Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:15 am
Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:07 am
A summary of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 4: No one should be held as a slave, and no one has the right to treat anyone else as their slave
Article 6: We should all have the same level of legal protection whoever we are, and wherever in the world we are.
Article 8: We should all have the right to legal support if we are treated unfairly.
Article 9: Nobody should be arrested, put in prison, or sent away from our country unless there is good reason to do so.
It would be an insult to humanity if people like Peter Holmes keep insisting the above are merely opinions.
Actually his insistence those above are merely opinions [not moral
facts] reflect the damaging cognitive deficit in his morality.
I agree with all of those UDHR articles.
But 4, 6 , 8 and 9 - those with 'should' - express moral judgements, not factual claims.
I had only highlighted point 4
4 is a moral fact
conditioned upon a Moral Framework and System as I had justified many times.
6, 8, 9 deal with legal matters, thus not morality-proper.
And those that purport to be factual assertions - 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 10 - are either false, or really express moral aims. For example, '7 the law is the same for everyone' is in reality false, and really means 'the law should be the same for everyone'. Recently, ruling classes worldwide have paid lip-service to equality before the law. But the facts expose their hypocrisy.
I'm wondering why the idea that these (in my opinion) morally excellent principles express value-judgements is so disturbing. Why can't it be true that an organisation aiming to represent the world has settled on moral principles designed for the well-being of everyone equally?
Why is it important to insist, without evidence, that these are not freely-chosen moral principles, but rather facts - true factual assertions - not value-judgements decided on collectively, but rather merely statements of the way things are?
They don't assert the way things are. They assert the way things ought to be.
It depends on the Framework and System of Knowledge you decide upon what you mean by fact and judgment. In your case, you are relying on the common sense, linguistic, neo-LP framework & perspective in defining what you meant by fact and judgment.
If we are referring to moral issues, we have to rely on a Moral Framework and System, this is standard practice. Example, we do not rely primarily
on the Economic FSK to derive conclusions on facts of Chemistry, or the mixture of other FSKs.
It is true, the moral-related principles from the UN Declaration of Human Rights are based on a Committee who gathered views from everywhere and they collectively judge which are to be the recommended principles.
What is final is the principles - moral facts - must be accepted by a certain majority of all members of the UN which represent >95% of the world population. Can you see this similarity and its closeness with Science and its Scientific Facts, albeit of different degrees of factuality.
As I had stated the UN Moral Framework and System is rather crude and the supporting evidences and arguments on how they arrive at their justifications are not made public.
Nevertheless I've read the majority did insist on the principles must be UNIVERSAL
thus you will note GOD [no evidence] is not in the picture even though the majority of people at that time and now are theists.
In contrast, the Muslims decide to establish their own Cairo Declaration of Human Rights which is grounded upon God - Allah which is an impossibility and illusory. This is basically religious and thus has nothing to do with morality-proper.
In principle, re What is Moral Fact,
whichever UN Principles are related to morality [No 4 above re Slavery], they are moral facts which must be qualified, i.e. the degree of factuality is relative to the degree of justifications done to arrive at the conclusion.
In addition, whatever is justified as a moral fact must be represented by its specific referent, physical or otherwise.
Open up your mind, just don't be that rigid to view 'fact' as 'fact' by your own definition but 'fact' must be qualified and conditioned by its respective FSK.
Since it is such a sensitive philosophical issue, what we are dealing with are facts of morality, not just common sense or conventional 'facts'.
I believe the UN Committee on Human Rights must have to back their justifications and arguments for all the members and those who voted for the Resolution must be convinced by the justifications presented.
I have not researched, I would like to read those justifications presented then.
As in my case, re the ought-not on slavery, I have already presented the justifications and arguments. Whatever moral ought or ought-not each must be justified to qualify as a Justified True Belief with degrees and gradation of factuality.