What is Philosophical Objectivity?

[tillingborn]

For those of us who don't know, can you give an example of a moral fact?

Murder is wrong.

Although, I highly doubt you didn't know this (and needed to be given this example).

I was curious to know what constituted a moral fact according to the FSK (which I believe stands for Framework and System of Knowledge) that Veritas Aequitas is proposing. The example VA has given is: "All humans has the inherent ought_not-to-kill humans embedded within the human brain and mind." and his FSK is "a collection of dicta as in a God-driven-moral-FSK" . Presumably this would reduce to "Murder is wrong.", because God says so. What makes it a moral fact in your worldview?

[Skepdick]

What makes it a moral fact in your worldview?

The question is nonsensical.

What makes the Earth oblate?
What makes Europe a continent?
What makes you human?

What makes any fact a fact? Its factuality! Obviously.

This is how we use language - this is what way say.

The analytic approach leads to absurdities because the entire Philosophic discipline of "clams", "justifications" and burdens of proofs is confused in its search for foundations - there are none.

It is a social and jurisprudential fact that murder is wrong. What makes it a moral fact is its moral factuality.

If anybody believes that murder is not wrong, I insist that the burden of falsification is theirs.

[tillingborn]

Suppose you had trimmed your response to this:

What makes it a moral fact in your worldview?

It is a social and jurisprudential fact that murder is wrong.

Would anything have been lost?

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. There are moral facts relatively objective based on a subjective and arbitrary FSK (whateverthefuckthatis)
2. Moral facts are subject to the conditions of the FSK (whateverthefuckthatis).
3. So-called moral facts are asserted without further justication to a subjective moral system, which complies with objective rules within an FSK (whateverthefuckthatis).
4. Subjective facts are presented as objective.
5. Morality is objective only within an FSK (whateverthefuckthatis).

Show me !
what is wrong here?
Premises and conclusions based on nothing.

Re you counter, "whatever the fuck is that?"
You counters are merely stupid statements which has no semblance to my premises.

Re my premise 1 I have justified it with the following arguments;

A. There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

B. General Facts to Moral Facts, Political to Moral System
viewtopic.php?p=478757#p478757

Show me what is wrong with the above arguments [A & B]?

They are YOUR chosen subjective moral "facts"

If it by me personally, then yes, that would be a subjective.

It is the same with science, Einstein's [or any scientist's] personal claim of his Special Theory of Relativity [thesis] would be subjective.
However the scientific thesis is objective when verified and justified within the scientific framework and system.

In the above, the moral claims are justified within a moral framework and system they are objective moral facts, i.e. Justified True Moral Facts/Beliefs.

[Skepdick]

Suppose you had trimmed your response to this:

What makes it a moral fact in your worldview?

It is a social and jurisprudential fact that murder is wrong.

Would anything have been lost?

That's not for me to decide.

It's for you to decide whether the legal framework of society corresponds to the FSK which Veritas Aequitas speaks about; and whether the artefacts of said framework are what you recognise as facts; and whether "God" is synonymous with "any man-made authority". Such as our legal system; or our knowledge-manufacturing system known as "science".

[tillingborn]

Suppose you had trimmed your response to this:

It is a social and jurisprudential fact that murder is wrong.

Would anything have been lost?

That's not for me to decide.

It's for you to decide whether the legal framework of society corresponds to the FSK which Veritas Aequitas speaks about; and whether the artefacts of said framework are what you recognise as facts; and whether "God" is synonymous with "any man-made authority". Such as our legal system; or our knowledge-manufacturing system known as "science".

The thing you share with Veritas Aequitas is a knack for complicating the simple. According to AV murder is wrong because God says so; and according to you murder is wrong because people say so.

[Skepdick]

The thing you share with Veritas Aequitas is a knack for complicating the simple. According to AV murder is wrong because God says so; and according to you murder is wrong because people say so.

You are doing the very thing you accuse me of.

According to me murder is wrong. There is no "because"; and any doubters as to the truth of this statement carry a burden to disprove it.

I explained it verbosely, because I feared the simplicity might go over your head. It did.

[tillingborn]

The thing you share with Veritas Aequitas is a knack for complicating the simple. According to AV murder is wrong because God says so; and according to you murder is wrong because people say so.

You are doing the very thing you accuse me of.

According to me murder is wrong. There is no "because".

Even though I explained it verbosely, the simplicity went over your head.

I see. I am too simple to understand simplicity. Obviously I am going to struggle keeping up with you. Having said:

It is a social and jurisprudential fact that murder is wrong.

You now claim that society and jurisprudence have nothing to do with it. Where's the simplicity in that?

[tillingborn]

I really am going to struggle if you change your posts while I am answering them. I take this new version as a warning:

According to me murder is wrong. There is no "because"; and any doubters as to the truth of this statement carry a burden to disprove it.

Granted if someone were to insist you are wrong, you might reasonably expect them to argue their point; but if someone simply doubts a claim you make, it is probably because you haven't made a compelling case and the burden is on you to do better.

[Sculptor]

Re you counter, "whatever the fuck is that?"
You counters are merely stupid statements which has no semblance to my premises.

Re my premise 1 I have justified it with the following arguments;

A. There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

B. General Facts to Moral Facts, Political to Moral System
viewtopic.php?p=478757#p478757

Show me what is wrong with the above arguments [A & B]?

They are YOUR chosen subjective moral "facts"

If it by me personally, then yes, that would be a subjective.

YES. Thanks for admitting it.
You did chose them.

[Skepdick]

The thing you share with Veritas Aequitas is a knack for complicating the simple. According to AV murder is wrong because God says so; and according to you murder is wrong because people say so.

You are doing the very thing you accuse me of.

According to me murder is wrong. There is no "because".

Even though I explained it verbosely, the simplicity went over your head.

I see. I am too simple to understand simplicity. Obviously I am going to struggle keeping up with you. Having said:

It is a social and jurisprudential fact that murder is wrong.

You now claim that society and jurisprudence have nothing to do with it. Where's the simplicity in that?

The simplicity is in the wrongness of murder.

A claim with a "because" is more complex than a claim without a "because".

[Skepdick]

Granted if someone were to insist you are wrong, you might reasonably expect them to argue their point; but if someone simply doubts a claim you make, it is probably because you haven't made a compelling case and the burden is on you to do better.

Anyone who insists that I am "wrong", but murder isn't is an idiot.

If being doubted incurs a burden, then go ahead and burden yourself. I doubt that you are doubting my claim.

[tillingborn]

Granted if someone were to insist you are wrong, you might reasonably expect them to argue their point; but if someone simply doubts a claim you make, it is probably because you haven't made a compelling case and the burden is on you to do better.

Anyone who insists that I am "wrong", but murder isn't is an idiot.

If being doubted incurs a burden, then go ahead and burden yourself. I doubt that you are doubting my claim.

So instead of murder being wrong because people say so, murder is wrong because you say so.

[Veritas Aequitas]

They are YOUR chosen subjective moral "facts"

If it by me personally, then yes, that would be a subjective.

YES. Thanks for admitting it.
You did chose them.

How come you are so ignorant?
Did you read the big If?

[Peter Holmes]

Fatuous claim: murder is immoral - prove me wrong.

No one can prove a moral assertion is true or false, right or wrong - because it isn't one or the other. It can't be verified of falsifued, because it doesn't make a truth-claim about reality.

But the egotistical rage of moral realists and objectivists is inexhaustible.