Is morality objective or subjective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:01 am 1 Like all abstract things, propositions are misleading metaphysical fictions. There are only assertions - typically linguistic expressions, which are real. So moral assertions are real linguistic expressions. And they express value-judgements about certain features of reality, such as slavery, abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on.

2 Moral cognitivists claim that the moral rightness or wrongness of such features of reality can be known and understood.
But, along with moral realists and objectivists, they've failed to demonstrate the existence of such things.
So the claim that such things can be known and understood doesn't even make it to the starting post. The horse is dead. The race is forfeit in advance. Moral cognitivism is iraational.
Failed??

Moral facts exist right from the emergence of humanity since eons ago.
Humans have been acting, do the right thing, in alignment with those moral facts.
Then as humans evolve and progress they are able to intuit the existence of such moral facts and take steps to formalize them in various crude moral systems, within their cultures [as noted by anthropologists], religious morality, etc.

Then we have Hume [cognitivist] who attempted to justify the existence of the inherent moral sense faculty within the human system. The moral sense is itself a fact of human nature, thus a moral fact.

Note this sequence of events:
  • 1. The early moral cognitivist intuitively sense there are moral facts. Then they rationalized these intuitions to formalize them within crude moral structures with its pros and cons.

    2. It is the NonCognitivists [for their own reasons] who subsequently reject the cognitivists' claims in the face of the cons [negative] effects from 1.

    3. But the cognitivists-proper* stood their intuited grounds with stronger evidences to support their stance. * Those cognitivists who promote moral systems that are net-positive for humanity.

    4. Then the noncognitivists re-counter with new counters.

    5. So the cognitivists continue to stand on their grounds with more evidences.

    6. Then the noncogntivists huff and puff against the cognitivists' stance till they ran out of gas - no more sound counters to refute the cognitivists.

    7. The more the noncognitivist struggle to refute the cognitivists they [the NonCognitivists] are finding the more their counters are nearing to the cognitivists stance, and it is speculated the Cognitivism-NonCognitivism Distinction is collapsing soon. The NonCognitivists' refutation will be toothless soon, like those of their ancestors, i.e. bastardized Logical Positivists' arrogant claims of the past.
From the above, it is the nonCognitivists who has FAILED to refute the cognitivists' claims of moral facts which are intuited then justified based on empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

Nb: at most what the Cognitivists' success is only restricted to countering the claims of moral facts from a God, by theists who are actually indulging in pseudo-morality. The cognitivists also can refute the theists' claim of moral facts from a God - the Woo Woo & Boo Boo. The other is refuting Platonic related moral facts of moral forms floating around the universe.

But the moral facts of the moral-cognitivism-proper [moral realism I am proposing] is a different kettle of fish from the theists' and platonic versions.

The early moral intuitionists were right on target, but lack the necessary knowledge then hundreds of years ago.
But in the present, with a trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge, especially of evolutionary psychology, genomics, advancing neurosciences, and others, we are now able to justify with greater confidence the existence of moral facts from a Moral FSK.

Note, it is moral facts from a Moral FSK, you should not cling to your naked and nude 'fact' as bastardized by the logical positivists.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1603
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 8:28 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:01 am 1 Like all abstract things, propositions are misleading metaphysical fictions. There are only assertions - typically linguistic expressions, which are real. So moral assertions are real linguistic expressions. And they express value-judgements about certain features of reality, such as slavery, abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on.

2 Moral cognitivists claim that the moral rightness or wrongness of such features of reality can be known and understood.
But, along with moral realists and objectivists, they've failed to demonstrate the existence of such things.
So the claim that such things can be known and understood doesn't even make it to the starting post. The horse is dead. The race is forfeit in advance. Moral cognitivism is iraational.
Failed??

Moral facts exist right from the emergence of humanity since eons ago.
Humans have been acting, do the right thing, in alignment with those moral facts.
Then as humans evolve and progress they are able to intuit the existence of such moral facts and take steps to formalize them in various crude moral systems, within their cultures [as noted by anthropologists], religious morality, etc.
Wrong. It was moral values and rules that seem to have emerged early in human groups. And all primate groups - along with many other species - display proto-moral behaviour, involving in-group fairness and empathy, for example. And those moral values and rules seem to have had - and still have - evolutionary survival advantages - and not just for humans.

Your mistake is very simple. The fact is that humans had and have moral values, and made and make moral judgements, expressing them using moral assertions. But that doesn't mean those moral assertions are facts. This is a simple comprehension error.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 8:48 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 8:28 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:01 am 1 Like all abstract things, propositions are misleading metaphysical fictions. There are only assertions - typically linguistic expressions, which are real. So moral assertions are real linguistic expressions. And they express value-judgements about certain features of reality, such as slavery, abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on.

2 Moral cognitivists claim that the moral rightness or wrongness of such features of reality can be known and understood.
But, along with moral realists and objectivists, they've failed to demonstrate the existence of such things.
So the claim that such things can be known and understood doesn't even make it to the starting post. The horse is dead. The race is forfeit in advance. Moral cognitivism is iraational.
Failed??

Moral facts exist right from the emergence of humanity since eons ago.
Humans have been acting, do the right thing, in alignment with those moral facts.
Then as humans evolve and progress they are able to intuit the existence of such moral facts and take steps to formalize them in various crude moral systems, within their cultures [as noted by anthropologists], religious morality, etc.
Wrong. It was moral values and rules that seem to have emerged early in human groups. And all primate groups - along with many other species - display proto-moral behaviour, involving in-group fairness and empathy, for example. And those moral values and rules seem to have had - and still have - evolutionary survival advantages - and not just for humans.

Your mistake is very simple. The fact is that humans had and have moral values, and made and make moral judgements, expressing them using moral assertions. But that doesn't mean those moral assertions are facts. This is a simple comprehension error.
I think there is a confusion here.
I have NOT said, moral assertions and judgments by individuals and small groups are moral facts per se.
This is a problem of communications when we cannot include the whole baggage of essential elements to a point in such a limited discussion.
This is why agreed upon placeholders [pigeon holes] are important with an awareness of their limitations.

What I said or implied is the moral assertions as justified empirically and philosophically from the moral FSK are moral facts. This is generic to humanity and all humans not individuals.
When an individual judges that 'murder is morally wrong' I would not said that is a moral fact per se, that is only an opinion or belief.
That 'murder is morally wrong' is only a moral fact as justified empirically and philosophically from a moral FSK. [I think you are not grasping this point?].
Those who are morally intuitive will likely share the same moral views with the justified moral fact within human nature.

As I had stated those moral facts are fundamentally represented by the respective neural alogrithms that generate 'ought_ness' supposedly "programmed" within the psyche of all humans.
Whilst these moral ought_ness are inherent facts, they can be overridden by conscious free will but that do not refute their inherent existence as fact.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1603
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:59 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 8:48 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 8:28 am
Failed??

Moral facts exist right from the emergence of humanity since eons ago.
Humans have been acting, do the right thing, in alignment with those moral facts.
Then as humans evolve and progress they are able to intuit the existence of such moral facts and take steps to formalize them in various crude moral systems, within their cultures [as noted by anthropologists], religious morality, etc.
Wrong. It was moral values and rules that seem to have emerged early in human groups. And all primate groups - along with many other species - display proto-moral behaviour, involving in-group fairness and empathy, for example. And those moral values and rules seem to have had - and still have - evolutionary survival advantages - and not just for humans.

Your mistake is very simple. The fact is that humans had and have moral values, and made and make moral judgements, expressing them using moral assertions. But that doesn't mean those moral assertions are facts. This is a simple comprehension error.
I think there is a confusion here.
I have NOT said, moral assertions and judgments by individuals and small groups are moral facts per se.
This is a problem of communications when we cannot include the whole baggage of essential elements to a point in such a limited discussion.
This is why agreed upon placeholders [pigeon holes] are important with an awareness of their limitations.

What I said or implied is the moral assertions as justified empirically and philosophically from the moral FSK are moral facts. This is generic to humanity and all humans not individuals.
When an individual judges that 'murder is morally wrong' I would not said that is a moral fact per se, that is only an opinion or belief.
That 'murder is morally wrong' is only a moral fact as justified empirically and philosophically from a moral FSK. [I think you are not grasping this point?].
Those who are morally intuitive will likely share the same moral views with the justified moral fact within human nature.

As I had stated those moral facts are fundamentally represented by the respective neural alogrithms that generate 'ought_ness' supposedly "programmed" within the psyche of all humans.
Whilst these moral ought_ness are inherent facts, they can be overridden by conscious free will but that do not refute their inherent existence as fact.
You're just making the same mistake, over and over again.

The fact that one, some, many or all people make a moral judgement - for whatever reason whatsoever - and express that moral judgement using a moral assertion - does not mean the moral assertion is a fact. The claim 'slavery is morally wrong' is not a factual assertion of any kind whatsoever, so it has no truth-value, so it can't be a fact - a true factual assertion. Try and think about this really carefully.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:59 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 8:48 am

Wrong. It was moral values and rules that seem to have emerged early in human groups. And all primate groups - along with many other species - display proto-moral behaviour, involving in-group fairness and empathy, for example. And those moral values and rules seem to have had - and still have - evolutionary survival advantages - and not just for humans.

Your mistake is very simple. The fact is that humans had and have moral values, and made and make moral judgements, expressing them using moral assertions. But that doesn't mean those moral assertions are facts. This is a simple comprehension error.
I think there is a confusion here.
I have NOT said, moral assertions and judgments by individuals and small groups are moral facts per se.
This is a problem of communications when we cannot include the whole baggage of essential elements to a point in such a limited discussion.
This is why agreed upon placeholders [pigeon holes] are important with an awareness of their limitations.

What I said or implied is the moral assertions as justified empirically and philosophically from the moral FSK are moral facts. This is generic to humanity and all humans not individuals.
When an individual judges that 'murder is morally wrong' I would not said that is a moral fact per se, that is only an opinion or belief.
That 'murder is morally wrong' is only a moral fact as justified empirically and philosophically from a moral FSK. [I think you are not grasping this point?].
Those who are morally intuitive will likely share the same moral views with the justified moral fact within human nature.

As I had stated those moral facts are fundamentally represented by the respective neural alogrithms that generate 'ought_ness' supposedly "programmed" within the psyche of all humans.
Whilst these moral ought_ness are inherent facts, they can be overridden by conscious free will but that do not refute their inherent existence as fact.
You're just making the same mistake, over and over again.

The fact that one, some, many or all people make a moral judgement - for whatever reason whatsoever - and express that moral judgement using a moral assertion - does not mean the moral assertion is a fact. The claim 'slavery is morally wrong' is not a factual assertion of any kind whatsoever, so it has no truth-value, so it can't be a fact - a true factual assertion. Try and think about this really carefully.
You making the same mistake all over again and again, i.e. missed all my relevant points.

1. I have said and agree with your point to a degree:
PH:The fact that one, some, many or all people make a moral judgement - for whatever reason whatsoever - and express that moral judgement using a moral assertion - does not mean the moral assertion is a fact.

2. Making or asserting a moral judgment in the above case is not directly a moral fact per se.
Nevertheless, it is a fact [occurrence] they are making moral judgment.
That all the above judgments are made within a Moral Framework and System, the "fact of making moral judgment and assertions" are indeed a moral facts.

3. BUT the above is not the critical point about the 'moral fact' I am getting at.

My main point of what is a moral fact is this;
"All Humans ought-not to kill another"
is a moral fact because
this moral fact is justified empirically and philosophically as a Justified True Moral Belief from a Moral Framework and System.

4. The Moral Framework and System is similar to the Scientific FSK [with its principles, scientific method, justification processes, peer reviews, etc.]
The Moral FSK is very complex with its own principles, Moral-Method, justification processes, etc.

5. There are many justification processes which I had discussed elsewhere.

One of these is what I have written above, i.e.

As I had stated those moral facts are fundamentally represented by the respective neural alogrithms that generate moral 'ought_ness' supposedly "programmed" within the psyche of all humans.
Whilst these moral ought_ness are inherent facts, they can be overridden by conscious free will but that do not refute their inherent existence as fact.


Get it?

Don't simply brush away the above.
Explain point by point why the above do not make rational sense?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1603
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 3:25 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:59 am
I think there is a confusion here.
I have NOT said, moral assertions and judgments by individuals and small groups are moral facts per se.
This is a problem of communications when we cannot include the whole baggage of essential elements to a point in such a limited discussion.
This is why agreed upon placeholders [pigeon holes] are important with an awareness of their limitations.

What I said or implied is the moral assertions as justified empirically and philosophically from the moral FSK are moral facts. This is generic to humanity and all humans not individuals.
When an individual judges that 'murder is morally wrong' I would not said that is a moral fact per se, that is only an opinion or belief.
That 'murder is morally wrong' is only a moral fact as justified empirically and philosophically from a moral FSK. [I think you are not grasping this point?].
Those who are morally intuitive will likely share the same moral views with the justified moral fact within human nature.

As I had stated those moral facts are fundamentally represented by the respective neural alogrithms that generate 'ought_ness' supposedly "programmed" within the psyche of all humans.
Whilst these moral ought_ness are inherent facts, they can be overridden by conscious free will but that do not refute their inherent existence as fact.
You're just making the same mistake, over and over again.

The fact that one, some, many or all people make a moral judgement - for whatever reason whatsoever - and express that moral judgement using a moral assertion - does not mean the moral assertion is a fact. The claim 'slavery is morally wrong' is not a factual assertion of any kind whatsoever, so it has no truth-value, so it can't be a fact - a true factual assertion. Try and think about this really carefully.
You making the same mistake all over again and again, i.e. missed all my relevant points.

1. I have said and agree with your point to a degree:
PH:The fact that one, some, many or all people make a moral judgement - for whatever reason whatsoever - and express that moral judgement using a moral assertion - does not mean the moral assertion is a fact.

2. Making or asserting a moral judgment in the above case is not directly a moral fact per se.
Nevertheless, it is a fact [occurrence] they are making moral judgment.
That all the above judgments are made within a Moral Framework and System, the "fact of making moral judgment and assertions" are indeed a moral facts.

3. BUT the above is not the critical point about the 'moral fact' I am getting at.

My main point of what is a moral fact is this;
"All Humans ought-not to kill another"
is a moral fact because
this moral fact is justified empirically and philosophically as a Justified True Moral Belief from a Moral Framework and System.

4. The Moral Framework and System is similar to the Scientific FSK [with its principles, scientific method, justification processes, peer reviews, etc.]
The Moral FSK is very complex with its own principles, Moral-Method, justification processes, etc.

5. There are many justification processes which I had discussed elsewhere.

One of these is what I have written above, i.e.

As I had stated those moral facts are fundamentally represented by the respective neural alogrithms that generate moral 'ought_ness' supposedly "programmed" within the psyche of all humans.
Whilst these moral ought_ness are inherent facts, they can be overridden by conscious free will but that do not refute their inherent existence as fact.


Get it?

Don't simply brush away the above.
Explain point by point why the above do not make rational sense?
I'm not brushing away your argument. I and others have been showing you why it's fallacious. Here it is:

My main point of what is a moral fact is this;
"All Humans ought-not to kill another"
is a moral fact because
this moral fact is justified empirically and philosophically as a Justified True Moral Belief from a Moral Framework and System.

Just look at what you're saying: this assertion is a moral fact, because in a moral framework and system this assertion is a justified true moral belief, which is a fact.

Or, to put it conditionally: if a moral assertion is a justified true moral belief in a moral framework and system, then it is a fact.

1 Beliefs have no truth-value, so the expression 'true belief' is incoherent. The only things that can be true or false are factual assertions. So your expression 'Justified True Moral Belief' is non-sense. So your argument is unsound.

2 To assume there is indeed a moral framework and system of knowledge - that moral rightness an wrongness are things that can be known - begs the question: 'there are moral features of reality, so there are moral facts'. An argument that begs the question is unsound.

You make more mistakes, but that's more than enough to refute your argument. And it will make absolutely no difference as far as you're concerned, because this isn't about rational argument for you. It's a matter of apologetic faith in moral objectivism.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 3:25 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:25 am
You're just making the same mistake, over and over again.

The fact that one, some, many or all people make a moral judgement - for whatever reason whatsoever - and express that moral judgement using a moral assertion - does not mean the moral assertion is a fact. The claim 'slavery is morally wrong' is not a factual assertion of any kind whatsoever, so it has no truth-value, so it can't be a fact - a true factual assertion. Try and think about this really carefully.
You making the same mistake all over again and again, i.e. missed all my relevant points.

1. I have said and agree with your point to a degree:
PH:The fact that one, some, many or all people make a moral judgement - for whatever reason whatsoever - and express that moral judgement using a moral assertion - does not mean the moral assertion is a fact.

2. Making or asserting a moral judgment in the above case is not directly a moral fact per se.
Nevertheless, it is a fact [occurrence] they are making moral judgment.
That all the above judgments are made within a Moral Framework and System, the "fact of making moral judgment and assertions" are indeed a moral facts.

3. BUT the above is not the critical point about the 'moral fact' I am getting at.

My main point of what is a moral fact is this;
"All Humans ought-not to kill another"
is a moral fact because
this moral fact is justified empirically and philosophically as a Justified True Moral Belief from a Moral Framework and System.

4. The Moral Framework and System is similar to the Scientific FSK [with its principles, scientific method, justification processes, peer reviews, etc.]
The Moral FSK is very complex with its own principles, Moral-Method, justification processes, etc.

5. There are many justification processes which I had discussed elsewhere.

One of these is what I have written above, i.e.

As I had stated those moral facts are fundamentally represented by the respective neural alogrithms that generate moral 'ought_ness' supposedly "programmed" within the psyche of all humans.
Whilst these moral ought_ness are inherent facts, they can be overridden by conscious free will but that do not refute their inherent existence as fact.


Get it?

Don't simply brush away the above.
Explain point by point why the above do not make rational sense?
I'm not brushing away your argument. I and others have been showing you why it's fallacious. Here it is:

My main point of what is a moral fact is this;
"All Humans ought-not to kill another"
is a moral fact because
this moral fact is justified empirically and philosophically as a Justified True Moral Belief from a Moral Framework and System.

Just look at what you're saying: this assertion is a moral fact, because in a moral framework and system this assertion is a justified true moral belief, which is a fact.

Or, to put it conditionally: if a moral assertion is a justified true moral belief in a moral framework and system, then it is a fact.

1 Beliefs have no truth-value, so the expression 'true belief' is incoherent. The only things that can be true or false are factual assertions. So your expression 'Justified True Moral Belief' is non-sense. So your argument is unsound.
You are making the same mistake again, again and again by missing the critical points I have made above.

How can you be SO ignorant to the extent in claiming 'belief has no truth-value'.
I wonder where you get your ideas - most of the time you NEVER provide any links to support your views whereas I do that most of the time.

Note this!
  • A belief is an attitude that something is the case, or that some proposition about the world is true.[1]
    In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to attitudes about the world which can be either true or false.[2]
    To believe something is to take it to be true; for instance, to believe that snow is white is comparable to accepting the truth of the proposition "snow is white".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
Re Justified True Belief, there is the olden traditional views and the modern views, i.e.;
  • Paul Boghossian argues that the justified true belief account is the "standard, widely accepted" definition of knowledge.
    Robert Nozick suggested a clarification of "justification" which he believed eliminates the problem: the justification has to be such that were the justification false, the knowledge would be false.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#Ju ... rue_belief
The terms Justified, True and Belief are acceptable terms but in the case of Justified True Beliefs, the term 'justified' will carry the most weight, say 80/100.

Whenever the term Justified True Belief [JTB] is used in the present for knowledge, fact, real or truth,, it is taken for granted the 'Gettier' effect [so well known] is ignored and the focus is on the term 'justified'.
What is critical is whether it is JUSTIFIED via a credible justification process from within a specific FSK.


You missed my VERY IMPORTANT point 4 and 5 above;
  • 4. The Moral Framework and System is similar to the Scientific FSK [with its principles, scientific method, justification processes, peer reviews, etc.]
    The Moral FSK is very complex with its own principles, Moral-Method, justification processes, etc.
I have also asserted Scientific Truths are Justified True Beliefs [Gettier aside].

I have given an example of how Moral facts are traceable to their referent in the brain/mind of ALL humans.
2 To assume there is indeed a moral framework and system of knowledge - that moral rightness an wrongness are things that can be known - begs the question: 'there are moral features of reality, so there are moral facts'. An argument that begs the question is unsound.
I am not assumming.
You somewhat agree 'Specific FSK produce their respective Facts'?

I stated the Moral Framework and System [similar to the Scientific Framework] is a constructed FSK that generate moral facts from is mechanisms.
Gettier aside, scientific knowledge is also Justified True Belief.
Are you also saying scientific knowledge is not true, i.e. justified as scientific truths as conditioned upon the scientific FSK?

The bottom line with Justified True Moral Belief is not that is it derived from the Moral FSK, but how it is justified empirically and philosophically. The FSK provide a sense of credibility like the scientific FSK that whatever is produced is not pick from the air or from individuals' opinions and beliefs.
You make more mistakes, but that's more than enough to refute your argument. And it will make absolutely no difference as far as you're concerned, because this isn't about rational argument for you. It's a matter of apologetic faith in moral objectivism.
You are making noises again.
Your refutation above are toothless as I have indicated of your ignorance.

To insist:
PH: 1 Beliefs have no truth-value, so the expression 'true belief' is incoherent.
is philosophically dumb and ignorant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
Thus the rest of your arguments that followed upon the above 'ignorance' are groundless.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1603
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:58 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 3:25 am
You making the same mistake all over again and again, i.e. missed all my relevant points.

1. I have said and agree with your point to a degree:
PH:The fact that one, some, many or all people make a moral judgement - for whatever reason whatsoever - and express that moral judgement using a moral assertion - does not mean the moral assertion is a fact.

2. Making or asserting a moral judgment in the above case is not directly a moral fact per se.
Nevertheless, it is a fact [occurrence] they are making moral judgment.
That all the above judgments are made within a Moral Framework and System, the "fact of making moral judgment and assertions" are indeed a moral facts.

3. BUT the above is not the critical point about the 'moral fact' I am getting at.

My main point of what is a moral fact is this;
"All Humans ought-not to kill another"
is a moral fact because
this moral fact is justified empirically and philosophically as a Justified True Moral Belief from a Moral Framework and System.

4. The Moral Framework and System is similar to the Scientific FSK [with its principles, scientific method, justification processes, peer reviews, etc.]
The Moral FSK is very complex with its own principles, Moral-Method, justification processes, etc.

5. There are many justification processes which I had discussed elsewhere.

One of these is what I have written above, i.e.

As I had stated those moral facts are fundamentally represented by the respective neural alogrithms that generate moral 'ought_ness' supposedly "programmed" within the psyche of all humans.
Whilst these moral ought_ness are inherent facts, they can be overridden by conscious free will but that do not refute their inherent existence as fact.


Get it?

Don't simply brush away the above.
Explain point by point why the above do not make rational sense?
I'm not brushing away your argument. I and others have been showing you why it's fallacious. Here it is:

My main point of what is a moral fact is this;
"All Humans ought-not to kill another"
is a moral fact because
this moral fact is justified empirically and philosophically as a Justified True Moral Belief from a Moral Framework and System.

Just look at what you're saying: this assertion is a moral fact, because in a moral framework and system this assertion is a justified true moral belief, which is a fact.

Or, to put it conditionally: if a moral assertion is a justified true moral belief in a moral framework and system, then it is a fact.

1 Beliefs have no truth-value, so the expression 'true belief' is incoherent. The only things that can be true or false are factual assertions. So your expression 'Justified True Moral Belief' is non-sense. So your argument is unsound.
You are making the same mistake again, again and again by missing the critical points I have made above.

How can you be SO ignorant to the extent in claiming 'belief has no truth-value'.
I wonder where you get your ideas - most of the time you NEVER provide any links to support your views whereas I do that most of the time.

Note this!
  • A belief is an attitude that something is the case, or that some proposition about the world is true.[1]
    In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to attitudes about the world which can be either true or false.[2]
    To believe something is to take it to be true; for instance, to believe that snow is white is comparable to accepting the truth of the proposition "snow is white".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
Re Justified True Belief, there is the olden traditional views and the modern views, i.e.;
  • Paul Boghossian argues that the justified true belief account is the "standard, widely accepted" definition of knowledge.
    Robert Nozick suggested a clarification of "justification" which he believed eliminates the problem: the justification has to be such that were the justification false, the knowledge would be false.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#Ju ... rue_belief
The terms Justified, True and Belief are acceptable terms but in the case of Justified True Beliefs, the term 'justified' will carry the most weight, say 80/100.

Whenever the term Justified True Belief [JTB] is used in the present for knowledge, fact, real or truth,, it is taken for granted the 'Gettier' effect [so well known] is ignored and the focus is on the term 'justified'.
What is critical is whether it is JUSTIFIED via a credible justification process from within a specific FSK.


You missed my VERY IMPORTANT point 4 and 5 above;
  • 4. The Moral Framework and System is similar to the Scientific FSK [with its principles, scientific method, justification processes, peer reviews, etc.]
    The Moral FSK is very complex with its own principles, Moral-Method, justification processes, etc.
I have also asserted Scientific Truths are Justified True Beliefs [Gettier aside].

I have given an example of how Moral facts are traceable to their referent in the brain/mind of ALL humans.
2 To assume there is indeed a moral framework and system of knowledge - that moral rightness an wrongness are things that can be known - begs the question: 'there are moral features of reality, so there are moral facts'. An argument that begs the question is unsound.
I am not assumming.
You somewhat agree 'Specific FSK produce their respective Facts'?

I stated the Moral Framework and System [similar to the Scientific Framework] is a constructed FSK that generate moral facts from is mechanisms.
Gettier aside, scientific knowledge is also Justified True Belief.
Are you also saying scientific knowledge is not true, i.e. justified as scientific truths as conditioned upon the scientific FSK?

The bottom line with Justified True Moral Belief is not that is it derived from the Moral FSK, but how it is justified empirically and philosophically. The FSK provide a sense of credibility like the scientific FSK that whatever is produced is not pick from the air or from individuals' opinions and beliefs.
You make more mistakes, but that's more than enough to refute your argument. And it will make absolutely no difference as far as you're concerned, because this isn't about rational argument for you. It's a matter of apologetic faith in moral objectivism.
You are making noises again.
Your refutation above are toothless as I have indicated of your ignorance.

To insist:
PH: 1 Beliefs have no truth-value, so the expression 'true belief' is incoherent.
is philosophically dumb and ignorant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
Thus the rest of your arguments that followed upon the above 'ignorance' are groundless.
You're just repeating the same nonsense. I've dealt with every one of the points you make here, and shown why they're mistakes. So there's no reason for me to do it again. And again.

And, by the way, Gettier merely recycled the mistake at the heart of the JTB account of knowledge - the truth-condition. And since the JTB is a dead parrot, so is your moral JTB. It's the dead parrot's dead cousin.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 8:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:58 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:07 am
I'm not brushing away your argument. I and others have been showing you why it's fallacious. Here it is:

My main point of what is a moral fact is this;
"All Humans ought-not to kill another"
is a moral fact because
this moral fact is justified empirically and philosophically as a Justified True Moral Belief from a Moral Framework and System.

Just look at what you're saying: this assertion is a moral fact, because in a moral framework and system this assertion is a justified true moral belief, which is a fact.

Or, to put it conditionally: if a moral assertion is a justified true moral belief in a moral framework and system, then it is a fact.

1 Beliefs have no truth-value, so the expression 'true belief' is incoherent. The only things that can be true or false are factual assertions. So your expression 'Justified True Moral Belief' is non-sense. So your argument is unsound.
You are making the same mistake again, again and again by missing the critical points I have made above.

How can you be SO ignorant to the extent in claiming 'belief has no truth-value'.
I wonder where you get your ideas - most of the time you NEVER provide any links to support your views whereas I do that most of the time.

Note this!
  • A belief is an attitude that something is the case, or that some proposition about the world is true.[1]
    In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to attitudes about the world which can be either true or false.[2]
    To believe something is to take it to be true; for instance, to believe that snow is white is comparable to accepting the truth of the proposition "snow is white".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
Re Justified True Belief, there is the olden traditional views and the modern views, i.e.;
  • Paul Boghossian argues that the justified true belief account is the "standard, widely accepted" definition of knowledge.
    Robert Nozick suggested a clarification of "justification" which he believed eliminates the problem: the justification has to be such that were the justification false, the knowledge would be false.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#Ju ... rue_belief
The terms Justified, True and Belief are acceptable terms but in the case of Justified True Beliefs, the term 'justified' will carry the most weight, say 80/100.

Whenever the term Justified True Belief [JTB] is used in the present for knowledge, fact, real or truth,, it is taken for granted the 'Gettier' effect [so well known] is ignored and the focus is on the term 'justified'.
What is critical is whether it is JUSTIFIED via a credible justification process from within a specific FSK.


You missed my VERY IMPORTANT point 4 and 5 above;
  • 4. The Moral Framework and System is similar to the Scientific FSK [with its principles, scientific method, justification processes, peer reviews, etc.]
    The Moral FSK is very complex with its own principles, Moral-Method, justification processes, etc.
I have also asserted Scientific Truths are Justified True Beliefs [Gettier aside].

I have given an example of how Moral facts are traceable to their referent in the brain/mind of ALL humans.
2 To assume there is indeed a moral framework and system of knowledge - that moral rightness an wrongness are things that can be known - begs the question: 'there are moral features of reality, so there are moral facts'. An argument that begs the question is unsound.
I am not assumming.
You somewhat agree 'Specific FSK produce their respective Facts'?

I stated the Moral Framework and System [similar to the Scientific Framework] is a constructed FSK that generate moral facts from is mechanisms.
Gettier aside, scientific knowledge is also Justified True Belief.
Are you also saying scientific knowledge is not true, i.e. justified as scientific truths as conditioned upon the scientific FSK?

The bottom line with Justified True Moral Belief is not that is it derived from the Moral FSK, but how it is justified empirically and philosophically. The FSK provide a sense of credibility like the scientific FSK that whatever is produced is not pick from the air or from individuals' opinions and beliefs.
You make more mistakes, but that's more than enough to refute your argument. And it will make absolutely no difference as far as you're concerned, because this isn't about rational argument for you. It's a matter of apologetic faith in moral objectivism.
You are making noises again.
Your refutation above are toothless as I have indicated of your ignorance.

To insist:
PH: 1 Beliefs have no truth-value, so the expression 'true belief' is incoherent.
is philosophically dumb and ignorant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
Thus the rest of your arguments that followed upon the above 'ignorance' are groundless.
You're just repeating the same nonsense. I've dealt with every one of the points you make here, and shown why they're mistakes. So there's no reason for me to do it again. And again.

And, by the way, Gettier merely recycled the mistake at the heart of the JTB account of knowledge - the truth-condition. And since the JTB is a dead parrot, so is your moral JTB. It's the dead parrot's dead cousin.
That is why I have insisted your philosophical knowledge is shallow and narrow, note again,

First you were SO embarrassingly ignorant of what is 'belief' and I have shown you otherwise.

I pointed out the following;
"Paul Boghossian argues that the justified true belief account is the "standard, widely accepted" definition of knowledge. -wiki

Here is another;
The definition of knowledge as justified true belief is the best we presently have.
However, the canonical tripartite analysis of knowledge does not do justice to it due to a Platonic conception of a priori truth that puts the cart before the horse. Within a pragmatic approach,
I argue that by doing away with a priori truth, namely by submitting truth to justification, and by accordingly altering the canonical analysis of knowledge, this is a fruitful definition.
So fruitful indeed that it renders the Gettier counterexamples vacuous, allowing positive work in epistemology and related disciplines.
https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0 ... xt&tlng=pt
Another -JTB [qualified] is usable;
In this paper we analyze the foundations of epistemology from a constructive Brouwerian position. In particular, we consider the famous tripartite account of knowledge as justified true belief, JTB, traditionally attributed to Plato as well as counter-examples by Russell and Gettier.
We show that from an intuitionistic perspective, when the constructive character of truth is taken into account, both Russell and Gettier examples no longer refute the principle that JTB yields knowledge.
Moreover, we argue that JTB yields knowledge could be accepted given some natural constructivity assumptions.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7717301155
Note I read VERY extensively and I have came across so many instances where JTB [qualified] is used to represent knowledge - since JTB [qualified] is the best we have at present. You are so paranoid with the non-acceptance of JTB [qualified] due to ignorance and dogmatism.

Since there is no absolutely-absolute meanings to words, there is no issue in using JTB [qualified] as long as one understand its limitations.

BUT if you are so paranoid and uneasy with the term Justified True Moral Beliefs, I have no problem using the term Justified True Moral Facts or Justified Moral Fact or Justified Moral Knowledge, which to me, all of them amount to the same thing with the critical requirement they must be justified empirically and philosophically similar to scientific knowledge and truth.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1603
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:27 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 8:18 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:58 am
You are making the same mistake again, again and again by missing the critical points I have made above.

How can you be SO ignorant to the extent in claiming 'belief has no truth-value'.
I wonder where you get your ideas - most of the time you NEVER provide any links to support your views whereas I do that most of the time.

Note this!
  • A belief is an attitude that something is the case, or that some proposition about the world is true.[1]
    In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to attitudes about the world which can be either true or false.[2]
    To believe something is to take it to be true; for instance, to believe that snow is white is comparable to accepting the truth of the proposition "snow is white".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
Re Justified True Belief, there is the olden traditional views and the modern views, i.e.;
  • Paul Boghossian argues that the justified true belief account is the "standard, widely accepted" definition of knowledge.
    Robert Nozick suggested a clarification of "justification" which he believed eliminates the problem: the justification has to be such that were the justification false, the knowledge would be false.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#Ju ... rue_belief
The terms Justified, True and Belief are acceptable terms but in the case of Justified True Beliefs, the term 'justified' will carry the most weight, say 80/100.

Whenever the term Justified True Belief [JTB] is used in the present for knowledge, fact, real or truth,, it is taken for granted the 'Gettier' effect [so well known] is ignored and the focus is on the term 'justified'.
What is critical is whether it is JUSTIFIED via a credible justification process from within a specific FSK.


You missed my VERY IMPORTANT point 4 and 5 above;
  • 4. The Moral Framework and System is similar to the Scientific FSK [with its principles, scientific method, justification processes, peer reviews, etc.]
    The Moral FSK is very complex with its own principles, Moral-Method, justification processes, etc.
I have also asserted Scientific Truths are Justified True Beliefs [Gettier aside].

I have given an example of how Moral facts are traceable to their referent in the brain/mind of ALL humans.

I am not assumming.
You somewhat agree 'Specific FSK produce their respective Facts'?

I stated the Moral Framework and System [similar to the Scientific Framework] is a constructed FSK that generate moral facts from is mechanisms.
Gettier aside, scientific knowledge is also Justified True Belief.
Are you also saying scientific knowledge is not true, i.e. justified as scientific truths as conditioned upon the scientific FSK?

The bottom line with Justified True Moral Belief is not that is it derived from the Moral FSK, but how it is justified empirically and philosophically. The FSK provide a sense of credibility like the scientific FSK that whatever is produced is not pick from the air or from individuals' opinions and beliefs.


You are making noises again.
Your refutation above are toothless as I have indicated of your ignorance.

To insist:
PH: 1 Beliefs have no truth-value, so the expression 'true belief' is incoherent.
is philosophically dumb and ignorant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
Thus the rest of your arguments that followed upon the above 'ignorance' are groundless.
You're just repeating the same nonsense. I've dealt with every one of the points you make here, and shown why they're mistakes. So there's no reason for me to do it again. And again.

And, by the way, Gettier merely recycled the mistake at the heart of the JTB account of knowledge - the truth-condition. And since the JTB is a dead parrot, so is your moral JTB. It's the dead parrot's dead cousin.
That is why I have insisted your philosophical knowledge is shallow and narrow, note again,

First you were SO embarrassingly ignorant of what is 'belief' and I have shown you otherwise.

I pointed out the following;
"Paul Boghossian argues that the justified true belief account is the "standard, widely accepted" definition of knowledge. -wiki

Here is another;
The definition of knowledge as justified true belief is the best we presently have.
However, the canonical tripartite analysis of knowledge does not do justice to it due to a Platonic conception of a priori truth that puts the cart before the horse. Within a pragmatic approach,
I argue that by doing away with a priori truth, namely by submitting truth to justification, and by accordingly altering the canonical analysis of knowledge, this is a fruitful definition.
So fruitful indeed that it renders the Gettier counterexamples vacuous, allowing positive work in epistemology and related disciplines.
https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0 ... xt&tlng=pt
Another -JTB [qualified] is usable;
In this paper we analyze the foundations of epistemology from a constructive Brouwerian position. In particular, we consider the famous tripartite account of knowledge as justified true belief, JTB, traditionally attributed to Plato as well as counter-examples by Russell and Gettier.
We show that from an intuitionistic perspective, when the constructive character of truth is taken into account, both Russell and Gettier examples no longer refute the principle that JTB yields knowledge.
Moreover, we argue that JTB yields knowledge could be accepted given some natural constructivity assumptions.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7717301155
Note I read VERY extensively and I have came across so many instances where JTB [qualified] is used to represent knowledge - since JTB [qualified] is the best we have at present. You are so paranoid with the non-acceptance of JTB [qualified] due to ignorance and dogmatism.

Since there is no absolutely-absolute meanings to words, there is no issue in using JTB [qualified] as long as one understand its limitations.

BUT if you are so paranoid and uneasy with the term Justified True Moral Beliefs, I have no problem using the term Justified True Moral Facts or Justified Moral Fact or Justified Moral Knowledge, which to me, all of them amount to the same thing with the critical requirement they must be justified empirically and philosophically similar to scientific knowledge and truth.
Here's a link to my paper on the failure of the JTB account of knowledge: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions.

http://www.peasum.co.uk/435531068
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 11:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:27 am Note I read VERY extensively and I have came across so many instances where JTB [qualified] is used to represent knowledge - since JTB [qualified] is the best we have at present. You are so paranoid with the non-acceptance of JTB [qualified] due to ignorance and dogmatism.

Since there is no absolutely-absolute meanings to words, there is no issue in using JTB [qualified] as long as one understand its limitations.

BUT if you are so paranoid and uneasy with the term Justified True Moral Beliefs, I have no problem using the term Justified True Moral Facts or Justified Moral Fact or Justified Moral Knowledge, which to me, all of them amount to the same thing with the critical requirement they must be justified empirically and philosophically similar to scientific knowledge and truth.
Here's a link to my paper on the failure of the JTB account of knowledge: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions.

http://www.peasum.co.uk/435531068
I have read your paper.
I believe your views are too narrow and shallow which are very restricted to your chosen kind of epistemology [of Analytic Philosophy].

I have always viewed knowledge from its most widest perspective in alignment with reality - all there is.
In my case, knowledge can be justified to be defined as Justified True Beliefs and I have always qualified as subject to Gettier's Problem [which is confusing as explained below].

But on a more thorough reading of what is knowledge, I noted I have conflated
  • 1. the Analytic Philosophy view of what is knowledge [as adopted by you]
    with
    2. what is the proper philosophical view of knowledge.
The Refutation of JTB due to Gettier is based on the Traditional View of What is Knowledge which is Justified True Beliefs is allegedly attributed to Plato. It is stated, while Plato discussed JTB, he rejected this definition as knowledge.

The Traditional View of JTB is;
The concept of justified true belief states that in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have justification for doing so. In more formal terms, an agent S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
  • P is true
    S believes that P is true, and
    S is justified in believing that P is true
    -wiki
and JTB has the following characteristics, i.e.

A. attributed to 'personal' knowledge and
B. grounded on very flimsy definitions of the terms 'Justified' 'True' and 'Belief.'

1. Personal Knowledge
Personal knowledge is very subjective and in modern times has no credibility to truth unless justified properly within a credible FSK.

2. "Belief" in Traditional JTB
What is belief within the Traditional JTB is merely the common views, i.e. opinions by an individual.

3. Theories of Justification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifica ... tification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifica ... stemology)
  • Justification (also called epistemic justification) is a concept in epistemology used to describe beliefs that one has good reason for holding. -wiki
  • "Justification" involves the reasons why someone holds a belief that one should hold based on one's current evidence.[1] Justification is a property of beliefs insofar as they are held blamelessly. In other words, a justified belief is a belief that a person is entitled to hold.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifica ... _knowledge
Here is the typical example of Gettier's Problem to refute the Traditional JTB;
  • A woman sees a group of people and mistakes one of them, a stranger, for her friend.
    So she believes her friend is there.
    And as it happens, her friend really is there, but hidden. So what she believes is the case. But does she know her friend is there?
If the Traditional JTB characteristics [1-3] as defined above, I agree the woman do not have knowledge [JTB] her friend is there.

But the above way of defining and toying with 'what is knowledge' is very childish. Note the crude definition of belief above. The list of justification do not include anything akin to how justification is done within Science.
What is needed to is define belief and perform justification process within philosophy-proper.
"In other words, a justified belief is a belief that a person is entitled to hold" wtf is that?

The Philosophy-proper Way of Defining Knowledge.
1. I have defined what is fact or knowledge as whatever is produce from a specific FSK.

2. To facilitate communication, the fact and knowledge produced is within a continuum of degree of veracity from high to low.

3. This continuum correspond the gradation to truth from opinions, beliefs and knowledge.

4. The degree of veracity of knowledge in this case correlate to the degree of the credibility of the justification process undertaken process opinions and beliefs to produce justified knowledge.

5. Therefore what is knowledge is Justified True Beliefs.

6. Scientific Knowledge is opinions, beliefs that are justified from the Scientific Framework and System. Such knowledge at present is has the highest rating as knowledge and justification.

Now that I have explained the difference between the Traditional View of JTB and Knowledge as JTB within a FSK, I don't need to mention Gettier at all. This is why when I expressed what is knowledge as JTB from my perspective and yet mentioned 'Gettier' you got confused.

So do you accept my definition of what is knowledge as JTB qualified within the conditions stipulated above?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1603
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:21 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 11:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:27 am Note I read VERY extensively and I have came across so many instances where JTB [qualified] is used to represent knowledge - since JTB [qualified] is the best we have at present. You are so paranoid with the non-acceptance of JTB [qualified] due to ignorance and dogmatism.

Since there is no absolutely-absolute meanings to words, there is no issue in using JTB [qualified] as long as one understand its limitations.

BUT if you are so paranoid and uneasy with the term Justified True Moral Beliefs, I have no problem using the term Justified True Moral Facts or Justified Moral Fact or Justified Moral Knowledge, which to me, all of them amount to the same thing with the critical requirement they must be justified empirically and philosophically similar to scientific knowledge and truth.
Here's a link to my paper on the failure of the JTB account of knowledge: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions.

http://www.peasum.co.uk/435531068
I have read your paper.
I believe your views are too narrow and shallow which are very restricted to your chosen kind of epistemology [of Analytic Philosophy].

I have always viewed knowledge from its most widest perspective in alignment with reality - all there is.
In my case, knowledge can be justified to be defined as Justified True Beliefs and I have always qualified as subject to Gettier's Problem [which is confusing as explained below].

But on a more thorough reading of what is knowledge, I noted I have conflated
  • 1. the Analytic Philosophy view of what is knowledge [as adopted by you]
    with
    2. what is the proper philosophical view of knowledge.
The Refutation of JTB due to Gettier is based on the Traditional View of What is Knowledge which is Justified True Beliefs is allegedly attributed to Plato. It is stated, while Plato discussed JTB, he rejected this definition as knowledge.

The Traditional View of JTB is;
The concept of justified true belief states that in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have justification for doing so. In more formal terms, an agent S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
  • P is true
    S believes that P is true, and
    S is justified in believing that P is true
    -wiki
and JTB has the following characteristics, i.e.

A. attributed to 'personal' knowledge and
B. grounded on very flimsy definitions of the terms 'Justified' 'True' and 'Belief.'

1. Personal Knowledge
Personal knowledge is very subjective and in modern times has no credibility to truth unless justified properly within a credible FSK.

2. "Belief" in Traditional JTB
What is belief within the Traditional JTB is merely the common views, i.e. opinions by an individual.

3. Theories of Justification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifica ... tification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifica ... stemology)
  • Justification (also called epistemic justification) is a concept in epistemology used to describe beliefs that one has good reason for holding. -wiki
  • "Justification" involves the reasons why someone holds a belief that one should hold based on one's current evidence.[1] Justification is a property of beliefs insofar as they are held blamelessly. In other words, a justified belief is a belief that a person is entitled to hold.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifica ... _knowledge
Here is the typical example of Gettier's Problem to refute the Traditional JTB;
  • A woman sees a group of people and mistakes one of them, a stranger, for her friend.
    So she believes her friend is there.
    And as it happens, her friend really is there, but hidden. So what she believes is the case. But does she know her friend is there?
If the Traditional JTB characteristics [1-3] as defined above, I agree the woman do not have knowledge [JTB] her friend is there.

But the above way of defining and toying with 'what is knowledge' is very childish. Note the crude definition of belief above. The list of justification do not include anything akin to how justification is done within Science.
What is needed to is define belief and perform justification process within philosophy-proper.
"In other words, a justified belief is a belief that a person is entitled to hold" wtf is that?

The Philosophy-proper Way of Defining Knowledge.
1. I have defined what is fact or knowledge as whatever is produce from a specific FSK.

2. To facilitate communication, the fact and knowledge produced is within a continuum of degree of veracity from high to low.

3. This continuum correspond the gradation to truth from opinions, beliefs and knowledge.

4. The degree of veracity of knowledge in this case correlate to the degree of the credibility of the justification process undertaken process opinions and beliefs to produce justified knowledge.

5. Therefore what is knowledge is Justified True Beliefs.

6. Scientific Knowledge is opinions, beliefs that are justified from the Scientific Framework and System. Such knowledge at present is has the highest rating as knowledge and justification.

Now that I have explained the difference between the Traditional View of JTB and Knowledge as JTB within a FSK, I don't need to mention Gettier at all. This is why when I expressed what is knowledge as JTB from my perspective and yet mentioned 'Gettier' you got confused.

So do you accept my definition of what is knowledge as JTB qualified within the conditions stipulated above?
No, I don't. And, if you've read my demolition of the JTB account of knowledge, I've no idea why you're clinging to it. That a truth-claim is contextual - within what you call an FSK - makes no difference, because the definition of knowledge as JTB is radically mistaken and, anyway, at root metaphysically deluded.

And anyway, to assume morality is an epistemological matter - and that therefore any theory of knowledge, JTB or otherwise, deals with morality - begs the question.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:21 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 11:13 am

Here's a link to my paper on the failure of the JTB account of knowledge: Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions.

http://www.peasum.co.uk/435531068
I have read your paper.
I believe your views are too narrow and shallow which are very restricted to your chosen kind of epistemology [of Analytic Philosophy].

I have always viewed knowledge from its most widest perspective in alignment with reality - all there is.
In my case, knowledge can be justified to be defined as Justified True Beliefs and I have always qualified as subject to Gettier's Problem [which is confusing as explained below].

But on a more thorough reading of what is knowledge, I noted I have conflated
  • 1. the Analytic Philosophy view of what is knowledge [as adopted by you]
    with
    2. what is the proper philosophical view of knowledge.
The Refutation of JTB due to Gettier is based on the Traditional View of What is Knowledge which is Justified True Beliefs is allegedly attributed to Plato. It is stated, while Plato discussed JTB, he rejected this definition as knowledge.

The Traditional View of JTB is;
The concept of justified true belief states that in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have justification for doing so. In more formal terms, an agent S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
  • P is true
    S believes that P is true, and
    S is justified in believing that P is true
    -wiki
and JTB has the following characteristics, i.e.

A. attributed to 'personal' knowledge and
B. grounded on very flimsy definitions of the terms 'Justified' 'True' and 'Belief.'

1. Personal Knowledge
Personal knowledge is very subjective and in modern times has no credibility to truth unless justified properly within a credible FSK.

2. "Belief" in Traditional JTB
What is belief within the Traditional JTB is merely the common views, i.e. opinions by an individual.

3. Theories of Justification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifica ... tification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifica ... stemology)
  • Justification (also called epistemic justification) is a concept in epistemology used to describe beliefs that one has good reason for holding. -wiki
  • "Justification" involves the reasons why someone holds a belief that one should hold based on one's current evidence.[1] Justification is a property of beliefs insofar as they are held blamelessly. In other words, a justified belief is a belief that a person is entitled to hold.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifica ... _knowledge
Here is the typical example of Gettier's Problem to refute the Traditional JTB;
  • A woman sees a group of people and mistakes one of them, a stranger, for her friend.
    So she believes her friend is there.
    And as it happens, her friend really is there, but hidden. So what she believes is the case. But does she know her friend is there?
If the Traditional JTB characteristics [1-3] as defined above, I agree the woman do not have knowledge [JTB] her friend is there.

But the above way of defining and toying with 'what is knowledge' is very childish. Note the crude definition of belief above. The list of justification do not include anything akin to how justification is done within Science.
What is needed to is define belief and perform justification process within philosophy-proper.
"In other words, a justified belief is a belief that a person is entitled to hold" wtf is that?

The Philosophy-proper Way of Defining Knowledge.
1. I have defined what is fact or knowledge as whatever is produce from a specific FSK.

2. To facilitate communication, the fact and knowledge produced is within a continuum of degree of veracity from high to low.

3. This continuum correspond the gradation to truth from opinions, beliefs and knowledge.

4. The degree of veracity of knowledge in this case correlate to the degree of the credibility of the justification process undertaken process opinions and beliefs to produce justified knowledge.

5. Therefore what is knowledge is Justified True Beliefs.

6. Scientific Knowledge is opinions, beliefs that are justified from the Scientific Framework and System. Such knowledge at present is has the highest rating as knowledge and justification.

Now that I have explained the difference between the Traditional View of JTB and Knowledge as JTB within a FSK, I don't need to mention Gettier at all. This is why when I expressed what is knowledge as JTB from my perspective and yet mentioned 'Gettier' you got confused.

So do you accept my definition of what is knowledge as JTB qualified within the conditions stipulated above?
No, I don't. And, if you've read my demolition of the JTB account of knowledge, I've no idea why you're clinging to it. That a truth-claim is contextual - within what you call an FSK - makes no difference, because the definition of knowledge as JTB is radically mistaken and, anyway, at root metaphysically deluded.

And anyway, to assume morality is an epistemological matter - and that therefore any theory of knowledge, JTB or otherwise, deals with morality - begs the question.
You still did not get my point.

I am not clinging to the traditional view of JTB even from the start. In the past I had brought in the Gettier point mistakenly. I will avoid that in the future to ensure no confusion.

I have presented JTB is a new paradigm as described above and it is similar to scientific knowledge which I claim is also JTB.
What is wrong with dealing with Morality from the epistemological perspective? What is critical is whether whatever is presented is justifiable or not.

My fundamental principle is, whatever that is claimed as knowledge, moral or otherwise, it must be justified empirically and philosophically like scientific knowledge. Where can I go wrong on this.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1603
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 8:50 am
I am not clinging to the traditional view of JTB even from the start. In the past I had brought in the Gettier point mistakenly. I will avoid that in the future to ensure no confusion.

I have presented JTB is a new paradigm as described above and it is similar to scientific knowledge which I claim is also JTB.
What is wrong with dealing with Morality from the epistemological perspective? What is critical is whether whatever is presented is justifiable or not.

My fundamental principle is, whatever that is claimed as knowledge, moral or otherwise, it must be justified empirically and philosophically like scientific knowledge. Where can I go wrong on this.
Thanks for being quicker and clearer this time.

I've explained why the JTB account of knowledge - traditional or updated - is incorrect. If you disagree, show me why I'm wrong.

And I just said what's wrong with 'dealing with Morality from the epistemological perspective'. It assumes that morality is an epistemological matter in the first place - and that has to be demonstrated. To assume it is to beg the question.

Where you go wrong has always been your assumption that moral rightness and wrongness are things that can be empirically demonstrated and therefore 'known' - in the way that the features of reality that natural science can empirically demonstrate can be 'known'.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:12 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 8:50 am
I am not clinging to the traditional view of JTB even from the start. In the past I had brought in the Gettier point mistakenly. I will avoid that in the future to ensure no confusion.

I have presented JTB is a new paradigm as described above and it is similar to scientific knowledge which I claim is also JTB.
What is wrong with dealing with Morality from the epistemological perspective? What is critical is whether whatever is presented is justifiable or not.

My fundamental principle is, whatever that is claimed as knowledge, moral or otherwise, it must be justified empirically and philosophically like scientific knowledge. Where can I go wrong on this.
Thanks for being quicker and clearer this time.

I've explained why the JTB account of knowledge - traditional or updated - is incorrect. If you disagree, show me why I'm wrong.
I have already agreed in generally the traditional view of JTB as knowledge is wrong. What you have explained is common knowledge so nothing new.

I have presented an updated version of JTB which is based on how scientific knowledge is justified as true beliefs.
The term 'justification' and 'belief' are totally different from that of the Traditional View of JTB.
Why is this as qualified, incorrect or not-acceptable?
If you insist it is incorrect, then you are claiming all scientific facts are false.
And I just said what's wrong with 'dealing with Morality from the epistemological perspective'. It assumes that morality is an epistemological matter in the first place - and that has to be demonstrated. To assume it is to beg the question.
The Philosophy of Morality is dealt within its FSK.
The introduction of epistemology is merely as a tool to facilitate communication, just like logic is a tool to structure the information.
Where you go wrong has always been your assumption that moral rightness and wrongness are things that can be empirically demonstrated and therefore 'known' - in the way that the features of reality that natural science can empirically demonstrate can be 'known'.
Note again, to me moral assertions and judgments are not moral facts per se.

What is moral fact is that 'ought-ness' and 'ought-not_ness' that is represented by an inherent algorithm within the human brain, mind and psyche and this is demonstrable via natural science and social science.

Note my analogy with the inherent 'hunger' drive.
It is also the same with the inherent sex drive.

I have asserted the moral function is inherent within the brain and mind and it generate moral facts which can be justified empirically and philosophically.
Post Reply