Is morality objective or subjective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 5:12 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:25 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:04 am I believe there are some issues on your misunderstanding of Kant's Noumena vs Phenomena, so I have raised a specific thread to iron out the issues.
Phenomena vs Noumena
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35423
I understand Kant's argument, and I'm pointing out its absurdity.
From what you have been posting, you have not understood Kant's position thoroughly.

If you insist, give me an idea of what you have understood about Kant's complete argument in the CPR re phenomena, appearance, noumena, then thing-in-itself as an illusion.
I've pointed out a million times that, if there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), then it makes no sense to say that things are phenomena (things-as-they-appear). So Kant's distinction makes no sense - and your distorted view of what constitutes what we call a fact is a mistake.
2 You haven't addressed my point about the impossibility of moral entailment from non-moral premises - because your whole argument for so-called moral facts depends on that entailment.
I have explained my basis of what is fact is not based on deduction but rather induction which the basis of science. You deny scientific truths?
You are relying on the concept of morality based on judgments of right and wrong which is obviously subjective and those involved in such views had been off target with "what is morality."
I have already explained a "million" times what is moral fact to me is based on physical referents in the DNA and brain within each individual human.
And I've explained a million times that your premises - facts about DNA or mirror neurons, and so on - are non-moral, and have no moral significance. You can call them moral facts till you're blue in the face, but they aren't moral facts.
As above, I have explained my basis of what is fact is not based on deduction but rather induction which the basis of science. You deny scientific truths?

Your thinking is too narrow in confining morality to judgments by individual[s] of what is right or wrong.

I have argued;
All facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
Scientific facts are conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
Moral facts are conditioned upon a moral FSK.
Therefore Moral facts exist.

Note it is not impossible for an X entailment from a non-X premises.
For example it is possible for scientific entailment from non-scientific premises [intuitions, speculations, empirical observations, hypotheses, etc.] when the latter are processed via the scientific FSK.
It is also possible for legal entailment from non-legal premises when they latter are processed via a legal FSK.
So it is possible for moral entailment from non-moral premises when they latter are processed via a moral FSK.
No, deductive entailment is about the nature of premises and what they can entail. A deductive conclusion can't contain information not present in the premises. So if the premises make no moral claim, neither can the conclusion.
As above, I have explained my basis of what is fact is not based on deduction but rather induction which the basis of science. You deny scientific truths? You insist scientific facts are not credible or false?
(A scientific conclusion can, of course, be deduced from scientific premises arrived at by intuition, speculation, observation, hypothesis, and so on. It's the nature of the premise that matters, not how it's been reached.)
What are you talking about?
A scientific conclusion is NEVER arrived via deduction!
A scientific conclusion is inferred from induction [induced not deduced] from a scientific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] with its specific conditions.
But you said above: 'it is possible for scientific entailment from non-scientific premises'. So you seem confused. The claim 'X is the case' may be inductive. But the claim 'X is consistently observed to be the case' can be a premise or a conclusion in a deduction. Scientists use deductive reasoning all the time, so the fashionable claim that all scientific reasoning is inductive is false.

But the point is, whether an argument is deductive, inductive or abductive - if its premises are non-moral, a moral conclusion can't follow. Your condition 'processed via a credible moral FSK' is uselessly question-begging - as I and others have pointed out a million times.
Note the 7 propositions I listed from the SEP site are the same as what you have been claiming as 'what is fact' in your posts related to the issue. Do you deny this?
Show me which of the 7 propositions of W's Tratacus you do not disagree with and have never relied on them to support your view of 'what is fact'.

Btw, you are running away from stating the grounds you are relying upon to justify your 'what is fact'.

If you that sure you understood W's latest position, give me an idea of his 'On Certainty' and how that is applicable to your views on 'what is fact' [thus no moral facts].
PH wrote:A word can mean only what we use it to mean. And what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion.
The above points are held by the early-Wittgenstein in his Tractatus which he had abandoned in his very later part of his life.
I suggest you research or reread Wittgenstein's whole perspective of philosophy from his early stage to his final stage in 'On Certainty'.
You deny that such things exist, but also appeal to them as the empirical evidence that gives natural science its credibility.
Obviously, what is "facts are features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion" are mere illusions.
You don't even realize you are clinging to illusions.
You deny that what we call facts exist, but also claim that there are moral facts.

Cognitive dissonance?
I deny your illusory 'facts' but
my "what is fact" is verifiable and justifiable via specific FSK, where the scientific FSK is the standard.

I have linked this a "million" times already and yet you are so blind to it.
A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Facts are conditioned upon its specific FSK, i.e. [mine]
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means [scientific FSK].

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, [Linguistic FSK] and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. [astronomical FSK]
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts. [historical FSK]

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion. [but conditioned and entangled with their s human based FSK]
You have never countered the above but merely repeat ad nauseum your early-Wittgenstein's nonsense [which W abandoned] of 'what is fact'.
Just stop and think about the definition you quote above: 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.' Strangely, 'conditioned and entangled with their human based FSK' doesn't figure in this generally accepted definition of 'what is fact?' - the one I and most other English-speakers use.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:10 pm Just stop and think about the definition you quote above: 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.' English-speakers use.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:42 am Meanwhile, the fact that a non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion demolishes the case for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.
Somebody wants to have their cake, and eat it too.

Idiot-philosophers. Eternally stuck in a prisoners' dilemma of their own making.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 5:12 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:25 pm I understand Kant's argument, and I'm pointing out its absurdity.
From what you have been posting, you have not understood Kant's position thoroughly.
If you insist, give me an idea of what you have understood about Kant's complete argument in the CPR re phenomena, appearance, noumena, then thing-in-itself as an illusion.
I've pointed out a million times that, if there are no noumena (things-in-themselves), then it makes no sense to say that things are phenomena (things-as-they-appear). So Kant's distinction makes no sense - and your distorted view of what constitutes what we call a fact is a mistake.
I have requested you give justification [roughly] why the idea of 'noumena' is make no sense within his Critique of Pure Reason, you gave no answers to that.
Instead you are making noises without understanding Kant.

See my reply in the other thread;
viewtopic.php?p=588533#p588533
where I quoted Graham Bird;
Graham Bird wrote:In CPR and P Kant refines the traditional philosophical account of Appearance by distinguishing between Appearance, Phenomenon and Illusion [noumena].

The senses present us with indeterminate appearances, which it is the function of Understanding [intellect] to determine or describe.
The term 'appearance', which in its transcendental use is given to whatever is an object of the senses, is therefore quite neutral as to the description of what we empirically perceive.
Kant's claim that the senses are inarticulate, or passive, amounts in this way to the stipulations that
appearances are nondescript or indeterminate,
while phenomena are described or differentiated appearances.
Graham Bird
2 You haven't addressed my point about the impossibility of moral entailment from non-moral premises - because your whole argument for so-called moral facts depends on that entailment.
I have explained my basis of 'what is fact' is not based on deduction but rather induction which the basis of science. You deny scientific truths?
But you said above: 'it is possible for scientific entailment from non-scientific premises'. So you seem confused.
The claim 'X is the case' may be inductive.
But the claim 'X is consistently observed to be the case' can be a premise or a conclusion in a deduction. Scientists use deductive reasoning all the time, so the fashionable claim that all scientific reasoning is inductive is false.

But the point is, whether an argument is deductive, inductive or abductive - if its premises are non-moral, a moral conclusion can't follow. Your condition 'processed via a credible moral FSK' is uselessly question-begging - as I and others have pointed out a million times.
The first major premise of science is always inductive.
Then this major premise is used for subsequent deduction of specific instances which is secondary and common.

In arriving at the first major premises of science, they are derived INDUCTIVELY from non-scientific premises [based on observations] and processed via the imperative scientific FSK.
Therefore in science, non-scientific premises are converted to scientific conclusions imperatively via the scientific FSK.
As such, non-moral premises [observations and scientific facts] can be converted to moral conclusions via the moral FSK.
What is wrong with that?
Just stop and think about the definition you quote above: 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.'
Strangely, 'conditioned and entangled with their human based FSK' doesn't figure in this generally accepted definition of 'what is fact?' - the one I and most other English-speakers use.
Note this, what is fact? [mine]
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means [scientific FSK].
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, [Linguistic FSK] and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. [astronomical FSK]
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts. [historical FSK]

Generally speaking, facts [as above] are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion. [but conditioned and entangled with their s human based FSK]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
What you failed to distinguish is the above should read,

Generally speaking, facts [as above] are independent of [individuals'] belief and of knowledge and opinion.
What is missing is the word 'individuals'.
Note the term 'generally speaking' Facts are independent of the the individuals but specifically speaking [more refined and philosophically] facts cannot be independent of the necessary imperative FSK.

Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means ... imperatively via the scientific FSK.
Since the scientific FSK is operated and sustained by human scientists, scientific facts cannot be independent of the human-based scientific FSK and humans.
Scientific facts are thus entangled with the human conditions.

To condition facts upon a specific language i.e. [ordinary] English speakers in this case is very bad philosophy.
Note this thread;
The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=35143
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 6:01 am
In arriving at the first major premises of science, they are derived INDUCTIVELY from non-scientific premises [based on observations] and processed via the imperative scientific FSK.
Therefore in science, non-scientific premises are converted to scientific conclusions imperatively via the scientific FSK.
As such, non-moral premises [observations and scientific facts] can be converted to moral conclusions via the moral FSK.
What is wrong with that?
I and others have pointed out what's wrong with it a million times, and you either don't understand or ignore what we say. Which is both perplexing and boring.

1 An empirical observation is NOT 'non-scientific'. Indeed, the whole of natural science is based on empirical observation. So it's simply not true that scientific inductive conclusions follow from 'non-scientific' premises.

2 It's true that what we call facts exist within a descriptive context. But that doesn't mean that any descriptive context can produce facts - as, for example, astrology shows. That you say there are astrological facts of near to zero credibility exposes the ridiculous nature of your argument. There's no empirical evidence for astrological claims, so there are no such facts. And, to repeat, whether astrological arguments are deductive, inductive or abductive makes absolutely no difference.

3 Your claim that moral conclusions can follow inductively from non-moral premises is astoundingly stupid. What non-moral observations could cumulatively lead to the conclusion that, say, slavery is morally wrong? What would count as non-moral evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 10:50 am What non-moral observations could cumulatively lead to the conclusion that, say, slavery is morally wrong? What would count as non-moral evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery?
I am sure what you did here has been done before, but it struck me as a good approach, one to come back to. A specific moral situation/behavior. Request for the non-moral evidence that creates the rule. It is easier to assert (and deny, for that matter) at the abstract level. But ok, design the research, or link me to research that is non-moral that demonstrates that slavery is wrong.

And at no point in the argument introduce a moral value that is also not supported by its own non-moral observations or facts.

So, instead of the abstract VA position meets abstract critique from PH, we have a very specific demonstration of how. Step by step, with a great deal of focus on that moment where morals suddenly appear.

If nothing else it streamlines the conflict.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 11:14 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 10:50 am What non-moral observations could cumulatively lead to the conclusion that, say, slavery is morally wrong? What would count as non-moral evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery?
I am sure what you did here has been done before, but it struck me as a good approach, one to come back to. A specific moral situation/behavior. Request for the non-moral evidence that creates the rule. It is easier to assert (and deny, for that matter) at the abstract level. But ok, design the research, or link me to research that is non-moral that demonstrates that slavery is wrong.

And at no point in the argument introduce a moral value that is also not supported by its own non-moral observations or facts.

So, instead of the abstract VA position meets abstract critique from PH, we have a very specific demonstration of how. Step by step, with a great deal of focus on that moment where morals suddenly appear.

If nothing else it streamlines the conflict.
Agreed - keeping it concrete helps - which is why I keep asking moral realists and objectivists for even one example of a so-called moral fact, with an explanation of why it's a fact - a feature of reality that just is the case, independent from opinion - and not merely a moral opinion, judgement or belief.

So far? Nothing. Just moral opinions. And a penny that simply refuses to drop. Ah - but there must be moral facts - or nothing is morally right or wrong!
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:43 am Agreed - keeping it concrete helps - which is why I keep asking moral realists and objectivists for even one example of a so-called moral fact, with an explanation of why it's a fact - a feature of reality that just is the case, independent from opinion - and not merely a moral opinion, judgement or belief.

So far? Nothing. Just moral opinions. And a penny that simply refuses to drop. Ah - but there must be moral facts - or nothing is morally right or wrong!
While we are strategizing: one detour that I have seen VA take is a neo-virtue ethicist detour. IOW he will write about not basing his system on rules. For example he talks about enhanching/supporting the mirror neurons to create humans who are more compassionate. Instead of some rule about how to treat one's neighbors, we have something like character trait virtues that lead to better behaviors.

I understand that the problem remains on his side. But tactically I think it would be good to at that point either to a concrete trait or a concrete behavior that he thinks this trait will lead to.

Pardon the back seat driving. I'm sure you'd handle it as well or better. But I find the project interesting, and I just wanted to do a little preventative planning.

You may well get the neo-virtue ethics lecture instead of a deontological rule or a consequentialist goal/criterion.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 7:51 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:43 am Agreed - keeping it concrete helps - which is why I keep asking moral realists and objectivists for even one example of a so-called moral fact, with an explanation of why it's a fact - a feature of reality that just is the case, independent from opinion - and not merely a moral opinion, judgement or belief.

So far? Nothing. Just moral opinions. And a penny that simply refuses to drop. Ah - but there must be moral facts - or nothing is morally right or wrong!
While we are strategizing: one detour that I have seen VA take is a neo-virtue ethicist detour. IOW he will write about not basing his system on rules. For example he talks about enhanching/supporting the mirror neurons to create humans who are more compassionate. Instead of some rule about how to treat one's neighbors, we have something like character trait virtues that lead to better behaviors.

I understand that the problem remains on his side. But tactically I think it would be good to at that point either to a concrete trait or a concrete behavior that he thinks this trait will lead to.

Pardon the back seat driving. I'm sure you'd handle it as well or better. But I find the project interesting, and I just wanted to do a little preventative planning.

You may well get the neo-virtue ethics lecture instead of a deontological rule or a consequentialist goal/criterion.
Understood. I guess you have more patience. And I don't see why a virtue-ethical approach has any bearing on the issue of moral objectivism. It isn't a fact that we should promote virtue and demote vice. And anyway, what counts as virtue and vice isn't given in advance. VA just thinks it is.

But I may not be seeing the bigger picture you're pointing towards.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 10:50 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 6:01 am
In arriving at the first major premises of science, they are derived INDUCTIVELY from non-scientific premises [based on observations] and processed via the imperative scientific FSK.
Therefore in science, non-scientific premises are converted to scientific conclusions imperatively via the scientific FSK.
As such, non-moral premises [observations and scientific facts] can be converted to moral conclusions via the moral FSK.
What is wrong with that?
I and others have pointed out what's wrong with it a million times, and you either don't understand or ignore what we say. Which is both perplexing and boring.
Note what you have presented is nothing of substance that is rigorously substantial that I am convinced of, thus they are to be ignored for my philosophical purposes at a higher degree of philosophical deliberation.
1 An empirical observation is NOT 'non-scientific'. Indeed, the whole of natural science is based on empirical observation. So it's simply not true that scientific inductive conclusions follow from 'non-scientific' premises.
How can you be so ignorant on this point?

Note:
The term empirical comes from Greek ἐμπειρία empeiría, i.e. 'experience'. In this context, it is usually understood as what is observable, in contrast to unobservable or theoretical objects. It is generally accepted that unaided perception constitutes observation, but it is disputed to what extent objects accessible only to aided perception, like bacteria seen through a microscope or positrons detected in a cloud chamber, should be regarded as observable.
Empirical evidence is essential to a posteriori knowledge or empirical knowledge, knowledge whose justification or falsification depends on experience or experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
As such all knowledge based on what is observable and experience and possible experience is empirical, but all empirical knowledge are not scientific.
In a court of law, empirical knowledge from various witnesses are relied upon to judge whether a person is guilty or not.
These empirical knowledge need not come from science [the most credible] but from many other sources of empirical evidences.

So an empirical observation as knowledge is not necessary scientific.

I argues all natural scientific knowledge originate from non-scientific empirical premises which are from common sense and conventional sense.
It is from common sense and conventional sense that heavy things drop to the ground, i.e. that is empirical knowledge of common and conventional sense.
It is only via the scientific framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] and Reality [FSR] that enable the facts of the existence of the forces of gravity.
So it is true that scientific inductive conclusions follow from 'non-scientific' premises and you are very ignorant [kindergartenish] to deny that.
2 It's true that what we call facts exist within a descriptive context. But that doesn't mean that any descriptive context can produce facts - as, for example, astrology shows. That you say there are astrological facts of near to zero credibility exposes the ridiculous nature of your argument. There's no empirical evidence for astrological claims, so there are no such facts. And, to repeat, whether astrological arguments are deductive, inductive or abductive makes absolutely no difference.
Note there are two views of what is fact, i.e.
1. Your early-Wittgenstein 'what is fact' - which is not realistic!
2. My realistic 'what is fact'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

It is so obvious what is descriptive cannot produce facts regardless which definition is used above.
In my case of what is fact, I not referring to the descriptive aspects of facts but rather to the emergence of facts in entanglements with the human conditions and the subsequent necessary verification and justification of those facts.

What is wrong with stating astrological facts has zero credibility?
It is the same as stating a truth is half-truth or has zero-value [equivalent to false].
Christians creationists claim theirs are facts of creation but they do not provide the necessary verification and justifications, thus zero credibility [equivalent to false].
It is a matter of taking into account the contexts to ensure the statement is valid.

Your dogmatic insistence that 'what is fact' must be what you defined as 'what is fact' is purely due to your emotional and psychological impulses.
3 Your claim that moral conclusions can follow inductively from non-moral premises is astoundingly stupid. What non-moral observations could cumulatively lead to the conclusion that, say, slavery is morally wrong? What would count as non-moral evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery?
You said it is stupid is because you are stupid as driven by emotional and psychological impulses in clinging to your ideology.
You are stupidly shooting too many strawmen here.

1. I have already mentioned a 'million' times, I do not define 'morality' in terms of morally right or wrong. That belong to pseudo-morality not morality-proper.
Seriously, why are you unable to understand this point?

2. I have also stated a "million" times what is moral fact MUST be empirically verified and justified [scientifically or via other credible FSK] and is inputted into the moral FSK which enable moral facts to emerge to be used as moral standards which must not be enforced.
Since they are not to be enforced, there is no question of right or wrong in this case.
Rather there are moral gaps and deviations from the moral standards which trigger the necessity for continuous improvements toward the moral standards.

I presume you are not that stupid in understanding my very clear points 1 & 2 above.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Attention Peter Holmes,

the next time you forget [or deliberately attempting to strawman me] on where I stand on morality and moral facts, refer to this thread;

My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35464&p=589102#p589102
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:39 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 10:50 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 6:01 am
In arriving at the first major premises of science, they are derived INDUCTIVELY from non-scientific premises [based on observations] and processed via the imperative scientific FSK.
Therefore in science, non-scientific premises are converted to scientific conclusions imperatively via the scientific FSK.
As such, non-moral premises [observations and scientific facts] can be converted to moral conclusions via the moral FSK.
What is wrong with that?
I and others have pointed out what's wrong with it a million times, and you either don't understand or ignore what we say. Which is both perplexing and boring.
Note what you have presented is nothing of substance that is rigorously substantial that I am convinced of, thus they are to be ignored for my philosophical purposes at a higher degree of philosophical deliberation.
1 An empirical observation is NOT 'non-scientific'. Indeed, the whole of natural science is based on empirical observation. So it's simply not true that scientific inductive conclusions follow from 'non-scientific' premises.
How can you be so ignorant on this point?

Note:
The term empirical comes from Greek ἐμπειρία empeiría, i.e. 'experience'. In this context, it is usually understood as what is observable, in contrast to unobservable or theoretical objects. It is generally accepted that unaided perception constitutes observation, but it is disputed to what extent objects accessible only to aided perception, like bacteria seen through a microscope or positrons detected in a cloud chamber, should be regarded as observable.
Empirical evidence is essential to a posteriori knowledge or empirical knowledge, knowledge whose justification or falsification depends on experience or experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
As such all knowledge based on what is observable and experience and possible experience is empirical, but all empirical knowledge are not scientific.
In a court of law, empirical knowledge from various witnesses are relied upon to judge whether a person is guilty or not.
These empirical knowledge need not come from science [the most credible] but from many other sources of empirical evidences.

So an empirical observation as knowledge is not necessary scientific.

I argues all natural scientific knowledge originate from non-scientific empirical premises which are from common sense and conventional sense.
It is from common sense and conventional sense that heavy things drop to the ground, i.e. that is empirical knowledge of common and conventional sense.
It is only via the scientific framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] and Reality [FSR] that enable the facts of the existence of the forces of gravity.
So it is true that scientific inductive conclusions follow from 'non-scientific' premises and you are very ignorant [kindergartenish] to deny that.
2 It's true that what we call facts exist within a descriptive context. But that doesn't mean that any descriptive context can produce facts - as, for example, astrology shows. That you say there are astrological facts of near to zero credibility exposes the ridiculous nature of your argument. There's no empirical evidence for astrological claims, so there are no such facts. And, to repeat, whether astrological arguments are deductive, inductive or abductive makes absolutely no difference.
Note there are two views of what is fact, i.e.
1. Your early-Wittgenstein 'what is fact' - which is not realistic!
2. My realistic 'what is fact'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

It is so obvious what is descriptive cannot produce facts regardless which definition is used above.
In my case of what is fact, I not referring to the descriptive aspects of facts but rather to the emergence of facts in entanglements with the human conditions and the subsequent necessary verification and justification of those facts.

What is wrong with stating astrological facts has zero credibility?
It is the same as stating a truth is half-truth or has zero-value [equivalent to false].
Christians creationists claim theirs are facts of creation but they do not provide the necessary verification and justifications, thus zero credibility [equivalent to false].
It is a matter of taking into account the contexts to ensure the statement is valid.

Your dogmatic insistence that 'what is fact' must be what you defined as 'what is fact' is purely due to your emotional and psychological impulses.
3 Your claim that moral conclusions can follow inductively from non-moral premises is astoundingly stupid. What non-moral observations could cumulatively lead to the conclusion that, say, slavery is morally wrong? What would count as non-moral evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery?
You said it is stupid is because you are stupid as driven by emotional and psychological impulses in clinging to your ideology.
You are stupidly shooting too many strawmen here.

1. I have already mentioned a 'million' times, I do not define 'morality' in terms of morally right or wrong. That belong to pseudo-morality not morality-proper.
Seriously, why are you unable to understand this point?

2. I have also stated a "million" times what is moral fact MUST be empirically verified and justified [scientifically or via other credible FSK] and is inputted into the moral FSK which enable moral facts to emerge to be used as moral standards which must not be enforced.
Since they are not to be enforced, there is no question of right or wrong in this case.
Rather there are moral gaps and deviations from the moral standards which trigger the necessity for continuous improvements toward the moral standards.

I presume you are not that stupid in understanding my very clear points 1 & 2 above.
So your invented 'morality-proper', and your so-called moral facts, have nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness. Okay.

So you don't think it's morally wrong for humans to kill humans. That's just an ordinary, unphilosophical opinion.

We just ought not to do it for some other reason. But what reason? Why is it a moral fact that humans ought not to kill humans? And what empirical evidence do you have for that fact? What does the word 'ought' mean here?

If humans were programmed to kill humans, would it be a moral fact that humans ought to kill humans? Would you call that a moral fact?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:08 pm So your invented 'morality-proper', and your so-called moral facts, have nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness. Okay.
Strawmaning as usual.
Since I don't associate 'wrong' or 'right' with morality-proper, your use of 'wrong' is irrelevant for my stance on morality.
So you don't think it's morally wrong for humans to kill humans. That's just an ordinary, unphilosophical opinion.
It is not the question we ought or ought-not to do.
Rather all humans are programmed with the 'ought-not-ness' to kill humans.
We just ought not to do it for some other reason. But what reason? Why is it a moral fact that humans ought not to kill humans? And what empirical evidence do you have for that fact? What does the word 'ought' mean here?
It is just like there exist an 'ought-ness' to breathe [else die prematurely], thus we would just spontaneously breathe without the need to state it is right or wrong to breathe.

It is the same with the 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' which is a physical potential within all humans, so morally all humans need is to be natural and spontaneously be in a state of no impulse to kill humans which is common with the majority as empirically evident.
Reason? If there is no such inhibition of 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' then there is a possibility the human species will go extinct in time, it is a natural principle.

This 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' which is physical [represented by neural correlates] when activated via the moral FSK is thus a moral fact.
If humans were programmed to kill humans, would it be a moral fact that humans ought to kill humans? Would you call that a moral fact?
Nope. Your thinking is too shallow in this case.

All humans are programmed with the potential to kill [to facilitate survival] and that include killing humans.
Whilst 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' relates to morality [avoiding evil] thus is a moral fact, the programmed potential to kill [a critical necessity] when deliberated within the evil FSK is evilness thus it is an evil fact.
Get it?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 4:52 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:08 pm So your invented 'morality-proper', and your so-called moral facts, have nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness. Okay.
Strawmaning as usual.
Since I don't associate 'wrong' or 'right' with morality-proper, your use of 'wrong' is irrelevant for my stance on morality.
So I'm not straw-manning you. I'm stating your position: what you call morality-proper has nothing to do with the moral rightness or wrongness of behaviour. And that means you have to explain what you mean by the expression 'moral fact', to avoid equivocation. (The rest of us think morality is precisely about the moral rightness or wrongness of behaviour.)
So you don't think it's morally wrong for humans to kill humans. That's just an ordinary, unphilosophical opinion.
It is not the question we ought or ought-not to do.
Rather all humans are programmed with the 'ought-not-ness' to kill humans.
So, to clarify, humans are programmed with the 'ought-not-ness' to kill humans, but this has nothing to do with what we ought or ought not to do. Do you not see a contradiction?
We just ought not to do it for some other reason. But what reason? Why is it a moral fact that humans ought not to kill humans? And what empirical evidence do you have for that fact? What does the word 'ought' mean here?
It is just like there exist an 'ought-ness' to breathe [else die prematurely], thus we would just spontaneously breathe without the need to state it is right or wrong to breathe.
And here's the equivocation in plain view. 'If we don't breathe, we die; therefore, we ought to breathe.' You say the 'ought' here is nothing to do with rightness or wrongness. So what does it mean? What does it add to the (true) premise: 'if we don't breathe, we die'?

It is the same with the 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' which is a physical potential within all humans, so morally all humans need is to be natural and spontaneously be in a state of no impulse to kill humans which is common with the majority as empirically evident.
This is fallacious for two reasons.
1 The necessity of breathing to stay alive is not a 'physical potential'. It's just a physiological fact about humans, in no way analogous to 'ought-ness-not to kill humans'.
2 Empirical evidence that many or most humans either don't, or think they ought not to, kill humans, is not evidence that humans ought not to kill humans. That's a non sequitur.
Reason? If there is no such inhibition of 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' then there is a possibility the human species will go extinct in time, it is a natural principle.
And here's the fallacy again: 'If humans kill humans, our species may become extinct; therefore humans ought not to kill humans.' Non sequitur. Why ought humans to survive? Calling it a 'natural principle' begs the question.

This 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' which is physical [represented by neural correlates] when activated via the moral FSK is thus a moral fact.
Rubbish. Your mantra - 'activated by the moral FSK' - is empty rhetoric. You've demonstrated neither that a moral FSK exists, nor what could make it credible, nor what its premises are. It's your question-begging invention.
If humans were programmed to kill humans, would it be a moral fact that humans ought to kill humans? Would you call that a moral fact?
Nope. Your thinking is too shallow in this case.
So, if programming to kill humans wouldn't make it a moral fact that humans ought to kill humans, then programming not to kill humans doesn't make it a moral fact that humans ought not to kill humans. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And 'activation through a moral FSK' makes no f-cking difference.

All humans are programmed with the potential to kill [to facilitate survival] and that include killing humans.
Whilst 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' relates to morality [avoiding evil] thus is a moral fact, the programmed potential to kill [a critical necessity] when deliberated within the evil FSK is evilness thus it is an evil fact.
Get it?
No. You say morality-proper has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness. So why should we avoid evil? And what is evil, if it's nothing to do with moral wrongness?

Sorry, but your argument is, as ever, complete cack.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 4:52 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:08 pm So your invented 'morality-proper', and your so-called moral facts, have nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness. Okay.
Strawmaning as usual.
Since I don't associate 'wrong' or 'right' with morality-proper, your use of 'wrong' is irrelevant for my stance on morality.
So I'm not straw-manning you. I'm stating your position: what you call morality-proper has nothing to do with the moral rightness or wrongness of behaviour. And that means you have to explain what you mean by the expression 'moral fact', to avoid equivocation. (The rest of us think morality is precisely about the moral rightness or wrongness of behaviour.)
I was referring to this later statement;
PH: So you don't think it's morally wrong for humans to kill humans.
The term 'wrong' is irrelevant re my case.
So you don't think it's morally wrong for humans to kill humans. That's just an ordinary, unphilosophical opinion.
It is not the question we ought or ought-not to do.
Rather all humans are programmed with the 'ought-not-ness' to kill humans.
So, to clarify, humans are programmed with the 'ought-not-ness' to kill humans, but this has nothing to do with what we ought or ought not to do. Do you not see a contradiction?
What contradiction? You are just ignorant of the point.

Have you in your lifetime, ever deliberate whether you ought to breathe or not?

It is the same with "ought-not-ness' to kill humans" where one just allow it to be natural and spontaneous without any deliberation of whether one ought or ought not to kill humans. So the purpose of morality-proper is to cultivate this natural moral state.
We just ought not to do it for some other reason. But what reason? Why is it a moral fact that humans ought not to kill humans? And what empirical evidence do you have for that fact? What does the word 'ought' mean here?
It is just like there exist an 'ought-ness' to breathe [else die prematurely], thus we would just spontaneously breathe without the need to state it is right or wrong to breathe.
And here's the equivocation in plain view. 'If we don't breathe, we die; therefore, we ought to breathe.' You say the 'ought' here is nothing to do with rightness or wrongness. So what does it mean? What does it add to the (true) premise: 'if we don't breathe, we die'?
Note my point above.
There is no deliberation whether one ought to breathe or not.
One just be natural.
It is the same with the 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' which is a physical potential within all humans, so morally all humans need is to be natural and spontaneously be in a state of no impulse to kill humans which is common with the majority as empirically evident.
This is fallacious for two reasons.
1 The necessity of breathing to stay alive is not a 'physical potential'. It's just a physiological fact about humans, in no way analogous to 'ought-ness-not to kill humans'.
2 Empirical evidence that many or most humans either don't, or think they ought not to, kill humans, is not evidence that humans ought not to kill humans. That's a non sequitur.
You can't be that ignorant?
Try not to breathe and you will feel the full force of the 'physical potential' that is driving you to breathe to the extent you will even kill whoever is stopping your from breathing.

I have been doing breathing exercises. I can hold my breath for > 3 minutes. Initially it was painful and did not last >40 seconds.
I don't think you can last >30 seconds the potential driving you to breathe.
This is obviously empirical evidence.

The empirical evidence for the moral potential is not so obvious but it is there. I don't expect you to understand it anyway.
Reason? If there is no such inhibition of 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' then there is a possibility the human species will go extinct in time, it is a natural principle.
And here's the fallacy again: 'If humans kill humans, our species may become extinct; therefore humans ought not to kill humans.' Non sequitur. Why ought humans to survive? Calling it a 'natural principle' begs the question.
It stated it is the most likely inference with a 99% confidence level.
Regardless the moral potential is empirically evident within all humans.
This 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' which is physical [represented by neural correlates] when activated via the moral FSK is thus a moral fact.
Rubbish. Your mantra - 'activated by the moral FSK' - is empty rhetoric. You've demonstrated neither that a moral FSK exists, nor what could make it credible, nor what its premises are. It's your question-begging invention.
When your mantra is 'Morality is about right or wrong' there is no way you will be able to understand my point of view despite the possible empirical evidences I have mentioned before.
If humans were programmed to kill humans, would it be a moral fact that humans ought to kill humans? Would you call that a moral fact?
Nope. Your thinking is too shallow in this case.
So, if programming to kill humans wouldn't make it a moral fact that humans ought to kill humans, then programming not to kill humans doesn't make it a moral fact that humans ought not to kill humans. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And 'activation through a moral FSK' makes no f-cking difference.
Nah how can you conflate kill humans [evilness] with not to kill human [morality - good].
All humans are programmed with the potential to kill [to facilitate survival] and that include killing humans.
Whilst 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' relates to morality [avoiding evil] thus is a moral fact, the programmed potential to kill [a critical necessity] when deliberated within the evil FSK is evilness thus it is an evil fact.
Get it?
No. You say morality-proper has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness. So why should we avoid evil? And what is evil, if it's nothing to do with moral wrongness?
Sorry, but your argument is, as ever, complete cack.
Problem is you are stuck with morality as right or wrong which is ineffective to drive progress within humanity.

Point is morality is the spontaneoujs avoidance of evil to meet the moral standard [the moral fact], there is no need to state it is right or wrong.

If you set your thermostat target at say 20C coldness and your AC perform at 25C, you don't say it is wrong. What you do is to increase the performance of the AC or increase the thermostat temperature.

Btw, there is not even one point that your could corner my true view but rather my responses are exposing your ignorance and dogmatism.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

VA's argument demonstrates the truth of Hume's assertion: the leap from a description of the way things are - for which there may be empirical evidence - to a claim about the way things ought to be - requires a sleight-of-hand, an unacknowledged assumption - and is therefore always a logical non sequitur.

For VA, the assumption is 'the avoidance of evil'. By this trick, s/he vainly imagines that s/he can dismiss what the rest of us think morality is about - the rightness and wrongness of behaviour - as though avoiding evil has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness. Why we should avoid evil is, well, obvious. Who could disagree with that?

To repeat, non-moral premises, such as facts about human nature and potential behaviour, can't entail a moral conclusion - what we ought to do. And that means that moral conclusions - moral assertions - are 'stand-alone' - unless, of course, they follow from other moral assertions, which are also 'stand-alone', and so on.

That's why I say that, at the bottom of all moral arguments, there are moral judgements, beliefs or opinions - such as the opinion that we should avoid evil/moral wrongness. And what constitutes evil/moral wrongness can only ever be a matter of judgement, belief or opinion, because there are no moral facts.

Along with other moral realists and objectivists, VA is determined not to recognise this fact.
Post Reply