Ownness (sumthin' short, pithy, and raw; red meat)

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is why your description of morality does not cover the actual thing, it's a substitute, or at best a minimal subset of the proper thing.

You can take a nasy vegan paste and make fake bacon out of it and call that "Bacon Proper", but it's still a shit and insubstantial alternative to the actual thing. Just calling it "proper" does nothing to change the fact that it is visibly inferior and fake. The same goes for all of your utterly shit "proper" alternatives. Your "philosophy-proper" is fake sad and usless, your "morality-proper" is hopelessly inadequate.

If you want to base morality on fact, use actual morality. If you can't do that, quit lying to yourself about whatever fake substitute shit you can do being "proper"

I had stated 'morality-proper' is dealt via the Moral Framework and System which generate specifically moral facts.

"Morality-proper" is an artificial creation you made up because actual morality - the thing we actually have - doesn't operate on a factual basis. You are not explaining the factual basis of actual morality with any of this, and your manufactured "morality-proper" is simply an admission of failure with reagards to morality as it actually is.

NOPE!
At present I am doing a survey of the 'definition of morality' and cannot find anything definitive.
Morality is a very loose term which is not well defined and is mixed up with 'Ethics' by many. This is why I have to use 'morality-proper' to reflect the real function of 'what is morality' that is ongoing in the human brain.

There are loads of research on this, here is one example among the many;

• Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
  Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

You have not even define what is morality and what you think is 'fact' is ultimately 'fart'.

See this OP of mine,

• What is Fact
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

You have given any sound counter to the above but stuck to your dogmatic fart-fact.

Morality-proper is actual morality that is existing as real in operation within the brain of humans, thus there are real moral facts [states-of-affair] as justified via empirical evidence supported by philosophical reasoning.

The Platonists, the theists claimed theirs are real morality but without any grounded justifications.
Your supposedly 'actual real morality' is very relative and ungrounded, thus it could be evil laden, like the "Morality" of Islam.

Morality-proper is also confined to the human species only.

Thus making it an inferior knock off of the real thing, which does. Or more specifically, does if we have moral care on behalf of those animanls.

As I had stated what is 'real morality' to you could easily be evil laden when you don't have grounds to justify 'your morality' is sound and positive for the well-beings of individuals and humanity.

If you do not agree,
then,
justify why it is moral when you and other humans are killing so many living things from non-human species, e.g. viruses, bacteria, one-cell living things, insects, fishes, etc.

That isn't how it works. Moral realists like you feel the need to make morality some neat and tidy thing, with factual answers available for every question.
The underlying rationale for moral anti-realists such as myself is that this is an attempt to see patterns in chaos.

The history of our moral interactions within others, if you look at it descriptively, is largely a matter of us (the insiders in any particular case) extending the scope of our moral concern very slowly. Couple of hundred years ago, people like you and Henry said moral concern for slaves was misplaced, they didn't qualify in just the same way you both deny it for animals today.

You are merely making noises above.

Seeing patterns in chaos without any grounding will end up with more chaos and promoting more evil.
How do you justify morally why it is morally wrong for you to kill and rape your kin or anyone?

You have not addressed my question, i.e.
"justify why it is moral when you and other humans are killing so many living things from non-human species, e.g. viruses, bacteria, one-cell living things, insects, fishes, etc."
and
where do you draw the line?

When you take antibiotics you are also killing tons of good symbiotic bacteria in your lower intestines, how do you justify that morally in terms of your idea of morality?
Note the extreme of the Jains who covered their mouth just in case they kill any insects that fly into their mouths - this is stupid altruism.

So you say, buy they say moral fact and their moral fact is just as credible as yours.

'They' ?? surely you are not referring to living non-humans.

As for the Jains, they don't have any grounds other than promoting empathy and compassion to the extreme and blindly which is irrational, unwise and stupid.
This how [..I mentioned somewhere] a few stupid men [altruistic full of empathy and compassion] died trying to save a dog in a stormy sea.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So when you describe Vestibule Aquafresh's version as just a little misplaced because of intersubjectivity, what I see is a blundering fucknut attempting to create the new Stalinism where a collection of "experts" defines what moral fact is, and then everybody who does not agree needs re-educating. Presumably he thinks typing "TO BE USED AS A GUIDE ONLY!!!" in all caps a lot makes some sort of difference to that.

Noises and Strawman as usual.

Note the main justified true moral facts to be used as a standard and GUIDE ONLY, i.e.
-"no human ought to kill another human"
-"no human ought to enslave [as chattel] another human"
surely will not fit into any 'Stalinistic' ideology.

I claimed my Framework and System of Morality & Ethics will rely on the above justified moral standards to GUIDE continual and progressive improvements towards the ideal moral standards.

On the other hand, your 'morality' without any justified moral objectives will permit you and others to kill and enslave another human since there is no ceiling standard to guide/steer them.

If your facts don't demonstrate that Vertical Octopus is clearly wrong, then we have a problem because that's pretty much what facts are for, showing what we should hold as true and false. If your appeal to "fact" is only there to make you feel that your opinion on Visible Inkytits' mistakes is justified by something, that's kind of a misuse of the F word. our collection of moral realists has been reluctant thus far to aknowledge that we have a use for facts, and anything that cannot be used in such manner is not actually a fact.

I had argued you had bastardized the term 'fact' and 'factual' via Analytic Philosophy and Philosophical [unrealistic] Realism.

Prove to me there is an absolute referent-in-itself that is representing your supposedly 'fact' or rather 'fart'?

[FlashDangerpants]

So when you describe Vestibule Aquafresh's version as just a little misplaced because of intersubjectivity, what I see is a blundering fucknut attempting to create the new Stalinism where a collection of "experts" defines what moral fact is, and then everybody who does not agree needs re-educating. Presumably he thinks typing "TO BE USED AS A GUIDE ONLY!!!" in all caps a lot makes some sort of difference to that.

Noises and Strawman as usual.

Note the main justified true moral facts to be used as a standard and GUIDE ONLY, i.e.
-"no human ought to kill another human"
-"no human ought to enslave [as chattel] another human"
surely will not fit into any 'Stalinistic' ideology.

I claimed my Framework and System of Morality & Ethics will rely on the above justified moral standards to GUIDE continual and progressive improvements towards the ideal moral standards.

Your science of ethics, to be used as GUID to reeducation of the morally defective, in exactly the same Stalin used the bolshevik science of history as a GUIDE to the reeductaion of the politically deffective.

You aren't engaged in a pluralist effort here, you are aiming to fix everyone who doesn't agree with your orthodoxy. You're a totalitarian.

On the other hand, your 'morality' without any justified moral objectives will permit you and others to kill and enslave another human since there is no ceiling standard to guide/steer them.

Well, actual messy human morality allowed that, I don't own it, I just noticed it. My morality doesn't allow me to kill or enslave.

Yours allows you to have sex with your own dead grandma just as soon as she's dead though and then to make her dog lick your genitals clean afterwards, becasue you have no ceiling for that. So your point isn't looking impressive.

If your facts don't demonstrate that Vertical Octopus is clearly wrong, then we have a problem because that's pretty much what facts are for, showing what we should hold as true and false. If your appeal to "fact" is only there to make you feel that your opinion on Visible Inkytits' mistakes is justified by something, that's kind of a misuse of the F word. our collection of moral realists has been reluctant thus far to aknowledge that we have a use for facts, and anything that cannot be used in such manner is not actually a fact.

I had argued you had bastardized the term 'fact' and 'factual' via Analytic Philosophy and Philosophical [unrealistic] Realism.

Prove to me there is an absolute referent-in-itself that is representing your supposedly 'fact' or rather 'fart'?

And I ignored that as a supid and pointless escapade. You and Henry both claim to be weilding moral fact, but your comments on each others facts is just that you don't agree with them. Which is opinion. Why is your fact not able to demonstrate that his is mistaken?

[Skepdick]

And I ignored that as a supid and pointless escapade. You and Henry both claim to be weilding moral fact, but your comments on each others facts is just that you don't agree with them. Which is opinion. Why is your fact not able to demonstrate that his is mistaken?

Why is Quantum Physics not able to demonstrate that the facts of General relativity are mistaken?
Why is General Relativity not able to demonstrate the facts of Quantum Physics are mistaken?

Since nobody can reconcile Quantum Gravity or agree, then all of physics must be an opinion too?

That's why you are an idiot-philosopher. You think lack of universal consensus implies lack of factuality.

[FlashDangerpants]

See Henry and Veritas, is that you want for your moral 'fact'? You just want to end up like Skepdick?
No, you want your fact to do the thing that facts actually do, which is resolve ambiguity, that's been the whole of what you two both pretend your doing.

Both are failing if you cannot resolve the fact that you are both proposing as fact that the other guy's fact is wrong.

[Skepdick]

See Veritas, is that you want for your moral 'fact'? You just want to end up like Skepdick?

It's a valid question.

If science leads me to objective morality and philosophy leads you to nihilism, doesn't that suggest Philosophy is an immoral framework?

If you want to be a nihilist (like FlashDangerpants) - choose Philosophy.
If you want to be a moralist (like Skepdick) - choose Science.

If you haven't made up your mind on the matter, consider whether you want your doctor to be philosophers or scientists. Where curing or killing patients is subject to opinion.

you want your fact to do the thing that facts actually do, which is resolve ambiguity

That's why you are a fucking idiot. Ambiguity is a property of language.

Facts can't fix language for you - you need to navigate around that all by yourself. Communication skills and all that...

Both are failing if you cannot resolve the fact that you are both proposing as fact that the other guy's fact is wrong.

Q.E.D What the fuck do you mean by "wrong"? Are you using it in the moral sense; or are you equivocating?

But if you have any good ideas, a few places working on Natural Language Processing are hiring people to solve the WSD problem deterministically (read: unambiguously).

[henry quirk]

See Henry and Veritas, is that you want for your moral 'fact'? You just want to end up like Skepdick?

When Skep sez, You think lack of universal consensus implies lack of factuality, he ain't wrong.

[henry quirk]

You and Henry both claim to be weilding moral fact, but your comments on each others facts is just that you don't agree with them.

It's called bein' civilized. Neither of us have good cause to go at the other with a razor.

Sure as shit: we ain't gonna war just cuz you say we should.

[FlashDangerpants]

See Henry and Veritas, is that you want for your moral 'fact'? You just want to end up like Skepdick?

When Skep sez, You think lack of universal consensus implies lack of factuality, he ain't wrong.

Sure, but he as always is referring to an area of study where there are already many demonstrated facts, and the ones he is referencing are up in the air while people work out what the relevant facts for this set of objects might look like. They will resolve their contradictions by discovering the actual facts of the case.

That's what facts do. They resolve ambiguity.

[FlashDangerpants]

You and Henry both claim to be weilding moral fact, but your comments on each others facts is just that you don't agree with them.

It's called bein' civilized. Neither of us have good cause to go at the other with a razor.

Sure as shit: we ain't gonna war just cuz you say we should.

You don't have to smash his head in with a hammer, that's not a very useful way of arguing such a point. You should be able to explain how your own facts can be tested and show his facts to be in error. You have asserted certain things as facts, and he has asserted certain things as facts. So show them to be facts if you can. Otherwise they are postulates at best.

[Skepdick]

You don't have to smash his head in with a hammer, that's not a very useful way of arguing such a point. You should be able to explain how your own facts can be tested and show his facts to be in error. You have asserted certain things as facts, and he has asserted certain things as facts. So show them to be facts if you can. Otherwise they are postulates at best.

I've told you, over and over again how to test the objectivity of moral facts.

Society is better in 2020 AD than it was in 2000 BC. If you can make that determination then morality is objective.

Or you can be a good relativist and surrender the word "better" from your vocabulary and ask erudite questions like "Society may be different now than it was 4000 years ago, but is it actually better?"

The way to show that self-ownership is a moral fact is trivially testable. At no point in future will slavery be enshrined in a constitution/law/whatever other mechanism we use to codify our justice systems in. After a few Hegelian iterations (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) a consensus will be reached and the "controversy" will be recorded in the history books so future generations don't end up repeating the mistakes of the past.

And now I suspect you will nitpick the semantics of "slavery" with a Slavic person (me).

[henry quirk]

You should be able to explain how your own facts can be tested

That's in my openin' post (see for yourself, if you can stomach my flowery language & non-philo/non-formal approach).


and show his facts to be in error.

Yeah, that just sounds like you tryin' to get Skep, VA and me to flail away at one another.

Fact is: VA, Skep, and me agree that moral fact can be derived from fact, by reason alone if necessary. In a discussion among ourselves alone, we might break out the razors. But we're not alone; we're mixin' it up with subjectivists & anti-realists.

Really, if I'm gonna tussle, I'm gonna tussle with the obvious opposition, not with the guys I share broad principles with.

[FlashDangerpants]

You don't have to smash his head in with a hammer, that's not a very useful way of arguing such a point. You should be able to explain how your own facts can be tested and show his facts to be in error. You have asserted certain things as facts, and he has asserted certain things as facts. So show them to be facts if you can. Otherwise they are postulates at best.

I've told you, over and over again how to test the objectivity of moral facts.

Society is better in 2020 AD than it was in 2000 BC. If you can make that determination then morality is objective.

Better isn't objective. That's just fucking stupid.

[FlashDangerpants]

You should be able to explain how your own facts can be tested

That's in my openin' post (see for yourself, if you can stomach my flowery language & non-philo/non-formal approach).


and show his facts to be in error.

Yeah, that just sounds like you tryin' to get Skep, VA and me to flail away at one another.

Fact is: VA, Skep, and me agree that moral fact can be derived from fact, by reason alone if necessary. In a discussion among ourselves alone, we might break out the razors. But we're not alone; we're mixin' it up with subjectivists & anti-realists.

Really, if I'm gonna tussle, I'm gonna tussle with the obvious opposition, not with the guys I share broad principles with.

Your opening post doesn't express any actual facts, it's hazily defined assumptions that you have consistently refused to explain.
Veitas's argument in support of his own version of thou shalt not kill is deductively unsound.
Every attempt any of you has made to derive an ought from an is has been an ought from an ought and an is (see Skepdick's latest lame attempt above)

All of your stuff has been an expression of your opinions, and when it comes to showing that your facts can do the only thing that opinions don't do ... you bottle it.

[Lacewing]

The way to show that self-ownership is a moral fact is trivially testable. At no point in future will slavery be enshrined in a constitution/law/whatever other mechanism we use to codify our justice systems in.

...future generations don't end up repeating the mistakes of the past.

It does not have to "look" the same as the past. We repeat all kinds of mistakes... they just look different. Many people are routinely subjugated (by societal pressures/ignorance, corporate/business abuses, government control, etc.) and/or sold into slavery (by sex traffickers, child laborers, religious cults, etc.).

Being self-owned only goes so far -- and thinking we are may be part of the programming.