What is a Fact?

[Skepdick]

Please prove a SINGLE "OUGHT from an empirical "IS" without an opinion. Go on I challenge you.

Doctor: Your test results arrived. Looks like you have cancer. We ought to treat it.

Got any harder "challenges" ?

[Sculptor]

Once again what you are failing to consider is the value system which you inevitably have to insert BETWEEN the evidence and the moral code; the opinion with which you decide the OUGHT based on the the IS.
Until you are honest about your values and you opinions everything you do is rubbish.

This is basically what everyone is telling you.
Your failure to acknowledge your values and your opinion is not NORMAL.
You are failing to use the most basic cognitive faculty.

Idiot. The value-system is an objective, historical fact. The moral code is an objective, historical fact.

What a amusing thing to claim on Juneteenth Day!!
Yes, historically slavery was "objectively" right. And seen as the moral duty of all Greeks to enslave Barbarians.
That particular "value" stopped being so Objectively true in 1807, when the trade was made illegal on the high seas by the British Empire.

[Skepdick]

What a amusing thing to claim on Juneteenth Day!!
Yes, historically slavery was "objectively" right. And seen as the moral duty of all Greeks to enslave Barbarians.
That particular "value" stopped being so Objectively true in 1807, when the trade was made illegal on the high seas by the British Empire.

Key word WAS.

And then it all changed. Somehow.

What could have possibly CAUSED any change if you can't derive an OUGHT from an IS?

Your conceptual framework has absolutely no way of accounting for downward causation and systemic adaptation.

Facts cause values and values cause facts. That's how feedback loops work!

[Sculptor]

What a amusing thing to claim on Juneteenth Day!!
Yes, historically slavery was "objectively" right. And seen as the moral duty of all Greeks to enslave Barbarians.
That particular "value" stopped being so Objectively true in 1807, when the trade was made illegal on the high seas by the British Empire.

Key word WAS.

And then it all changed. Somehow.

LOL
"Somehow"??? Oh ah objective moral fact just stopped being objectively true!!
THAT IS F UCKING priceless.

[Skepdick]

LOL
"Somehow"??? Oh ah objective moral fact just stopped being objectively true!!
THAT IS F UCKING priceless.

Yes. Facts can change. Do you not know this?

If you want facts that don't change join a religion. Oh, wait! You already have... Philosophy.

[VVilliam]

From the above it is obvious 'what is fact' is relative to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
Note in the case, facts of history are facts nevertheless but they are very subjective and depend on intersubjective consensus.
If such is the case, why is the dispute and rejection of moral facts which are more soundly justified than historical facts?

Thus;

• P1 'What is fact' is relative to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
  P2 Morality is managed via a specific Framework and System of Morality
  C1 Therefore Moral facts exists as justified and derived from a specific Framework and System of Morality

From the above who would still insist there are not moral facts which are justified and derived from a specific Framework and System of Morality

It may have already been pointed out, but in most cases, facts are subject to change. In relation to Framework and System of Knowledge facts change as more knowledge is acquired.
If there is a Framework and System of Morality it is therefore a subset of the Framework and System of Knowledge as it too gets information and from that, knowledge.
And obviously morality [re Framework and System of Morality] is subject to change, as historical facts verify.

( What are the [other] facts about morality?)

Facts are like lose stones in the river of human experience [data].

All morality is justified, even if some morality contradicts other morality.

It appears to be factual that morality can be contradictory.

In the case of many types of fact, it is prudent to understand that facts on their own are subject to misinterpretation, which renders such facts as more non factual when viewed/used as such...hence the phrase "Let the facts speak for themselves" - Since they can't, then be aware [beware] of simply using ones inner voice or relying on eternal voices to 'fill in the gaps' for you...if one wants to get it right steer a course away from misinterpretation.

This is not to say one shouldn't develop their own interpretations or not listen to other interpretations. This is to say "avoid bandwagons or use of off-handed/hand waving rejections. "

Remain Agnostic in relation to facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is basically what everyone is telling you.
Your failure to acknowledge your values and your opinion is not NORMAL.
You are failing to use the most basic cognitive faculty.
When the rest of the world is telling you that you are wrong maybe its time to stop talking and start listening.

Everyone?? Rest of the world?

Tut tut - megalomania too??
No, idiot everyone on the Forum. You think too much of yourself - which is perhaps part of the problem.

Everyone in this Forum??
Are you definitely sure or are you lying?
I noted it only you, Peter Holmes & Flasherpants, [& a very few] who disagree with my views and that is not the majority.

Please prove a SINGLE "OUGHT from an empirical "IS" without an opinion. Go on I challenge you.

I have done this many times.

• Opinion:
  1. A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

I had also introduced the continuum of veracity from opinion [low] to beliefs to knowledge/facts [high]

Here is the argument;

A. From common sense and the Scientific Framework and System;

• 1. All humans breathe - empirical fact
  2. All human ought to breathe else they will die - empirical biological fact.

The above ought is not an opinion[as defined] but an obvious fact independent of anyone's opinions and beliefs.

Your challenge is therefore defeated.

B. From the Moral Framework and System.

• Facts from the Scientific Framework and System
  1. All humans breathe - empirical fact
  2. All human ought to breathe else they will die - empirical biological fact.
  Applying the Principles of Universality & others;
  3. No human ought to stop another from breathing till they die - moral fact.

The above moral fact is derived from the Moral Framework and System.
I emphasize again [many times already] the above moral fact is merely a GUIDE and is NOT enforceable nor to be imposed upon any individual.

I say again, you are ignorant of the latest knowledge 'what is morality proper' do more research and reading on the subject.

You missed this point of mine that stated your logico-lingual perspective to ethics is outdated?
re:
Toward Fin de siecle Ethics: Some Trends
Darwall, Gibbard, and Railton 1992
viewtopic.php?p=459419#p459419

[Veritas Aequitas]

From the above it is obvious 'what is fact' is relative to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
Note in the case, facts of history are facts nevertheless but they are very subjective and depend on intersubjective consensus.
If such is the case, why is the dispute and rejection of moral facts which are more soundly justified than historical facts?

Thus;

• P1 'What is fact' is relative to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
  P2 Morality is managed via a specific Framework and System of Morality
  C1 Therefore Moral facts exists as justified and derived from a specific Framework and System of Morality

From the above who would still insist there are not moral facts which are justified and derived from a specific Framework and System of Morality

It may have already been pointed out, but in most cases, facts are subject to change. In relation to Framework and System of Knowledge facts change as more knowledge is acquired.
If there is a Framework and System of Morality it is therefore a subset of the Framework and System of Knowledge as it too gets information and from that, knowledge.
And obviously morality [re Framework and System of Morality] is subject to change, as historical facts verify.

( What are the [other] facts about morality?)

Facts are like lose stones in the river of human experience [data].

All morality is justified, even if some morality contradicts other morality.

It appears to be factual that morality can be contradictory.

In the case of many types of fact, it is prudent to understand that facts on their own are subject to misinterpretation, which renders such facts as more non factual when viewed/used as such...hence the phrase "Let the facts speak for themselves" - Since they can't, then be aware [beware] of simply using ones inner voice or relying on eternal voices to 'fill in the gaps' for you...if one wants to get it right steer a course away from misinterpretation.

This is not to say one shouldn't develop their own interpretations or not listen to other interpretations. This is to say "avoid bandwagons or use of off-handed/hand waving rejections. "

Remain Agnostic in relation to facts.

Yes, facts are never absolute nor 100% certain, thus will change as many have been changed or even rejected.
But some facts are more steady and resistant to change than others depending on its nature and the methods of justifications.

While some facts will change, I don't believe the ones below will change [albeit not 100% but 99.9% certainty].

• Facts from the Scientific Framework and System
  1. All humans breathe - empirical fact
  2. All human ought to breathe else they will die - empirical biological fact.
  Applying the Principles of Universality and others;
  3. No human ought to stop another from breathing till they die - moral fact.

[VVilliam]

From the above it is obvious 'what is fact' is relative to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
Note in the case, facts of history are facts nevertheless but they are very subjective and depend on intersubjective consensus.
If such is the case, why is the dispute and rejection of moral facts which are more soundly justified than historical facts?

Thus;

• P1 'What is fact' is relative to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
  P2 Morality is managed via a specific Framework and System of Morality
  C1 Therefore Moral facts exists as justified and derived from a specific Framework and System of Morality

From the above who would still insist there are not moral facts which are justified and derived from a specific Framework and System of Morality

It may have already been pointed out, but in most cases, facts are subject to change. In relation to Framework and System of Knowledge facts change as more knowledge is acquired.
If there is a Framework and System of Morality it is therefore a subset of the Framework and System of Knowledge as it too gets information and from that, knowledge.
And obviously morality [re Framework and System of Morality] is subject to change, as historical facts verify.

( What are the [other] facts about morality?)

Facts are like lose stones in the river of human experience [data].

All morality is justified, even if some morality contradicts other morality.

It appears to be factual that morality can be contradictory.

In the case of many types of fact, it is prudent to understand that facts on their own are subject to misinterpretation, which renders such facts as more non factual when viewed/used as such...hence the phrase "Let the facts speak for themselves" - Since they can't, then be aware [beware] of simply using ones inner voice or relying on eternal voices to 'fill in the gaps' for you...if one wants to get it right steer a course away from misinterpretation.

This is not to say one shouldn't develop their own interpretations or not listen to other interpretations. This is to say "avoid bandwagons or use of off-handed/hand waving rejections. "

Remain Agnostic in relation to facts.

Yes, facts are never absolute nor 100% certain, thus will change as many have been changed or even rejected.
But some facts are more steady and resistant to change than others depending on its nature and the methods of justifications.

While some facts will change, I don't believe the ones below will change [albeit not 100% but 99.9% certainty].

• Facts from the Scientific Framework and System
  1. All humans breathe - empirical fact
  2. All human ought to breathe else they will die - empirical biological fact.
  Applying the Principles of Universality and others;
  3. No human ought to stop another from breathing till they die - moral fact.

Belief is a fickle thing too and can change...I would agree that it would take a 'hurricane' to change those ones mentioned above.

1: as a fact is not in itself an unchangeable fact as nature has a way of exterminating whole species. That is a fact.
2: All humans have to breath. I see no 'ought' about it. Ought implies choice. "All humans have no choice but to breath, else they will die. 2 therefore has to change.
3. Unless the law say's otherwise. [Political fact] 3 might not be subject to change as a moral statement, but in that, there are other factors involved which do bring changes to it's overall sentiment...add to the statement 'unless'[followed by stipulations] and the statement changes, as it should really. As a moral statement it has no firm roots in the fact of wider facts pertaining to it. It [3] is not a great statement of fact....

[Sculptor]

A. From common sense and the Scientific Framework and System;

• 1. All humans breathe - empirical fact
  2. All human ought to breathe else they will die - empirical biological fact.

The above ought is not an opinion[as defined] but an obvious fact independent of anyone's opinions and beliefs.

1. Dead humans do not breathe.
2. Some humans want to die.
3. Thus some humans should stop breathing.
FACT

[attofishpi]

A. From common sense and the Scientific Framework and System;

• 1. All humans breathe - empirical fact
  2. All human ought to breathe else they will die - empirical biological fact.

The above ought is not an opinion[as defined] but an obvious fact independent of anyone's opinions and beliefs.

1. Dead humans do not breathe.

Is a body of a human a human?

2. Some humans want to die.

The irony of suicide is that one will be reborn with less knowledge...yet again.

3. Thus some humans should stop breathing.
FACT

MOST OF THEM appear to be unworthy of life from a certain POV.

Those that seek power - Putin, Assad, Xi Xing Ping, Trump, Clinton, Bush, Blair <<-- etc...

[FlashDangerpants]

A. From common sense and the Scientific Framework and System;

• 1. All humans breathe - empirical fact
  2. All human ought to breathe else they will die - empirical biological fact.

The above ought is not an opinion[as defined] but an obvious fact independent of anyone's opinions and beliefs.

1. Dead humans do not breathe.
2. Some humans want to die.
3. Thus some humans should stop breathing.
FACT

All humans eat - empirical fact!!!!
All humans ought to eat or else they will die ----- Biological fact and completely empirical and everything!!!
Therefore It is wrong to prevent people from eating --- super-duper-is-from-an-ought-from-an-is-FACT!!!
Therefore you should never interrupt a canibal feast.... totally-awesome-utterly-sane-FACT!!!

[Veritas Aequitas]

A. From common sense and the Scientific Framework and System;

• 1. All humans breathe - empirical fact
  2. All human ought to breathe else they will die - empirical biological fact.

The above ought is not an opinion[as defined] but an obvious fact independent of anyone's opinions and beliefs.

1. Dead humans do not breathe.
2. Some humans want to die.
3. Thus some humans should [ought to] stop breathing.
FACT

So you agree 'OUGHT' can be derived from 'IS' as your argument above proved.
But your 'ought' above is morally wrong in principle, i.e. moral principle.
A dictator who is inclined to genocides or killing may imposed the above 'ought' and this had been done within history [millions were gassed]. There are many other examples of killing of living human -stopped their breathing.

What I missed out is 'living' i.e.

• 1. All living humans breathe - empirical fact
  2. All living human ought to breathe else they will die - empirical biological fact.
  
  3. From the above as justified within a Framework and System of Morality based on its methodology, we establish the following objective moral standard/fact;
  4. No human ought to stop another human from breathing till they die.

The above is a moral fact and moral standard which is merely a GUIDE - NO ENFORCEMENT!

I am not insisting, in the present physical and psychological state, in practice, that no living human shall be stopped from breathing. Unfortunately there will be cases where it is justified relative to the present circumstances.
However such a deviation from the moral standard must be reviewed to find the root causes of such acts and solutions need to be found to prevent them in the future.

Btw, you are very ignorant of what is morality-proper and I suggest you do more research, do a literature review and read up on the subject of Morality and Literature. Then you will find out you are clinging to outdated traditional ideas of moral theory which are dogmatically those of Hume and the logico-lingustic meme.
You have not countered this point of mine.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, facts are never absolute nor 100% certain, thus will change as many have been changed or even rejected.
But some facts are more steady and resistant to change than others depending on its nature and the methods of justifications.

While some facts will change, I don't believe the ones below will change [albeit not 100% but 99.9% certainty].

• Facts from the Scientific Framework and System
  1. All humans breathe - empirical fact
  2. All human ought to breathe else they will die - empirical biological fact.
  Applying the Principles of Universality and others;
  3. No human ought to stop another from breathing till they die - moral fact.

Belief is a fickle thing too and can change...I would agree that it would take a 'hurricane' to change those ones mentioned above.

1: as a fact is not in itself an unchangeable fact as nature has a way of exterminating whole species. That is a fact.

I agree, note,
"The only constant is change"
That is a fact.

2: All humans have to breath. I see no 'ought' about it. Ought implies choice. "All humans have no choice but to breath, else they will die. 2 therefore has to change.

Why no 'ought' about it??

Note the meaning of 'ought';

• ought = used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/ought

It is biologically correct, all living humans has to breathe, else they die, thus it is a fact they ought to breathe, else they will die.

It is not that all living humans has to breathe that is critical, but that all normal living human will not volunteer to die in a normal circumstance, is the relevant point here.
Thus from the above and processed within a Framework of Morality and Ethics, we abstract the following principles or moral fact, i.e.

"no humans ought to stop another living human from breathing till they die"

Such a justified moral standard is a moral ground why Hitler's gassing of the millions of Jews and others was morally wrong and the most heinous evil.

3. Unless the law say's otherwise. [Political fact] 3 might not be subject to change as a moral statement, but in that, there are other factors involved which do bring changes to it's overall sentiment...add to the statement 'unless'[followed by stipulations] and the statement changes, as it should really.
As a moral statement it has no firm roots in the fact of wider facts pertaining to it. It [3] is not a great statement of fact....

Moral fact 3 has nothing to do with politics.
Morality is independent from politics, religion, theism and others.

Morality-proper [you are likely not aware] is when the inherent moral facts within the individual unfolds spontaneously from within his brain/mind.
As such there is no external enforcement of laws upon the individual.

The individual in this case is his own self-government, legislature, judiciary, as accused, defendant, prosecutor, judge, jury, and correctional officer which is happening within his brain/mind.
The competent moral individual [with efficient moral compass] makes his own moral laws and because he is a generic human, the moral laws he adopted will the same as all other normal humans on the same inherent Moral Path for the greater good.

The question is how do the individuals become competent moral individuals?

[RCSaunders]

Wow, on the same thread

Yes. Facts can change. ...

... in most cases, facts are subject to change.

A fact never changes. If what is thought to be a, "fact," changes, it was never a fact.

Please provide even one example of a fact that has ever changed. [The fact that it rained yesterday, is still a fact today, even though it is sunny today. The fact is, It did rain yesterday, and that will be true forever. Facts never change.]