I asked if you can show an example of a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not the expression of a moral opinion.
Please forgive me if I missed it. Mea maxima culpa.
I asked if you can show an example of a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not the expression of a moral opinion.
EASY, when you tell us what the word 'fact' here means or refers to EXACTLY.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:52 pmI asked if you can show an example of a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not the expression of a moral opinion.
Stop dodging. I use the word 'fact' in the standard way, to mean a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality which is true, given the way we use the words involved.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:03 amEASY, when you tell us what the word 'fact' here means or refers to EXACTLY.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:52 pmI asked if you can show an example of a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not the expression of a moral opinion.
SEE, you might want to claim that the word 'fact' can NEVER be expressed other than just as an opinion. So, while you HOLD a BELIEF like this, then, OF COURSE, to you, it would be an IMPOSSIBILITY to show an example of a 'moral fact' and also show why it is a 'fact' and not the expression of a 'moral opinion'.
So, until you EXPOSE your BELIEFS here, it could be just a COMPLETE and UTTER waste of time discussing this here with you.
But at least we are now closer to understanding that what you are saying may just be your opinion ALONE, and therefore NOT a fact AT ALL, to you. Which would mean that what you are saying and claiming here is NOT based on ANY ACTUAL 'thing' NOR 'fact' AT ALL but just on your OWN subjective opinion. So, would there be ANY REAL REASON to listen to it?
"Stop dodging" 'what', EXACTLY?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 amStop dodging.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:03 amEASY, when you tell us what the word 'fact' here means or refers to EXACTLY.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:52 pm
I asked if you can show an example of a moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not the expression of a moral opinion.
SEE, you might want to claim that the word 'fact' can NEVER be expressed other than just as an opinion. So, while you HOLD a BELIEF like this, then, OF COURSE, to you, it would be an IMPOSSIBILITY to show an example of a 'moral fact' and also show why it is a 'fact' and not the expression of a 'moral opinion'.
So, until you EXPOSE your BELIEFS here, it could be just a COMPLETE and UTTER waste of time discussing this here with you.
But at least we are now closer to understanding that what you are saying may just be your opinion ALONE, and therefore NOT a fact AT ALL, to you. Which would mean that what you are saying and claiming here is NOT based on ANY ACTUAL 'thing' NOR 'fact' AT ALL but just on your OWN subjective opinion. So, would there be ANY REAL REASON to listen to it?
SO, just to be absolutely CLEAR, to you, 'facts' do exist, external to opinion, or 'facts' do NOT exist outside of opinion?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am I use the word 'fact' in the standard way, to mean a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality which is true, given the way we use the words involved.
I am REALLY getting sick AND tired of 'you', human beings, using these MOST OBVIOUSLY IDIOTIC, Wrong, False, and Incorrect terms, like; "Using words non-standardly".Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am And from what you say here, you clearly understand the difference between what we call a fact and what we call an opinion.
But if you use the words 'fact' and 'opinion' non-standardly, by all means explain how you use them.
So, are you here AGREEING that there is, or at least could be, a 'moral fact', a moral feature of reality, regardless of ANY one's opinion?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am Either way, please produce the goods: an example of a moral fact: a moral feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of anyone's opinion.
Okay, so now we KNOW that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ANY one could SAY, SHOW, or PRESENT to you that could PROVE otherwise.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am And when you find you can't, I suggest you re-think the idea that morality is or can be objective. Because it isn't and can't.
This is a waste of everyone's time and effort, in my opinion. I've answered all of your clarifying questions, explained what we understand the difference between what we call facts and opinions to be - and that I think facts exist.Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:23 am"Stop dodging" 'what', EXACTLY?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 amStop dodging.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:03 am
EASY, when you tell us what the word 'fact' here means or refers to EXACTLY.
SEE, you might want to claim that the word 'fact' can NEVER be expressed other than just as an opinion. So, while you HOLD a BELIEF like this, then, OF COURSE, to you, it would be an IMPOSSIBILITY to show an example of a 'moral fact' and also show why it is a 'fact' and not the expression of a 'moral opinion'.
So, until you EXPOSE your BELIEFS here, it could be just a COMPLETE and UTTER waste of time discussing this here with you.
But at least we are now closer to understanding that what you are saying may just be your opinion ALONE, and therefore NOT a fact AT ALL, to you. Which would mean that what you are saying and claiming here is NOT based on ANY ACTUAL 'thing' NOR 'fact' AT ALL but just on your OWN subjective opinion. So, would there be ANY REAL REASON to listen to it?
This I think is the third time I have tried to discuss this issue with you, and the last two times, if I recall correctly it was 'you' who STOPPED responding. Which, could be a PERFECT EXAMPLE of 'dodging'.
SO, just to be absolutely CLEAR, to you, 'facts' do exist, external to opinion, or 'facts' do NOT exist outside of opinion?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am I use the word 'fact' in the standard way, to mean a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality which is true, given the way we use the words involved.
To you, are there 'facts', regardless of ANY one's opinion?
if yes, then will you provide some examples?
If no, then WHY NOT?
I am REALLY getting sick AND tired of 'you', human beings, using these MOST OBVIOUSLY IDIOTIC, Wrong, False, and Incorrect terms, like; "Using words non-standardly".Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am And from what you say here, you clearly understand the difference between what we call a fact and what we call an opinion.
But if you use the words 'fact' and 'opinion' non-standardly, by all means explain how you use them.
Some of 'you', adult human beings, REALLY ACTUALLY BELIEVE that how 'you' think and look at and see 'things' is the True, Right, AND Correct way to LOOK AT, SEE 'things' and THINK, and that "your way" is the, lol, "standard" way.So, are you here AGREEING that there is, or at least could be, a 'moral fact', a moral feature of reality, regardless of ANY one's opinion?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am Either way, please produce the goods: an example of a moral fact: a moral feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of anyone's opinion.Okay, so now we KNOW that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ANY one could SAY, SHOW, or PRESENT to you that could PROVE otherwise.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am And when you find you can't, I suggest you re-think the idea that morality is or can be objective. Because it isn't and can't.
So, what we have here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of just how CLOSED these human beings were when this was being written when they BELIEVED WHOLEHEARTEDLY some 'thing' is true. They, literally, could NOT SEE ANY 'thing' OTHER than what there were CURRENTLY BELIEVING was true.
When, and IF, this one EVER becomes OPEN, then we can DISCUSS what the word 'objective' ACTUALLY could refer to, EXACTLY.
Until then, this one can live in its OWN little 'world'.
By the way, did you answer my CLARIFYING question regarding if there are 'facts', regardless of anyone's opinion?
If you did, and you did say, "There are facts, regardless of anyone's opinion", then WHY can there NOT BE 'moral facts', regardless of people's opinions, to you?
SO, name a 'fact' that is NOT an opinion.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pmThis is a waste of everyone's time and effort, in my opinion. I've answered all of your clarifying questions, explained what we understand the difference between what we call facts and opinions to be - and that I think facts exist.Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:23 am"Stop dodging" 'what', EXACTLY?
This I think is the third time I have tried to discuss this issue with you, and the last two times, if I recall correctly it was 'you' who STOPPED responding. Which, could be a PERFECT EXAMPLE of 'dodging'.
SO, just to be absolutely CLEAR, to you, 'facts' do exist, external to opinion, or 'facts' do NOT exist outside of opinion?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am I use the word 'fact' in the standard way, to mean a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality which is true, given the way we use the words involved.
To you, are there 'facts', regardless of ANY one's opinion?
if yes, then will you provide some examples?
If no, then WHY NOT?
I am REALLY getting sick AND tired of 'you', human beings, using these MOST OBVIOUSLY IDIOTIC, Wrong, False, and Incorrect terms, like; "Using words non-standardly".Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am And from what you say here, you clearly understand the difference between what we call a fact and what we call an opinion.
But if you use the words 'fact' and 'opinion' non-standardly, by all means explain how you use them.
Some of 'you', adult human beings, REALLY ACTUALLY BELIEVE that how 'you' think and look at and see 'things' is the True, Right, AND Correct way to LOOK AT, SEE 'things' and THINK, and that "your way" is the, lol, "standard" way.So, are you here AGREEING that there is, or at least could be, a 'moral fact', a moral feature of reality, regardless of ANY one's opinion?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am Either way, please produce the goods: an example of a moral fact: a moral feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of anyone's opinion.Okay, so now we KNOW that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ANY one could SAY, SHOW, or PRESENT to you that could PROVE otherwise.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:39 am And when you find you can't, I suggest you re-think the idea that morality is or can be objective. Because it isn't and can't.
So, what we have here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of just how CLOSED these human beings were when this was being written when they BELIEVED WHOLEHEARTEDLY some 'thing' is true. They, literally, could NOT SEE ANY 'thing' OTHER than what there were CURRENTLY BELIEVING was true.
When, and IF, this one EVER becomes OPEN, then we can DISCUSS what the word 'objective' ACTUALLY could refer to, EXACTLY.
Until then, this one can live in its OWN little 'world'.
By the way, did you answer my CLARIFYING question regarding if there are 'facts', regardless of anyone's opinion?
If you did, and you did say, "There are facts, regardless of anyone's opinion", then WHY can there NOT BE 'moral facts', regardless of people's opinions, to you?
LOLPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm The whole point of these discussions is to make convincing arguments.
But you are NOT 'determined' to deny the existence of moral facts. You are just DOING THIS, and WILL CONTINUE TO DO THIS, while you continue to HOLD ON TO YOUR CURRENT BELIEF.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm So whining that I'm determined to deny the existence of moral facts is pointless.
But, to you, it is an ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBILITY for a 'moral fact' TO EXIST. So, HOW could ANY one present ANY evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one 'moral fact', let alone present even one 'moral fact', to you?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm Present evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one moral fact, and my denial will be irrational.
When human beings do not need to kill animals then killing animals is Wrong.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm That's all you have to do. Everyone else will benefit, even if I don't. Get on with it.
So here's your example of a supposed moral fact: killing animals needlessly is morally wrong.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:38 amSO, name a 'fact' that is NOT an opinion.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pmThis is a waste of everyone's time and effort, in my opinion. I've answered all of your clarifying questions, explained what we understand the difference between what we call facts and opinions to be - and that I think facts exist.Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:23 am
"Stop dodging" 'what', EXACTLY?
This I think is the third time I have tried to discuss this issue with you, and the last two times, if I recall correctly it was 'you' who STOPPED responding. Which, could be a PERFECT EXAMPLE of 'dodging'.
SO, just to be absolutely CLEAR, to you, 'facts' do exist, external to opinion, or 'facts' do NOT exist outside of opinion?
To you, are there 'facts', regardless of ANY one's opinion?
if yes, then will you provide some examples?
If no, then WHY NOT?
I am REALLY getting sick AND tired of 'you', human beings, using these MOST OBVIOUSLY IDIOTIC, Wrong, False, and Incorrect terms, like; "Using words non-standardly".
Some of 'you', adult human beings, REALLY ACTUALLY BELIEVE that how 'you' think and look at and see 'things' is the True, Right, AND Correct way to LOOK AT, SEE 'things' and THINK, and that "your way" is the, lol, "standard" way.
So, are you here AGREEING that there is, or at least could be, a 'moral fact', a moral feature of reality, regardless of ANY one's opinion?
Okay, so now we KNOW that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ANY one could SAY, SHOW, or PRESENT to you that could PROVE otherwise.
So, what we have here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of just how CLOSED these human beings were when this was being written when they BELIEVED WHOLEHEARTEDLY some 'thing' is true. They, literally, could NOT SEE ANY 'thing' OTHER than what there were CURRENTLY BELIEVING was true.
When, and IF, this one EVER becomes OPEN, then we can DISCUSS what the word 'objective' ACTUALLY could refer to, EXACTLY.
Until then, this one can live in its OWN little 'world'.
By the way, did you answer my CLARIFYING question regarding if there are 'facts', regardless of anyone's opinion?
If you did, and you did say, "There are facts, regardless of anyone's opinion", then WHY can there NOT BE 'moral facts', regardless of people's opinions, to you?
Are you ABLE to do this?LOLPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm The whole point of these discussions is to make convincing arguments.
LOL
LOL
This here is a TYPICAL PRESUMPTION among the adult human beings, in the days and age of when this was written, and a TYPICAL BEHAVIOR among them. That is; instead of just creating a sound AND valid argument, which OBVIOUSLY means that it would be IRREFUTABLE forever more, they would just TRY TO make 'convincing arguments' ONLY. 'convincing arguments' will ONLY 'convince' some people, some of the time, and this is because they are NOT actually sound AND valid. Whereas, if an argument can so-call 'convince' ALL of the people, ALL of the time, then that is JUST a sound AND valid argument.
LOOK, I do NOT even attempt to 'convince' ANY one of ANY 'thing'. EVERY 'thing' I write and say here is either True or False, Right or Wrong, or Correct or Incorrect, and if ANY one finds ANY thing that IS or APPEARS TO BE False, Wrong, or Incorrect, then just POINT 'this' OUT, so that we can ALL LOOK AT 'it' and SEE 'it'.
But you are NOT 'determined' to deny the existence of moral facts. You are just DOING THIS, and WILL CONTINUE TO DO THIS, while you continue to HOLD ON TO YOUR CURRENT BELIEF.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm So whining that I'm determined to deny the existence of moral facts is pointless.
Also, I was NEVER whining about you just DOING THIS. I was just POINTING OUT the Fact that this is what you ARE DOING.
But, to you, it is an ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBILITY for a 'moral fact' TO EXIST. So, HOW could ANY one present ANY evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one 'moral fact', let alone present even one 'moral fact', to you?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm Present evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one moral fact, and my denial will be irrational.
If you TELL US what a 'moral fact', then we will SEE if we can present one, to you.
When human beings do not need to kill animals then killing animals is Wrong.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm That's all you have to do. Everyone else will benefit, even if I don't. Get on with it.
Now, how this IS a 'moral fact, or an 'objective morality', to me, probably will NOT be, to you.
But, until you EXPLAIN what is 'morality', what is 'objectivity', to you, and EXPRESS what 'facts' exist that are NOT opinions, to you, then NO one can SHOW you ANY thing other than what you currently BELIEVE is true.
And, as for supposedly answering ALL of my clarifying questions, this is OBVIOUSLY an outright LIE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, above.
But this is just your OWN judgement, belief, or opinion, and is just your OWN subjective view of 'things'. Which I have been POINTING OUT to you but which you do NOT YET seem to comprehend NOR understand.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:37 pmSo here's your example of a supposed moral fact: killing animals needlessly is morally wrong.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:38 amSO, name a 'fact' that is NOT an opinion.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm
This is a waste of everyone's time and effort, in my opinion. I've answered all of your clarifying questions, explained what we understand the difference between what we call facts and opinions to be - and that I think facts exist.
Are you ABLE to do this?LOLPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm The whole point of these discussions is to make convincing arguments.
LOL
LOL
This here is a TYPICAL PRESUMPTION among the adult human beings, in the days and age of when this was written, and a TYPICAL BEHAVIOR among them. That is; instead of just creating a sound AND valid argument, which OBVIOUSLY means that it would be IRREFUTABLE forever more, they would just TRY TO make 'convincing arguments' ONLY. 'convincing arguments' will ONLY 'convince' some people, some of the time, and this is because they are NOT actually sound AND valid. Whereas, if an argument can so-call 'convince' ALL of the people, ALL of the time, then that is JUST a sound AND valid argument.
LOOK, I do NOT even attempt to 'convince' ANY one of ANY 'thing'. EVERY 'thing' I write and say here is either True or False, Right or Wrong, or Correct or Incorrect, and if ANY one finds ANY thing that IS or APPEARS TO BE False, Wrong, or Incorrect, then just POINT 'this' OUT, so that we can ALL LOOK AT 'it' and SEE 'it'.
But you are NOT 'determined' to deny the existence of moral facts. You are just DOING THIS, and WILL CONTINUE TO DO THIS, while you continue to HOLD ON TO YOUR CURRENT BELIEF.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm So whining that I'm determined to deny the existence of moral facts is pointless.
Also, I was NEVER whining about you just DOING THIS. I was just POINTING OUT the Fact that this is what you ARE DOING.
But, to you, it is an ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBILITY for a 'moral fact' TO EXIST. So, HOW could ANY one present ANY evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one 'moral fact', let alone present even one 'moral fact', to you?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm Present evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one moral fact, and my denial will be irrational.
If you TELL US what a 'moral fact', then we will SEE if we can present one, to you.
When human beings do not need to kill animals then killing animals is Wrong.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm That's all you have to do. Everyone else will benefit, even if I don't. Get on with it.
Now, how this IS a 'moral fact, or an 'objective morality', to me, probably will NOT be, to you.
But, until you EXPLAIN what is 'morality', what is 'objectivity', to you, and EXPRESS what 'facts' exist that are NOT opinions, to you, then NO one can SHOW you ANY thing other than what you currently BELIEVE is true.
And, as for supposedly answering ALL of my clarifying questions, this is OBVIOUSLY an outright LIE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, above.
Now, if this is a fact, it's a feature of reality that is the case, regardless of anyone's judgement, belief or opinion.
If you just STOP for a while, CONSIDERED what I have been GETTING AT, and STOPPED LOOKING FROM your OWN BELIEF ONLY, then you WOULD SEE 'things' DIFFERENTLY.
I have ALREADY DONE THIS. You have just FAILED to RECOGNIZE and SEE THIS. And, I have ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY you KEEP FAILING.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:37 pm And it would be possible to demonstrate that it's the case, citing evidence, so that it would be irrational to disagree with it.
I have CLAIMED that what makes 'morality objective' can be UNCOVERED and FOUND through DISCUSSIONS. You have NOT wanted to do this. You just asked me to PROVIDE a 'moral fact' instead. So, I did.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:37 pm So, please show that all those criteria apply to this supposed moral fact.
LOLPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:37 pm (Spoiler: as you'll see, it isn't a fact, but rather an opinion about killing animals needlessly. And then perhaps the penny will drop for you.)
There are 2 ways to categorise facts: things that are objectively true and things that are universally true. The latter implies that although some things are subjective, because morality ultimately pertains to good an ill-will, and will is universal, so is morality.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:37 pmSo here's your example of a supposed moral fact: killing animals needlessly is morally wrong.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:38 amSO, name a 'fact' that is NOT an opinion.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm
This is a waste of everyone's time and effort, in my opinion. I've answered all of your clarifying questions, explained what we understand the difference between what we call facts and opinions to be - and that I think facts exist.
Are you ABLE to do this?LOLPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm The whole point of these discussions is to make convincing arguments.
LOL
LOL
This here is a TYPICAL PRESUMPTION among the adult human beings, in the days and age of when this was written, and a TYPICAL BEHAVIOR among them. That is; instead of just creating a sound AND valid argument, which OBVIOUSLY means that it would be IRREFUTABLE forever more, they would just TRY TO make 'convincing arguments' ONLY. 'convincing arguments' will ONLY 'convince' some people, some of the time, and this is because they are NOT actually sound AND valid. Whereas, if an argument can so-call 'convince' ALL of the people, ALL of the time, then that is JUST a sound AND valid argument.
LOOK, I do NOT even attempt to 'convince' ANY one of ANY 'thing'. EVERY 'thing' I write and say here is either True or False, Right or Wrong, or Correct or Incorrect, and if ANY one finds ANY thing that IS or APPEARS TO BE False, Wrong, or Incorrect, then just POINT 'this' OUT, so that we can ALL LOOK AT 'it' and SEE 'it'.
But you are NOT 'determined' to deny the existence of moral facts. You are just DOING THIS, and WILL CONTINUE TO DO THIS, while you continue to HOLD ON TO YOUR CURRENT BELIEF.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm So whining that I'm determined to deny the existence of moral facts is pointless.
Also, I was NEVER whining about you just DOING THIS. I was just POINTING OUT the Fact that this is what you ARE DOING.
But, to you, it is an ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBILITY for a 'moral fact' TO EXIST. So, HOW could ANY one present ANY evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one 'moral fact', let alone present even one 'moral fact', to you?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm Present evidence and a sound argument for the existence of even one moral fact, and my denial will be irrational.
If you TELL US what a 'moral fact', then we will SEE if we can present one, to you.
When human beings do not need to kill animals then killing animals is Wrong.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:24 pm That's all you have to do. Everyone else will benefit, even if I don't. Get on with it.
Now, how this IS a 'moral fact, or an 'objective morality', to me, probably will NOT be, to you.
But, until you EXPLAIN what is 'morality', what is 'objectivity', to you, and EXPRESS what 'facts' exist that are NOT opinions, to you, then NO one can SHOW you ANY thing other than what you currently BELIEVE is true.
And, as for supposedly answering ALL of my clarifying questions, this is OBVIOUSLY an outright LIE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, above.
Now, if this is a fact, it's a feature of reality that is the case, regardless of anyone's judgement, belief or opinion. It wouldn't be a matter of opinion at all. And it would be possible to demonstrate that it's the case, citing evidence, so that it would be irrational to disagree with it.
So, please show that all those criteria apply to this supposed moral fact.
(Spoiler: as you'll see, it isn't a fact, but rather an opinion about killing animals needlessly. And then perhaps the penny will drop for you.)
OFFS. If morality is objective - if there are moral facts - then my or anyone's views or opinions about those moral facts are irrelevant.
AND, what "peter holmes" views or opinions are, they are irrelevant also, correct?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:06 pmOFFS. If morality is objective - if there are moral facts - then my or anyone's views or opinions about those moral facts are irrelevant.
WHY do you HAVE this view or opinion?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:06 pm So if it's a fact that the needless killing of animals is morally wrong, what you or I or anyone thinks about the needless killing of animals is irrelevant.
I understand PERFECTLY what you are 'trying to' CLAIM is a 'fact'. But what you STILL seem to be NOT understanding AT ALL is that if that CLAIM is a 'fact', according to your OWN so-called "logic" here, then what 'you' or ANY one thinks about that self MADE UP 'criteria' IS IRRELEVANT.
I find it difficult to understand what it is that you don't understand. But maybe these thoughts will help.Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:04 pmAND, what "peter holmes" views or opinions are, they are irrelevant also, correct?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:06 pmOFFS. If morality is objective - if there are moral facts - then my or anyone's views or opinions about those moral facts are irrelevant.
Or, do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that YOUR views and opinions are relevant, while "others" are NOT?
See, the CLAIM that, "If morality is objective - if there are moral facts - then "peter holme's" views or opinions about these moral face are irrelevant, IS just "peter holme's" views and opinions ONLY.
And, what makes this view or opinion of "peter holmes" objective or a fact?
How come you STILL can NOT SEE what you are doing here?WHY do you HAVE this view or opinion?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:06 pm So if it's a fact that the needless killing of animals is morally wrong, what you or I or anyone thinks about the needless killing of animals is irrelevant.
WHY are you MAKING this CLAIM?I understand PERFECTLY what you are 'trying to' CLAIM is a 'fact'. But what you STILL seem to be NOT understanding AT ALL is that if that CLAIM is a 'fact', according to your OWN so-called "logic" here, then what 'you' or ANY one thinks about that self MADE UP 'criteria' IS IRRELEVANT.
What you can NOT YET understand is that what "peter holmes" views as being the 'criteria' for 'objectivity' is NOT necessarily 'objectivity' AT ALL.
What has happened here, ONCE AGAIN, and which can be CLEARLY SEEN is just ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of a human being with a BELIEF that 'this' is true, and who has then, subconsciously, gone out of 'its' way to LOOK FOR and "find" what fits in with that BELIEF, and is now saying just about ANY thing to 'try to' back up and support that BELIEF of "theirs".
When and if you STOP 'trying to' TWIST and DISTORT things around, then you may START SEEING CLEARLY, also.
I have asked you to PROVIDE a 'fact', which is NOT a view NOR an opinion. You STILL have NOT done this, and you will NOT do this because if you did, then you would CONTRADICT your OWN views, BELIEFS, and opinions here.
LOOK, you can NOT have it BOTH WAYS. You can NOT logically claim that there are NO 'moral facts' because they are ALL just views or opinions but then go on to CLAIM there are 'facts' which are NOT views NOR opinions. To do so is just you SHOWING your OWN ILLOGICAL views and opinions.
And because you can NOT provide a 'fact', which is NOT a view NOR an opinion, you are just PROVING True what I have been SAYING and SHOWING here all along.
Now, if you would like to CLAIM that there are NO 'facts' AT ALL, including moral ones, because they are ALL views or opinions, then go on and do that. But to CLAIM there are some 'facts' that are NOT views NOR opinions, but then express your OWN view and opinion about " but there are NOT 'moral facts' " is just ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, HYPOCRITICAL, and CONTRADICTORY.
And this is BECAUSE 'you' do NOT ACTUALLY KNOW what 'I' do NOT understand.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pmI find it difficult to understand what it is that you don't understand.Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:04 pmAND, what "peter holmes" views or opinions are, they are irrelevant also, correct?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:06 pm
OFFS. If morality is objective - if there are moral facts - then my or anyone's views or opinions about those moral facts are irrelevant.
Or, do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that YOUR views and opinions are relevant, while "others" are NOT?
See, the CLAIM that, "If morality is objective - if there are moral facts - then "peter holme's" views or opinions about these moral face are irrelevant, IS just "peter holme's" views and opinions ONLY.
And, what makes this view or opinion of "peter holmes" objective or a fact?
How come you STILL can NOT SEE what you are doing here?WHY do you HAVE this view or opinion?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:06 pm So if it's a fact that the needless killing of animals is morally wrong, what you or I or anyone thinks about the needless killing of animals is irrelevant.
WHY are you MAKING this CLAIM?I understand PERFECTLY what you are 'trying to' CLAIM is a 'fact'. But what you STILL seem to be NOT understanding AT ALL is that if that CLAIM is a 'fact', according to your OWN so-called "logic" here, then what 'you' or ANY one thinks about that self MADE UP 'criteria' IS IRRELEVANT.
What you can NOT YET understand is that what "peter holmes" views as being the 'criteria' for 'objectivity' is NOT necessarily 'objectivity' AT ALL.
What has happened here, ONCE AGAIN, and which can be CLEARLY SEEN is just ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of a human being with a BELIEF that 'this' is true, and who has then, subconsciously, gone out of 'its' way to LOOK FOR and "find" what fits in with that BELIEF, and is now saying just about ANY thing to 'try to' back up and support that BELIEF of "theirs".
When and if you STOP 'trying to' TWIST and DISTORT things around, then you may START SEEING CLEARLY, also.
I have asked you to PROVIDE a 'fact', which is NOT a view NOR an opinion. You STILL have NOT done this, and you will NOT do this because if you did, then you would CONTRADICT your OWN views, BELIEFS, and opinions here.
LOOK, you can NOT have it BOTH WAYS. You can NOT logically claim that there are NO 'moral facts' because they are ALL just views or opinions but then go on to CLAIM there are 'facts' which are NOT views NOR opinions. To do so is just you SHOWING your OWN ILLOGICAL views and opinions.
And because you can NOT provide a 'fact', which is NOT a view NOR an opinion, you are just PROVING True what I have been SAYING and SHOWING here all along.
Now, if you would like to CLAIM that there are NO 'facts' AT ALL, including moral ones, because they are ALL views or opinions, then go on and do that. But to CLAIM there are some 'facts' that are NOT views NOR opinions, but then express your OWN view and opinion about " but there are NOT 'moral facts' " is just ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, HYPOCRITICAL, and CONTRADICTORY.
If you did NOT add the words "(English speakers)", then I would have said, 'true'.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm But maybe these thoughts will help.
1 Signs such as words can mean only what we (English speakers) use them to mean.
But who says, 'YOUR COURT' over rules ANY 'other court'?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm And there's no other court of appeal. And this applies to the words 'truth', 'meaning', 'knowledge', 'fact' and 'objectivity'.
LOLPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm 2 What we (English speakers) call objectivity means independence from opinion when considering the facts.
ONCE MORE, what "peter holme's" SAYS and CLAIMS are NOT views nor opinions, but INSTEAD they ARE 'facts'. And, absolutely EVERY one just HAS TO ACCEPT this AND AGREE WITH this, correct?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm So the word 'objective' means 'factual' or 'based on facts'. And this isn't just my opinion. It's a fact about our linguistic practice.
Will you GIVE us an example?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm 3 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature that is true, given the way we use the words or other signs involved.
LOLPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm And this isn't just my opinion. It's a fact about our linguistic practice. So it's a fact that we use the word 'fact' in that way.
Your OWN account of 'things' here is your OWN personal view, belief, or opinion. As you have just DEMONSTRATED SO.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm 4 If you think my account of these facts about our linguistic practice - our use of the words 'fact' and 'objectivity' - is incorrect, then by all means challenge it.
PROVIDE a 'fact' that is NOT your OWN view NOR opinion.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm Because, if you disagree with but don't challenge my account, we're just talking past each other.
And ANOTHER example of a 'fact' IS; You have YET TO PROVIDE a 'fact', which is NOT of YOUR OWN opinion NOR view.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm 5 An example of a fact is that what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call hydrogen and what we call oxygen.
You keep using words like; "this feature of reality", and, "is the case". What IS "this feature" if NOT an opinion NOR view? What IS 'reality' if NOT an opinion NOR view? What IS "a feature of reality" if NOT an opinion NOR view? And, what IS, "is the case", if NOT an opinion NOR view?
And, the way 'you' use "those signs" ALL comes down to YOUR OWN opinions AND views of 'things'.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm the (simplified) factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, given the way we use those signs.
And, if there is NO need to kill animals, then there is NO need to kill animals. Now, If, in your opinion, that assertion is true OR false, to you, then this is FUCKING IRRELEVANT. Simply because it happens to be the case that when there is NO need to kill animals, then there is NO need to kill animals.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm Now, in my opinion, that assertion is true. But what I or anyone thinks is fucking irrelevant, simply because it happens to be the case that water is H2O. That is a feature of reality - what we (English speakers) call a fact, as explained above.
It MEANS, 'Are there moral facts?', to those speakers of ANY language who are Truly OPEN. But, to those who BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that, "There are NO moral facts", then this question is just a COMPLETE and UTTER WASTE OF TIME.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm 6 Now, given the explanation so far, I hope you understand what the question 'are there moral facts?' means.
That all depends. If the way that 'water being H2O' is found to 'be the case' through AGREEMENT WITH and ACCEPTANCE BY 'you', human beings, then the 'moral wrongness' of needlessly killing animals' is found to 'be the case' through AGREEMENT WITH and ACCEPTANCE BY 'you', human beings, then YES, the moral wrongness of needlessly killing animals being a feature of reality that is the case, WAS FOUND, in the SAME way that water being H2O is the case, AS WELL.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm For example, is the moral wrongness of needlessly killing animals a feature of reality that is the case, in the way that water being H2O is the case?
YES. As I have ALREADY explained.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm For example, could we go out and empirically demonstrate that needlessly killing animals is morally wrong,
To you, would ANY one's opinion on ANY matter be relevant? Or, is EVERY opinion of EVERY one ALWAYS irrelevant?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm so that anyone's opinion on the matter would be irrelevant?
ONCE AGAIN:Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm Now, please have a really good, careful think about this. And instead of shooting off ill-considered questions, work out exactly where you think my reasoning goes wrong - and state your argument.
Men called wet drinkable unadulterated stuff "water" or "agua" or "Wasser" long before chemistry defined it. Some intelligent trained dogs and chimps include "water" in their vocabularies.5 An example of a fact is that what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call hydrogen and what we call oxygen. Because this feature of reality is the case, the (simplified) factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, given the way we use those signs. Now, in my opinion, that assertion is true. But what I or anyone thinks is fucking irrelevant, simply because it happens to be the case that water is H2O. That is a feature of reality - what we (English speakers) call a fact, as explained above.
6 Now, given the explanation so far, I hope you understand what the question 'are there moral facts?' means. For example, is the moral wrongness of needlessly killing animals a feature of reality that is the case, in the way that water being H2O is the case? For example, could we go out and empirically demonstrate that needlessly killing animals is morally wrong, so that anyone's opinion on the matter would be irrelevant?