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.
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.
