Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 6:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 5:28 am
Any response to my post?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 7:54 am
Yes, your fact "that stick is 1 meter long" is independent of individuals' beliefs and opinion, but it is not independent of the collective opinion of those subjects who set and agree to what one meter is to be as the STANDARD METER.
Therefore what you think is an objective fact with truth-value independent of individuals opinions and belief, is fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective with the consensus of subjects.
The length (indeed, the existence) of the stick is independent from any description. But a factual assertion - and therefore a linguistic fact - can be produced only within a description - a descriptive context.
So we have two different things: the feature of reality being described (the stick); and the way of describing it. Having agreed - by intersubjcetive consensus - how to describe things - the signs and criteria - we are then confronted with the thing we want to describe - the stick.
And at that point the subjectivity of the means of description is no longer what matters. What matters is the actual stick and its actual length. And that's where opinion is irrelevant. The stick either is or isn't 1m long. Its length isn't fundamentally subjective. (That's fashionable, post-modern, post-truth claptrap.)
Don't simply throw labels at me. I belong to none of those but in this case I rely heavily on evidence and rational critical thinking.
I have already explained to you, "that the stick is 1m long" is conditioned upon the Framework of the Metric System, where upon the metre is a standard pre-agreed
by subjects intersubjectively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre
Yes, it is independent of individuals' opinions and belief but "that the stick is 1m long" is grounded on the collective agreements of subjects, thus it's length whilst objective to the standard pre-agreed must be ultimately subjective.
Is there really "an actual length" of the stick in the absolute sense?
It's objective length can be measured relatively by subjects in meter [metric system] or inches/feet [imperial system]. In this sense, what is the actual length is independent of opinions but yet fundamentally it is subjective.
To measure length, one must determine which is one end and which is the other end, the medium to measure on and what tools of measurement to use. The easiest is to use some kind of ruler or measuring tape but is this the true length? The length would different if we measure the outermost electrons
[always moving around] at both ends that belongs to the stick and this will pose a problem.
Therefore there is no absolute "actual length" of a stick except it depend on the context [Framework and System of measurements] which the subjects agreed upon, thus 'what is length of the stick' is ultimately conditions upon subjects.
Is there really "an actual stick" in the absolute sense?
Again what is the actual stick is relative to the perspective the subject[s] agree upon, either it is upon the common sense, the conventional, or the scientific sense [classical, Einsteinian or QM].
Conventionally and common sense, a stick in this case, I presume a part of a tree. But to be more truthful that stick is a cluster of cellulose, or can be defined in term of the structure and number of atoms, electrons or protons.
So my point, whatever you insist is an objective 'fact' and its referent is conditioned upon subjects, i.e. intersubjective.
In addition, I content there is no pre-existing reference to be factualized but rather whatever is the referent of the fact is an emergence that co-emerged with subjects.
Prove [with evidence and critical thinking] I am wrong on the above?
Now, show why eating animals either is or isn't morally wrong - and why - in the way that the stick either is or isn't 1m long. Is the moral rightness or wrongness of slavery a feature of reality independent from opinion, in the way the length of the stick is a feature of reality independent from opinion?
That the stick is or isn't 1m long is dependent of a Framework and System of Measurements.
Similarly, that eating animals either is or isn't morally wrong is dependent of a Framework and System of Morality.
Fact: people need to breathe. Opinion: people should be allowed to breathe; people ought not to be deprived of air. And so on.
Now, SHOW the logical connection, the entailment, between the fact and the opinion. Just blathering about a moral framework in which there are moral facts WON'T DO. SHOW why denying the opinion produces a logical contradiction: people need to breathe; people should not be allowed to breathe. Why is that a contradiction?
Where a fact is determined exclusively from the Scientific Framework and System, by default there is no entailment or relation to values. This is because the Scientific Framework by definition do not deal with values.
However with the Framework and System of Morality, moral facts of values are justified from other facts [scientific and others] and supported with philosophical reasoning.
What you are ignorant is a Framework and System of Morality do exists just like Framework and System of Knowledge for Legal, political, astronomy, Science, Physics [.. I have explained this before - even op up OP to get into the details] but you just ignore them without offering any counter arguments.
In addition, you are ignorant of 'what is morality-proper'.