FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 1:04 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 10:27 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 9:56 am
Your P2 would work if morality was managed via a specific framework of moral knowledge, but the argument would be circular so you can't do that. As 'system of morality' it fails.
That's why your argument structure applied to to other things would have perverse outcomes:
P1: P1 'What is fact' is relative to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
P2: Star Wars is a specific framework of fiction (one of those fictional universes, similar to Marvel and DC and so on)
C: Therefore Star Wars facts exist as justified from a specific Framework of Fiction.
P1: P1 'What is fact' is relative to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
P2: Chinese Traditional Medicine is a framework and system of medicine
C: Therefore it is a derived fact that ground up rhino horn cures droopy cock syndrome
You have confused yourself by conflating all systems with these "systems of knowledge". Thus you haven't been precise enough to exclude frameworks and systems based on unreliable knowledge. If you address that problem, you will inevitably exclude morality.
If you don't do that, then all that happens is that "moral fact" is downgraded to the level that openly contradictory facts are both true, so you will have no authority to say that anyone is wrong to believe their "moral truth" if it contradicts yours, which would appear to be the point of this excercise.
You are ignorant of the related 'nuances' I have discussed somewhere related to the degree of justification, degree of veracity and confidence level in correspondence to the continuum of what is held to be true from;
- 1. Opinion to
2. Beliefs to
3. Knowledge/facts
The above principles are from Kant's scholarship not pulled out of the air from nowhere.
Note if we rate the above on the basis of 'fact' then,
- 3. Knowledge/facts at 100 degree of veracity and fact, then relatively
2. Beliefs can be rated at 50/100 fact at 50 degree of veracity then
1. opinion as 0.1/100 fact
So your second premise assumes that this "Framework and System of Morality" produces what ... 50% probable truths, or 100% probable truths?
If you go with the former, your argument fails as this is a foundation of beliefs that do not amount to knowledge.
If you with the latter your argument is circular as it requires for a premise that which it purports to demonstrate in its conclusion.
Argument structure my friend, learn it or you will never get this stuff right.
On first look it appear to be so but as I had stated you missed the 'nuances' of the argument or you missed my explanation re the continuum of black and white that followed, i.e. the continuum of;
- 1. 99.99% knowledge to 50%knowledge to 0.01% Knowledge
2. 99.99% Fact to 50%Fact to 0.01% Fact
The above opposite corresponding continuum is;
3. 0.01% falsehood to 50%falsehood to 0.01 99.99 falsehood
There is no absolute certainty.
Thus 99.99% falsehood is 0.01% knowledge
Therefore my structure is still valid,
The "Framework and System of knowledge" e.g. Divinity produce 0.01 knowledge and 99.99 falsehood.
The "Framework and System of knowledge/morality" e.g. Divinity produce 0.01% knowledge/moral facts and 99.99% falsehood.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 10:27 am
This similar to the analogy of the continuum of black and white;
- 1. Pure Black is 0.1 white 99.9% black
2. Grey is 50% white and 50% black
3. White is 0.1% black and 99.9% white
So,
- P1: P1 'What is fact' is relative to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
P2: Star Wars is a specific framework of fiction (one of those fictional universes, similar to Marvel and DC and so on)
C: Therefore Star Wars facts exist as justified from a specific Framework of Fiction.
What you have failed to take into account is the degree of justifications, degree of veracity and potential confidence level with the Scientific Framework as the base standard.
I obviously haven't failed to take that into account, my point is that your argument tries to ignore exactly that sort of thing. Except, frameworks of knowledge can either point to something empirical as their evidence base, or to something imaginary, and morality is entirely imaginary.
Note a Framework of Knowledge e.g. Framework of Beauty produced the fact,
Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe_2019
Do you deny the above is a fact, albeit of beauty contests?
The sense of beauty is not purely empirical based.
It is based on feelings and subjectivity and worst one's man meat is another's poison.
What is critical here is there is a Framework and System, i.e. the criteria of judging established by the Miss Universe organization that support the fact.
My argument here is;
- 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
You pointed out the term 'knowledge' in 1 do not follow with any 'beliefs' or 'opinion' within a Framework and System of Knowledge.
I have explained that above.
Morality is not imaginations.
What is moral fact is justified from within a specific Framework and System of Morality based on empirical evidence and supported with philosophical reasoning.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 10:27 am
However note this;
- P1: P1 'What is fact' is relative to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
P2: Theology is a specific framework of Divine facts
C: Therefore divine facts exist as justified from a specific Framework of theology.
But they aren't facts though are they? I mean, it's a fact that the Bible teaches us that 2 of every animal went into a boat and none of them ate each other, but it being a truth that the Bible says so is not something we typically think of as meaning that it is a truth that it happened.
If that sort of truth, one of those "my truths" that doesn't need to correspond to any fact, is all that you want from your moral knowledge, I am happy to grant that, it's a freebie we can give away to people who claim silly things as known. It doesn't corresond to Kantian ideal of 100% verifieda belief though. But neither does the 'divine fact', so you are arguing against yourself here anyway.
Based on the Principles of Continuum,
The facts of Genesis in the Bible or 'God exists as real' as claimed by Christians, they are merely 0.1 facts and 99.1% falsehood.
There is nothing wrong with the above as long as the context and perspective is given.
Nope.
In the case of moral facts which I had claimed, they are fully justified from within the Framework and System of Morality with empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning which is very close to how the Scientific Framework produces scientific facts.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 10:27 am
It is very common for theists to claim "God exists as real" as an objective fact.
So again the above faced the degree of justifications, the degree of veracity and degree of confidence level.
Based on what I have investigated and in the absence evidence to justify God exists as real, I would rate that 'divine fact' as a fact with zero degree of veracity and 100% falsity [falsehood].
Which all leads us to the question of why you chose to illuminate your point with a "Framework of Knowledge" that spits out false facts and untrue knowledge? It would make sense if I had chosen that to demonstrate your argument wrong.
"Framework of Knowledge" is purely a semantic issue which I had explained above with the concept of a continuum.
I could have named it "Framework of Claims" or something with the same meaning and explained with the right context.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 10:27 am
Thus in my case;
- 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
Why does your P2 in the religion case above say Facts - but your P2 for your own thing never uses that word?
I presume it is because you have noticed that your argument is circular when you do.
At some point though you have to insert something to show that some frameworks do emit facts, while others such as religion do not, and then you have to show why morality is in the camp you want it to be. So you have a choice whether your argument is bad because it is begging the above question, or bad because it is circular. There is no circumstance in which that argument is good though.
I was not consistent with the words used but they meant the same.
- Re Theology
P2: Theology is a specific framework of Divine facts
I could do the same for morality;
P2: Morality is a specific framework of Moral facts
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 10:27 am
You cannot deny there are no moral facts.
Obviously that is not a fact, I have. I do claim that 'fact' is a description that cannot be applied directly to any evaluative judgment. Just as there are no 'facts' to tell us that one painting is
better than another, and there are no 'facts' about whether sneezing feels
nicer than pooping. So it is a matter of evaluation that stealing is bad and lying is naughty.
You are caught in and is too dogmatic with the Philosophical Realism paradigm.
I understand from Philosophical Realism, 'what is fact' cannot be evaluative. That is a very superficial view.
But as I have shown above, I have argued 'what is fact' is conditioned to a specific framework of knowledge'.
I agree what is fact cannot be value in one perspective, but the the value-of-a-fact within a System of knowledge is a fact.
E.g. the the valuation of a fact-of-a-diamond generate facts-of-valuations.
That 'one carat of diamond' cost $5000' is a fact.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 10:27 am
The only question you can raised is to the question of its degree of justification, degree of veracity, degree of confidence relative the scientific facts from the Scientific Framework and a base standard.
Technically it's not so much a matter of degree, it is a matter of
type of justification. If the scientific claim that the sun does not orbit the earth, but quite the reverse is true, then among other things the sun probably orbited the earth before mankind existed to question that matter. Some other claims of science are true or untrue only when the universe is too new for any suns or earths to yet exist.
The type of test that applies to the type of knowledge claims that are made are fundamentally very different to the tests you could propose for whether it is rude to ask a ladies age, and whether it is always wrong to be rude anyway.
The "type" correspond to the "degree" of justification.
In general, the degree of justification within a court of law or other framework will be different from that of Scientific justifications. Even with Science itself, the degree will vary for different types of fact. The BB cannot tested for repeatability buy yet the BB and similar knowledge are scientific facts.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 10:27 am
I would claim moral facts to be say at 90% veracity with possibility of 10% falsity.
(note the case of what are
historical facts above - what is fact is conditioned upon winners)
Even Scientific facts as asserted by Popper are at best, merely "
polished conjectures".
What are linguistic facts are at best chasing after illusions. Note Russells' "
perhaps there is no real table [the referent] at all"
I have already argued all over the place, the justification process of the Moral Framework and System is very close the the Scientific Framework as a base standard.
Therefore the moral facts generated should be very close to certain sets of of the Scientific Framework -especially those that are theoretical.
All that Kant you boast of reading and yet here you are trying to create an a posteriori framework for discovering moral fact.
When I turned to the DNA/DNA as empirical evidence to justify the moral facts, that is
a priori.