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.
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.
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.