The 'is/ought' problem is trivial to Morality.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:43 am
- You tried to get round the is/ought and fact/value problems by making the values and therefore fact claims about them, internal to the FSK.
- When challenged you (as above) usually try to universalise that by suggesting that all the apparently empirical bits of science are internal to that FSK.
- Then you end up having to avoid discussing what you have done to the notion of an empirical/rational divide, but I assume Skepdick will argue there is no such divide and you will probably agree. (Will you ever notice that Skepdick is effectively a Logical Positivist by the way?)
- But the ultimate point of all these moves you make is to get around some immediate short term problem. Some guy says you can't get values from facts, you don't waste much time thinking why that is a thing, you just do your usual move and you make everything part of an FSK and call it a win.
Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29758
This is basically due to Hume's historical ignorance of the latest advance knowledge of the various sciences and others.
I have provided various counters to the is-ought problem to open its can of worms.
As for Fact/Value Distinction, note,
Hillary Putnam: Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29759
The critical issue here is,
Are there Moral Facts that would make morality objective.
The problem is with Peter Holmes and his likes who are banking on one perspective of 'what is fact' from the LPs and classical analytic perspective. From this bastardized perspective, there are no possible moral facts.
- The members of the Vienna Circle—which included Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap and Kurt Gödel—did not all agree in detail but they shared a conviction that all philosophical metaphysics and most ethics to date was not so much wrong as meaningless nonsense.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/phil ... of-aj-ayer
But there is another realistic perspective to what is fact,i.e.
What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
Such realistic facts are conditioned to their specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality.
I am not surprised you questioned the concept of a FSK as conditioning whatever is the fact, presumably when you are influenced by the LPs somehow.
Skepdick don't even claim to be a philosopher nor favor philosophy, thus cannot be a Logical Positivist [a philosophical movement].
As stated above, I already have my full-fledged map, model and FSK of Morality-proper.But at the end of all of that, you eventually have to work out what it is that you are trying to make, and you should have a little think about whether you are actually making that any more. You were trying to make a framework and system of knowledge because you wanted something better than a framework and system of opinion and belief, were you not?
A Framework and System can be applicable to knowledge, beliefs and opinion, but what counts is whether the FSK is credible or not.
Credibility of a FSK
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333
A FSK for generating ideas via brainstorming would definitely be less credible than the scientific FSK and other credible FSKs.
Whatever belief you have that you relate to morality is not morality-proper. Note,Ultimately, if I have my mere belief that it is morally wrong to drown kittens. And if you have your knowledge that it is actually in line with the great truths of morality-proper as justified [logically AND philosophically AND scientifically AND whatever else] to drown unwanted kittens that don't belong to somebody else, then there's something you want your knowledge to do that my belief cannot.
Judgments, Decisions, Belief, Opinions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
Whatever is claimed as moral fact must be verified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
Whatever I claimed as fact, moral or otherwise must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK. It is not something based on wishful thinking.Your ultimate problem is that to convert your own beliefs into knowledge, you gave that all away. Your knowledge doesn't do anything that a belief doesn't do equally well. You created a distinction but you forgot to create the difference.
Before you get indignant and hit reply to tell me how ignorant I am and what a bastard logical positivist I must be just because I don't agree with you... It's time for you to take that inventory I've hinted at here. There's a reason why circular arguments do matter, and trying to get out of it by suggesting science is equally circular is not the answer if you are trying to do something other than just win a trivial argument on a tiny little web site where the other guy will just lose interest if you argue long enough anyway. If you want what you are writing to matter in any sense at all, you definitely need to fix the problems rather than calling people retards for telling you about them.
I have researched into circular arguments and begging the question.
There are many perspectives to the above, e.g. the narrow and the broad views.
Why you insist my arguments are circular or begging the question without full justifications is due to ignorance of the depth of the premises I presented.
I believe all arguments are traceable fundamentally to begging-the-question.
Example the seemingly most valid and sound argument has an element of begging the question,
- P1 All men are mortal.
P2 Socrates is a man.
C1 Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
But P1 is nevertheless a strong induction much more credible than reading tea-leaves.
Since P1 is assumed, thus there is the begging-of-question or circular.
Actually fundamentally all premises are based on induction.
So whatever the conclusion from a deductive argument, it is fundamentally inductive thus open to question.
This is why we need a credible FSK to support whatever is inferred as a fact.