PH is Wrong, There are 'Relativistics Facts'

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH claim, “there are no objective moral fact” is totally wrong!
I claim, there are objective Relativistic moral facts conditioned upon the respective paradigms, standpoints and frameworks [FSK].

PH & gang insist that morality cannot be objective because there are no moral facts independent of human conditions, except there are only moral feelings, opinions and judgments of moral rightness and wrongness.
However, PH's 'what is fact' [independent], i.e. fact-in-itself is illusory, meaningless and nonsensical.

On the other hand, I claimed there are objective moral facts which are conditioned upon a moral FSK [human conditioned], thus interdependent with the human conditions.

Such objective moral facts conditioned upon a moral FSK is similar to Relativistic Facts derived from Cognitive Relativism. See;
https://iep.utm.edu/cognitive-Relativism-truth/:

This kind of [Cognitive] Relativism can take different forms depending on the nature of the standpoint or framework to which truth is relativized.
If truth is relativized to the individual subject, for instance, the result is a form of subjectivism.
If the standpoint is an entire culture, the result is some form of cultural Relativism.
Other possible frameworks include languages, historical periods, and conceptual schemes.
These frameworks do not exclude one another, of course, and in the positions developed by thinkers such as Thomas Kuhn and Michel Foucault (both generally regarded as holding Relativistic views of truth) they are presented as interwoven.

In the twentieth century, a Relativistic view of truth can be found in or inferred from the work of many major philosophers, including James, Dewey, Wittgenstein, Quine, Kuhn, Gadamer, Foucault, Rorty,
ibid

Note from the above, the mentioned of truths [aka facts] relativized to specific ‘frameworks’ ‘standpoints’ and ‘paradigms’ [later] which are the same as my Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
The most credible and reliable of the above FSK is the science-FSK as the Standard where all other FSKs are evaluated upon.

Here is one critical point,
“theory and observation are so intertwined that the shift amounts to a change in the reality the scientists inhabit” this justify my point that humans are the co-creators of reality they are part and parcel of, i.e.

Objective Moral Facts are Enacted FSK-Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39630
A FSK-Conditioned Fact as a Composite State-of-Affairs
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39682

Here are some statements from reputable philosophers referring to what Relativistic Facts from Cognitive Relativism entail;

There is no general agreed upon definition of Cognitive Relativism.
Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:

“Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”.
(Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)

“The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)

“There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)

“There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)

“There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)

Cognitive Relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
https://iep.utm.edu/cognitive-Relativism-truth/#H3

The above stated there are no independent objective reality other than the reality that is conditioned upon the human related paradigms, standpoints and frameworks.

What PH is claiming is his 'what is fact' is based on a metaphysical and ontological framework that is factual and superior to all others, when its ontology is actually illusory, meaningless and nonsensical.

So, PH is totally wrong!
There are objective moral facts conditioned upon the respective paradigms, standpoints and frameworks [FSK].

[Skepdick]

blah blah blah

You agree that murdering children is wrong.
You disagree "murdering children is wrong" is a fact.

It's almost like your disagreement is fucking idiotic.

Like the idiot-philosophers you both are.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So far PH had not been able to prove his fact as feature of reality, state of affairs or that is the case, does exist realistically.

What PH merely insist is a mere thought of a fact-in-itself, i.e. an intelligible fact existing independent of human conditions.

This insistence upon the fact-in-itself [or noumenon] existing as ontological real is driven by psychological impulses arising from an inherent existential crisis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

blah blah blah

You agree that murdering children is wrong.
You disagree "murdering children is wrong" is a fact.

It's almost like your disagreement is fucking idiotic.

Like the idiot-philosophers you both are.

Strawman.
Read my posts again and don't merely guess.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39655

[Skepdick]

blah blah blah

You agree that murdering children is wrong.
You disagree "murdering children is wrong" is a fact.

It's almost like your disagreement is fucking idiotic.

Like the idiot-philosophers you both are.

Strawman.
Read my posts again and don't merely guess.

Accusing me of a "strawman" when my conclusion (that you are both idiots) is 100% correct is the fallacy fallacy.

[Agent Smith]

Lovely (pats the forum on the back)!

Let's hope morality's objective and if it isn't, oh well!

[Iwannaplato]

blah blah blah

You agree that murdering children is wrong.
You disagree "murdering children is wrong" is a fact.

It's almost like your disagreement is fucking idiotic.

Like the idiot-philosophers you both are.

He's not going to understand this because he will simply say he never asserted

You disagree "murdering children is wrong" is a fact.

He doesn't understand that the above statement is entailed by 'relativistic facts.'

His approach is to find something that seems to attack PH or defend himself. Then he starts a thread, attacks PH and throws out the new toy he found. He can only see trees and not the forest of implications each tool produces...

Relativism asserts that the truth-value of a statement is always relative to some particular standpoint. This implies that the same statement can be both true and false

.

[Sculptor]

PH claim, “there are no objective moral fact” is totally wrong!
I claim, there are objective Relativistic moral facts conditioned upon the respective paradigms, standpoints and frameworks [FSK].

PH & gang insist that morality cannot be objective because there are no moral facts independent of human conditions, except there are only moral feelings, opinions and judgments of moral rightness and wrongness.
However, PH's 'what is fact' [independent], i.e. fact-in-itself is illusory, meaningless and nonsensical.

On the other hand, I claimed there are objective moral facts which are conditioned upon a moral FSK [human conditioned], thus interdependent with the human conditions.

Such objective moral facts conditioned upon a moral FSK is similar to Relativistic Facts derived from Cognitive Relativism. See;
https://iep.utm.edu/cognitive-Relativism-truth/:

This kind of [Cognitive] Relativism can take different forms depending on the nature of the standpoint or framework to which truth is relativized.
If truth is relativized to the individual subject, for instance, the result is a form of subjectivism.
If the standpoint is an entire culture, the result is some form of cultural Relativism.
Other possible frameworks include languages, historical periods, and conceptual schemes.
These frameworks do not exclude one another, of course, and in the positions developed by thinkers such as Thomas Kuhn and Michel Foucault (both generally regarded as holding Relativistic views of truth) they are presented as interwoven.

In the twentieth century, a Relativistic view of truth can be found in or inferred from the work of many major philosophers, including James, Dewey, Wittgenstein, Quine, Kuhn, Gadamer, Foucault, Rorty,
ibid

Note from the above, the mentioned of truths [aka facts] relativized to specific ‘frameworks’ ‘standpoints’ and ‘paradigms’ [later] which are the same as my Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
The most credible and reliable of the above FSK is the science-FSK as the Standard where all other FSKs are evaluated upon.

Here is one critical point,
“theory and observation are so intertwined that the shift amounts to a change in the reality the scientists inhabit” this justify my point that humans are the co-creators of reality they are part and parcel of, i.e.

Objective Moral Facts are Enacted FSK-Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39630
A FSK-Conditioned Fact as a Composite State-of-Affairs
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39682

Here are some statements from reputable philosophers referring to what Relativistic Facts from Cognitive Relativism entail;

There is no general agreed upon definition of Cognitive Relativism.
Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:

“Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”.
(Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)

“The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)

“There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)

“There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)

“There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)

Cognitive Relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
https://iep.utm.edu/cognitive-Relativism-truth/#H3

The above stated there are no independent objective reality other than the reality that is conditioned upon the human related paradigms, standpoints and frameworks.

What PH is claiming is his 'what is fact' is based on a metaphysical and ontological framework that is factual and superior to all others, when its ontology is actually illusory, meaningless and nonsensical.

So, PH is totally wrong!
There are objective moral facts conditioned upon the respective paradigms, standpoints and frameworks [FSK].

Your own example is a shot in your own foot.
Murdering a child is not an objective moral fact, since it would have to be factually "independent" of human cognition. But there is no child independent of human cognition. QED murder is not objective, since that too is not independent.

[Harbal]

PH & gang insist that morality cannot be objective because there are no moral facts independent of human conditions, except there are only moral feelings, opinions and judgments of moral rightness and wrongness.

You've got to hand it to Peter Holmes; he certainly seems to know what he's talking about.

Can anyone join the Peter Holmes gang, I wonder. I've always fancied being an outlaw.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your own example is a shot in your own foot.
Murdering a child is not an objective moral fact, since it would have to be factually "independent" of human cognition. But there is no child independent of human cognition.
QED murder is not objective, since that too is not independent.

Strawman. Where is your loose cannon shooting?
Where did I state "Murdering a child is an objective moral fact"?

"Murdering a child is an objective fact" if the murder is convicted that would be an objective legal fact conditioned upon the specific court and national laws.
It is objective because the conviction is independent of any individual's opinion.
If you are convicted of raping, torturing and killing a child in UK, that is an objective legal fact conditioned upon UK Laws independent of any individual's opinion.

My claim is, there are objective moral facts, in this case, 'the ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' which are represented by physical elements in the brain and conditioned within a moral FSK.
The moral principle is, when this objective moral fact are developed, no child will be murdered.

[Harbal]

My claim is, there are objective moral facts, in this case, 'the ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' which are represented by physical elements in the brain and conditioned within a moral FSK.

Bur what "ought to be" is always subjective. By your reasoning, absolutely everything is objective, and there is no such thing as subjective. If your favourite colour happens to be blue, for example, it would be an objective fact that blue is the best colour, because something physical in your brain causes you to have a preference for it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My claim is, there are objective moral facts, in this case, 'the ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' which are represented by physical elements in the brain and conditioned within a moral FSK.

Bur what "ought to be" is always subjective. By your reasoning, absolutely everything is objective, and there is no such thing as subjective. If your favourite colour happens to be blue, for example, it would be an objective fact that blue is the best colour, because something physical in your brain causes you to have a preference for it.

Nah, your views are so narrow and shallow.
Strawman! I did not discuss preferences.

Your oughtness-to-breathe as a human being or living thing is not subjective but objective, since such a relativistic biological fact is universal and generic to all humans.
Your oughtness-to-see-colors [biological relativistic] just like all other humans is objective not subjective.
This oughtness-to-see-colors is represented by real physical neurons, neural algorithms and its related matter as such can be verified and justified via the scientific FSK.

Any subjective preference for any color is secondary [most likely nurtured] and not relevant to the current issue.

Similarly, there is 'the ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' [biological relativistic] programmed in all human via evolution and natural selection; is represented by real physical neurons, neural algorithms and its related matter as such can be verified and justified via the scientific FSK.
This is evident why the majority of humans do not arbitrary kill humans.
At present, the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' algorithm [inhibitors] is not strong nor very active in the majority of humans, thus, there are still humans killing humans under various circumstances.

This "ought-not-ness-to-kill-human" is first a scientific fact via the scientific FSK and subsequently an objective moral fact [relativistic] when processed via a moral FSK [the frameworks as mentioned above].

My point is, it is evident in general humans [except the psychopaths] would not prefer to have humans killed by humans.
The most effective way is to recognize the objective moral fact of 'the ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' embedded within all humans and therefrom to enable each individual to develop and sustain such inhibitors that modulate one from killing another human.

If you are indifferent and lackadaisical in improving moral progress via recognizing of the inherent objective moral facts [relativistic], then you are indirectly complicit to all the evil acts that will happen in the future.

[Iwannaplato]

My claim is, there are objective moral facts, in this case, 'the ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' which are represented by physical elements in the brain and conditioned within a moral FSK.

Bur what "ought to be" is always subjective. By your reasoning, absolutely everything is objective, and there is no such thing as subjective. If your favourite colour happens to be blue, for example, it would be an objective fact that blue is the best colour, because something physical in your brain causes you to have a preference for it.

Nah, your views are so narrow and shallow.
Strawman! I did not discuss preferences.

Right you labelled one preference an oughtness-to-not.
¨'.He's pointing out the problem with your logic. He's not accusing you of discussing or even mentioning the word 'preferences'.

Man in Sussex was found to have brain network patterns and quarks that support the moral fact of the
oughtness-to-eat-Bourbon-Biscuits.[/i]

[Harbal]

Nah, your views are so narrow and shallow.

Is that an objective fact, or just your opinion?

Strawman! I did not discuss preferences.

Most of what you are saying is about preferences. Morality is about preference.

Your oughtness-to-breathe as a human being or living thing is not subjective but objective

With every "ought", there is an implied "if". I only ought to breath if I want to live. An alarmingly high number of people decide they don't want to live, in which case their breathing doesn't have any oughtness.

Any subjective preference for any color is secondary [most likely nurtured] and not relevant to the current issue.

Of course it's relevant. Colour preference and moral preference both have a high degree of subjective, personal choice, and work on similar principles.

Similarly, there is 'the ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' [biological relativistic] programmed in all human via evolution and natural selection;

I agree that we seem to be "hard wired" not to kill other humans, but not unconditionally. Natural selection has given us an aversion to killing members of our own familiy, or our own tribe, but we have no such innate aversion to killing "outsiders". That aversion, when present, is culturaly based.

such can be verified and justified via the scientific FSK.

Will you shut up about "FSK"! It's really getting on my nerves, and I wager I'm not the only one to feel incredibly irritated by it.

This "ought-not-ness-to-kill-human" is first a scientific fact via the scientific FSK and subsequently an objective moral fact [relativistic] when processed via a moral FSK [the frameworks as mentioned above].

Also mentioned above; shut the fuck up about FSK.

My point is, it is evident in general humans [except the psychopaths] would not prefer to have humans killed by humans.

It is not evident. Many people support military action under various circumstances, where human death is invariably a consequence, and many people support capital punishment.

The most effective way is to recognize the objective moral fact of 'the ought-not-ness-to-kill-human' embedded within all humans and therefrom to enable each individual to develop and sustain such inhibitors that modulate one from killing another human.

In the more "developed" parts of the world there has been a steady progression towards that end through social and cultural evolution, and it is to be hoped that the progression will continue. Your idea of fast tracking, and augmenting, the process by physically tampering with human brains is wreckless, misguided and potentially dangerous. It would also be unethical. In fact, it's a bloody stupid idea.

If you are indifferent and lackadaisical in improving moral progress via recognizing of the inherent objective moral facts [relativistic], then you are indirectly complicit to all the evil acts that will happen in the future.

I imagine you arrived at that conclusion via the idiot FSK.

[Sculptor]

Your own example is a shot in your own foot.
Murdering a child is not an objective moral fact, since it would have to be factually "independent" of human cognition. But there is no child independent of human cognition.
QED murder is not objective, since that too is not independent.

Strawman. Where is your loose cannon shooting?
Where did I state "Murdering a child is an objective moral fact"?

"Murdering a child is an objective fact" if the murder is convicted that would be an objective legal fact conditioned upon the specific court and national laws.

It has nothing to do with objectivity.
Objective and subjective and not qualities of the act or objects. They are qualities of relation.
On its own such a statement bears no relationship to the object/subject spectrum.

It is objective because the conviction is independent of any individual's opinion.

No it is not. A "murder" has to be judged unlawful, therefor it cannot be objective, since it requires an opinion.

If you are convicted of raping, torturing and killing a child in UK, that is an objective legal fact conditioned upon UK Laws independent of any individual's opinion.

Well duh, don't be a fucking moron.
Legal Opinion is the lifeblood of the entire legal system, dipwit.