while advocating an objective morality, theists can only ever pass judgement on the morality of an action based on their own neural conditioning. It's that which i object to, not to the extent of which objective facts rely on neural processing.