A Moral Assertion that is a Moral Fact

[Peter Holmes]

I don't understand why causation comes into this. But certainly, a physical causal explanation - because of the problem of induction - has to be provisional. But that doesn't mean it must be false. All it means is that we can't be sure it's true - an epistemological matter. But then, the expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution or transferred epithet.

The use of the conditional 'because' implies causation ."I love Paris because that is where I met you" is an affective claim that explains the cause of my affection is "that is where I met you".

"Slavery is wrong because West Africans are persons too" explains a cause for you to make the assertion i.e. that persons have certain rights.

No indeed the problem of induction does not mean an assertion has to be false, relative does not imply false.

Relative truths and absolute truths. There is no such event as an absolutely true event. All events are true relative to other events. Whether it's a wave or a particle relates to how you measure the event.

1 Yes, we can always explain our value-judgements. But that doesn't mean they aren't value-judgements.

2 The claim 'it's morally wrong to enslave a person' also expresses a value-judgement.

3 An event has no truth-value. An event isn't true or false. So of course it can't be absolutely true - or false. The only things that can be true or false are factual assertions. Or do you disagree?

[Belinda]

I don't understand why causation comes into this. But certainly, a physical causal explanation - because of the problem of induction - has to be provisional. But that doesn't mean it must be false. All it means is that we can't be sure it's true - an epistemological matter. But then, the expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution or transferred epithet.

The use of the conditional 'because' implies causation ."I love Paris because that is where I met you" is an affective claim that explains the cause of my affection is "that is where I met you".

"Slavery is wrong because West Africans are persons too" explains a cause for you to make the assertion i.e. that persons have certain rights.

No indeed the problem of induction does not mean an assertion has to be false, relative does not imply false.

Relative truths and absolute truths. There is no such event as an absolutely true event. All events are true relative to other events. Whether it's a wave or a particle relates to how you measure the event.

1 Yes, we can always explain our value-judgements. But that doesn't mean they aren't value-judgements.

2 The claim 'it's morally wrong to enslave a person' also expresses a value-judgement.

3 An event has no truth-value. An event isn't true or false. So of course it can't be absolutely true - or false. The only things that can be true or false are factual assertions. Or do you disagree?

A assertion is an event. The content of the assertion is relatively true or relatively false. I.e. the content of the assertion is never absolutely true but is true only to the extent it correlates with the content of other assertions. Man is an animal that makes patterns.

[RCSaunders]

Moral propositions refer to how the subjects wants people to behave. Should behave. Have a duty to behave.

Aesthetic propositions refer to how the subject feels about beauty.

Technical propositions refer to practical efficiency.

I like that answer very much, but am most interested in your answer to the question of the meaning, "moral." I think your answer is spot on and exactly what most people mean implicitly by moral but often without explicitly saying so. What moral means to most people is that which one has some duty or obligation to do or not do.

But one still have a philosophical 'duty' ask why one is obligated or has 'some' duty to do X or not to do X. Why?
Because God said so? or ???

I did not say I agree with what most people mean by moral, which I certainly do not. For those who do believe that, you are right that they do have to answer the questions you pose, which they cannot do and is exactly what is wrong with the so-called concept of, "morality."

There are right and wrong ways for human beings to live their lives if they choose live successfully as human beings, but they have nothing to do with the mystic concept of, "morality," foisted on philosophy by religion and by bad (collectivist anti-rational) philosophers.

[Belinda]

I don't understand why causation comes into this. But certainly, a physical causal explanation - because of the problem of induction - has to be provisional. But that doesn't mean it must be false. All it means is that we can't be sure it's true - an epistemological matter. But then, the expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution or transferred epithet.

The use of the conditional 'because' implies causation ."I love Paris because that is where I met you" is an affective claim that explains the cause of my affection is "that is where I met you".

"Slavery is wrong because West Africans are persons too" explains a cause for you to make the assertion i.e. that persons have certain rights.

No indeed the problem of induction does not mean an assertion has to be false, relative does not imply false.

Relative truths and absolute truths. There is no such event as an absolutely true event. All events are true relative to other events. Whether it's a wave or a particle relates to how you measure the event.

1 Yes, we can always explain our value-judgements. But that doesn't mean they aren't value-judgements.

2 The claim 'it's morally wrong to enslave a person' also expresses a value-judgement.

3 An event has no truth-value. An event isn't true or false. So of course it can't be absolutely true - or false. The only things that can be true or false are factual assertions. Or do you disagree?

Every proposition or expression connotes a value judgement. "Daisies are little white flowers" even barring affectionate tone of voice and facial expression, implies accepted value of attributing colour to something.


"The thigh bone connects on to the hip bone" implies accepted value of knowing the anatomy of the bony skeleton, or perhaps, depending on tone of voice and the teaching situation,the lack of value of someone's anatomical knowledge.Sarcasm and irony imply evaluation.


"You should usually engage a gear before you release the clutch" implies the value of the best way to handle a car.


"Careful how you stand up!" implies positive value of receiver's wellbeing whether the situation involve possibly bumping the head, or lowering the blood pressure.
"Shut up!" implies the transmitter values the silence of the receiver.
"God, Darling, you are so gorgeous !" implies the transmitter values their own feelings enough to tell the receiver about them.

[Peter Holmes]

The use of the conditional 'because' implies causation ."I love Paris because that is where I met you" is an affective claim that explains the cause of my affection is "that is where I met you".

"Slavery is wrong because West Africans are persons too" explains a cause for you to make the assertion i.e. that persons have certain rights.

No indeed the problem of induction does not mean an assertion has to be false, relative does not imply false.

Relative truths and absolute truths. There is no such event as an absolutely true event. All events are true relative to other events. Whether it's a wave or a particle relates to how you measure the event.

1 Yes, we can always explain our value-judgements. But that doesn't mean they aren't value-judgements.

2 The claim 'it's morally wrong to enslave a person' also expresses a value-judgement.

3 An event has no truth-value. An event isn't true or false. So of course it can't be absolutely true - or false. The only things that can be true or false are factual assertions. Or do you disagree?

Every proposition or expression connotes a value judgement. "Daisies are little white flowers" even barring affectionate tone of voice and facial expression, implies accepted value of attributing colour to something.


"The thigh bone connects on to the hip bone" implies accepted value of knowing the anatomy of the bony skeleton, or perhaps, depending on tone of voice and the teaching situation,the lack of value of someone's anatomical knowledge.Sarcasm and irony imply evaluation.


"You should usually engage a gear before you release the clutch" implies the value of the best way to handle a car.


"Careful how you stand up!" implies positive value of receiver's wellbeing whether the situation involve possibly bumping the head, or lowering the blood pressure.
"Shut up!" implies the transmitter values the silence of the receiver.
"God, Darling, you are so gorgeous !" implies the transmitter values their own feelings enough to tell the receiver about them.

Nope. That we value facts doesn't mean that facts are values - that factual assertions express value-judgements. That's just false. 'Water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen' doesn't express a value-judgement. To say it 'connotes' one is fashionable nonsense - and it leads to the absurd idea that a value-judgement - for example expressed by a moral assertion - can be a fact.