There are Moral Facts

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
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4463
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

There are Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here is my argument, there are moral facts,
thus 'morality is objective' as a response to this thread,
The Argument;
  • P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
    P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
    C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.
What is a fact?
  • A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
    For example,
    "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
    "The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact. Further,
    "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and
    "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
    Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
From the above, one will note,
i. the specific Framework and System of Knowledge [F/S] produces its specific related facts.
ii. Facts are objective, i.e. - i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and belief

So,
  • P1 All facts are objective [ii]
    P2 The Morality F/S produces moral facts [C3]
    C2 Therefore Morality is Objective.
The claim from the above is the justified true moral judgments [moral facts] produced from the moral F/S are factual.

Views?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:40 am Here is my argument, there are moral facts,
thus 'morality is objective' as a response to this thread,
The Argument;
  • P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
    P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
    C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.
What is a fact?
  • A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
    For example,
    "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
    "The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact. Further,
    "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and
    "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
    Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
From the above, one will note,
i. the specific Framework and System of Knowledge [F/S] produces its specific related facts.
ii. Facts are objective, i.e. - i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and belief

So,
  • P1 All facts are objective [ii]
    P2 The Morality F/S produces moral facts [C3]
    C2 Therefore Morality is Objective.
The claim from the above is the justified true moral judgments [moral facts] produced from the moral F/S are factual.

Views?
Here's your argument, as I understand it.

1 A system and framework of knowledge can produce facts - true factual assertions.
2 Therefore, the system and framework of morality can produce facts.
3 Therefore, there are moral facts.

Now, 1 is true. But 2 doesn't follow, because it assumes that moral rightness and wrongness are things that can be known, so that morality is an epistemological matter. And that begs the question. And since 2 doesn't follow, neither does 3.

Do you understand this refutation? If not, I'm happy to explain it yet again.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4463
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:40 am Here is my argument, there are moral facts,
thus 'morality is objective' as a response to this thread,
The Argument;
  • P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
    P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
    C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.
What is a fact?
  • A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
    For example,
    "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
    "The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact. Further,
    "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and
    "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
    Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
From the above, one will note,
i. the specific Framework and System of Knowledge [F/S] produces its specific related facts.
ii. Facts are objective, i.e. - i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and belief

So,
  • P1 All facts are objective [ii]
    P2 The Morality F/S produces moral facts [C3]
    C2 Therefore Morality is Objective.
The claim from the above is the justified true moral judgments [moral facts] produced from the moral F/S are factual.

Views?
Here's your argument, as I understand it.

1 A system and framework of knowledge can produce facts - true factual assertions.
2 Therefore, the system and framework of morality can produce facts.
3 Therefore, there are moral facts.

Now, 1 is true. But 2 doesn't follow, because it assumes that moral rightness and wrongness are things that can be known, so that morality is an epistemological matter. And that begs the question. And since 2 doesn't follow, neither does 3.

Do you understand this refutation? If not, I'm happy to explain it yet again.
Nope, I am not assuming anything with moral principles.

Just like what we do with scientific facts derived from the Scientific Framework and System, and other F/S,
the moral facts are justified with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning within the Moral Framework and System as such are objective.

In this case, the justified true moral facts must be factual state-of-affairs within reality.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:39 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:40 am Here is my argument, there are moral facts,
thus 'morality is objective' as a response to this thread,
The Argument;
  • P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
    P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
    C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.
What is a fact?
  • A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
    For example,
    "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
    "The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact. Further,
    "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and
    "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
    Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
From the above, one will note,
i. the specific Framework and System of Knowledge [F/S] produces its specific related facts.
ii. Facts are objective, i.e. - i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and belief

So,
  • P1 All facts are objective [ii]
    P2 The Morality F/S produces moral facts [C3]
    C2 Therefore Morality is Objective.
The claim from the above is the justified true moral judgments [moral facts] produced from the moral F/S are factual.

Views?
Here's your argument, as I understand it.

1 A system and framework of knowledge can produce facts - true factual assertions.
2 Therefore, the system and framework of morality can produce facts.
3 Therefore, there are moral facts.

Now, 1 is true. But 2 doesn't follow, because it assumes that moral rightness and wrongness are things that can be known, so that morality is an epistemological matter. And that begs the question. And since 2 doesn't follow, neither does 3.

Do you understand this refutation? If not, I'm happy to explain it yet again.
Nope, I am not assuming anything with moral principles.

Just like what we do with scientific facts derived from the Scientific Framework and System, and other F/S,
the moral facts are justified with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning within the Moral Framework and System as such are objective.

In this case, the justified true moral facts must be factual state-of-affairs within reality.
Perhaps you're really not aware of your slipperiness.

I've shown you why your conclusion that there are moral facts is unjustified. And you suddenly switch to talking about moral principles.

Principles are not facts. You do know that, I assume? Or is your argument as ridiculous as this?:

P1 If there are moral principles, then there are moral facts.
P2 There are moral principles.
C Therefore, there are moral facts.

How about exercising just a little of your vaunted philosophical integrity and actually doing some real, critical thinking?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4463
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:39 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:00 am
Here's your argument, as I understand it.

1 A system and framework of knowledge can produce facts - true factual assertions.
2 Therefore, the system and framework of morality can produce facts.
3 Therefore, there are moral facts.

Now, 1 is true. But 2 doesn't follow, because it assumes that moral rightness and wrongness are things that can be known, so that morality is an epistemological matter. And that begs the question. And since 2 doesn't follow, neither does 3.

Do you understand this refutation? If not, I'm happy to explain it yet again.
Nope, I am not assuming anything with moral principles.

Just like what we do with scientific facts derived from the Scientific Framework and System, and other F/S,
the moral facts are justified with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning within the Moral Framework and System as such are objective.

In this case, the justified true moral facts must be factual state-of-affairs within reality.
Perhaps you're really not aware of your slipperiness.

I've shown you why your conclusion that there are moral facts is unjustified. And you suddenly switch to talking about moral principles.

Principles are not facts. You do know that, I assume? Or is your argument as ridiculous as this?:

P1 If there are moral principles, then there are moral facts.
P2 There are moral principles.
C Therefore, there are moral facts.

How about exercising just a little of your vaunted philosophical integrity and actually doing some real, critical thinking?
I have always equated Moral Facts as Moral Principles.
What is critical is whether they are justified true moral beliefs or not.

How come you are so ignorant in not knowing "principles" are also facts?

A principle is a proposition or value that is a guide for behavior or evaluation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle
  • 1 As law
    1.1 As moral law
    1.2 As a juridic law
    1.3 As scientific law
As above, Principles are also synonymous with as Laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
The term proposition has a broad use in contemporary analytic philosophy. The most basic meaning is a statement proposing an idea that can be true or false.

Principles exist in all aspects of knowledge.
Surely a scientific law represent a certain fact, i.e. state of affairs within reality and they are in alignment with their respective referent.
You deny, Newton Laws of Motion. Einsteins' Laws of Gravity, Laws of Nature are not facts?

Find more substantial counters to my arguments than the above based on ignorance.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:39 am
Nope, I am not assuming anything with moral principles.

Just like what we do with scientific facts derived from the Scientific Framework and System, and other F/S,
the moral facts are justified with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning within the Moral Framework and System as such are objective.

In this case, the justified true moral facts must be factual state-of-affairs within reality.
Perhaps you're really not aware of your slipperiness.

I've shown you why your conclusion that there are moral facts is unjustified. And you suddenly switch to talking about moral principles.

Principles are not facts. You do know that, I assume? Or is your argument as ridiculous as this?:

P1 If there are moral principles, then there are moral facts.
P2 There are moral principles.
C Therefore, there are moral facts.

How about exercising just a little of your vaunted philosophical integrity and actually doing some real, critical thinking?
I have always equated Moral Facts as Moral Principles.
What is critical is whether they are justified true moral beliefs or not.

How come you are so ignorant in not knowing "principles" are also facts?

A principle is a proposition or value that is a guide for behavior or evaluation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle
  • 1 As law
    1.1 As moral law
    1.2 As a juridic law
    1.3 As scientific law
As above, Principles are also synonymous with as Laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
The term proposition has a broad use in contemporary analytic philosophy. The most basic meaning is a statement proposing an idea that can be true or false.

Principles exist in all aspects of knowledge.
Surely a scientific law represent a certain fact, i.e. state of affairs within reality and they are in alignment with their respective referent.
You deny, Newton Laws of Motion. Einsteins' Laws of Gravity, Laws of Nature are not facts?

Find more substantial counters to my arguments than the above based on ignorance.
So you think a fact is or can be a principle. But a fact is either a state-of-affairs or a description of a state-of-affairs that is the case. How can either of those be 'a proposition or value that is a guide for behavior or evaluation'?

This is rubbish.
Atla
Posts: 2888
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:08 am I have always equated Moral Facts as Moral Principles.
I feel generous today VA, so I'll help you out. Let's look at synonyms of 'principle' in a few online dictionaries. Please let us know if you find anything missing, so we can contact the inattentive editors.

precept, rule, standard, tenet
moral, norm, value
hypothesis, proposition, theory, thesis
axiom, truism, verity
belief, canon, doctrine, dogma, gospel, law
basis, foundation, ground
conclusion, deduction, inference
affirmation, assertion, avouchment, declaration
dictum, ipse dixit
assumption, given, hypothetical, if, postulate, premise (also premiss), presumption, presupposition, supposition


assumption
basis
convention
doctrine
ethic
foundation
fundamental
precept
proposition
regulation
rule
truth
axiom
canon
criterion
dictum
dogma
form
formula
ground
maxim
origin
postulate
prescript
source
theorem
usage
verity
golden rule
principium


belief
rule
standard
attitude
code
notion
criterion
ethic
doctrine
canon
creed
maxim
dogma
tenet
dictum
credo
axiom
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2373
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:40 am
  • P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
    P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
    C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.
I want to give you some credit for finally putting together a simple syllogism, which at least attempts to properly entail its conclusion. For you this is as good as can be expected. Unfortunately, the argument is not deductively valid though, but at least you made a complicated mistake in your premisses this time... so still a huge improvement.

The probelm is that to "produce facts in alignment with a referent", you would need to be examining a referent that inheres in the subject. That means it would need to be a property of the object itself, not a property of the judgment of the observer. This can never be the case for evaluative judgments for obvious reasons. So P1, if true, definitively excludes the subject of P2, and thus the premisses do not actually support the concluding inference.

You ignored me when I told you that your moral fact crusade is doomed because it is prescriptive, and that's a shame, because it is that lack of descriptive adequacy that will ruin this argument for you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:40 am What is a fact?
  • A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
    For example,
    "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
    "The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact. Further,
    "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and
    "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
    Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
From the above, one will note,
i. the specific Framework and System of Knowledge [F/S] produces its specific related facts.
ii. Facts are objective, i.e. - i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and belief
Remember ages ago when I pointed out that historians accept stuff like that as fact, but the next order is interpretation not deeper facts (so 'Lincoln was assissintated' is accepted as fact, but 'Lincoln was assasinated because ...' that would be interpretation rather than there being a fact of why Lincoln had to die that day). Well, your proposed thing is on the wrong side of that sort of divide.

Whenever you paste a chunk from a wiki link by the way, any smart observer is going to check what the next sentence is, after you cut it off. So the next bit after... Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.
Is ... "The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability — that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. ". You have no means of verifying your fact claims, which probably explains why you left that bit out.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:40 am
  • P1 All facts are objective [ii]
    P2 The Morality F/S produces moral facts [C3]
    C2 Therefore Morality is Objective.
The claim from the above is the justified true moral judgments [moral facts] produced from the moral F/S are factual.

Views?
What the fuck is going on with your antirealism thing? Obviously I hold that you can be an antirealist and agree with the P1 there, but you don't, that is the whole reason behind that stupid reduction to realism thread that you dragged me into and which I scornfully rejected.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4463
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:53 am
Perhaps you're really not aware of your slipperiness.

I've shown you why your conclusion that there are moral facts is unjustified. And you suddenly switch to talking about moral principles.

Principles are not facts. You do know that, I assume? Or is your argument as ridiculous as this?:

P1 If there are moral principles, then there are moral facts.
P2 There are moral principles.
C Therefore, there are moral facts.

How about exercising just a little of your vaunted philosophical integrity and actually doing some real, critical thinking?
I have always equated Moral Facts as Moral Principles.
What is critical is whether they are justified true moral beliefs or not.

How come you are so ignorant in not knowing "principles" are also facts?

A principle is a proposition or value that is a guide for behavior or evaluation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle
  • 1 As law
    1.1 As moral law
    1.2 As a juridic law
    1.3 As scientific law
As above, Principles are also synonymous with as Laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
The term proposition has a broad use in contemporary analytic philosophy. The most basic meaning is a statement proposing an idea that can be true or false.

Principles exist in all aspects of knowledge.
Surely a scientific law represent a certain fact, i.e. state of affairs within reality and they are in alignment with their respective referent.
You deny, Newton Laws of Motion. Einsteins' Laws of Gravity, Laws of Nature are not facts?

Find more substantial counters to my arguments than the above based on ignorance.
So you think a fact is or can be a principle. But a fact is either a state-of-affairs or a description of a state-of-affairs that is the case. How can either of those be 'a proposition or value that is a guide for behavior or evaluation'?

This is rubbish.
Your views above are rubbish.

What you defined as fact is ultimately 'fart' and as opinion.
Note 'What is Fact' here
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
You have not given any convincing counter to the above.

I asked this, but you did not counter.
  • Principles exist in all aspects of knowledge.
    Surely a scientific law represent a certain fact, i.e. state of affairs within reality and they are in alignment with their respective referent.
    You deny, Newton Laws of Motion. Einsteins' Laws of Gravity, Laws of Nature are not facts?
I will present [later] the history of why 'your concept of fact' is very wrong and that you are dogmatically stuck to this ideology from some bastardized philosophy originating from Hume dogmatic empiricism to Carnap's logical positivism.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4463
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:18 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:08 am I have always equated Moral Facts as Moral Principles.
I feel generous today VA, so I'll help you out. Let's look at synonyms of 'principle' in a few online dictionaries. Please let us know if you find anything missing, so we can contact the inattentive editors.

precept, rule, standard, tenet
moral, norm, value
hypothesis, proposition, theory, thesis
axiom, truism, verity
belief, canon, doctrine, dogma, gospel, law
basis, foundation, ground
conclusion, deduction, inference
affirmation, assertion, avouchment, declaration
dictum, ipse dixit
assumption, given, hypothetical, if, postulate, premise (also premiss), presumption, presupposition, supposition

assumption, basis, convention, doctrine, ethic, foundation, fundamental, precept, proposition, regulation, rule, truth, axiom, canon, criterion, dictum, dogma, form, formula, ground, maxim, origin, postulate, prescript, source, theorem, usage, verity, golden rule, principium, , , belief , rule , standard , attitude , code , notion , criterion , ethic , doctrine , canon , creed , maxim , dogma , tenet , dictum , credo , axiom,
Note sure of your point.

My point is, moral facts are reflected as principles, law, maxims, rules within the Moral Framework and System and they must be justified empirically and philosophically.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4463
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:14 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:40 am
  • P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
    P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
    C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.
I want to give you some credit for finally putting together a simple syllogism, which at least attempts to properly entail its conclusion. For you this is as good as can be expected.
You should just shut up on the above in my case.
Unfortunately, the argument is not deductively valid though, but at least you made a complicated mistake in your premisses this time... so still a huge improvement.
It is logically deductive, perhaps you are arguing it is not as sound to your expectations.
The probelm is that to "produce facts in alignment with a referent", you would need to be examining a referent that inheres in the subject.
That means it would need to be a property of the object itself, not a property of the judgment of the observer.
This can never be the case for evaluative judgments for obvious reasons. So P1, if true, definitively excludes the subject of P2, and thus the premisses do not actually support the concluding inference.
Your thinking is too archaic.

Note this I wrote to Peter,
  • I will present [later] the history of why 'your concept of fact' is very wrong and that you are dogmatically stuck to this ideology from some bastardized philosophy originating from Hume's dogmatic empiricism to Carnap's logical positivism.
You are stuck with the idea of an object and the observer making a judgment relating to the object. This is too archaic thinking.

Note I am not referring to judgment of convention choices and decisions relating to 'moral' or others, made by the common people.

You seem to be ignorant that scientific facts and knowledge are as a result of judgment, i.e. the subsumption of the minor premise within the major premises within reasonable degrees within the Scientific Framework.
In this case, scientific judgments correspond to some kind of referent but the ultimate referent it supposedly tracks is merely assumed - i.e. an opinion.

What I am doing with moral facts is the same as the Scientific Method, where I abstracted judgment on moral facts which referent are inherent within reality. These moral facts are substantial principles and not those everyday 'moral' decisions and choices made by people.
What is critical here is the justifications I presented.

You ignored me when I told you that your moral fact crusade is doomed because it is prescriptive, and that's a shame, because it is that lack of descriptive adequacy that will ruin this argument for you.
Again your knowledge here is limited.
The noncognitivists will insist what is all moral judgments are prescriptive thus not objective.
But the cognitivists argued otherwise.
Cognitivism is the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore be true or false (they are truth-apt), which noncognitivists deny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitivism_(ethics)
You cannot assume you are right until you have countered the cognitivists arguments.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:40 am What is a fact?
  • A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
    For example,
    "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
    "The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact. Further,
    "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and
    "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
    Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
From the above, one will note,
i. the specific Framework and System of Knowledge [F/S] produces its specific related facts.
ii. Facts are objective, i.e. - i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and belief
Remember ages ago when I pointed out that historians accept stuff like that as fact, but the next order is interpretation not deeper facts (so 'Lincoln was assissintated' is accepted as fact, but 'Lincoln was assasinated because ...' that would be interpretation rather than there being a fact of why Lincoln had to die that day). Well, your proposed thing is on the wrong side of that sort of divide.

Whenever you paste a chunk from a wiki link by the way, any smart observer is going to check what the next sentence is, after you cut it off. So the next bit after... Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.
Is ... "The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability — that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. ". You have no means of verifying your fact claims, which probably explains why you left that bit out.
I have already stated many times,
whatever the moral facts to be used as a standard and guide, must be justified empirically and philosophically within the Moral Framework [so independent] and thus must be verifiable and testable.
In this case the related 'experience' is fundamentally a priori rather than a posteriori.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:40 am
  • P1 All facts are objective [ii]
    P2 The Morality F/S produces moral facts [C3]
    C2 Therefore Morality is Objective.
The claim from the above is the justified true moral judgments [moral facts] produced from the moral F/S are factual.

Views?
What the fuck is going on with your antirealism thing? Obviously I hold that you can be an antirealist and agree with the P1 there, but you don't, that is the whole reason behind that stupid reduction to realism thread that you dragged me into and which I scornfully rejected.
Fundamentally I am an anti-realist [Kantian].
However within the above, as a subdivision, I am an empirical moral realist.

What is wrong with the above argument?

Dragged you into? like a donkey by the nose?
Don't you have an independent mind?
It is your discretion to response or not and if you feel the pain in your arse, that is all your own doing, don't cowardly blame others.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2373
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:41 am [...]
Note I am not referring to judgment of convention choices and decisions relating to 'moral' or others, made by the common people.
[...]
These moral facts are substantial principles and not those everyday 'moral' decisions and choices made by people.
[...]
And that is your complete failure all wrapped up with a little bow on top.

You have never been doing morality at all, you have been offering your fake plastic substitute.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4463
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:41 am [...]
Note I am not referring to judgment of convention choices and decisions relating to 'moral' or others, made by the common people.
[...]
These moral facts are substantial principles and not those everyday 'moral' decisions and choices made by people.
[...]
And that is your complete failure all wrapped up with a little bow on top.

You have never been doing morality at all, you have been offering your fake plastic substitute.
That is why I qualify mine as morality-proper.

What is morality-proper is an inherent drive within all humans, albeit not very active in the majority but active only in minority. However, from the current trend, the inherent morality is being more active within the brain/mind of the majority.

What is happening with morality at present is the same as what happened to Science prior to 500 years ago when Science was handled by philosophers, even theists, of all kinds. Thereafter Bacon and others established Science-proper until how it is done at present.

Morality at present is going through what Science went through, thus there are so much disagreements on the definitions of morality, ethics and its related issues. This is to the extent E.O. Wilson suggested philosophers to f/off morality and let the social-biologists to handle morality. I believe E.O. Wilson [don't agree with all his other views] has an intuitive sense of what natural moral sense is like within the human psyche.

Note this thread;
E O Wilson on Morality: Biologists In, Philosophers F/O
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29401

Aside from moral philosophers, others from psychology, neuroscience, economics, anthropologists, various social sciences are attempting to get into the moral bandwagon which at present is heading nowhere especially with thought-police and debate stoppers like you et. al.

Me, I am attempting to approach morality-proper with justified grounding in alignment with what morality is naturally supposed to be within human genetics and psyche.
One cannot fix any complex machine [especially morality with involves the complex human brain] until one has fully understands all its parts and how they mechanisms work within a system. This is what I am trying to do with morality-proper.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:40 am Here is my argument, there are moral facts,
thus 'morality is objective' as a response to this thread,
The Argument;
  • P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
    P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
    C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.
What is a fact?
  • A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
    For example,
    "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
    "The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact. Further,
    "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and
    "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
    Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
From the above, one will note,
i. the specific Framework and System of Knowledge [F/S] produces its specific related facts.
ii. Facts are objective, i.e. - i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and belief

So,
  • P1 All facts are objective [ii]
    P2 The Morality F/S produces moral facts [C3]
    C2 Therefore Morality is Objective.
The claim from the above is the justified true moral judgments [moral facts] produced from the moral F/S are factual.

Views?
What is an example of a moral fact?

Given your above you already stray into opinion.
For example the death of Lincoln can be described in many ways. "Assassination" is a value laden word, as would be "murdered". But you could describe it as "martyred", or even "euthanized". Additionally the contest in which the killing is mentioned would be based on a subjective situation in which some sort of point would be being made. It all depends on how you FEEL about his death, and morals are all about feelings.
And that is why there are no moral facts since all morals rely on opinions based on how people feel about aspects of human behaviour.

So let's have an example please!
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2373
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:01 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:41 am [...]
Note I am not referring to judgment of convention choices and decisions relating to 'moral' or others, made by the common people.
[...]
These moral facts are substantial principles and not those everyday 'moral' decisions and choices made by people.
[...]
And that is your complete failure all wrapped up with a little bow on top.

You have never been doing morality at all, you have been offering your fake plastic substitute.
That is why I qualify mine as morality-proper.
I know, and that is why I describe "morality-proper" as a complete lie. It is barely realted to actual morality at all.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29755
" this is replacing morality with something smaller, meaner, and cheaper to produce. These are Genuine American Cheese theories: nasty, fake plasticky stuff that must have its relationship to the real thing constantly asserted for fear nobody would notice there was one otherwise."
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:01 am What is morality-proper is an inherent drive within all humans, albeit not very active in the majority but active only in minority. However, from the current trend, the inherent morality is being more active within the brain/mind of the majority.
[...]
Me, I am attempting to approach morality-proper with justified grounding in alignment with what morality is naturally supposed to be within human genetics and psyche.
Dude, there's a massive and obvious problem with that. "morality-proper" has no grounding for anything being right or wrong. You can't have "murder is wrong because DNA says so", or "evolution says don't do rape". If you try to make a moral fact argument out of what you are putting together here it is going to get comletely wrecked.
Post Reply