Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:08 am Moral judgements and decisions have nothing to do with logic and mathematics, just as they have nothing to do with incompleteness - your previous ridiculous punt. Category error.

They can be stated as a valid yes/no question, can't they? So they are in identical form to decision problems!

Your ignorance of decision theory has lead you to a false assertion of "category error".

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:08 am 1 A fact is an accurate description of a feature of reality.

2 If a moral assertion is a fact, it must be an accurate description of a feature of reality.

3 A moral objectivist must be able to show the feature of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes.

4 If there are no such features of reality, so that there are no moral facts, morality isn't and can't be objective. End of.

Yes, I understand that this is the only way you know how to think about the world, but it's very limiting and I reject your religion.

Learn some mathematics - it'll expand your thinking.

1 A fact is an accurate description of a feature of reality.

2 If a moral assertion is a fact, it must be an accurate description of a feature of reality.

3 A moral objectivist must be able to show the feature of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes.

4 If there are no such features of reality, so that there are no moral facts, morality isn't and can't be objective. End of.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:17 am 1 A fact is an accurate description of a feature of reality.

2 If a moral assertion is a fact, it must be an accurate description of a feature of reality.

3 A moral objectivist must be able to show the feature of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes.

4 If there are no such features of reality, so that there are no moral facts, morality isn't and can't be objective. End of.

I reject your linguistic and epistemic prescritivism!

My analysis stands: you are trying to get to "objective morality" through deductive methods and that is misguided.

Good luck in your endeavors.

1 A fact is an accurate description of a feature of reality.

2 If a moral assertion is a fact, it must be an accurate description of a feature of reality.

3 A moral objectivist must be able to show the feature of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes.

4 If there are no such features of reality, so that there are no moral facts, morality isn't and can't be objective. End of.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:19 am 1 A fact is an accurate description of a feature of reality.

2 If a moral assertion is a fact, it must be an accurate description of a feature of reality.

3 A moral objectivist must be able to show the feature of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes.

4 If there are no such features of reality, so that there are no moral facts, morality isn't and can't be objective. End of.

Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make your religion true

Keep grasping, like any good dogmatist would!

1 A fact is an accurate description of a feature of reality.

2 If a moral assertion is a fact, it must be an accurate description of a feature of reality.

3 A moral objectivist must be able to show the feature of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes.

4 If there are no such features of reality, so that there are no moral facts, morality isn't and can't be objective. End of.

If anybody is still paying attention - observe how Peter is holding onto his beliefs for dear life. Reciting them like a prayer.

Cognitive dissonance is unpleasant, but it's necessary. You must reject everything you know before you can even begin to understand the human condition.

1 A fact is an accurate description of a feature of reality.

2 If a moral assertion is a fact, it must be an accurate description of a feature of reality.

3 A moral objectivist must be able to show the feature of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes.

4 If there are no such features of reality, so that there are no moral facts, morality isn't and can't be objective. End of.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:30 am 1 A fact is an accurate description of a feature of reality.

2 If a moral assertion is a fact, it must be an accurate description of a feature of reality.

3 A moral objectivist must be able to show the feature of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes.

4 If there are no such features of reality, so that there are no moral facts, morality isn't and can't be objective. End of.

Fact: Peter Holmes does not wish to be kicked in the testicles.
Moral truth: One should not kick Peter Holmes in the testicles.

Peter Holmes lacks the doxastic commitment to reject this.

1 A fact is an accurate description of a feature of reality.

2 If a moral assertion is a fact, it must be an accurate description of a feature of reality.

3 A moral objectivist must be able to show the feature of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes.

4 If there are no such features of reality, so that there are no moral facts, morality isn't and can't be objective. End of.

What and where is the feature of reality that is the wrongness of kicking me in the testicles? If it's a fact that it's wrong, there must be such a feature of reality. If there isn't - and of course there isn't - then it isn't a fact.

Fact: Peter Holmes does not wish to be poor.
Moral truth: Peter Holmes should not be poor.

Don't be absurd.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:39 am Fact: Peter Holmes does not wish to be poor.
Moral truth: Peter Holmes should not be poor.

Don't be absurd.

Why is that absurd, Peter?

People should not be poor is a moral truth. It is an objective social goal.
And "people are now significantly less poor than they were 100 years ago" is an objective fact!

Q.E.D https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:39 am What and where is the feature of reality that is the wrongness of kicking me in the testicles? If it's a fact that it's wrong, there must be such a feature of reality. If there isn't - and of course there isn't - then it isn't a fact.

In a typical linguistic perscriptivist fashion you are getting hung up on how we use language. Particularly when the meaning of that which we say isn't in line with how you insist that language should be used.

I am yet to hear you reject the truth-value of "One should not kick Peter in the testicles". You are nitpicking over whether it's a "fact" or not...

You are a linguistic prescriptivist, Peter. And you are in deep denial about this fact.

1 A fact is an accurate description of a feature of reality.

2 If a moral assertion is a fact, it must be an accurate description of a feature of reality.

3 A moral objectivist must be able to show the feature of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes.

4 If there are no such features of reality, so that there are no moral facts, morality isn't and can't be objective. End of.

Factual assertion: Some people eat animals and their products.

(True, so it's a fact.)

Moral assertion: Eating animals and their products is morally wrong.

(Not a factual assertion, so it has no truth value. Nothing in reality could verify or falsify it. It's a moral value-judgement. It can't be derived or deduced from the factual assertion, any more than could the moral assertion 'eating animals and their products is morally right'. From 'Peter doesn't want to be kicked in the testicles', you can't derive 'Kicking Peter in the testicles is morally wrong'. There's no logical connection.)

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:26 pm Not a factual assertion, so it has no truth value.

Do you reject the premise that "One should not kick Peter Holmes in the testicles." has truth value?

All I am asking is a yes or no.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:26 pm From 'Peter doesn't want to be kicked in the testicles', you can't derive 'Kicking Peter in the testicles is morally wrong'. There's no logical connection.

It seems to me that you are using the phrase "logical connection" to mean "deductive connection". You would be correct. But deductive methods are not the only way to get to truth.

Statistical/mathematical/scientific methods are all about induction.

As I called it out quite a few posts back if you are trying to get to "objective morality" only via deductive methods, then - good luck on your endeavour.

1 A fact is an accurate description of a feature of reality.

2 If a moral assertion is a fact, it must be an accurate description of a feature of reality.

3 A moral objectivist must be able to show the feature of reality that a supposed moral fact supposedly describes.

4 If there are no such features of reality, so that there are no moral facts, morality isn't and can't be objective. End of.

The moral assertion 'One should not kick PH in the testicles' has no truth-value, because 'the wrongness of kicking PH in the testicles' is not a feature of reality that may or may not exist. In the same way, the moral wrongness (or rightness) of eating animals isn't a thing that may or may not exist. Or do you think it is? (Another question you won't address directly, because it inconveniently exposes the fallacy of moral objectivism.)