Thanks for the trouble you taken. I think you're mistaken about the main issues here - but you don't seem to want to address the problems in your argument, or even notice when I point them out.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:42 amYou got it wrong and missed a critical criteria, i.e. 'justified'.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:02 amIt's a (common) mistake because it misconstrues the nature of subjectivity, which is dependence on opinion - so it simultaneously misconstrues the nature of objectivity, which is independence from opinion. The number of people holding an opinion - from one individual to everyone in the world - is completely irrelevant with regard to that distinction, because it remains an opinion how ever many people hold it. By contrast, the objectivity of a claim, and its truth-value, is completely independent from opinion: if a feature of reality exists, a claim asserting it is true regardless of how many people think it's true - from no one to everyone in the world.
Note the most important criteria, i.e. "justified".
- The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:
S knows that p iff
p is true;
S believes that p;
S is justified in believing that p.
There is no standalone independent facts without being subject to the above.
- 1. Whatever is expressed by an individual subject without justifications is an opinion.
2. If that opinion is sufficiently justified [not to the level of 3] by the individual or group, it is a belief, e.g. God exists.
3. If the belief is justified fully as per a credible Framework that enable testing, repetitive verification, it is knowledge, e.g. scientific knowledge from the basis of the Scientific Method, peer review, etc.
- Example of Justified True Belief;
Note, when Einstein first had a glimpse of his E=MC2, it was merely his opinion and that equation can only be an opinion from Einstein. [highly subjective]. This is the stage of abductive inference and hypothesizing.
When Einstein had personally justified his E=MC2 on paper and is satisfied by his personal standard, then, it is a belief, i.e. based his own proofs and personal conviction. [less subjective and some objectivity]
E=MC2 is only knowledge, i.e. justified true belief when Einstein's E=MC2 was verified and accepted by his peers and proven empirically.It is still ignorance, note my point above.No, I'm pointing out a common misunderstanding.Seem you are starting with a serious degree of ignorance.
Where is the muddle where I claim scientific knowledge [as explained above] are Justified True Belief as conditioned upon the Scientific Framework [of scientific principles and methods, peer review, etc.]The JTB is a conceptual mess. For a start, the idea of propositional knowledge conflates what we know with what we say about it - and they're completely different things. Knowing a feature of reality is the case has nothing to do with a proposition, and so nothing to do with truth or falsehood, which are properties only of propositions. So the JTB truth condition - S knows that p iff p is true - is ridiculous. And besides, a belief isn't true or false anyway, so 'true belief' is a grammatical misattribution. The word 'true' here actually refers to an unstated factual assertion.JTB is not seriously wrong!
Yes, there is the Gettier problem but that is insignificant to the acquisition and application of useful knowledge as in Science. Scientific knowledge is JTB, you dispute that?
Gettier merely recycled the muddle in the JTB - so he contributed to maintaining the muddle.
Slavery is morally wrong because of the sufferings from 1-4 above which are sufficient justifications why slavery ought not to be condoned.But try completing the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong because ...' without begging the question. Can't be done.Nope. Note Wrong is the opposite of Right.QED. The only argument for the claim 'slavery is morally wrong' is that it entails other things that are morally wrong. Perhaps you can see that this is to beg the question.
Are you saying, water is soft because it is not hard [opposite]?
It would be dumb for you to agree to the above.
In this case, 'slavery is morally wrong' is well justified and grounded empirically, thus objective.
'No one wants to be a slave' (factual claim as justified) - 'so slavery is morally wrong' (moral claim).'No one wants to be a slave' (factual claim) - 'so slavery is morally wrong' (moral claim). Why does the second claim follow from the first?
'Everyone wants to be a slave' (factual claim) - 'so slavery is morally right' (moral claim). Would the second claim also follow from the first?
Re your 'Everyone wants to be a slave' (factual claim) - 'so slavery is morally right' (moral claim).
Where is your justification for this that everyone wants to be enslaved as a slave?Yes, if everyone wanted to be a slave [is] and IF that "is" is justified, then it can be an 'ought'.You miss my point. I'm showing that an 'is' can't entail an 'ought'. If everyone wanted to be a slave (an 'is' - a fact), it wouldn't follow that slavery is morally right. And, pari passu, if no one wanted to be a slave, it wouldn't follow that slavery is morally wrong.
But 'wanting to be a slave by all humans' cannot be justified as true.
Note my OP;
'Ought' from 'Is' is Possible
I have justified the above with rational arguments.VA wrote:From the above, it is therefore an objective fact, 'Slavery is morally evil".
Whatever is evil and not good, i.e. morally wrong.
Therefore it is the facts within the universe that conclude 'Slavery is morally wrong' and that is objective.
You did not provide any justified counters at all.
At most, you would claim, 'Slavery is morally right' because God said so as in the Bible or
God is the only entity that can hand down objective moral laws, but,
Note God is an impossibility and an illusion, thus your proposition is ungrounded.
God is an impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704My argument is 'Absolute Moral Laws" are justifiable and necessary for an efficient Moral and Ethical Framework, but to be applied as guides only. This is 90% Kantian.Please. I'm an atheist and an anti-theist, partly motivated by my desire to show that morality can't be objective, so that the argument from objective morality to the existence of a god is unsound, because the premise is false. (That if it were true would demolish the apologetic argument anyway is an entertaining irony.)
Meanwhile I argue;
God is an impossibility
therefore there is no question of a God to issue any Absolute Moral Law to be enforced on believers via the threat of hellfire on non-compliance with God's absolute moral laws.
And that's fine. We'll have to agree to differ. Cheers.