What is a Fact?

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

Post Reply
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2346
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:45 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:01 am
You are very ignorant.
I am about to raise an OP on:

"Ought[ing] from IS" is a fact and the process generate facts, which are evidently a state-of-affairs in reality independent of individual's opinions and beliefs, thus objective.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29580
Fascists, and tyrants are commonly in the practice of rendering ought from is.
Any one [good, bad, ugly, evil] can render ought from is anytime and anywhere.
However, you forgot the the moral-fact element.
You forgot; there are no moral facts.
What is rendered as 'ought' from 'is' must be justified with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning to be Justified True Moral Beliefs, i.e. objective moral facts.
No. There is no such justification, objectively.
You are imposing an opinion between what you see as an empirical fact, and a moral ought.
This is undeniable.
You need to be more honest with yourself. Then people might take you more seriously.

Again your thinking is too shallow, narrow and hasty.
Obviously such a narrow minded and shallow person does not deserve to be listened to. And this is basically why your entire moral argument is a house of cards. Unless you understand people you cannot make rules to impose upon their behaviour.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2346
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:35 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:08 pm
Skepdick wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:13 pm
Yes actually.

If killing is useful for a particular outcome, a world where that outcome is achievable without killing is better than a world where that outcome is achievable with killing.
No. I said no and I mean it.
So you don't care about the end-goal (purpose?) of killing. You think killing for killing's sake is useful.
Strawman. You can't expect to be taken serious by employing such an obvious and childish strategy. I'm not surprised you love Trump. He's a idiot too.

When you kill yourself for utility's sake then I'll believe you.
Wow two strawman arguments in one tiny minded post. You excel yourself.

Things has been killing things since the dawn of life. Killing has always been an essential part of finding a living. In fact there would be no life without killing. But you are just too dumb to have thought of that.
Skepdick
Posts: 5237
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:03 am
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:35 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:08 pm
No. I said no and I mean it.
So you don't care about the end-goal (purpose?) of killing. You think killing for killing's sake is useful.
Strawman. You can't expect to be taken serious by employing such an obvious and childish strategy. I'm not surprised you love Trump. He's a idiot too.

When you kill yourself for utility's sake then I'll believe you.
Wow two strawman arguments in one tiny minded post. You excel yourself.

Things has been killing things since the dawn of life. Killing has always been an essential part of finding a living. In fact there would be no life without killing. But you are just too dumb to have thought of that.
What a fucking idiot!

I didn't straw-man you. You straw-manned yourself with your own Status-quo bias

Which part of this did you mis-understand? It seems ALL of it.
If killing is useful for a particular outcome, a world where that outcome is achievable without killing is better than a world where that outcome is achievable with killing.
IF living is useful outcome, is a world where killing is NOT necessary for living better than a world where killing is necessary for living?

Your dumb monkey-brain doesn't understand the very ideas of optionality. It's the difference between NEED to kill (having no other options so I kill) and WANT to kill (having other options but I prefer killing).

Equifinality is the principle that in open systems a given end state can be reached by many potential means. Also meaning that a goal can be reached by many ways.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2346
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:28 am
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:03 am
Skepdick wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:35 am
So you don't care about the end-goal (purpose?) of killing. You think killing for killing's sake is useful.
Strawman. You can't expect to be taken serious by employing such an obvious and childish strategy. I'm not surprised you love Trump. He's a idiot too.

When you kill yourself for utility's sake then I'll believe you.
Wow two strawman arguments in one tiny minded post. You excel yourself.

Things has been killing things since the dawn of life. Killing has always been an essential part of finding a living. In fact there would be no life without killing. But you are just too dumb to have thought of that.
What a fucking idiot!
I just don't think you are bright enough to argue with.

One last try to wrest some reason out of that brain of yours.


Here's where the strawman exists.

1. I say that a world without killing is not possible. and you counter with...
2. "So you don't care about the end-goal (purpose?) of killing. You think killing for killing's sake is useful.".

Point 2 is a straw man since I did not even so much as imply that position. I think that any purpose there might be to killing is very interesting and I care about that.
As for killing for killing for killings sake, as well as being incoherent babble is also not implied in anything I said.
Skepdick
Posts: 5237
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:09 pm I just don't think you are bright enough to argue with.
I don't think you are bright enough to recognise I am brighter than you.
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:09 pm 1. I say that a world without killing is not possible. and you counter with...
1. Please show me where you used the phrase "not possible". You merely appealed to the status quo to assert that killing is the norm - nobody is disputing that.
2. What I am disputing is "a world without killing is not possible". Please present us with your Proof of impossibility
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:09 pm 2. "So you don't care about the end-goal (purpose?) of killing. You think killing for killing's sake is useful.".

Point 2 is a straw man since I did not even so much as imply that position. I think that any purpose there might be to killing is very interesting and I care about that.
As for killing for killing for killings sake, as well as being incoherent babble is also not implied in anything I said.
You implied every bit of it when you insisted that killing is necessary for a purpose.

IF killing is not necessary for the purpose at hand, then the only reason you would choose to kill is for killing's sake.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2346
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:47 pm IF killing is not necessary for the purpose at hand, then the only reason you would choose to kill is for killing's sake.
I think the most salient point I made above it this..

"I just don't think you are bright enough to argue with."
Skepdick
Posts: 5237
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 3:20 pm I think the most salient point I made above it this..

"I just don't think you are bright enough to argue with."
Then quit arguing and prove your claim of impossibility.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4895
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:41 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:34 am
Rendering everything you day subject to anyone's definition of what you might want to call "normal" today.
Therefore you have no right to press for conclusions in which you insist on universal, absolute, or wide-ranging moral laws. And your excessive use of "100%" Is rendered laughable.
You don't get the point.
Yes, I do get the point.
You want to impose your idiosyncratic moral code upon everyone on the grounds that you are "normal" and everyone else "ought" to comply with your wishes.
You are 100% laughable.
NOPE!
You did not get the point.
Yes, I am a 'normal' human being, i.e. having two arms and two legs, and with an inherent moral function within my brain.

I have stated glaringly over hundreds of posts and above, the moral facts as justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning are only to act as GUIDES to individuals and should not be enforced on anyone at all.
Show me evidence where I have stated the moral standards are to be imposed on everyone?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4895
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:45 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:36 am

Fascists, and tyrants are commonly in the practice of rendering ought from is.
Any one [good, bad, ugly, evil] can render ought from is anytime and anywhere.
However, you forgot the the moral-fact element.
You forgot; there are no moral facts.
I have already demonstrated many times there are moral facts in various posts above.
You have not countered my arguments but merely insisted there are no moral facts.
  • 1. What is fact is generated from a Framework and System of knowledge
    2. There is a Framework and System of knowledge for Morality.
    3. Therefore that are facts related to morality, i.e. moral facts.
My views is that of the empirical moral realist where moral facts are justified soundly from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
Prove to me my views are wrong.
Just don't said 'wrong' because Hume said so.

I have countered Hume's point here;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29580
What is rendered as 'ought' from 'is' must be justified with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning to be Justified True Moral Beliefs, i.e. objective moral facts.
No. There is no such justification, objectively.
You are imposing an opinion between what you see as an empirical fact, and a moral ought.
This is undeniable.
You need to be more honest with yourself. Then people might take you more seriously.
Do you even understand what is 'justification' and 'objective'?
I have provided the justifications within a Framework and System of Morality which justified the respective moral facts.
Again your thinking is too shallow, narrow and hasty.
Obviously such a narrow minded and shallow person does not deserve to be listened to. And this is basically why your entire moral argument is a house of cards. Unless you understand people you cannot make rules to impose upon their behaviour.
Yes, obviously not listened to, but one ought to expose their bad arguments in a discussion.

Note my above point, repeat..

I have stated glaringly over hundreds of posts and above, the moral facts as justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning are only to act as GUIDES to individuals and should not be enforced on anyone at all.
Show me evidence where I have stated the moral standards are to be imposed on everyone?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2346
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:34 am
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:41 am
You don't get the point.
Yes, I do get the point.
You want to impose your idiosyncratic moral code upon everyone on the grounds that you are "normal" and everyone else "ought" to comply with your wishes.
You are 100% laughable.
NOPE!
You did not get the point.
Yes, I am a 'normal' human being, i.e. having two arms and two legs, and with an inherent moral function within my brain.

I have stated glaringly over hundreds of posts and above, the moral facts as justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning are only to act as GUIDES to individuals and should not be enforced on anyone at all.
Show me evidence where I have stated the moral standards are to be imposed on everyone?
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.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2346
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:50 am I have stated glaringly over hundreds of posts and above, the moral facts as justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning
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.
When the rest of the world is telling you that you are wrong maybe its time to stop talking and start listening.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4895
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:50 am I have stated glaringly over hundreds of posts and above, the moral facts as justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning
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.
Rubbish?? that is because you are very ignorant of the various thoughts within Philosophy.
Your views are from Philosophical Realism [which is unrealistic] and mine is that of philosophical anti-realism [Kantian].

First of all you have to understand there is a big difference between moral language and ordinary language and they produce relatively different facts based on their respective framework and system of knowledge. In addition, they serve different purposes.

The valuing or evaluating system I used is the Moral Framework and System which is equivalent to that of the Scientific Framework and System. In this case, are you stating the scientific facts from the Scientific Framework are false.

Noted you are very mistaken and think I am dealing with moral-decisions and moral judgments by the individuals like those of the Trolley Problems [casuistry].
Establishing moral facts as standards are like Science uncovering various principles within nature, e.g. Theory of Gravity, motion, forces, QM theories, and various theories/principles of the other sciences.

Btw, the moral code or standard derived from moral facts are only to be used as GUIDES and NEVER imposed nor enforced as any sort of laws on any individual.

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?
How come you are still so ignorant after I have informed you, the majority of the world, i.e. who are theists, claimed there are moral facts from a God. I don't agree with them on such moral facts.
I claimed there are Justified True Moral Beliefs, i.e. moral facts justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning based on the highest cognitive competence activated at present.

It is obvious your 'everyone' is on the same camp as your facts of philosophical realism, thus their ignorance and disagreeing to my thesis.

Seriously you are the one whose learning is more wanting.
All you're hanging blindly and dogmatically on is 'No OUGHT from IS'.

Kant after woken up from his 'dogmatic slumber' [rationalism] had debunked Humes' narrow view on the 'no ought from is' maxim.

I have also debunked this point, i.e.
"Oughting from IS" is a Fact.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29580
You have not countered the above.

It is imperative you research and do a literature review on "what is morality" and on the latest understanding of 'what is morality' after Hume. You will note the latest discussions of moral theories do not rely on Hume's Guillotine -if any, is rare.
It is only after that, you'd be qualified to understand [not necessary agree] with my thesis and other alternative theses.

Don't overlooked this!
What is critical for Morality is - how to improve and optimize the well being of humanity now and in the future.
You cannot achieve the above efficiently without an efficient Moral Framework and System grounded on relative* objective moral facts as justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
*in contrast to absolute moral facts from a God or invoking Plato's forms.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4895
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here is a point on why your knowledge and views based on the Logico-linguistic perspective -fact is fact - are outdated;
In the United States in particular, one such view became the reference point for all others, thanks in part to its systematic character and normative attractiveness: John Rawls's Theory of Justice, with its method of "reflective equilibrium."21

The narrowly language-oriented agenda of analytic metaethics was fully displaced,
not so much because of a refutation of, say, noncognitivism,
but because of an uneasiness about the notions of "meaning" or "analytic truth,"
and because reflective equilibrium arguments, which tended to set aside metaethical questions, promised to shed much greater light on substantive-and in many cases socially pressing moral questions.
A period that might be called "the Great Expansion" had begun in ethics.

In the Great Expansion a sense of liberation came to ethics.
Moral philosophers shed the obsessions of analytic metaethics,
and saw--or thought they saw-ways of exploring normative morality as a cognitive domain, without a bad philosophical conscience.
The result was an unprecedented pouring of philosophical effort and personnel into ethics, which in turn spread out into the most diverse issues and applications.
There is no prospect of summarizing these events here, and no point in trying. What is of chief interest from the standpoint of the present essay is the way that the Great Expansion partly contributed to the contemporary revival of metaethics.

During the Great Expansion, moral intuitions (not Moorean insights into the Forms but substantive moral responses that strike us as compelling) flowed abundantly-occasionally urged on by a bit of pumping. Competing normative theories were "tested" dialectically against these intuitions in a procedure that appeared to be licensed by reflective equilibrium.
Over time this reflective equilibrium widened to include a broad range of empirical and philosophical questions.22


Toward Fin de siecle Ethics: Some Trends
Darwall, Gibbard, and Railton 1992
Suggest you do further research and readings on 'what is morality and ethics' to get an idea of what the Great Expansion of Ethics [& Morality] encompasses.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 5237
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:02 am 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.

It goes as far back as Hammurabi and all the way to modern-day Jurisprudence.
It is the same damn oath that every ethical practitioner subscribes to: First do no harm.

And I expect you to begin bickering about the semantics of "harm" because the only thing you know how to bicker about is semantics, but you can't even define "definition" or "semantics".
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:02 am When the rest of the world is telling you that you are wrong maybe its time to stop talking and start listening.
Great fucking advice! Dumb philosopher. The rest of the world is telling YOU that the "IS-OUGHT" gap is a Philosophical misnomer.

You are wrong about it. Maybe it's time to start listening?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2346
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:08 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:50 am I have stated glaringly over hundreds of posts and above, the moral facts as justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning
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.
Rubbish?? that is because you are very ignorant of the various thoughts within Philosophy.
LOL
Your views are from Philosophical Realism [which is unrealistic] and mine is that of philosophical anti-realism [Kantian].
LOL

First of all you have to understand there is a big difference between moral language and ordinary language and they produce relatively different facts based on their respective framework and system of knowledge. In addition, they serve different purposes.
LOL.

The valuing or evaluating system I used is the Moral Framework and System which is equivalent to that of the Scientific Framework and System. In this case, are you stating the scientific facts from the Scientific Framework are false.

Noted you are very mistaken and think I am dealing with moral-decisions and moral judgments by the individuals like those of the Trolley Problems [casuistry].
Establishing moral facts as standards are like Science uncovering various principles within nature, e.g. Theory of Gravity, motion, forces, QM theories, and various theories/principles of the other sciences.

Btw, the moral code or standard derived from moral facts are only to be used as GUIDES and NEVER imposed nor enforced as any sort of laws on any individual.

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.
How come you are still so ignorant after I have informed you, the majority of the world, i.e. who are theists, claimed there are moral facts from a God. I don't agree with them on such moral facts.
LOL. WHo the f u c k is "God" when he is at home???
I claimed there are Justified True Moral Beliefs, i.e. moral facts justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning based on the highest cognitive competence activated at present.
ROTFL

It is obvious your 'everyone' is on the same camp as your facts of philosophical realism, thus their ignorance and disagreeing to my thesis.

Seriously you are the one whose learning is more wanting.
All you're hanging blindly and dogmatically on is 'No OUGHT from IS'.

Kant after woken up from his 'dogmatic slumber' [rationalism] had debunked Humes' narrow view on the 'no ought from is' maxim.
No. Kant built upon it. And with a good deal of reason that you clearly lack.

I have also debunked this point, i.e.
"Oughting from IS" is a Fact.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29580
You have not countered the above.
You were wrong there and you are still wrong.

It is imperative you research and do a literature review on "what is morality" and on the latest understanding of 'what is morality' after Hume. You will note the latest discussions of moral theories do not rely on Hume's Guillotine -if any, is rare.
It is only after that, you'd be qualified to understand [not necessary agree] with my thesis and other alternative theses.

Don't overlooked this!
What is critical for Morality is - how to improve and optimize the well being of humanity now and in the future.
You cannot achieve the above efficiently without an efficient Moral Framework and System grounded on relative* objective moral facts as justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
*in contrast to absolute moral facts from a God or invoking Plato's forms.
Please prove a SINGLE "OUGHT from an empirical "IS" without an opinion. Go on I challenge you.
Post Reply