There are no 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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4145
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are no moral facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:29 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:51 am
such as 'incest is wrong', which anyone can easily show isn't a fact of any kind.
"No human ought to commit incest"
is a moral fact when it is justified* empirically and philosophically within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
* detailed justifications available.

If any theistic Framework do not permit incest [which is a right and good restraint], it has nothing to do with morality-proper, rather it is just a so-called command from God [do not exists anyway] which happens to be parallel and agreeable with the maxim of morality proper.

A theistic Framework supposedly are absolutely controlled by a God and where the commands [e.g. on incest, etc] are enforceable with a threat of hellfire for any non-compliance.

On the other hand, the Moral Framework and System do not enforces any moral facts as standards on any one but rather establish fool proof self-development programs for the moral agent to improve their moral quotient progressively towards the ideal.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: There are no moral facts

Post by Sculptor » Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:05 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:51 am
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:16 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:02 am
You are destroying your own philosophical integrity with the above, i.e.
no justifications at all but merely by shouting from the top of a roof.
If you think the statement is incorrect, then you can challenge it by furnishing a single example which we can discuss.
What challenge can I countered to such a response;

There are no moral facts.
The end.
Sometimes I wonder at your grasp of English.
The above is not a "response". It is a bold statement which you think is wrong. And all you have to do to refute it is find ONE example.
If you can't think of ONE example, then maybe he is right and you are wrong?

I have already challenged and countered the issues raised by Peter's and others in various specific
and many others.
I do not recall you simply offering a moral fact in these threads.
Can you not remember an example?
So think of the most clear moral statement that is irrefutably factual, and then we can debate it is a challenge.
You only need one, since PH has said there are "no" moral facts, you'd only need to find one for him to be wrong.
I'm puzzled by your reluctance.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: There are no moral facts

Post by Sculptor » Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:06 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:27 am
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:18 pm
Not all facts could be described as "moral".
Who said all facts were moral facts? As I recall, it wasn't Peter or me...
You must be going senile if you can't remember.
DO you ever have problems finding your keys?

Peter Holmes
Posts: 1191
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: There are no moral facts

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:08 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:51 am
such as 'incest is wrong', which anyone can easily show isn't a fact of any kind.
"No human ought to commit incest"
is a moral fact when it is justified* empirically and philosophically within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
* detailed justifications available.
Nope. A 'system and framework of morality' can consist only of moral principles: such things are morally right / wrong. And all that can be derived from those principles are moral judgements, such as 'incest is morally wrong'.

Please provide an example of a supposed empirical justification for the claim that incest is morally wrong - such that its wrongness is a fact, and not a matter of judgement, belief or opinion.

The sentence should begin: Incest is morally wrong because...

Skepdick
Posts: 4414
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There are no moral facts

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:07 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:08 pm
Nope. A 'system and framework of morality' can consist only of moral principles: such things are morally right / wrong. And all that can be derived from those principles are moral judgements, such as 'incest is morally wrong'.

Please provide an example of a supposed empirical justification for the claim that incest is morally wrong - such that its wrongness is a fact, and not a matter of judgement, belief or opinion.

The sentence should begin: Incest is morally wrong because...
What a troll.

He's been told twice that judgments have truth value.

And he continues to ignore the question of whether there are more truths than facts; or more facts than truths.

Impenitent
Posts: 2824
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: There are no moral facts

Post by Impenitent » Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:20 pm


Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4145
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are no moral facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:43 am

Sculptor wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:51 am
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:16 pm


If you think the statement is incorrect, then you can challenge it by furnishing a single example which we can discuss.
What challenge can I countered to such a response;

There are no moral facts.
The end.
Sometimes I wonder at your grasp of English.
The above is not a "response". It is a bold statement which you think is wrong. And all you have to do to refute it is find ONE example.
If you can't think of ONE example, then maybe he is right and you are wrong?

I have already challenged and countered the issues raised by Peter's and others in various specific
and many others.
I do not recall you simply offering a moral fact in these threads.
Can you not remember an example?
So think of the most clear moral statement that is irrefutably factual, and then we can debate it is a challenge.
You only need one, since PH has said there are "no" moral facts, you'd only need to find one for him to be wrong.
I'm puzzled by your reluctance.
Point is you did not read the listing of threads in the 'Ethical Theory' section.
You have to get the facts right before you respond.

I raised this thread'
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
with the relevant arguments.

and he immediately raise THIS thread with the OP;
  • There are no moral facts.
    The end.
What is appropriate is for one to counter my arguments whether they are sound or not?

In addition, here is the definition of what is fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

The 'fact' as defined by the anti-moral-fact faction is a corrupted one.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4145
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are no moral facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Jul 11, 2020 3:04 am

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:08 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:51 am
such as 'incest is wrong', which anyone can easily show isn't a fact of any kind.
"No human ought to commit incest"
is a moral fact when it is justified* empirically and philosophically within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
* detailed justifications available.
Nope. A 'system and framework of morality' can consist only of moral principles: such things are morally right / wrong. And all that can be derived from those principles are moral judgements, such as 'incest is morally wrong'.
How come you are so ignorant of the meaning of 'principle'.
  • Principle
    -a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.
It is obvious "principle" as defined above has to be a fact.
This fact, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
not your bastardized 'fact'.

Note my argument, here;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
  • 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.
In the case of the Moral Framework and System, it justify true moral facts which are used as standards and GUIDEs for the Moral F/S.
Note morality [pure] is always complemented with ethics [applied]. So it is a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Please provide an example of a supposed empirical justification for the claim that incest is morally wrong - such that its wrongness is a fact, and not a matter of judgement, belief or opinion.

The sentence should begin: Incest is morally wrong because...
Note my argument above, thus as long as the moral statement is justified as a Justified True Moral Belief from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, it is a moral fact. Such moral facts are independent of individual opinions and beliefs, thus are objective.

I have already provided justifications via a Moral F/S for the moral fact re Slavery, killing [murder], breathing, eating, abortion, and incest can be 'easily' justified [but tedious] in terms of a moral fact.
I will not be bothered to justify it here.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: There are no moral facts

Post by Sculptor » Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:43 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:43 am
Sculptor wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:51 am

What challenge can I countered to such a response;

There are no moral facts.
The end.
Sometimes I wonder at your grasp of English.
The above is not a "response". It is a bold statement which you think is wrong. And all you have to do to refute it is find ONE example.
If you can't think of ONE example, then maybe he is right and you are wrong?

I have already challenged and countered the issues raised by Peter's and others in various specific
and many others.
I do not recall you simply offering a moral fact in these threads.
Can you not remember an example?
So think of the most clear moral statement that is irrefutably factual, and then we can debate it is a challenge.
You only need one, since PH has said there are "no" moral facts, you'd only need to find one for him to be wrong.
I'm puzzled by your reluctance.
Point is you did not read the listing of threads in the 'Ethical Theory' section.
You have to get the facts right before you respond.

I raised this thread'
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
with the relevant arguments.

and he immediately raise THIS thread with the OP;
  • There are no moral facts.
    The end.
What is appropriate is for one to counter my arguments whether they are sound or not?

In addition, here is the definition of what is fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

The 'fact' as defined by the anti-moral-fact faction is a corrupted one.
So - to be CLEAR.
You say there are such things as moral facts BUT you cannot think of one; or you do not want to say what you think is one because you know it will be shown to be false; or you forgot what they are?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8381
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: There are no moral facts

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:56 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:20 am
Moral facts must be justified empirically and philosophically within the Moral Framework and System.
Well, being consistent within a proposed moral framework is a good thing; but it's not enough. Moral frameworks can themselves be wrong. Certainly, the Nazi or Stalinist moral frameworks would not be adequate just because they were internally-consistent...they were objectively wrong, regardless of how much merely-internal consistency they may have evinced, as I'm sure you'll agree.

So how do you propose we find the objective basis to judge a bad framework, like that of Nazis and Stalinists?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8381
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: There are no moral facts

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:03 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:51 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:39 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:19 pm
Exactly so are moral terms - they express only our own opinions. And my moral opinions have as few implications for other people as do my aesthetic opinions.
That being so, you have no condemnation for racism, dishonesty, violence, rape, pedophilia, wife abuse, fascism, genocide...and so on, because as you say, it's only "your opinion," no more substantial or necessary for others than your aesthetic view of the Mona Lisa. Are you happy to be okay with letting other people practice such things? If they find them aesthetically or personally pleasing, that's just okee dokee with you? :shock:
No, I morally condemn all those things, ...You seem fixated with the stupid idea that I shouldn't or can't consistently morally condemn them, because I don't think there are moral facts.
You can only personally dislike them...but condemning them is different. It invokes the agreement of others, and in fact, implies they SHOULD agree with your condemnation of those things, and hence would be bad people if they did not.

But you say there is no factual basis whatsoever to justify your condemnation beyond the level of "Peter doesn't like.." for you insist,
Here's me talking: 'There are no moral facts, and I think these things are morally wrong.'
And you ask,
Now, why is that a logical contradiction?
Because you can't expect anyone else to feel they SHOULD agree with your alleged condemnation.

So you're not actually condemning those things at all...you're just saying, by implication of your above theory, "Peter doesn't happen to like them; but if you others do, go ahead, because I have no basis to say otherwise." I doubt that such a pseudo-condemnation gives any consolation to the victims of the crimes you're avoiding really condemning. In fact, if you hold that theory, you're allowing that such evils could flourish without any legitimated moral censure, let alone a collective penalty or justice.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4145
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are no moral facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:55 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:20 am
Moral facts must be justified empirically and philosophically within the Moral Framework and System.
Well, being consistent within a proposed moral framework is a good thing; but it's not enough. Moral frameworks can themselves be wrong. Certainly, the Nazi or Stalinist moral frameworks would not be adequate just because they were internally-consistent...they were objectively wrong, regardless of how much merely-internal consistency they may have evinced, as I'm sure you'll agree.

So how do you propose we find the objective basis to judge a bad framework, like that of Nazis and Stalinists?
First, political and theological Frameworks are not moral framework per se.
Therefore the Nazi or Stalinist Framework are political, not moral framework per se.
It is the same that theological frameworks are not moral framework.


What is morality focus on avoiding 'evil' acts and the 'good' that will contribute to the well-being of the individuals toward the survival of the human species.
In this case, 'good' and 'evil' are very loose terms thus they will have to be specifically defined for the purpose of morality.
What is 'good' within morality is fundamentally 'what is not evil' and whatever other positives are secondary within the moral framework.

In contrast to morality, in politics, killing is acceptable if it favor the political interests but it is not universally condemned.
The main objective[s] of a theological framework are focused on salvation and obeying God's commands [else threat of hellfire] which are not totally 'moral' in all cases.

I agree Christianity has many elements which are parallel to "good morals", but it is fundamentally a theological framework not a moral one. However, note the theological framework of Islam which as a default focus on salvation and obeying God, condones the killing of non-believers, and whatever is 'good' is only relevant for believers.

Thus political and theological Frameworks are off topic for morality and ethics.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4145
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are no moral facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:58 am

Sculptor wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:43 am
So - to be CLEAR.
You say there are such things as moral facts BUT you cannot think of one; or you do not want to say what you think is one because you know it will be shown to be false; or you forgot what they are?
I have justified many moral facts in other posts.
Note the ones on breathing, hunger, killing, slavery, abortion, and others in various posts elsewhere.

Edit:
Found one example [there are others];
viewtopic.php?p=461967#p461967

In narrative form [edited];
  • 1. 'All humans are programmed to be breathe to survive so not to die'
    2. Evidence: All surviving humans breathe.
    3. 'all human ought* to breathe to survive else they die'
    Input the 1 & 2 into a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics and process the justifications with other elements and principles, we generate the moral fact;
    4. No human ought to stop another from breathing till they die.
* 'ought' reflects the reality of imperative, urgency, necessity, matter of life or death,

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8381
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: There are no moral facts

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:45 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:55 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:20 am
Moral facts must be justified empirically and philosophically within the Moral Framework and System.
Well, being consistent within a proposed moral framework is a good thing; but it's not enough. Moral frameworks can themselves be wrong. Certainly, the Nazi or Stalinist moral frameworks would not be adequate just because they were internally-consistent...they were objectively wrong, regardless of how much merely-internal consistency they may have evinced, as I'm sure you'll agree.

So how do you propose we find the objective basis to judge a bad framework, like that of Nazis and Stalinists?
First, political and theological Frameworks are not moral framework per se.
Actually, political ideas are dependent on a moral framework, though they are something less precise. Politics derives from moral frameworks, which they often only tacitly presume are true, without having shown they are. Political projects, we might say, are ethics in action, not ethics in theory. But they are expressions of ethics, nonetheless...and making those tacit and presumptive frameworks explicit and stated is key to judging whether or not the political project in question is a moral one at all.

So there's no separating those from morality. Not if one is a self-aware or moral person, anyway.
What is morality focus on avoiding 'evil' acts and the 'good' that will contribute to the well-being of the individuals toward the survival of the human species.
That's the problem. Without first choosing a framework, we have no basis on which to premise a conception of "good" and "evil." We do not know, for example that "individuals surviving" is compatible with "survival of the human species," and how to weigh the relative good of preserving one or two lives against that of serving the interests of one or two thousand. And for that matter, if we listen to today's environmentalists, we're not even sure that survival of the human species can be said to be an uncontroversial "good." In their framework, it's superseded by survival of the planet and the other species on it.

They may be wrong -- I certainly think they are, and have reasons to say so -- but absent a metaframework, an overarching worldview to tell us which contradictory framework is actually right, we would have no way to know.

What is that metaframework?
In contrast to morality, in politics, killing is acceptable if it favor the political interests but it is not universally condemned.
From what framework are you speaking when you make that claim? I think it's wrong, so you'll have to convince me you're right. What you say there, taken at face value, would justify the massacre of a minority if it were said by the majority to serve their view of the public interest -- just as when Jews were exterminated by the Nazis in Poland for their presumptive possibility of colluding with Communists. That was done in the majority public interest, and was certainly not universally condemned, so it was viewed as acceptable killing.

Would you be content to side with that?
...which are not totally 'moral' in all cases.

Again, "not totally moral" from what framework? Are you speaking as a Kantian? A Utilitarian? A Zoroastrian? What?
I agree Christianity has many elements which are parallel to "good morals",
Whose "good morals"? It's the same problem: you're taking for granted that we all share a simple concept of what is "good morals" and what is not; but it's only your concept, and you don't even say what concept it actually is. What's your framework?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4145
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are no moral facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:02 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:55 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:56 pm

Well, being consistent within a proposed moral framework is a good thing; but it's not enough. Moral frameworks can themselves be wrong. Certainly, the Nazi or Stalinist moral frameworks would not be adequate just because they were internally-consistent...they were objectively wrong, regardless of how much merely-internal consistency they may have evinced, as I'm sure you'll agree.

So how do you propose we find the objective basis to judge a bad framework, like that of Nazis and Stalinists?
First, political and theological Frameworks are not moral framework per se.
Actually, political ideas are dependent on a moral framework, though they are something less precise. Politics derives from moral frameworks, which they often only tacitly presume are true, without having shown they are. Political projects, we might say, are ethics in action, not ethics in theory. But they are expressions of ethics, nonetheless...and making those tacit and presumptive frameworks explicit and stated is key to judging whether or not the political project in question is a moral one at all.

So there's no separating those from morality. Not if one is a self-aware or moral person, anyway.
To counter your point I have given the example of Science-proper.

Science's etymological origin is "to know" i.e. for knowledge.

Before Science-proper, whatever is seeking knowledge, i.e. "Scientific" were practiced by philosophers, monks, shamans, alchemists, quack-doctors, astrologers, etc.
It was only when Bacon and others who took the effort to establish Science-proper around 500 years ago till its present effective and reasonable credible 'formal' framework.
The present Scientific Framework can be better if humans are more moral competent.

All humans has an 'independent' inherent moral function but it has not been active within the majority of people who are more driven to the more dominant religion and politics.
so morality is NOT from politics nor religions.
Morality is a Johnny-come-lately mental function but from evidence of human acts and mirror neurons, the dormant inherent moral function is getting more active in the present within the majority.

Given the terrible evils that is going on at present, it is about time we follow the steps of Science-proper in attempting to abstract from evidences and pseudo morality to formalize morality-proper as a specific branch of knowledge and practice with a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
What is morality focus on avoiding 'evil' acts and the 'good' that will contribute to the well-being of the individuals toward the survival of the human species.
That's the problem. Without first choosing a framework, we have no basis on which to premise a conception of "good" and "evil." We do not know, for example that "individuals surviving" is compatible with "survival of the human species," and how to weigh the relative good of preserving one or two lives against that of serving the interests of one or two thousand. And for that matter, if we listen to today's environmentalists, we're not even sure that survival of the human species can be said to be an uncontroversial "good." In their framework, it's superseded by survival of the planet and the other species on it.

They may be wrong -- I certainly think they are, and have reasons to say so -- but absent a metaframework, an overarching worldview to tell us which contradictory framework is actually right, we would have no way to know.

What is that metaframework?
This is why I have been advocating for an efficient Framework and System of Morality & Ethics with justified true moral facts are grounds.
There is no need for a meta-framework rather just follow the Framework and System like Science.
In contrast to morality, in politics, killing is acceptable if it favor the political interests but it is not universally condemned.
From what framework are you speaking when you make that claim? I think it's wrong, so you'll have to convince me you're right. What you say there, taken at face value, would justify the massacre of a minority if it were said by the majority to serve their view of the public interest -- just as when Jews were exterminated by the Nazis in Poland for their presumptive possibility of colluding with Communists. That was done in the majority public interest, and was certainly not universally condemned, so it was viewed as acceptable killing.

Would you be content to side with that?
Note the Framework that I explained above, i.e. like Science preferably and others.

You missed my point?
What is acceptable in Politics and religions is not universally condemned, thus cannot be morality.
For morality, all maxims [laws, principles] must be applicable to ALL humans regardless.
I have said many times, one of the moral maxim is,
'No human ought to kill another human'
thus there is no room for anyone to kill the minority or any human.
...which are not totally 'moral' in all cases.

Again, "not totally moral" from what framework? Are you speaking as a Kantian? A Utilitarian? A Zoroastrian? What?
When I proposed the following moral maxim;
'No human ought to kill another human'
you could say that is of Christianity??

Nope! the Framework will not be related totally to any past models but its architectural plan will be different and new, adopting various parts from other models.
Critical point: Whatever is accepted as grounds, they must be justified empirically and philosophically.
The majority of the moral framework elements will be from Science, neurosciences, philosophy, Buddhism, Kantian, and others.
I agree Christianity has many elements which are parallel to "good morals",
Whose "good morals"? It's the same problem: you're taking for granted that we all share a simple concept of what is "good morals" and what is not; but it's only your concept, and you don't even say what concept it actually is. What's your framework?
Whose??
There are good morals within Christianity that are universally accepted as 'good' thus considered as good moral elements, e.g.
  • the golden rule,
    love all and even your enemies,
    thou shall not kill,
    no adultery,
    no stealing,
But like a say, the main purpose of theology is salvation with obeying God's command under the threat of hellfire. The holy text and doctrine are immutable so are the negative ones therein like condoning slavery, false creationism claims, etc. and worst as in Islam.

This is why we need a new Framework and System of Morality and Ethics without the negatives like those within theological and other pseudo-moral models.

The purpose of the new Moral F/S is not enforcing moral rules on individuals with threats and punishing them but rather develop fool proof self-developments programs and practices that will enable the individual to activate their inherent moral functions internally so that their actions are spontaneously moral.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests