James is wrong

You’re riding a very thin line here…

Instead of calling it fake, you call it false (the bad), and truth (the good), you’re trying so hard not to admit the axiom I submitted so that you can defend these hypothetical people who are amoral, and who are, because truth is GOOD to them!

Let me clarify this in another way to address your posting.

People like different things. So perhaps there’s no morality.

However, everyone strongly dislikes the same things.

We can all agree on bad.

By defining bad, we set up an axiom for good; everyone getting everything that they want.

Fake, meaning not genuine
genuine truly what something is said to be; authentic.

IOW they are not objective morals, but rather, for example, a person’s preferences. There could be other things different people consider them to ACTUALLY be.

And let’s look at this

How could someone’s statement prove that morality is objective. At best it might show that that person thinks morality is objective, but denies it. I don’t think it remotely does that, but it certainly does not show that morality is objective. It does not provide any evidence of that, let alone prove it.

And since other people use other adjectives or simply state that objective morals do not exist, we have people not covered by that wording and any disadvantages or hypocrisy involved or not involved.

The fake/genuine dichotomy is not the same as good/bad, right/wrong, good/evil. It need not have any moral judgments. It has necessarily to do with something being presented as X, when in fact it is not X.

It is mind reading to say that everyone in fact believes in objective morality. It is a category error to say that any particular wording of that opinions proves the existence of objective morals. You might try to catch out one individual through their wording, but it is not anything like an ontological proof.

When someone says there are no morals, it solves the same as someone saying there’s no truth.

You have to combat logic while using it, same as saying there’s no logic (it’s a logical statement and this refutes itself.

Morality is objective regardless of our agreement or disagreement.

Well, you restated your opinion, but did not interact with what I wrote.

And saying there is no logic, is not a logicial statement. It is an assertion. It might be based on a, not presented here, logical or intended to be taken as logical argument, or it might not be. Logic is about how assertions are interconnected. And when I say it is not a logical statement, I am not saying it is illogical. I am saying it is a category error to refer to it that. Arguments are logical or not logical. Unless a statement includes an argument it is a category error to refer to it as logical or not. True or false could make sense for a blunt assertion.

And you are repeating the category error I pointed out int he previous post.

Morality is not objective but subjective or inter subjective. Were it objective it would be absolute and could be demonstrated. But it cannot be
because it evolves over time both individually and collectively. Saying that it is objective is somewhat ironically a statement of subjective truth

Sure it’s a logical statement. There is a premise and conclusion.

The premise is that statements can be logical.

The conclusion is that they are not.

The conclusion requires the premise. It doesn’t matter how many steps you place between them.

An assertion btw requires logic to be made, word order for comprehension is just a sliver of the logic required for an assertion to be cogent. The cogent part is pure logic.

This is a special case in terms of self reference…

To state as an assertion “this phrase is not logical” solves not as a paradox, or refutation, it solves as false.

If I state for example, there are pixie elephants flying through the air by the billions. It may be true or false, but it is always the case that it’s a logical statement. Logic doesn’t have to be true or rational, only falsifiable.

Morality is easily objective. As I pointed out earlier, there are all kinds of different things we like, such that one can conclude it is only subjective, however, everyone agrees on some things nobody likes!!

In that sense, we have axiomatic morality, "everyone getting everything they want. Just like platonic forms don’t need observers to exist, and we can prove it (God even being a hypothetical observer), we can prove that there don’t need to be any beings for morality to exist. Morality is a platonic form. Truth is a platonic form.

Logic is the foundation of mathematics and so by definition has to be true. Also were
it falsifiable then it could not be true so presumably you meant potentially falsifiable

In order for morality to be truly objective it would have to be so for all moral issues not just some
Because even if there is universal agreement on all of them except one then morality is subjective

And that’s just not true of logic. People make false logical statements constantly shown through premises and conclusions. The area you are trying to articulate is sound and unsound.

My point being: if everyone agreed that morality wasn’t objective, they are making a universally applied subjective statement that solves in that special case as being objective - true beyond opinions of subjective beings or even the existence of subjective beings.

(Read my last post as well)

An argument can be unsound but valid within the context of the argument where there is logical
consistency between the premises and the conclusion but the argument itself is not actually true

That is a bit woolly though I know what you mean. If everyone agrees on something it is a universally
objective statement by default and so cannot be subjective because there is no difference of opinion

No, theyd be making expressing their opinion and this would not make morals real or unreal. It would be a universally held opinion. Whether it was right or wrong would not be demonstrated, proven or remotely indicated.

  1. you still haven’t responded to my earlier post. 2) Unicorns can’t gallop does not demonstrate there are unicorns. 3) It could be what the speaker considers an apriori truth, one directly apprehended, not based on deduction or induction. 4) It could be a guess based on what the person feels. There need not be a line of reasoning. It is a statement. I could be a premise in a longer argument or a conclusion in one. But given that we do not have one, it is merely an assertion, grounded on what we do not know.

And, of course, again, even if the speaker is a hypocrite and has put that statement in an argument, ihe fact that someone made this statement does not mean there is logic, it merely means that this person is not noticing he or she is contradicting him or herself, or does not care or cannot understand that.

It might work in a discussion with that person, to show them they seem in fact to believe - if it was in an argument - but it does not prove anything objectively. It would only prove something about that person’s beliefs.

But again, you keep not responding to the earlier post. This must be why I had you on ‘foe’ before. You simply restate your position, announce that you have proven it and do not interact with objections. I will leave you to other interlocutors.

So if everyone agrees the world is flat, it is, or in this case was flat?

It is an objective statement that they believe it, if they do, but that doesn’t make it correct.

And in the context of the existence of objective morals, do you really think everyone actually believes in them?

Though, of course, if they did, it would mean they exist.

Unless we are merely saying that the belief exists.

I will not contest the belief that if everyone believes there are objective morals, then the BELIEF in objective morals exists.

I know everyone does not think morality is objective because I myself am a moral relativist like many atheists are
And so therefore not only is the concept of objective morality a fallacious one it is also not a universal one either

What I was stating was that morality is objective as in in the case of statements like “there is no such thing as logic” or “logic is false”. It doesn’t matter if everyone believes it, they would be wrong, in this same way objective morality exists. I was not stating that complete agreement makes something true, that would make logic subjective.

The soundness is another issue entirely.

Every statement that can be comprehended requires logic to exist. You need logic to make the statement “logic is false”

Likewise, the statement “there is no morality”, requires a determination of good and bad, such that if everyone agreed with it, they’d all be wrong as does any statement put forth, an amoralist is like an animal with electrodes wired to the happiness center of the brain, it doesn’t do anything and just dies of dehydration. An amoralist has no reason to do something - by definition. They are objectively wrong.