Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, to clarify our argument.

1 We agree that a fact - a true factual assertion - exists within a descriptive context, of which there are many.

Nope, I did not agree to the above.

My view is some statements can have both descriptive and prescriptive elements within itself.
Note the threads I had raised in this section to support this;

• '
  Do Unconditional Facts Exist
  
  Speech Acts' Relevant to 'Is-Ought' Problem.
  
  Brute Facts versus Constitutional Facts
  
  Thick Ethical Concepts Posed a Challenge to 'No Ought From Is'
  
  Hillary Putnam: Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy

2 We agree that a factual assertion, in any context, requires empirical evidence, in order to count as a fact.

3 You claim that what we call morality constitutes a descriptive context capable of producing factual assertions for which there is empirical evidence - and that therefore there can be moral facts.

What I claim is morality is normative, i.e. contain prescriptive statements as GUIDES only to be used as a standard within a Moral Framework and System.

4 I claim that what we call morality constitutes principles that express value-judgements; that these principles are not factual claims with truth-value at all; and that there is and can be no empirical evidence for them.

I disagree as noted.

Now, I suggest we leave our discussion there, because we can only repeat our arguments and fail to persuade each other ad nauseam.

I will continue to post whatever and whenever I like. It is your discretion to respond or not to respond to any posts.

At present, with the momentum on the subject, I am doing serious research into Morality and Ethics.
The Is-Ought Dichotomy although a popular issue, as Peter Singer argued is a triviality within Morality and Ethics.
The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29758

This Is-Ought Dichotomy is illusory to Morality, it is like seeing a mirage [oasis] in the desert and insisting it is real, i.e. a real problem to morality-proper.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Many people, like VA for example, are incapable of understanding the difference between objective facts and principles, which is a pretty severe cognitive deficit.

This only supports the view that humanity as a whole is unfit to exist on this planet, and the longer we are around, the more damage we will do. We are simply not an intelligent species. So the morally right thing to do would be to eliminate humanity as fast as possible.

That's another way how moral objectivists shoot themselves in the foot.

You are kicking your own butt.

Note the definition of 'principle'.

• Principle = a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/principle

In certain aspects a principle may not be a fact, but wherever a principle is an objective fact, it must be justified empirically and philosophically.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Would be simpler if they would actually justify a moral fact with empirical evidence. Just one example. Come on it's not that hard.

I have done that "a thousand" times.
It is just that you are not mindful of what is posted.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Would be simpler if they would actually justify a moral fact with empirical evidence. Just one example. Come on it's not that hard.

Agreed. But 'moral fact' is an oxymoron, so it can't be done. Hence the endless run-around. Until the penny drops.

As I had argued your philosophical view on this point 'moral fact' is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.
Point is you have not countered the relevant arguments I have put forward.

I had posed this to you,
show me a 'fact' that is absolutely-absolute, a fact-in-itself that is totally unconditional?
Do Unconditional Facts Exist?

There is no way you can do it, thus that leave room for relative-fact and credible facts are those that are justified empirically and philosophically, which I have done for moral-facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Agreed. But 'moral fact' is an oxymoron, so it can't be done. Hence the endless run-around. Until the penny drops.

What do you call ' a fact'? Is it social fact, personal affective fact, scientific fact, hueristic, ontic fact, or statistical fact?

By 'morality' are you talking about particular moral codes, the function of morality in society, morality as part of man's past, the moral component in religious behaviour and belief, or morality as a biological trait?

I refer you to the previous 680 or so posts, which are about the nature and function of moral assertions, and why they're different from what we call factual assertions of any kind.

Problem is you did not define what do you mean by 'morality' precisely and for me, what is morality-proper in contrast to pseudo-morality.

What you have in mind but not define is specific to the pseudo-morality of theism. In this case theists claim there are moral facts from a God or eternal immutable moral facts as proposed by Plato.
In such cases, I agree, these are not moral facts because they cannot be verified empirically and philosophically because by default they are transcendental, i.e. beyond the empirical, thus ontological and metaphysical.

However within morality proper -nothing to do with the above -there are Justified True Moral Beliefs as in Science.

[Veritas Aequitas]

moral fact is an oxymoron

What do you call a fact ?

By morality are you talking about particular moral codes - the function of morality in society - morality as
part of mans past - the moral component in religious behaviour and belief or morality as a biological trait ?

A fact is a truth statement that can be demonstrated with logic or evidence

Morality as in the morality of that particular society at that particular time
So majority consensus based upon the values of a particular belief system if society is religious or secular values if society is non religious
But not morality as a function of society because that is sociology or mans past [ history ] or as biological trait [ evolutionary psychology ]

DNA wise, Morality-proper is an inherent function within all humans, albeit of low activeness in the majority at present. But the inherent moral function is wakening within the average.

Note the analogy of the average intelligence and knowledge-base of humans which was low >10,000 years ago. However note the average intelligence and knowledge-base of the average person at present in contrast to the average 10,000 years ago or even 100 years ago.
It is the same with the moral competence of the average person which is at present slowly unfolding and very evident.

Since the past and the ancients, the features of morality-proper was already expressed intuitively as in the Ancient Greeks, Plato, Aristotle and the religious of the East and Middle-East.

It was only with the works of Anthropologists who studied different tribes and cultures who proposed the existence of moral relativism, i.e. relative to the different tribes and cultures.
For anthropologists, their philosophy is likely to be relatively of kindergarten level, thus they are delving only into the superficial behaviors and thus concluded the existence of moral relativism which is very obvious.
But these anthropologists are not interested, more like ignorant, of the inherent nature of humans, of which one of the inherent function is morality-proper. It is not within their job function to trace the issues to the proximate roots of the issues.

As with the principle of "unity within diversity" one can infer there are generic moral principles [facts] within the diversity of moral practices. The obvious generic standards are 'no killing,' incest, lying, cheating, adultery, etc. which are expressed in different forms in accordance to the different respective conditions of the tribes and societies.

To understand morality-proper the focus should be on the moral principles [facts] that are generic to all humans as discovered via the neurosciences, neuro-psychology, evolutionary psychology, social biology [analogically and comparatively] etc.

[Atla]

Many people, like VA for example, are incapable of understanding the difference between objective facts and principles, which is a pretty severe cognitive deficit.

This only supports the view that humanity as a whole is unfit to exist on this planet, and the longer we are around, the more damage we will do. We are simply not an intelligent species. So the morally right thing to do would be to eliminate humanity as fast as possible.

That's another way how moral objectivists shoot themselves in the foot.

You are kicking your own butt.

Note the definition of 'principle'.

• Principle = a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/principle

In certain aspects a principle may not be a fact, but wherever a principle is an objective fact, it must be justified empirically and philosophically.

Ask anyone who can actually speaks English and they'll tell you that you have utterly humiliated yourself again. But of course you won't believe them because you are incapable of processing any input. So then why on Earth do you keep asking for people's input on a forum, I wonder?

[Atla]

Would be simpler if they would actually justify a moral fact with empirical evidence. Just one example. Come on it's not that hard.

I have done that "a thousand" times.
It is just that you are not mindful of what is posted.

I'm a lot more mindful than you are, but that's again something you are incapable of processing.
Here, write down your best example.

[Peter Holmes]

So, to clarify our argument.

1 We agree that a fact - a true factual assertion - exists within a descriptive context, of which there are many.

Nope, I did not agree to the above.

My view is some statements can have both descriptive and prescriptive elements within itself.
Note the threads I had raised in this section to support this;

• '
  Do Unconditional Facts Exist
  
  Speech Acts' Relevant to 'Is-Ought' Problem.
  
  Brute Facts versus Constitutional Facts
  
  Thick Ethical Concepts Posed a Challenge to 'No Ought From Is'
  
  Hillary Putnam: Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy

2 We agree that a factual assertion, in any context, requires empirical evidence, in order to count as a fact.

3 You claim that what we call morality constitutes a descriptive context capable of producing factual assertions for which there is empirical evidence - and that therefore there can be moral facts.

What I claim is morality is normative, i.e. contain prescriptive statements as GUIDES only to be used as a standard within a Moral Framework and System.

4 I claim that what we call morality constitutes principles that express value-judgements; that these principles are not factual claims with truth-value at all; and that there is and can be no empirical evidence for them.

I disagree as noted.

Now, I suggest we leave our discussion there, because we can only repeat our arguments and fail to persuade each other ad nauseam.

I will continue to post whatever and whenever I like. It is your discretion to respond or not to respond to any posts.

At present, with the momentum on the subject, I am doing serious research into Morality and Ethics.
The Is-Ought Dichotomy although a popular issue, as Peter Singer argued is a triviality within Morality and Ethics.
The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29758

This Is-Ought Dichotomy is illusory to Morality, it is like seeing a mirage [oasis] in the desert and insisting it is real, i.e. a real problem to morality-proper.

A fact is an assertion or description of a feature of reality that is or was the case. So there is no such thing as a prescriptive fact. That's a grammatical misunderstanding.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A fact is an assertion or description of a feature of reality that is or was the case. So there is no such thing as a prescriptive fact. That's a grammatical misunderstanding.

That is the problem when you are so pedantic and dogmatic with your specific Framework and System of Knowledge.

Note we are doing philosophy thus have to deal with nuances and not with rigid dogmatic ideas.
In the various threads I have listed above, I have explained the various perspectives where what is prescriptive can be a fact, i.e. a state-of-affairs within the psyche of the collective and human nature.

What you are proposing are merely common sense and conventional sense.
In philosophy, we cannot be too rigid like what you are doing.
Note there are justifiable ideas that the whole of reality is an illusion contradicting the reality of an independent external world.
In the case of Hume, the personal self is not anything substantial but is merely a bundle of impressions.
Bertrand Russel raised the ? - "perhaps there is no real table at all" while I am quite sure, at the same time he was writing that point on a 'real' table.
Point is the above are all justifiable with qualification to its specific conditions.

The problem with you is you are unable to think outside the box, thus has a very limited philosophical vista of reality.

[Peter Holmes]

A fact is an assertion or description of a feature of reality that is or was the case. So there is no such thing as a prescriptive fact. That's a grammatical misunderstanding.

That is the problem when you are so pedantic and dogmatic with your specific Framework and System of Knowledge.

Note we are doing philosophy thus have to deal with nuances and not with rigid dogmatic ideas.
In the various threads I have listed above, I have explained the various perspectives where what is prescriptive can be a fact, i.e. a state-of-affairs within the psyche of the collective and human nature.

What you are proposing are merely common sense and conventional sense.
In philosophy, we cannot be too rigid like what you are doing.
Note there are justifiable ideas that the whole of reality is an illusion contradicting the reality of an independent external world.
In the case of Hume, the personal self is not anything substantial but is merely a bundle of impressions.
Bertrand Russel raised the ? - "perhaps there is no real table at all" while I am quite sure, at the same time he was writing that point on a 'real' table.
Point is the above are all justifiable with qualification to its specific conditions.

The problem with you is you are unable to think outside the box, thus has a very limited philosophical vista of reality.

No, the problem is you don't understand the functional difference between a description (what is the case) and a prescription (what must or ought to be the case). So you mistake a moral assertion for a factual assertion. It's that simple.

[Belinda]

What do you call a fact ?

By morality are you talking about particular moral codes - the function of morality in society - morality as
part of mans past - the moral component in religious behaviour and belief or morality as a biological trait ?

A fact is a truth statement that can be demonstrated with logic or evidence

Morality as in the morality of that particular society at that particular time
So majority consensus based upon the values of a particular belief system if society is religious or secular values if society is non religious
But not morality as a function of society because that is sociology or mans past [ history ] or as biological trait [ evolutionary psychology ]

DNA wise, Morality-proper is an inherent function within all humans, albeit of low activeness in the majority at present. But the inherent moral function is wakening within the average.

Note the analogy of the average intelligence and knowledge-base of humans which was low >10,000 years ago. However note the average intelligence and knowledge-base of the average person at present in contrast to the average 10,000 years ago or even 100 years ago.
It is the same with the moral competence of the average person which is at present slowly unfolding and very evident.

Since the past and the ancients, the features of morality-proper was already expressed intuitively as in the Ancient Greeks, Plato, Aristotle and the religious of the East and Middle-East.

It was only with the works of Anthropologists who studied different tribes and cultures who proposed the existence of moral relativism, i.e. relative to the different tribes and cultures.
For anthropologists, their philosophy is likely to be relatively of kindergarten level, thus they are delving only into the superficial behaviors and thus concluded the existence of moral relativism which is very obvious.
But these anthropologists are not interested, more like ignorant, of the inherent nature of humans, of which one of the inherent function is morality-proper. It is not within their job function to trace the issues to the proximate roots of the issues.

As with the principle of "unity within diversity" one can infer there are generic moral principles [facts] within the diversity of moral practices. The obvious generic standards are 'no killing,' incest, lying, cheating, adultery, etc. which are expressed in different forms in accordance to the different respective conditions of the tribes and societies.

To understand morality-proper the focus should be on the moral principles [facts] that are generic to all humans as discovered via the neurosciences, neuro-psychology, evolutionary psychology, social biology [analogically and comparatively] etc.

True,that morality is inherent is evident from visible stages of moral development in children. Children will not develop morally unless inherent ability is nurtured within a culture.

There are no "obvious generic standards". There is primary sourced evidence of incest as normalised behaviour among members of poorly housed families . Adultery is also normalised as are killing and cheating.You only have to read decent newspapers to see the evidence.

[Belinda]

But the moral values of a particular society are mostly the same as the moral values of that societys past plus biological traits of all men

This is absolutely and demonstrably false

The moral values of contemporary society are like nothing compared to those of the past and less so the further back in time one goes
The liberal values you take for granted today in the West are incredibly recent because for most of history they never actually existed
Human rights as a concept did not exist until the last century and so was not recognised in international law until very recently indeed

Can you think of a single period in the past where all other things being equal you would willingly swap with your life today
Even just a hundred years ago the quality of your life from all aspects - not just moral - would have been very compromised
Society does not just advance technologically but morally too and those changes are just as profound if not actually moreso

I am a brutalised Yemeni child of eight years old and I would rather have been a child before ISIS killed my mother and father. I wish I could have been me a hundred years ago.

[henry quirk]

If I've misinterpreted what you've said, it's unintended

you have, and, I'm sure


but I don't see how it can mean anything else.

then I've failed to communicate, or, you're not so wise

[henry quirk]

jan aborts cuz she doesn't want the baby (she murders)

betty aborts cuz she'll die if she doesn't (she kills)

It seems difficult to argue against that. Although, I would think it should depend upon the stage of development the fetus is in. I mean if it's just a glob of cells that hasn't formed anything like a brain yet, I wouldn't think it should count as murder.

goin' solely by science: I believe what a woman carries is a person from week 12 on

does that help that pin it down?