Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:13 pm
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.
Strawmaning as usual.
Show me where did I ever make the above argument you accused me of?
Where did I claim with reference to your accusations the way "things ought to be" is based on empirical evidences.
What I claimed is there are inherent moral potentials of ought-ness or ought-not-ness.
I provided the analogy of the inherent ought-ness to breathe and no humans would decide whether the "ought-ness to breathe" is right or wrong.
Similarly there are moral oughtness [subtle to the extent you are unable to understand it] where no humans would decide whether the "ought-ness to breathe" is right or wrong, but rather facilitate the potential to unfold and express itself.
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?
Morality in general is the avoidance of evil. What else can it be in general?
True one can input right or wrong into the avoidance of evil e.g. in laws, social order, religions which is accompanied by threats, but these are not morality proper but rather pseudo-morality.
Morality proper is expressed naturally and spontaneously in alignment with the inherent moral potential without any reference to threats nor enforcement.
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.
Yes, they cannot entail a moral conclusion related to judgment, beliefs and opinions.
But these potentials exist physically within the brain and body and can be verified and justified within a moral FSK, thus they are moral facts in that sense.
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.
Nah! point is you are stuck in a archaic
unrealistic paradigm with reference to morality re moral wrongness and rightness. This view as with reference to very subjective matters is obviously ineffective in contributing to moral progress for humanity, which is evident within the history of mankind.
My paradigm of morality [in alignment with empirical evidences] is based on moral facts that are verifiable and justifiable within a credible FSK with scientific facts as inputs.
Note again,
My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35464
despite my highlighting and emphasis of your errors, you don't seem to be able to grasp my points but keep reverting to your old thinking [morality as 'right' or 'wrong'] and imposing that on me.
Btw, your thread is merely trolling because it is
so basic and obvious , moral opinions, beliefs, and judgment cannot be moral facts [verifiable and justifiable].