What could make morality objective?
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Rights, such as ownership rights, are things we confer on each other, and sometimes codify in law and constitutions. An appeal to nature - to so-called natural rights - is always fallacious. There are no natural rights beyond or outside what we call rights. For example, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a human invention - and no less important for that.
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Okay.promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 6:48 pm "Sorry - I should have said up to Tormato, which I thought was mostly shite"
Shit I like Tormato too.
I don't think it's gonna work out between us, Peter, and I really think we should start talking to other people.
-
- Posts: 12641
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
I am asking again, what is the grounding of your 'what is fact'? So far you are making groundless claims.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 2:56 pmWot.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 10:01 amStrawmanning again.Since there are no moral facts - since the very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent - we're left with our moral beliefs, judgements or opinions, which can be individual or collective. We can and do cite facts to explain or justify our moral opinions - perhaps to persuade others - but they remain opinions.
And moaning about the non-existence of a 'foundation' for our opinions is pointless. It's like saying there's no such thing as absolute truth, so there's no such thing as what we call truth. The existence of exactly what is being denied?
You need to get out of your dogmatic paradigm to understand [not necessary agree] what I am proposing within my moral paradigm.
What I am arguing is, the moral fact is the "programmed moral potential" that is a matter of fact represented by a physical referent of neural correlates in the brain and body. Because this is dealt within a moral FSK, it is a moral fact.
This [matter of neuroscience] is why Hume was ignorant of during his time and thus set people like you blindly following Hume down the wrong path.
I am asking again, what is the grounding of your 'what is fact'? So far you are making groundless claims.
OTOH, my grounding is heavily relied upon the scientific FSK, i.e. verified and justified scientific facts being inputted into the moral FSK.
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Here are some dictionary definitions.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 4:12 amI am asking again, what is the grounding of your 'what is fact'? So far you are making groundless claims.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 2:56 pmWot.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 10:01 am
Strawmanning again.
You need to get out of your dogmatic paradigm to understand [not necessary agree] what I am proposing within my moral paradigm.
What I am arguing is, the moral fact is the "programmed moral potential" that is a matter of fact represented by a physical referent of neural correlates in the brain and body. Because this is dealt within a moral FSK, it is a moral fact.
This [matter of neuroscience] is why Hume was ignorant of during his time and thus set people like you blindly following Hume down the wrong path.
I am asking again, what is the grounding of your 'what is fact'? So far you are making groundless claims.
OTOH, my grounding is heavily relied upon the scientific FSK, i.e. verified and justified scientific facts being inputted into the moral FSK.
Fact Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
Kids Definition of fact ... 1 : something that really exists or has occurred
FACT | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... glish/fact
Meaning of fact in English ... something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists
Fact Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
Notice the two radically different uses of the word 'fact': a feature of reality that is or was the case; and a thing that's true - the second of which refers to a true factual assertion - a description - typically a linguistic expression. Obviously, outside language, features of reality have no truth-value. Features of reality just are, neither true nor false. Reality is not linguistic.
Your mistake is to confuse the two different uses of the word 'fact', ignoring the first and primary use: 'something that really exists or has occurred', etc. Your claim that such a thing doesn't and can't exist outside a descriptive context is false. We say a factual assertion is true only if it asserts something that really does exist outside the descriptive context - namely, a fact.
You've been suckered by a trendy relativisation of what we call truth which was fashionable around sixty years ago. But mistaking what we say about things for the way things are is an ancient and persistent delusion.
-
- Posts: 12641
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
Above is kindergarten stuff,Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 7:00 amHere are some dictionary definitions.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 4:12 amI am asking again, what is the grounding of your 'what is fact'? So far you are making groundless claims.
Fact Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
Kids Definition of fact ... 1 : something that really exists or has occurred
FACT | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... glish/fact
Meaning of fact in English ... something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists
Fact Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
Notice the two radically different uses of the word 'fact': a feature of reality that is or was the case; and a thing that's true - the second of which refers to a true factual assertion - a description - typically a linguistic expression. Obviously, outside language, features of reality have no truth-value. Features of reality just are, neither true nor false. Reality is not linguistic.
Your mistake is to confuse the two different uses of the word 'fact', ignoring the first and primary use: 'something that really exists or has occurred', etc. Your claim that such a thing doesn't and can't exist outside a descriptive context is false. We say a factual assertion is true only if it asserts something that really does exist outside the descriptive context - namely, a fact.
You've been suckered by a trendy relativisation of what we call truth which was fashionable around sixty years ago. But mistaking what we say about things for the way things are is an ancient and persistent delusion.
see my response in this new thread;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34888&p=573377#p573377
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6335
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Waste of effort. Your theory of fact is a non-starter beause it asserts that there are untrue facts.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 11:11 am Above is kindergarten stuff,
see my response in this new thread;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34888&p=573377#p573377
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34877
Re: What could make morality objective?
Que?!FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 11:54 am Waste of effort. Your theory of fact is a non-starter beause it asserts that there are untrue facts.
You can assert that there are untrue facts.
You can assert that there are true facts.
If the assertion is correct then the assertion is a fact.
Code: Select all
>>> assert( (1 == 0) == False)
>>> assert( (1 == 0) != True)
>>> assert( (1 == 1) == True)
>>> assert( (1 == 1) == False)
AssertionError
It's untrue that you are smart. That's a fact.
Counterfactuals are factual.
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
My claim that what we call a fact is 'something that really exists or has occurred' is not groundless. That is a standard dictionary definition - an explanation of how we use the word fact. You're free to use words any way you like. But there's no reason for the rest of us to use words the way you want us to.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 11:11 amAbove is kindergarten stuff,Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 7:00 amHere are some dictionary definitions.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 4:12 am
I am asking again, what is the grounding of your 'what is fact'? So far you are making groundless claims.
Fact Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
Kids Definition of fact ... 1 : something that really exists or has occurred
FACT | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... glish/fact
Meaning of fact in English ... something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists
Fact Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
Notice the two radically different uses of the word 'fact': a feature of reality that is or was the case; and a thing that's true - the second of which refers to a true factual assertion - a description - typically a linguistic expression. Obviously, outside language, features of reality have no truth-value. Features of reality just are, neither true nor false. Reality is not linguistic.
Your mistake is to confuse the two different uses of the word 'fact', ignoring the first and primary use: 'something that really exists or has occurred', etc. Your claim that such a thing doesn't and can't exist outside a descriptive context is false. We say a factual assertion is true only if it asserts something that really does exist outside the descriptive context - namely, a fact.
You've been suckered by a trendy relativisation of what we call truth which was fashionable around sixty years ago. But mistaking what we say about things for the way things are is an ancient and persistent delusion.
see my response in this new thread;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34888&p=573377#p573377
Calling what I say 'kindergarten stuff' doesn't address my refutation of your argument. So it looks like you can't do it. Hence the yaboo name-calling. To repeat, your claim that a fact - 'something that really exists or has occurred' - can't exist outside a descriptive context is patently false. It's cart-before-the-horsery.
Re: What could make morality objective?
No one is arguing that so why are you so desperate to repeat it?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:37 amMy claim that what we call a fact is 'something that really exists or has occurred' is not groundless.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 11:11 amAbove is kindergarten stuff,Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 7:00 am
Here are some dictionary definitions.
Fact Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
Kids Definition of fact ... 1 : something that really exists or has occurred
FACT | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... glish/fact
Meaning of fact in English ... something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists
Fact Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
Notice the two radically different uses of the word 'fact': a feature of reality that is or was the case; and a thing that's true - the second of which refers to a true factual assertion - a description - typically a linguistic expression. Obviously, outside language, features of reality have no truth-value. Features of reality just are, neither true nor false. Reality is not linguistic.
Your mistake is to confuse the two different uses of the word 'fact', ignoring the first and primary use: 'something that really exists or has occurred', etc. Your claim that such a thing doesn't and can't exist outside a descriptive context is false. We say a factual assertion is true only if it asserts something that really does exist outside the descriptive context - namely, a fact.
You've been suckered by a trendy relativisation of what we call truth which was fashionable around sixty years ago. But mistaking what we say about things for the way things are is an ancient and persistent delusion.
see my response in this new thread;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34888&p=573377#p573377
WE can both see an apple.That is a standard dictionary definition - an explanation of how we use the word fact. You're free to use words any way you like. But there's no reason for the rest of us to use words the way you want us to.
Calling what I say 'kindergarten stuff' doesn't address my refutation of your argument. So it looks like you can't do it. Hence the yaboo name-calling. To repeat, your claim that a fact - 'something that really exists or has occurred' - can't exist outside a descriptive context is patently false. It's cart-before-the-horsery.
But morality is more like two people trying to decide just how red or green it is. And that will be based on their lived experience of other apples and their colour perception.
The fact od the apple is beyond dispute. It's qualities are judgements, and all morals are judgements.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6335
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
At least two people are arguing that there is no particular relationship between fact and truth. They might be doing so only by accident because they are clumsy and stupid, but still they are doing it.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:57 amNo one is arguing that so why are you so desperate to repeat it?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:37 amMy claim that what we call a fact is 'something that really exists or has occurred' is not groundless.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 11:11 am
Above is kindergarten stuff,
see my response in this new thread;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34888&p=573377#p573377
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Erm. VA is arguing it. For example, two posts back.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:57 amNo one is arguing that so why are you so desperate to repeat it?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:37 amMy claim that what we call a fact is 'something that really exists or has occurred' is not groundless.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 11:11 am
Above is kindergarten stuff,
see my response in this new thread;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34888&p=573377#p573377
Are you saying that judgement as to whether something is morally right or wrong is analogous to judgement as to whether an apple is red or green? Genuine question - not sure what your point is.WE can both see an apple.That is a standard dictionary definition - an explanation of how we use the word fact. You're free to use words any way you like. But there's no reason for the rest of us to use words the way you want us to.
Calling what I say 'kindergarten stuff' doesn't address my refutation of your argument. So it looks like you can't do it. Hence the yaboo name-calling. To repeat, your claim that a fact - 'something that really exists or has occurred' - can't exist outside a descriptive context is patently false. It's cart-before-the-horsery.
But morality is more like two people trying to decide just how red or green it is. And that will be based on their lived experience of other apples and their colour perception.
The fact od the apple is beyond dispute. It's qualities are judgements, and all morals are judgements.
Re: What could make morality objective?
The claim express here is the relationship between fact and reality (really exists) and NOT between fact and truth which is wholly different.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 9:10 amAt least two people are arguing that there is no particular relationship between fact and truth. They might be doing so only by accident because they are clumsy and stupid, but still they are doing it.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:57 amNo one is arguing that so why are you so desperate to repeat it?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:37 am
My claim that what we call a fact is 'something that really exists or has occurred' is not groundless.
So the claim of "clumsy and stupid" might be better directed at yourself.
Re: What could make morality objective?
No that fact that you misread what I said means you are incapable of seeing the point.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 9:13 amErm. VA is arguing it. For example, two posts back.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:57 amNo one is arguing that so why are you so desperate to repeat it?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:37 am
My claim that what we call a fact is 'something that really exists or has occurred' is not groundless.Are you saying that judgement as to whether something is morally right or wrong is analogous to judgement as to whether an apple is red or green? Genuine question - not sure what your point is.WE can both see an apple.That is a standard dictionary definition - an explanation of how we use the word fact. You're free to use words any way you like. But there's no reason for the rest of us to use words the way you want us to.
Calling what I say 'kindergarten stuff' doesn't address my refutation of your argument. So it looks like you can't do it. Hence the yaboo name-calling. To repeat, your claim that a fact - 'something that really exists or has occurred' - can't exist outside a descriptive context is patently false. It's cart-before-the-horsery.
But morality is more like two people trying to decide just how red or green it is. And that will be based on their lived experience of other apples and their colour perception.
The fact of the apple is beyond dispute. It's qualities are judgements, and all morals are judgements.
Read it again.
The qualities of the apple ; just how red, and just how green. is about judgement. A fact might say that the object is an apple with red and green colouration, but the degree of each is subject to the observers' interpretations.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6335
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
They are arguing that 'fact' relates entirely to which .... <FSK in one case> / <logic in the other> you select to express it and has nothing in particular to do with truth, reality, or anything else that normal people relate to facts. These fripperies about facts being true, and having some sort of outcome are deemed irrelevant if it is inconvenient for them at the time, or assumed whenever they are currently expecting to get away with it. Pete's complaint was legitimate, you started on him because you are a fatuous dotard.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 10:12 amThe claim express here is the relationship between fact and reality (really exists) and NOT between fact and truth which is wholly different.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 9:10 amAt least two people are arguing that there is no particular relationship between fact and truth. They might be doing so only by accident because they are clumsy and stupid, but still they are doing it.
So the claim of "clumsy and stupid" might be better directed at yourself.
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
I'm able to understand your point, if you express it clearly. And this is incoherent. So, please explain. Are you saying that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action is 'subject to the observers' interpretations'? Is that the point of your comparison with the apple?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 10:16 amNo that fact that you misread what I said means you are incapable of seeing the point.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 9:13 amErm. VA is arguing it. For example, two posts back.Are you saying that judgement as to whether something is morally right or wrong is analogous to judgement as to whether an apple is red or green? Genuine question - not sure what your point is.
WE can both see an apple.
But morality is more like two people trying to decide just how red or green it is. And that will be based on their lived experience of other apples and their colour perception.
The fact of the apple is beyond dispute. It's qualities are judgements, and all morals are judgements.
Read it again.
The qualities of the apple ; just how red, and just how green. is about judgement. A fact might say that the object is an apple with red and green colouration, but the degree of each is subject to the observers' interpretations.
Point is: given the way we use the words 'red' and 'green', the degree to which an apple is red and/or green is precisely not a matter of the observers' interpretation. It's objectively measurable. So where's the analogy with moral rightness and wrongness? In what way are they properties like redness and greenness? Cos I don't think they are at all.