Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 10:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:39 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:33 pm
1 The expression
objective fact is a tautology or redundancy. There are no subjective facts.
Yes, that is seemingly tautological but it is critical as an reinforcement since 'objective' and 'fact' has different shade of meanings from different perspectives. In addition they can be very loose terms for different people, so we need to be more precise.
I would not hesitate to use the term 'real objective fact' where necessary.
fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
objective:
based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings:
'Fact' is too general while objective-fact implied a process involved in asserting what is a fact, i.e. as I had stated "what is fact" must be conditioned to a Framework and System of Reality, e.g. what is a Scientific Fact entailed complex processes.
Theists will insist their God exists as a fact but that is based on faith, i.e. not on an objective-based process via empirical evidence and rational arguments.
There is no rule that must be imposed here. If you don't like it at all, just ignored one of the word.
2 An appeal to so-called human nature is always a last resort when evidence and argument fail.
You are too hasty on this.
Human nature is merely a general term used as a matter of convenience in this case.
When have I insisted, because it is human nature, it must be absolutely true?
However it is open for detailed deliberation to require evidence is needed be.
3 It's a fact that humans can be kind and/or cruel. Is that a moral fact?
You are lost here and your question above is based on ignorance.
First we have to define what we meant by 'what is moral'.
I define 'moral' in the negative sense, i.e. what is moral is "not-evil".
What is evil is any human act that is net-negative to the well being [with potential of fatality and injuries] of the individual and humanity.
In this case we have to present a near exhaustive lists [taxonomy] of human acts that are identified as 'evil'.
Being 'Kind' is not an evil act, thus cannot be a moral fact.
Being cruel with
potential fatality to another human is an evil act and it has its degree of evilness, thus can be a moral fact. The higher the potential fatality, the higher degree of evilness.
Note your thinking to the above is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.
No, as always you slide from having and stating a goal to the moral rightness and wrongness of actions in relation to that goal. You do precisely what Hume pointed out: assuming an ought from an is.
Strawmaning as usual.
Do you even understand Hume's claim re No Ought From Is? Read Hume's Treatise carefully.
I have already stated a 'million' times, I do not engage in moral rightness nor moral wrongness.
Show me the evidence above why I stated such?
As usual you are forcing your own dogmatic views for me.
Your goal is this: to avoid 'net-negative' consequences for individuals and humanity. Others describe it as avoiding harming the wellbeing or welfare of people - or, positively, promoting their wellbeing or welfare.
Nope, strawmaning again!
An analogy of my view is like say Get Educated!
First one need to understand the importance of getting a good education.
To get a good education one has to develop one intellectual and cognitive powers to acquire and apply knowledge.
It is the same with one's own moral competence, where one must recognize the moral potential [the moral fact] within oneself and then develop that moral potential to be naturally morally competence rather than being threaten to act good.
But that we should or ought to have and act in line with this goal is merely assumed - as it has to be, because it doesn't follow from any factual (non-moral) premise.
Point is you are ignorant of your own internal moral potential as a moral fact.
As I have explained many times this moral potential is not assumed but rather a verifiable and justifiable moral fact within a credible moral FSK.
The fatal flaw of moral objectivism is the refusal to recognise the moral premise at the start - or at the bottom - of any moral argument. It's just not a fact that we ought to promote others' welfare, or at least avoid harming it. It can only ever be a moral belief, judgement or opinion. (One that I hold, as it happens.)
Your thinking to the above is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.
As I had stated many times, you are ignorant of the moral potential in ALL humans as represented by physical neural connectivity in the brain and self which is a verifiable and justifiable moral fact within a credible moral FSK.
Another point is, it is good for you if you are able to recognize the moral fact within but unfortunately you and all humans at present will not benefit from it greatly due to our current limited psychological state.
However the recognition of this moral fact will facilitate for humanity to expedite the moral progress of future generations.