Morality: The Fact/Opinion Distinction

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Morality: The Fact/Opinion Distinction

Post by Arising_uk »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 10:27 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 8:54 pm Yep. Here's his definition: A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.
Peter, please show us how that works.

Here is a fact -----------> The color of this sentence is red.

Please show us the evidence to prove that the above fact is true.
But it wasn't Peter's definition?
Skepdick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Morality: The Fact/Opinion Distinction

Post by Skepdick »

Arising_uk wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 10:35 am But it wasn't Peter's definition?
It doesn't matter. How you define a "fact" is immaterial if I just showed you a fact - ostensively.

I've done that. If you agree that it's a particular example of a fact - then it should satisfy the definition you have for it.

And if the ostensive example I've given you doesn't satisfy the definition, then your definition is wrong - not the fact.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Morality: The Fact/Opinion Distinction

Post by Arising_uk »

Skepdick wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 10:39 am
Arising_uk wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 10:35 am But it wasn't Peter's definition?
It doesn't matter. How you define a "fact" is immaterial if I just showed you a fact - ostensively.

I've done that. If you agree that it's a particular example of a fact - then it should satisfy the definition you have for it.

And if the ostensive example I've given you doesn't satisfy the definition, then your definition is wrong - not the fact.
But he was giving his version of VA's definition so your question should at least be addressed to VA to see if VA agrees or not and if he does whether he can answer your example.
Skepdick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Morality: The Fact/Opinion Distinction

Post by Skepdick »

Arising_uk wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 1:15 pm But he was giving his version of VA's definition so your question should at least be addressed to VA to see if VA agrees or not and if he does whether he can answer your example.
Again, it doesn't matter. My example of a fact is a fact "independent of anybody's opinion and what we say about it" (as Peter insists).

Every definition/conception/theory-of-facts should be ostensively satisfiable by this -----> The color of this sentence is red

So there are only two hypotheses left (as far as I can tell):

A. If the exhibit doesn't satisfy the definition/conception for "factuality" - then the definition/conception is wrong.
B. The exhibit is not a fact.

If Peter is in camp B - let him commit himself.
If Peter is in camp A - let him provide the evidence and proof for the "factuality" of the exhibit.

I would prefer if he did the latter, so that we can finally put to rest the kind of proof-procedure he has in mind when he asks us to "prove factuality".
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Morality: The Fact/Opinion Distinction

Post by Arising_uk »

And if you're colour-blind?
Skepdick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Morality: The Fact/Opinion Distinction

Post by Skepdick »

Arising_uk wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 5:54 pm And if you're colour-blind?
We'll get to the edge/corner cases eventually.

It's really not about the color, it's about the self description. If you want, reword it to "The first letter of this sentence is T."
And if the person is blind - make a phonetic version.

If there are such thing as "true independent of opinion", this surely is close enough to the mark?

If you disagree, you can simply reject its factuality.
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue May 19, 2020 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Morality: The Fact/Opinion Distinction

Post by Peter Holmes »

I keep asking for an example of a moral fact - because I don't think such things exist. But here's what I think a moral fact would have to be.

A fact is either a state-of-affairs or a description of a state-of-affairs. So a moral fact, if there is such a thing, is either a moral state-of-affairs or a description of a moral state-of-affairs.

A state-of-affairs either is or isn't the case. So its existence is independent from what anyone believes or claims to know; and the truth-value of a factual assertion - one that asserts a state-of-affairs - is independent from what anyone believes or claims to know.

Moral realists and objectivists claim there are moral states-of-affairs whose existence is independent from what anyone believes or claims to know; that therefore moral assertions have a truth-value; and that their truth-value is independent from what anyone believes or claims to know. In short, they claim that there can be moral facts.

A moral realist or objectivist has to demonstrate the independent existence of a moral state-of-affairs, and therefore the truth of an assertion asserting that moral state-of-affairs. And theirs is the burden of proof - unmet, so far, in my opinion.

So, if you think there are moral facts, stop dodging and whingeing - and produce the goods. Or don't - because you realise you can't - and be rational and change your mind.
Skepdick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Morality: The Fact/Opinion Distinction

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 7:31 pm I keep asking for an example of a moral fact - because I don't think such things exist. But here's what I think a moral fact would have to be.
If your burden of proof can't even be met for regular facts (the kind you apparently accept), how might one go about meeting your burden for "moral facts" ?

How do I prove the factuality of this to you? ------> The color of this sentence is red

What proof-procedure would you accept?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2187
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Morality: The Fact/Opinion Distinction

Post by Sculptor »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 8:54 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 7:26 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 9:57 am But there's no logical entailment from 'Humans must breathe' to 'No human ought to prevent another human from breathing'.

All you do is claim there is a deductive entailment, but you never demonstrate it. So you haven't shown why the consequent is a fact.

Have a very deep. long think about it. And then, let's concentrate on this specific issue.
It's almost as if he does not understand the meaning of the words. I've tried again and again.
Yep. Here's his definition: A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.

And here's his example of a 'moral fact': No human ought to prevent another human from breathing.

Perhaps there's some hard-wired connection in his brain that makes him think the example fits the definition.
Children are brought up to associate "objective" with good, correct, reliable, even handed, unbias and true.
And brought up to associate "subjective", with bad, unreliable, incorrect, biased, and untrustworthy, even false.

It's just naive.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4600
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Morality: The Fact/Opinion Distinction

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 7:31 pm I keep asking for an example of a moral fact - because I don't think such things exist. But here's what I think a moral fact would have to be.

A fact is either a state-of-affairs or a description of a state-of-affairs. So a moral fact, if there is such a thing, is either a moral state-of-affairs or a description of a moral state-of-affairs.

A state-of-affairs either is or isn't the case. So its existence is independent from what anyone believes or claims to know; and the truth-value of a factual assertion - one that asserts a state-of-affairs - is independent from what anyone believes or claims to know.

Moral realists and objectivists claim there are moral states-of-affairs whose existence is independent from what anyone believes or claims to know; that therefore moral assertions have a truth-value; and that their truth-value is independent from what anyone believes or claims to know. In short, they claim that there can be moral facts.

A moral realist or objectivist has to demonstrate the independent existence of a moral state-of-affairs, and therefore the truth of an assertion asserting that moral state-of-affairs. And theirs is the burden of proof - unmet, so far, in my opinion.

So, if you think there are moral facts, stop dodging and whingeing - and produce the goods. Or don't - because you realise you can't - and be rational and change your mind.
You are ignorant what is morality in its full perspective.

I have already justified moral facts from empirical facts [possibly from other facts] supported by philosophical reasoning.

It is true empirical facts of nature cannot by default directly be moral facts.
However moral facts can be derived from empirical facts of nature and other facts from a specific Moral Framework.

Do you deny specific Framework of Knowledge generate their specific related facts.

I have listed this many times already but you just cannot see this '500 pound gorilla' in front or you;
A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.
For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star." is a cosmological fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
-wiki
The above specific fact are derived from their specific Framework of Knowledge, thus moral facts are derived from the specific Moral Framework.

You have not disputed the above?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4600
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Morality: The Fact/Opinion Distinction

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 11:02 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 8:54 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 7:26 pm
It's almost as if he does not understand the meaning of the words. I've tried again and again.
Yep. Here's his definition: A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.

And here's his example of a 'moral fact': No human ought to prevent another human from breathing.

Perhaps there's some hard-wired connection in his brain that makes him think the example fits the definition.
Children are brought up to associate "objective" with good, correct, reliable, even handed, unbias and true.
And brought up to associate "subjective", with bad, unreliable, incorrect, biased, and untrustworthy, even false.

It's just naive.
You are so ignorant to come up with the above statement.

Note the generally accepted definition of what is objective and what is fact here;
viewtopic.php?p=455958#p455958
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2187
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Morality: The Fact/Opinion Distinction

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 6:01 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 11:02 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 8:54 pm
Yep. Here's his definition: A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.

And here's his example of a 'moral fact': No human ought to prevent another human from breathing.

Perhaps there's some hard-wired connection in his brain that makes him think the example fits the definition.
Children are brought up to associate "objective" with good, correct, reliable, even handed, unbias and true.
And brought up to associate "subjective", with bad, unreliable, incorrect, biased, and untrustworthy, even false.

It's just naive.
You are so ignorant to come up with the above statement.

Note the generally accepted definition of what is objective and what is fact here;
viewtopic.php?p=455958#p455958
Please refer to the remark I made on the other thread.
Post Reply