Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 9:09 am
1 If an argument abductively concludes with an hypothesis, that hypothesis is the conclusion of the abductive argument. Don't be stupid.
You are the stupid one.
That is why I stated you are stuck in the linguistic perspective and taking things too linguistically.
Note in Philosophy, a conclusion is generally referred to a verified and justified fact upon a specific framework and system.
2 I don't 'conflate physics with morality', idiot. That's what you do when you claim that there are empirically verifiable moral facts, just as there are empirically verifiable physics facts. You just say there, but never show there are, because you can't. The claim is incoherent.
You are so ignorant despite my explanation.
Read my response to the point again.
3 Yes, morality deals with what we call good and evil, right and wrong, proper and improper in human behaviour. But the fact that we adopt moral standards by which to judge behaviour DOESN'T MEAN THOSE STANDARDS ARE FACTS. For example, if we think slavery is morally wrong, that doesn't make it a fact that slavery is morally wrong - just as, if we thought the opposite, that wouldn't make it a fact that slavery isn't morally wrong.
You got it wrong again.
They are only standards when verified and justified as moral facts within a MORAL FRAMEWORK and System.
You keep forgetting my point, facts are specific to their respective FSK/FSR.
4 The fundamental mistake is the claim that consistency with a goal of any kind has any moral implication. The claim 'action X is consistent with goal Y', which may be empirically verifiable, nonethless makes no moral judgement about either the goal or the action. So it isn't moral assertion at all - and so it can't express a moral fact. The only fact involved is consistency with or variation from a subjectively chosen goal. And that doesn't mean there can be moral facts, so that morality is objective. There aren't, and it isn't.
Again,
They are only moral facts when verified and justified within a MORAL FRAMEWORK and System.
You keep forgetting my point, facts are specific to their respective FSK/FSR.
5 What you have presented is insufficient to justify your claim that morality is objective. So the rational course is to withdraw the claim - or try to come up with credible evidence and sound argument. Certainly agnosticism with regard to moral objectivism is indicated.
I am not expecting you to agree with my points at all, since you are in such a kindergarten stage in terms of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
Btw, as rough guide, how many books and articles have you read on Morality and Ethics and what are the range of the moral topics involved?
Suggest you do more research on the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics to upgrade.
Btw, have you ever researched to find out the history of and how your moral stance 'no moral fact thus no moral objectivity' came about and its related philosophical views.
I bet you are ignorant of the above.