It is a waste of time to repeat my answers SO MANY times but your skull is so thick that no philosophical sense can get through in this case.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:48 amSo you recognise there is indeed a difference between an assertion expressing a value-judgement, and a factual assertion. An opinion - in this case, a value-judgement - can be based on facts and knowledge - but it remains an opinion. You don't seem to grasp the fact that a justification is just a reason for believing or claiming something. A moral opinion justified by facts and sound argument doesn't therefore become a fact.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:14 amThe idea of 'moral opinion' is merely a derogatory term introduced by some low class moral philosophers.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:16 amSo you can't show how a moral assertion can follow logically from a factual assertion. So you can see why your appeal to reason and evidence is incoherent. Whatever facts and arguments we deploy to justify a moral opinion, it remains an opinion - by definition. And others can deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify different a moral opinion. And that's our moral predicament.
Your idea of an "opinion" is false;
I have presented this many times;
Opinion= a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
The moral fact I presented is justified from scientific facts, other knowledge and philosophical reasoning.Okay, do what I ask - show how a there can be a moral fact in a normative ethical context. Ffs.Are you sure you understand Normative Ethics thoroughly?Btw, if you think induction can ride to the rescue, please show how a factual premise can induce a moral conclusion. (I assure you, you won't be able to - but you still haven't cracked the conceptual problem - recognised the category error - so feel free to find out for yourself.)
Btw, if you think a normative approach can demonstrate the existence of moral facts, please show an example. (You'll find it doesn't.)
I don't believe you do.Please think. We can conclude inductively - by asking lots of people - that people don't want to be suffocated. But all we have then is the (inductive) fact that people don't want to be suffocated. It doesn't follow that it's morally wrong to suffocate people. You keep missing the break - bridging over it - pretending it isn't there. We can't demonstrate by induction, anymore than by deduction, that X is morally wrong.
Re induction, as I had demonstrated, you can do a test and ask every normal human whether they will volunteer to be stopped from breathing till they die.
Any normal person will arrive at the same answer intuitively and this can be confirmed by induction.
Would you dispute this?And I've shown clearly and repeatedly why you haven't demonstrated the existence of moral facts. So there. Ner, ner, ner-ner, ner.
In addition I have introduced philosophical reasoning to support how I have arrived at the moral conclusion, i.e. a moral fact or moral standard.What about astrology? Can that generate astrological facts? If you think it can't, ask yourself why it can't. And how can we tell it can't?
I had also argued, if other various types of Framework and System can generate their respective facts, why can a Framework and System of Morality generate moral facts?
Just a note on Astrology.
I have demonstrated the continuum from opinion to beliefs to Knowledge [Justified True Beliefs].
Note, on color continuum it is true, White could be 0.001% black -99.999 white, grey = 50% black 50% white, and Black = 0.001% white.
On this term, there is a continuum of fact with degrees of veracity from 0/100 [opinions] to 99.9/100 [JTB].
As such Astrological fact has a 0.001% of veracity & 99.999 falsehoods. Divine fact such as God exists, imo, is 0/100 degree of veracity.
Note I had stated your use of 'fact' is too dogmatic. When you read the term 'fact' you spontaneously associate the term 'fact' with your bias screwed up definition of 'what is fact'.
Suggest you read up extensively on 'Normative Ethics' to understand there are normative 'moral' facts and truths which are conditioned within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Here is some points from Korsgaard re Normative Ethics;
The above is what morality-proper represent in contrast to your screwed up definition of 'what is fact' and 'objectivity'.Korsgaard wrote:Moral principles could be shown to be principles of practical reasoning that are based on the nature of the will and yield conclusions about what we ought to do.
There are then facts, moral truths, about what we ought to do, but that is not because the actions are intrinsically normative.
They [facts and moral truths] inherit their normativity from principles that spring from the nature of the will - the principles of practical reasoning.
.... [there are] philosophers who reject the idea that knowledge is what we need for normativity and put something more like confidence in its place.
According to these philosophers, morality is not grounded in our apprehension of truths about objective values.
It [morality] is grounded in human nature and certain natural human sentiments [e.g. Hume].
The normative question is then whether it is good to have such a nature and to yield to its claims.
Normativity will be established, not by knowledge, but by our own reflective endorsement of our moral nature.
Hume relied on human sentiments but his argument for morality is not solid enough. There are other philosophers who had improved on Hume version of morality.