Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 9:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:36 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:25 am
We ask for one example of a so-called moral fact, with an explanation of why it's a fact and not the expression of an opinion. Response? Tumbleweed. Plus frothing anger and nastiness.
We can show why it's a fact that water is H2O. Now, please show why it's a fact that, say, abortion is morally wrong. Or not morally wrong. What evidence is there for either moral assertion?
Answer: none. Why? Because there are no moral facts. The end.
That we can show why it's a fact that water is H2O is not because your father or mother said so.
Agreed. Precisely the point. Something more than 'saying' is required.
Now, try reading the following passage, which you've quoted many times.
It is not because your father or mother said so, but rather it is because a specific FSK said it is a fact which the below will indicate.
- A fact is a datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance, which, if accepted as true and proven true, allows a logical conclusion to be reached on a true–false evaluation. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
Notice: a true factual assertion - such as 'the sun is a star' - accurately describes a fact - a feature of reality. That feature of reality - that fact - doesn't exist
because of the astronomical description. If it did, talk of accurate description would be meaningless. We can't accurately describe something that exists
only because we're describing it.
You are very ignorant on this.
Note;
that "Pluto is a dwarf planet" is a fact.
Pluto is only a dwarf planet as a fact because the International Astronomical Union (IAU) -an Astronomy
-FSK said so.
When a 'fact' is conditioned upon a FSK - a FSK-Conditioned-Fact - it is implied there an entanglement, emergence and realization of the fact, i.e. an astronomical fact.
As such, there is no a standalone
real 'Pluto' independent of human conditions or the collective subjects within a FSK.
Note how you are trying to be deceptive by omission?
PH:
"Notice: a true factual assertion - such as 'the sun is a star' - accurately describes a fact - a feature of reality."
You deliberately omitted the term 'astronomical' in the above, thus the need to bring in the 'astronomical' FSK and its whole constitution, systems and processes, which will include encompassing Physics Facts from the science-Physics-FSK.
You deliberately or are ignorant of the above set of complex elements that conditioned the fact that 'the sun is a star'.
This is a philosophy forum where precision is critical, as such,
That 'the sun is a star' is a science-physics-astronomy-FSK fact.
Also you are ignorant of this scientific-historical-fact;
That 'the sun is a star' as a science-physics-astronomy-FSK fact is also a historic fact.
What is supposed to be the reality representing the fact 'the sun is a star' is 9 minutes old historically; that is the time the light from the Sun takes to travel to reach the eyes of the scientist to verify or you to see.
That 'feature of reality' in your sense of fact is merely an illusion only in your head as a thought. You supposed real Sun is a noumena Sun, i.e. an illusion.
The only real Sun as a star is the one constructed by the science-physics-astronomy-FSK which you accept as real based on faith.
There is no really-real Sun as a star because the 'whatever is the Sun' changes every nano-second.
As such, every supposed real-Sun is always a historical Sun by nano-seconds or minutes.
Note this;
Proxima Centauri is a star as a science-physics-astronomy-FSK fact is also a historic fact.
In fact, the fact Proxima_Centauri as 'star' is
4.2465 light-years old - a historic fact.
That 'feature of reality' [fact that Proxima_Centauri is 'star] in your sense of fact is merely an illusion only in your head as a thought.
This is more obvious because Proxima_Centauri in REAL TIME [2023] have have collapsed into a Black Hole and do not exists as real at present [2023].
Thus, what you deemed as a fact is merely a noumena fact which is an illusion in your head.
What is a real fact is always conditioned within a specific human-based-FSK, thus not independent of the human conditions [or 'mind'].
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion. {of a sentient being but not a collective of subjects within a FSK}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact[/list]
Fraud! Doctoring a quotation so that it says the opposite of what it actually says! Have you no shame?
You're Cheat!!
I qualify the original quotation within {......}.
Note skepdick's;
For somebody who accepts the existence of facts it follows that any sub-category of facts exists also. By deduction.
Physical facts.
Psychological facts.
Biological facts.
Cosmological facts.
Moral facts.
Along with the above principles, we can have a moral FSK which can be credible and reliable as near to the scientific FSK.
Look up the fallacy of division. And anyway, think about the question-begging involved in assuming that there are moral facts. This argument is invalid.
I have explained human-based FSK thoroughly elsewhere and above re 'astronomical FSK' which you try to ignore to deceive.
Morality-proper's focus is not about rightness or wrongness.
Thus the question of 'abortion is right or wrong' is a non-starter re morality-proper.
Morality-proper? No such thing. It's an invention. You made it up. It doesn't exist.
Morality is about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. And there is nothing about abortion that can settle the argument as to whether it's morally right or wrong. Go back to the description of what constitutes a fact, which you quoted above.
But then, perhaps you should also invent facts-proper.
Don't bring in your Ordinary Language Philosophy crap, i.e. re words "meaning is use."
What is critical is to explain the context within the word used.
When a subject is messed-up in the past up to the present, then the term 'proper' is necessary to different what is proper from what is pseudo or messed-up.
I have argued, what is morality is inherent within all human as human nature.
Morality is as natural as the oughtness to breathe except the moral function is not active in the majority of humans, thus the messed-up and confusion over what is morality.
To align with the inherent nature moral function, I am differentiating it as morality-proper to differentiate it from the messed-up confused view of what is morality.
What is wrong with that.
Fact?
Note your sense of fact as noumenal which is illusory as explained above.
I have given an example of an objective moral fact, i.e. the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans which is a matter of fact and that can be verified by the science-biology FSK; when inputted into the moral FSK, it emerges as an objective moral fact.
Rubbish. There is no morality framework and system of
knowledge. You made that up. And neuroscientific facts have no moral entailment. If our programming with what you call oughtness-not-to-kill has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness, then it has nothing to do with morality, full stop.
That is shit thinking on your part.
I have explained above the essential of what is a FSK and why is it critical to support what is fact.
Moral facts emerged from a moral FSK.
neuroscientific facts when processed within a moral FSK enabled its related moral fact.
When the majority of humanity recognize the existence of the objective moral fact, i.e. the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans, and optimize it moral functions, all issues related to 'abortion' will be resolved optimally in time [in the future, of course not now].
Rubbish. The supposed moral fact that humans ought not to kill humans is already being used by Christian fascists to force people to carry a pregnancy to term. That's what the lie that there are moral facts enables. People who think there are moral facts
always think they know what those facts are, and can therefore feel justified in imposing the consequences of those facts on others. In the US, they're now talking about executing people who have abortions. But hey - there are moral facts!
Moral objectivism is an egotistical delusion with disguised but vicious implications. Opposing and overcoming the delusion is a moral imperative, in my opinion.
Strawman again.
But I have NEVER insisted 'what is a moral fact' must be enforced upon any individual.
Note, the Christians who claimed there are independent moral facts are claiming 'facts' in the same sense of 'your sense of what is fact -independent' which is illusory and commanded from an illusory God.
Christians are claiming moral facts based on a theological-FSK -conditioned upon an illusory God- which has ZERO degree of credibility, reliability and objectivity in contrast to the science-FSK.
On the other hand, I am claiming there are objective moral facts via a moral FSK which has inputs from the most credible and reliable scientific FSK, thus objective moral facts.
Whilst these are objective moral facts, they SHOULD NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER .. be enforced on any individual, but merely to be used as a GUIDE for moral progress.
I have argued why abortion SHOULD NOT be banned legally nor condemned.
I thought you insists there is no moral 'ought' from 'is' [Hume's]???
You are barking up the wrong tree!!
Note I posted;
There are TWO senses of Objectivity.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Real-true sense of objectivity
2. False sense of objectivity based on independence & concept of noumena
You are adopting a false sense of objectivity [2].
Thus, Moral objectivism [in your false sense of objectivity] is an egotistical delusion {possibly} with disguised but vicious implications.
My Moral Objectivism is based on a real and true sense of objectivity which is conditioned upon a credible and reliable human-based moral FSK.
The objective of my moral objectivism is to guide humanity towards ZERO evil acts, killing of humans, abortion, slavery, and all evil acts.
Of course, ZERO is an ideal, but the fact that humanity is striving towards the ideals [based on objective moral facts] will definitely induce continuous improvements from whatever the current status.