Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Be intellectually responsible and meet the burden of proof for your claim that there are moral facts. I reject your claim, and I and others have shown you countless times why it's false, and why your argument is unsound - in the interests of intellectual responsibility.

Others?? who? thick skulls like sculptor and pantflasher?

Note I have done an extensive literature survey of the subject re Morality and Ethics plus indepth research into the subject. What I have read so far is most of the moral philosophers do not conform to your dogmatic and archaic attitude and approach to moral issues.

Your OP above is full of noises [claims from ignorance and arrogance] without any references to any well argued points from various philosophers.

It's the arguments that count, along with the evidence for the premises. Who produces them is irrelevant.

True, it is the strong argument and supporting credible evidences that count.
But the point is your arguments are not sound and because you are not a credible philosopher, you need to back your arguments with reference to those moral philosophers who had given rigorous arguments to support the point you are making.

Your second premise,
By contrast, we use the word subjective to mean ‘relying on judgement, belief or opinion’.
is false, thus all related conclusions that followed are false.

What is objective is also dependent on 'judgment' i.e. the subsumption of the minor premise within the major premise in various degrees.
The fact that lemons are fruits of the citrus family are based on judgments, and similarly with other facts from various Frameworks and System of Facts.

You've failed to demonstrate one example of what you call a moral fact. So your appeal to evidence and sound argument is worthless. And all your reading seems to have been a waste of time, if you can't produce the killer evidence and sound argument.

Do it here, now. Go on. Simply and quickly. Then the misery will be over.

I have already done that many times, one example,

• 1. 'All humans breathe else they die'
  2. 'all human ought to breathe else they die'
  Input the 1 & 2 into a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics and process the justifications with other elements and principles, we generate the moral fact;
  3. No human ought to stop another from breathing till they die.

The above moral fact is only a GUIDE & Standard, and not to be enforceable from externally on any individual human.

[Peter Holmes]

P1. All humans breathe else they die.
P2. All humans ought to breathe else they die.
Input the 1 & 2 into a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics and process the justifications with other elements and principles, we generate the moral fact;
P3. No human ought to stop another from breathing till they die.

Okay, here's why this argument is invalid. Please try to follow my explanation, so that if I make a mistake, you can point it out.

1 Let's say P1 is true - a true factual assertion. And it's true because it asserts a feature of reality that is the case. We could call it a biological or physiological fact: humans must breathe or they die; if humans don't breathe, then they die. And this is a non-moral claim.

2 So in P2, what does 'ought to breathe' add? If 'ought to' just means 'must', then, in effect, P2 merely repeats P1, and is therefore redundant. If it doesn't add new information, it isn't a new premise.

3 But presumably, you think P2 does add new information - which is why you include it. So what difference does 'ought to' indicate?

4 If 'ought to' in P2 has a moral meaning, beyond the non-moral meaning of P1, then P2 makes a new, separate claim that needs justification - it doesn't follow from P1. To assume it does follow is to assume the moral conclusion you're trying to demonstrate - which is a question-begging fallacy. And the fact that you use 'ought to' in P3 with a moral sense - you think P3 is a moral fact - shows this is precisely the deception you're attempting.

5 And the 'Input 1&2' insertion shows the fallacy clearly. If this argument is a genuine attempt to demonstrate a moral fact, all the information required to justify the conclusion must appear in the premises. Otherwise, the conclusion isn't justified, and the argument is invalid. You're trying to pass off some magic trick so that - abracadabra - out pops a moral fact.

If you think any of this is wrong, please show exactly what the mistake is, so that we can discuss it.

Oh, and your point about facts being judgements is the tired old canard that we've done over countless times. Here it is.

'What is objective is also dependent on 'judgment' i.e. the subsumption of the minor premise within the major premise in various degrees.
The fact that lemons are fruits of the citrus family are based on judgments, and similarly with other facts from various Frameworks and System of Facts.'

That we judge a factual assertion to be true - to be a fact - doesn't mean its truth is a matter of judgement, belief or opinion. Within the appropriate 'system and framework of knowledge', lemons either are or aren't in the citrus family. Given the existing classification, this isn't a matter of judgement.

[Skepdick]

Okay, here's why this argument is invalid....

But you keep telling us that reality is NOT linguistic, you fucking troll, so why do arguments matter?

Are you now saying that reality is "argumentative"?

IF moral facts exist, then they exist irrelevant of any arguments being made about them. The Earth was round way before anybody argued it to be so.

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1. All humans breathe else they die.
P2. All humans ought to breathe else they die.
Input the 1 & 2 into a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics and process the justifications with other elements and principles, we generate the moral fact;
P3. No human ought to stop another from breathing till they die.

Okay, here's why this argument is invalid. Please try to follow my explanation, so that if I make a mistake, you can point it out.

If you think any of this is wrong, please show exactly what the mistake is, so that we can discuss it.

1 Let's say P1 is true - a true factual assertion. And it's true because it asserts a feature of reality that is the case. We could call it a biological or physiological fact: humans must breathe or they die; if humans don't breathe, then they die. And this is a non-moral claim.

2 So in P2, what does 'ought to breathe' add? If 'ought to' just means 'must', then, in effect, P2 merely repeats P1, and is therefore redundant. If it doesn't add new information, it isn't a new premise.

3 But presumably, you think P2 does add new information - which is why you include it. So what difference does 'ought to' indicate?

4 If 'ought to' in P2 has a moral meaning, beyond the non-moral meaning of P1, then P2 makes a new, separate claim that needs justification - it doesn't follow from P1. To assume it does follow is to assume the moral conclusion you're trying to demonstrate - which is a question-begging fallacy. And the fact that you use 'ought to' in P3 with a moral sense - you think P3 is a moral fact - shows this is precisely the deception you're attempting.

Again you are too hasty as usual.
Note P2 is an ought by default but I did not claim P2 as a moral fact yet.
P2 add new information of nuances i.e. imperative_ness, urgency, criticalness, therefore it is new premise.
P2 is not a moral fact it is an input into the Moral F/S along with P1.
Caught you! you are too hasty as in most cases of your challenges.

5 And the 'Input 1&2' insertion shows the fallacy clearly. If this argument is a genuine attempt to demonstrate a moral fact, all the information required to justify the conclusion must appear in the premises. Otherwise, the conclusion isn't justified, and the argument is invalid. You're trying to pass off some magic trick so that - abracadabra - out pops a moral fact.

Note my argument,

P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

I have already stated many times, the Framework and System of Moral and Ethics operates along the same method as the Scientific Framework and System which justify and generates scientific facts/truth/knowledge/theories empirically and 'philosophically'.

The Morality Framework and System does the same, i.e. it justify moral facts empirically and philosophically. The Moral F/S takes input from Science and various facts from other F/S.
In the above case P1 is directly from Science, P2 with added information the social science, i.e. psychology and psychiatry which are taken as inputs and with other facts into the Moral F/S where they are processed [philosophical reasoning] as outputs of moral facts.

Note the parallel of the legal/judiciary F/S where empirical scientific facts [& other facts] are taken as inputs [by both prosecutor and defense] to arrive at ultimately legal facts.

Oh, and your point about facts being judgements is the tired old canard that we've done over countless times. Here it is.

'What is objective is also dependent on 'judgment' i.e. the subsumption of the minor premise within the major premise in various degrees.
The fact that lemons are fruits of the citrus family are based on judgments, and similarly with other facts from various Frameworks and System of Facts.'

That we judge a factual assertion to be true - to be a fact - doesn't mean its truth is a matter of judgement, belief or opinion. Within the appropriate 'system and framework of knowledge', lemons either are or aren't in the citrus family. Given the existing classification, this isn't a matter of judgement.

Again you are so ignorant.
As I had stated, your thinking is always shallow, narrow and dogmatic.

Science use judgments in their conclusions.

Note the meaning of 'judgment'

• Judgement:
  -the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
  https://www.lexico.com/definition/judgement

• Conclusion
  the end or finish of an event, process, or text.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/conclusion

Biologists as scientists rely on judgment to arrive at the conclusion that lemons belong to the citrus family.
It is the same where scientists rely on judgment to arrive at their scientific conclusions.
Scientists also rely on judgment in a way in their choice of samples, equipment, tools and observations, etc.

Inferencing also relies on judgment;

• Inference
  a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/inference

The more you challenge me, the more your ignorance, shallow and narrow thinking is exposed.

Show me one challenge of yours against mine where you have succeeded convincingly.
On the other hand I have countered by every challenge posed by you.

[Peter Holmes]

P1. All humans breathe else they die.
P2. All humans ought to breathe else they die.
Input the 1 & 2 into a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics and process the justifications with other elements and principles, we generate the moral fact;
P3. No human ought to stop another from breathing till they die.

Okay, here's why this argument is invalid. Please try to follow my explanation, so that if I make a mistake, you can point it out.

If you think any of this is wrong, please show exactly what the mistake is, so that we can discuss it.

1 Let's say P1 is true - a true factual assertion. And it's true because it asserts a feature of reality that is the case. We could call it a biological or physiological fact: humans must breathe or they die; if humans don't breathe, then they die. And this is a non-moral cl
2 So in P2, what does 'ought to breathe' add? If 'ought to' just means 'must', then, in effect, P2 merely repeats P1, and is therefore redundant. If it doesn't add new information, it isn't a new premise.

3 But presumably, you think P2 does add new information - which is why you include it. So what difference does 'ought to' indicate?

4 If 'ought to' in P2 has a moral meaning, beyond the non-moral meaning of P1, then P2 makes a new, separate claim that needs justification - it doesn't follow from P1. To assume it does follow is to assume the moral conclusion you're trying to demonstrate - which is a question-begging fallacy. And the fact that you use 'ought to' in P3 with a moral sense - you think P3 is a moral fact - shows this is precisely the deception you're attempting.

Again you are too hasty as usual.
Note P2 is an ought by default but I did not claim P2 as a moral fact yet.
P2 add new information of nuances i.e. imperative_ness, urgency, criticalness, therefore it is new premise.
P2 is not a moral fact it is an input into the Moral F/S along with P1.
Caught you! you are too hasty as in most cases of your challenges.

5 And the 'Input 1&2' insertion shows the fallacy clearly. If this argument is a genuine attempt to demonstrate a moral fact, all the information required to justify the conclusion must appear in the premises. Otherwise, the conclusion isn't justified, and the argument is invalid. You're trying to pass off some magic trick so that - abracadabra - out pops a moral fact.

Note my argument,

P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

I have already stated many times, the Framework and System of Moral and Ethics operates along the same method as the Scientific Framework and System which justify and generates scientific facts/truth/knowledge/theories empirically and 'philosophically'.

The Morality Framework and System does the same, i.e. it justify moral facts empirically and philosophically. The Moral F/S takes input from Science and various facts from other F/S.
In the above case P1 is directly from Science, P2 with added information the social science, i.e. psychology and psychiatry which are taken as inputs and with other facts into the Moral F/S where they are processed [philosophical reasoning] as outputs of moral facts.

Note the parallel of the legal/judiciary F/S where empirical scientific facts [& other facts] are taken as inputs [by both prosecutor and defense] to arrive at ultimately legal facts.

Oh, and your point about facts being judgements is the tired old canard that we've done over countless times. Here it is.

'What is objective is also dependent on 'judgment' i.e. the subsumption of the minor premise within the major premise in various degrees.
The fact that lemons are fruits of the citrus family are based on judgments, and similarly with other facts from various Frameworks and System of Facts.'

That we judge a factual assertion to be true - to be a fact - doesn't mean its truth is a matter of judgement, belief or opinion. Within the appropriate 'system and framework of knowledge', lemons either are or aren't in the citrus family. Given the existing classification, this isn't a matter of judgement.

Again you are so ignorant.
As I had stated, your thinking is always shallow, narrow and dogmatic.

Science use judgments in their conclusions.

Note the meaning of 'judgment'

• Judgement:
  -the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
  https://www.lexico.com/definition/judgement

• Conclusion
  the end or finish of an event, process, or text.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/conclusion

Biologists as scientists rely on judgment to arrive at the conclusion that lemons belong to the citrus family.
It is the same where scientists rely on judgment to arrive at their scientific conclusions.
Scientists also rely on judgment in a way in their choice of samples, equipment, tools and observations, etc.

Inferencing also relies on judgment;

• Inference
  a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/inference

The more you challenge me, the more your ignorance, shallow and narrow thinking is exposed.

Show me one challenge of yours against mine where you have succeeded convincingly.
On the other hand I have countered by every challenge posed by you.

So,let's see. Here's your argument without all the flummery.

P1 Humans must breathe or they die.
P2 Humans really really really must breathe or they die.
P3 The system and framework of morality can produce moral facts.
C Therefore, it's morally wrong to suffocate a person to death - and that's a fact.

Perhaps this drivel impresses you - but each to her own. I hope everyone else can see your nonsense for what it is - but who knows? I'm done. WOT.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So,let's see. Here's your argument without all the flummery.

P1 Humans must breathe or they die.
P2 Humans really really really must breathe or they die.
P3 The system and framework of morality produce can moral facts.
C Therefore, it's morally wrong to suffocate a person to death - and that's a fact.

Perhaps this drivel impresses you - but each to her own. I hope everyone else can see your nonsense for what it is - but who knows? I'm done. WOT.

As usual you attempt to be rhetorical.

To be precise, in narration;

• P1 Humans must breathe or they die.
  P2 Humans ought to breathe or they die.
  P3 The system and framework of morality produce moral facts.
  P4 Input P1 and P2 into the Moral F/S with other facts and philosophical reasoning,
  C Output: therefore, 'No human ought to suffocate a person to death' - and that's a Moral fact.

You make noises but do not provide justification why the above is false.

[Peter Holmes]

So,let's see. Here's your argument without all the flummery.

P1 Humans must breathe or they die.
P2 Humans really really really must breathe or they die.
P3 The system and framework of morality produce can moral facts.
C Therefore, it's morally wrong to suffocate a person to death - and that's a fact.

Perhaps this drivel impresses you - but each to her own. I hope everyone else can see your nonsense for what it is - but who knows? I'm done. WOT.

As usual you attempt to be rhetorical.

To be precise, in narration;

• P1 Humans must breathe or they die.
  P2 Humans ought to breathe or they die.
  P3 The system and framework of morality produce moral facts.
  P4 Input P1 and P2 into the Moral F/S with other facts and philosophical reasoning,
  C Output: therefore, 'No human ought to suffocate a person to death' - and that's a Moral fact.

You make noises but do not provide justification why the above is false.

Ah - that's what you mean. Now it makes perfect sense. WAFWOT.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So,let's see. Here's your argument without all the flummery.

P1 Humans must breathe or they die.
P2 Humans really really really must breathe or they die.
P3 The system and framework of morality produce can moral facts.
C Therefore, it's morally wrong to suffocate a person to death - and that's a fact.

Perhaps this drivel impresses you - but each to her own. I hope everyone else can see your nonsense for what it is - but who knows? I'm done. WOT.

As usual you attempt to be rhetorical.

To be precise, in narration;

• P1 Humans must breathe or they die.
  P2 Humans ought to breathe or they die.
  P3 The system and framework of morality produce moral facts.
  P4 Input P1 and P2 into the Moral F/S with other facts and philosophical reasoning,
  C Output: therefore, 'No human ought to suffocate a person to death' - and that's a Moral fact.

You make noises but do not provide justification why the above is false.

Ah - that's what you mean. Now it makes perfect sense. WAFWOT.

I suggest you counter my premise;

• P 'A Framework and System of Knowledge produces its specific facts in alignment to their referent.

Thus whatever the fact is, it is conditioned to the Framework and System of Knowledge, not the individuals' beliefs and opinions, thus it is objective.

I have given you examples of various Framework and System of Knowledge, e.g. The Science F/S produce scientific facts, the Legal F/S - legal facts, Economic F/S - economic facts, and so on, thus the Moral Framework and System produce justified true moral facts in alignment with its referent.

If you can prove my above premise is false then I'll concede there are no justified true moral facts.

Your problem is you are trying to impose your whatever Framework and System of knowledge [logico-linguistic, Analytic Philosophy, ordinary language, logical positivistic] on others, thus going haywire with your conclusions.

[Peter Holmes]

As usual you attempt to be rhetorical.

To be precise, in narration;

• P1 Humans must breathe or they die.
  P2 Humans ought to breathe or they die.
  P3 The system and framework of morality produce moral facts.
  P4 Input P1 and P2 into the Moral F/S with other facts and philosophical reasoning,
  C Output: therefore, 'No human ought to suffocate a person to death' - and that's a Moral fact.

You make noises but do not provide justification why the above is false.

Ah - that's what you mean. Now it makes perfect sense. WAFWOT.

I suggest you counter my premise;

• P 'A Framework and System of Knowledge produces its specific facts in alignment to their referent.

Thus whatever the fact is, it is conditioned to the Framework and System of Knowledge, not the individuals' beliefs and opinions, thus it is objective.

I have given you examples of various Framework and System of Knowledge, e.g. The Science F/S produce scientific facts, the Legal F/S - legal facts, Economic F/S - economic facts, and so on, thus the Moral Framework and System produce justified true moral facts in alignment with its referent.

If you can prove my above premise is false then I'll concede there are no justified true moral facts.

Your problem is you are trying to impose your whatever Framework and System of knowledge [logico-linguistic, Analytic Philosophy, ordinary language, logical positivistic] on others, thus going haywire with your conclusions.

No, I'm pointing out that your argument is fallacious. That what we call facts exist within a discourse does not mean that any discourse can produce facts. Something else is required, namely the existence of the state-of-affairs - the feature of reality - that the fact describes. And moral rightness and wrongness are not independently existing features of reality.

The condition for what we call a fact in any discourse is not met in moral discourse. And that's why there are no moral facts, which is why you can't produce evidence for moral objectivism. That you retreat to claiming moral principles are moral facts - a complete misunderstanding - demonstrates your failure.

[Skepdick]

That what we call facts exist within a discourse does not mean that any discourse can produce facts.

Something else is required, namely the existence of the state-of-affairs - the feature of reality - that the fact describes.

Peter, you are really fucking confused. You keep insisting that reality is not linguistic, and in the same breath you insist that facts describe reality.
By using the word "describe" you are implying that facts are linguistic.

So if discourse cannot produce facts, then who decided that this color is red is a fact?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ah - that's what you mean. Now it makes perfect sense. WAFWOT.

I suggest you counter my premise;

• P 'A Framework and System of Knowledge produces its specific facts in alignment to their referent.

Thus whatever the fact is, it is conditioned to the Framework and System of Knowledge, not the individuals' beliefs and opinions, thus it is objective.

I have given you examples of various Framework and System of Knowledge, e.g. The Science F/S produce scientific facts, the Legal F/S - legal facts, Economic F/S - economic facts, and so on, thus the Moral Framework and System produce justified true moral facts in alignment with its referent.

If you can prove my above premise is false then I'll concede there are no justified true moral facts.

Your problem is you are trying to impose your whatever Framework and System of knowledge [logico-linguistic, Analytic Philosophy, ordinary language, logical positivistic] on others, thus going haywire with your conclusions.

No, I'm pointing out that your argument is fallacious. That what we call facts exist within a discourse does not mean that any discourse can produce facts. Something else is required, namely the existence of the state-of-affairs - the feature of reality - that the fact describes. And moral rightness and wrongness are not independently existing features of reality.

The condition for what we call a fact in any discourse is not met in moral discourse. And that's why there are no moral facts, which is why you can't produce evidence for moral objectivism. That you retreat to claiming moral principles are moral facts - a complete misunderstanding - demonstrates your failure.

As usual, you are being rhetoric again.

Where did I ever mention 'discourse'?
Hey!! WAKE UP!!
It is so clear in my post you responded to, I stated 'Framework and System of Knowledge.'
I have to say, with such a serious deflection, there is something very psychologically wrong with you.
That is why Boyd claimed Moral-Facts-Deniers has some sort of psychological cognitive deficit.

Note my argument again!!!
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

• P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
  P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
  C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.

I have asserted,
Scientific facts/truth/knowledge/theories [in alignment with its referent] are produced from its Scientific Framework and System.
The Moral Framework and System which is similar to the Science's produces Moral facts in alignment with its referent.

Something else is required, namely the existence of the state-of-affairs - the feature of reality - that the fact describes.

You don't have any God-like authority to insist on the above as absolute!

Note Skepdick's response to your contradictory and self-refuting point.

In general, what the fact describes is its referent [your state-of-affairs].
In your case, what is fact must be confirmed by Science Only - scientific fact.
Do you dispute this? I am sure you will not.
But I have argued, scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures' [Popper].

In your case, your are using scientific facts and process them through your specific Framework, i.e. linguistic which churn out contradictory conclusion in your case.

I have requested you to prove a fact-in-itself exists as real. But you are unable to do so.

[Peter Holmes]

I suggest you counter my premise;

• P 'A Framework and System of Knowledge produces its specific facts in alignment to their referent.

Thus whatever the fact is, it is conditioned to the Framework and System of Knowledge, not the individuals' beliefs and opinions, thus it is objective.

I have given you examples of various Framework and System of Knowledge, e.g. The Science F/S produce scientific facts, the Legal F/S - legal facts, Economic F/S - economic facts, and so on, thus the Moral Framework and System produce justified true moral facts in alignment with its referent.

If you can prove my above premise is false then I'll concede there are no justified true moral facts.

Your problem is you are trying to impose your whatever Framework and System of knowledge [logico-linguistic, Analytic Philosophy, ordinary language, logical positivistic] on others, thus going haywire with your conclusions.

No, I'm pointing out that your argument is fallacious. That what we call facts exist within a discourse does not mean that any discourse can produce facts. Something else is required, namely the existence of the state-of-affairs - the feature of reality - that the fact describes. And moral rightness and wrongness are not independently existing features of reality.

The condition for what we call a fact in any discourse is not met in moral discourse. And that's why there are no moral facts, which is why you can't produce evidence for moral objectivism. That you retreat to claiming moral principles are moral facts - a complete misunderstanding - demonstrates your failure.

As usual, you are being rhetoric again.

Where did I ever mention 'discourse'?
Hey!! WAKE UP!!
It is so clear in my post you responded to, I stated 'Framework and System of Knowledge.'
I have to say, with such a serious deflection, there is something very psychologically wrong with you.
That is why Boyd claimed Moral-Facts-Deniers has some sort of psychological cognitive deficit.

Note my argument again!!!
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

• P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
  P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
  C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.

I have asserted,
Scientific facts/truth/knowledge/theories [in alignment with its referent] are produced from its Scientific Framework and System.
The Moral Framework and System which is similar to the Science's produces Moral facts in alignment with its referent.

Something else is required, namely the existence of the state-of-affairs - the feature of reality - that the fact describes.

You don't have any God-like authority to insist on the above as absolute!

Note Skepdick's response to your contradictory and self-refuting point.

In general, what the fact describes is its referent [your state-of-affairs].
In your case, what is fact must be confirmed by Science Only - scientific fact.
Do you dispute this? I am sure you will not.
But I have argued, scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures' [Popper].

In your case, your are using scientific facts and process them through your specific Framework, i.e. linguistic which churn out contradictory conclusion in your case.

I have requested you to prove a fact-in-itself exists as real. But you are unable to do so.

I used the word 'discourse' as a synonym for your tedious invention, 'system and framework of knowledge'. So, to repeat:

That a fact exists in a discourse does not mean any discourse can produce facts. I aaume you agree. If not, why not?

For example, do you think theology is a 'system and framework of knowledge', which can, therefore, produce facts? If not, why not?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I used the word 'discourse' as a synonym for your tedious invention, 'system and framework of knowledge'. So, to repeat:

That a fact exists in a discourse does not mean any discourse can produce facts. I aaume you agree. If not, why not?

For example, do you think theology is a 'system and framework of knowledge', which can, therefore, produce facts? If not, why not?

Your changing my terms re Framework and System, etc. to 'discourse' is a very dishonest deflection and rhetorical.

A Framework and System of Knowledge produces facts.
But the facts produced by the respective F/S come with degrees of veracity [truth with reality].
In addition, recognizing a Framework and System does not mean what are outputs from the F/S are all facts. Even in Science what was once facts had been rejected as false.
There are no absolute facts.
Ultimately whatever is fact must be justified empirically and philosophy plus meeting all other essential criteria.

In the case of the Theological Framework and System, we have to assess each factual claim they made. Obviously the claim, God exists cannot qualify as fact because it is unjustifiable.

As I had stated the F/S that has the highest credibility with truth and facts is that of the Scientific Framework and System.

Therefore we will use the Scientific Framework and System with its essential features of credibility as a standard to measure all other Framework and System of Knowledge.

• For example;
  
  Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019 is a fact [F1].
  But this fact is conditioned upon the Framework and System of the Miss Universe Organization and accepted by anyone in consensus with the F/S.

Do you deny F1 is a fact?
Obviously it represent and state-of-affair in reality that is verifiable but such a fact is distinctively of lower grade than a scientific fact, or legal fact.

What is 'fact' to you is also conditioned upon your specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
I have already argued your specific F/S is establishing 'what is fact' is fundamentally not realistic and do not reflect reality with a higher precision.

The best you can ground your fact is based on Science, but scientific truths are merely polished conjectures which are supposedly representing reality-in-itself.
But the point is there is no reality-in-itself. There are no absolute facts.

These are philosophical arguments you would deliberately ignore and desperately cling to your 'ideology' which the origin is traceable to the Logical Positivists and their language games.

[Peter Holmes]

I used the word 'discourse' as a synonym for your tedious invention, 'system and framework of knowledge'. So, to repeat:

That a fact exists in a discourse does not mean any discourse can produce facts. I aaume you agree. If not, why not?

For example, do you think theology is a 'system and framework of knowledge', which can, therefore, produce facts? If not, why not?

Your changing my terms re Framework and System, etc. to 'discourse' is a very dishonest deflection and rhetorical.

A Framework and System of Knowledge produces facts.
But the facts produced by the respective F/S come with degrees of veracity [truth with reality].
In addition, recognizing a Framework and System does not mean what are outputs from the F/S are all facts. Even in Science what was once facts had been rejected as false.
There are no absolute facts.
Ultimately whatever is fact must be justified empirically and philosophy plus meeting all other essential criteria.

In the case of the Theological Framework and System, we have to assess each factual claim they made. Obviously the claim, God exists cannot qualify as fact because it is unjustifiable.

As I had stated the F/S that has the highest credibility with truth and facts is that of the Scientific Framework and System.

Therefore we will use the Scientific Framework and System with its essential features of credibility as a standard to measure all other Framework and System of Knowledge.

• For example;
  
  Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019 is a fact [F1].
  But this fact is conditioned upon the Framework and System of the Miss Universe Organization and accepted by anyone in consensus with the F/S.

Do you deny F1 is a fact?
Obviously it represent and state-of-affair in reality that is verifiable but such a fact is distinctively of lower grade than a scientific fact, or legal fact.

What is 'fact' to you is also conditioned upon your specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
I have already argued your specific F/S is establishing 'what is fact' is fundamentally not realistic and do not reflect reality with a higher precision.

The best you can ground your fact is based on Science, but scientific truths are merely polished conjectures which are supposedly representing reality-in-itself.
But the point is there is no reality-in-itself. There are no absolute facts.

These are philosophical arguments you would deliberately ignore and desperately cling to your 'ideology' which the origin is traceable to the Logical Positivists and their language games.

So you agree: that what we call a fact exists only within a system and framework of knowledge does not mean that any system and framework of knowledge can produce facts - and that not all claims made in any system and framework of knowledge will be facts. Each claim in any context has to be assessed against the evidence.

Now, you claim that morality is a system and framework of knowledge like any other - like, say, the chemistry system and framework of knowledge. And you claim that therefore there are moral facts just as there are chemistry facts - though moral facts aren't of the same high-class quality as a chemistry fact, such as: water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen.

For example, you claim that 'it's morally wrong to prevent someone breathing until they die' is a moral fact of the same kind as 'water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen', though it's not a fact of the same degree or quality as the chemical fact.

Have I got this right?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you agree: that what we call a fact exists only within a system and framework of knowledge does not mean that any system and framework of knowledge can produce facts - and that not all claims made in any system and framework of knowledge will be facts. Each claim in any context has to be assessed against the evidence.

Now, you claim that morality is a system and framework of knowledge like any other - like, say, the chemistry system and framework of knowledge. And you claim that therefore there are moral facts just as there are chemistry facts - though moral facts aren't of the same high-class quality as a chemistry fact, such as: water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen.

For example, you claim that 'it's morally wrong to prevent someone breathing until they die' is a moral fact of the same kind as 'water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen', though it's not a fact of the same degree or quality as the chemical fact.

Have I got this right?

Yes in term of justification empirically and philosophically within its specific Framework and System.

So, the question of the moral facts' degree of veracity is whether they can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the Moral Framework and System.