One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

[FlashDangerpants]

You have to make your point clearer.
How can I missed it if your point is "what is 1 + 1 = ?"

Your unclear question [only you know yourself] is also wasting my time and effort.
So it is mutually beneficial if you make your point clearer.

Ok, I am going to explain this very simply for you. But do understand, I am doing you a huge favour here, I am explaining in very simple terms, why it is that you have wasted all your effort in these matters so far, and why you need to really go back to the beginning and dump most of what you have written thus far (compare yourself to Wittgenstein if you like and try to do that second, improved version of VA).

This really is ultra simple, all you need to do is look at what shape your general arguments have taken over the last couple of years, and what are the problems you were trying to overcome with each individual fix.

• 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.

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?

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.

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.

[Skepdick]

Will you ever notice that Skepdick is effectively a Logical Positivist by the way?

This is the irony high-score!

I am not a logical positivist, but abduction has led you to conclude that. Which makes YOU a logical positivist, but not a Popperian one.

[FlashDangerpants]

Will you ever notice that Skepdick is effectively a Logical Positivist by the way?

This is the irony high-score!

I am not a logical positivist, but abduction has led you to conclude that. Which makes YOU a logical positivist, but not a Popperian one.

Sure. Now tell me that I don't know what a question is again, but this time do it while telling me that you are a Popperian psitivist not a logical one.

[Skepdick]

Sure. Now tell me that I don't know what a question is again, but this time do it while telling me that you are a Popperian psitivist not a logical one.

I am not any of those things.

You are effectively (to use your own weasel word) wrong.

At which point does your brain actually comprehend the implication of rejecting the entire horseshit notion of identity?

At the very least it means that I don't participate in the stupid "I am X" game...

[FlashDangerpants]

Sure. Now tell me that I don't know what a question is again, but this time do it while telling me that you are a Popperian psitivist not a logical one.

I am not any of those things.

You are effectively (to use your own weasel word) wrong.

At which point does your brain actually comprehend the implication of rejecting the entire horseshit notion of identity?

At the very least it means that I don't participate in the stupid "I am X" game...

Not gonna bother getting into a long discussion with you over such trivial shit. It's pretty simpe really. Every time you tell somebody that they don't understand some normal word that actually everybody understands (such as "wrong", or "question"), either because they have no theory of X to give it meaning, or because you only like that word when used as part of a maths language game, you are in that moment doing Logical Positivism. I dgaf whether you agree that you exist or not.

[Skepdick]

Not gonna bother getting into a long discussion with you over such trivial shit. It's pretty simpe really. Every time you tell somebody that they don't understand some normal word that actually everybody understands (such as "wrong", or "question"), either because they have no theory of X to give it meaning, or because you only like that word when used as part of a maths language game, you are in that moment doing Logical Positivism. I dgaf whether you agree that you exist or not.

It's not a matter of me agreeing or not. You are wrong. I am not doing Logical Positivism. This is a statement of fact in my interpretation.

Trivially, because "understanding X" (be it a word, a theory or a process, or a state of mind) is a final destination. Or as Peter "Retard" Holmes would say - "understanding" comes to an end.

What's the implication of understanding once you have understood whatever it is that you are trying to understand? If nothing, then the notion of "understanding" lacks continuity, so why are you even trying to understand anything?

Context, context, context. You ain't got one. You are just attacking the way you've been trained to attack for reasons that are unclear to you or anybody else in your tribe. Good puppy! Have a doggy biscuit.

[Terrapin Station]

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.

Exactly, which is why I suggested that he start a thread essentially from scratch where he tries to develop and defend these ideas in a systematic way without referencing other threads or posts he's made, without simply doing some hand-waving analogizing to the sciences, without appeals to authority as if that alone is sufficient, and without being patronizing/insulting to others when ideas are challenged. That would be a much better use of his time/effort, but it's sadly just not going to happen.

[Skepdick]

Exactly, which is why I suggested that he start a thread essentially from scratch where he tries to develop and defend these ideas in a systematic way

Don't they teach you anything in Philosophy school?

The best, most systematic and effective defence against an attack is an ultra-violent offence/counter-attack.

But seriously. Who the fuck are you to attack other people's ideas?

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Exactly, which is why I suggested that he start a thread essentially from scratch where he tries to develop and defend these ideas in a systematic way without referencing other threads or posts he's made, without simply doing some hand-waving analogizing to the sciences, without appeals to authority as if that alone is sufficient, and without being patronizing/insulting to others when ideas are challenged. That would be a much better use of his time/effort, but it's sadly just not going to happen.

Oh dear, did he use the excuse that he doesn't have enough time to make a logically sound argument here, but he's "confident" that he could again?
He used that on me year ago, maybe longer, and has boasted since of spending fuck knows how many hours sorting things into thousands of folders.

It's odd how much effort he is willing to put into just repeating himself "1000 times" rather than just sorting out what the actual basis of his argument is and presenting it effectively.

[Terrapin Station]

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.

Exactly, which is why I suggested that he start a thread essentially from scratch where he tries to develop and defend these ideas in a systematic way without referencing other threads or posts he's made, without simply doing some hand-waving analogizing to the sciences, without appeals to authority as if that alone is sufficient, and without being patronizing/insulting to others when ideas are challenged. That would be a much better use of his time/effort, but it's sadly just not going to happen.

Oh dear, did he use the excuse that he doesn't have enough time to make a logically sound argument here, but he's "confident" that he could again?
He used that on me year ago, maybe longer, and has boasted since of spending fuck knows how many hours sorting things into thousands of folders.

It's odd how much effort he is willing to put into just repeating himself "1000 times" rather than just sorting out what the actual basis of his argument is and presenting it effectively.

Yes. I suggested the above to him and he responded, "It a matter of time management and efficiency. Why should I waste time starting from scratch in this case if I think those points are sufficient." To which I responded, "You spend FAR more time making posts like this one, where they amount to simply treading water, so that we don't get anywhere."

[FlashDangerpants]

Exactly, which is why I suggested that he start a thread essentially from scratch where he tries to develop and defend these ideas in a systematic way without referencing other threads or posts he's made, without simply doing some hand-waving analogizing to the sciences, without appeals to authority as if that alone is sufficient, and without being patronizing/insulting to others when ideas are challenged. That would be a much better use of his time/effort, but it's sadly just not going to happen.

Oh dear, did he use the excuse that he doesn't have enough time to make a logically sound argument here, but he's "confident" that he could again?
He used that on me year ago, maybe longer, and has boasted since of spending fuck knows how many hours sorting things into thousands of folders.

It's odd how much effort he is willing to put into just repeating himself "1000 times" rather than just sorting out what the actual basis of his argument is and presenting it effectively.

Yes. I suggested the above to him and he responded, "It a matter of time management and efficiency. Why should I waste time starting from scratch in this case if I think those points are sufficient." To which I responded, "You spend FAR more time making posts like this one, where they amount to simply treading water, so that we don't get anywhere."

It's sort of weird when those are the choices that are made by the guy whose argument depends on it being morally necessary to do normal things (otherwise broken programming). If there's an elephant in the room and you don't want to draw attention to him, maybe don't point at him.

[Atla]

Here is one [among many] justification that moral facts exist as real within the human brain and whole physical self.

The general principle is, if we are programmed to do X, then there is an ought_ness to do X.
It is that 'oughtness' i.e. that existence of that state-of-oughtness that is a real fact as justified within a FSK.

If anyone do not agree with, don't want, do not comply with that oughtness that is their opinion but that will not extirpate that fact of oughtness in their brain and physical self.
If they don't comply with the "programmed" say "ought_ness to breathe", then they will die very soon thus proving that state of ought_ness with its own force is very real.

Where the state-of-oughtness relate to morality-proper within a moral FSK, then that is a moral fact, e.g. the state-of-ought_ness "not to kill humans".

If normal people do not comply with the real moral fact of the state-of-ought_ness "not to kill humans", their conscience will be triggered that will cause terrible mental pains to the extent that some murderers committed suicide. Such events validate that the moral fact of the state-of-ought_ness "not to kill humans" is very real.

The above, on the basis of conscience [evidently] validate and justify that moral facts exist as real within the human brain and whole physical self.

Note, I am not insisting the above is a main or THE argument to justify the existence of moral facts.

Whatever is a moral fact MUST be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK, e.g. the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans'.

Views?

By 'oughtness' you mean 'drive', 'instinctual drive'. Yes we do have those, that's an objective fact.

Morality is for example about choosing whether or not to act on those drives, out of our own free will. If you can't even comprehend what 'morality' / 'ought' are about, then maybe you are amoral, or just a machine with no concept of free will?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You have to make your point clearer.
How can I missed it if your point is "what is 1 + 1 = ?"

Your unclear question [only you know yourself] is also wasting my time and effort.
So it is mutually beneficial if you make your point clearer.

Ok, I am going to explain this very simply for you. But do understand, I am doing you a huge favour here, I am explaining in very simple terms, why it is that you have wasted all your effort in these matters so far, and why you need to really go back to the beginning and dump most of what you have written thus far (compare yourself to Wittgenstein if you like and try to do that second, improved version of VA).

Thanks for your intended favor to me which I think the critiques has some worth, but I have my own views of what is morality & ethics which none [in principles] agree with yours.

My core of Morality & Ethics is 95% of Kantian Morality and Ethics {M&E] which you are aware I spent 3 years full-time on Kant's CPR and his Practical Reason.
Somehow I have not discussed Kantian M&E in details because most are ignorant of it nor understand [not necessary agree with] Kantian M&E proper.
What I had discussed are bits and pieces of Kantian M&E proper here and there.

This really is ultra simple, all you need to do is look at what shape your general arguments have taken over the last couple of years, and what are the problems you were trying to overcome with each individual fix.

The following is how I got into serious research into M&E in general which obviously I am sure is worth my time spent.

I am confident Kantian M&E will prevail in the future [as partial of it are already in practice]. As such in previous years I had not put much emphasis on the lower grade M&E by other philosophers.

My initial serious foray into the M&E of others was Peter Holmes' challenge, "What could make morality objective?
I am well aware Peter's is the typical challenge to theists and the Platonists who claimed there are moral facts independent of mind thus morality is objective.
I agree theists and the Platonists claims of objective morality is not tenable nor realistic.

However I am well aware, from the Kantian perspective, there are moral normative which I extended to objective moral facts in a way.

At the sight of my presentation of the term facts and normative, I got a barrage of boulders of Hume's 'no ought from is' [NOFI] thrown and rained at me from other posters like yourself and your likes. In addition there was the fact-value distinction claimed to be impossible to be reconciled.

Since I am well versed with Kantian M&E and that Kant had countered most of Hume's challenges, I am confident Hume was short-sighted with his 'no ought from is' NOFI which in fact he was, due to the limitation of advance knowledge during his time in the 1700s.

Since Hume's morality was short-sighted, I challenged Sculptor whether he had read Hume at all, he claimed he had done that while I was still suckling.
I had read both Hume's Treaty and Inquiry long ago, so I decided to refresh and researched in particular on Hume's Morality.

The interesting part as usual when we researched on one topic we are exposed to >50 bibliography and references, and from each of those references, we have another set of > 50 references. Being aggressive in the range of knowledge, that was how I ended with >1300 books and articles in >60 folders merely under my new main Morality and Ethics Folder covering 95% of what there is to the Philosophy Morality and Ethics.

This is why I am so confident when I claimed whosoever is ignorant, shallow and narrow in thinking, dogmatic, LPs, classical analytic morality, etc.

There is no need for me to do a 'second Wittgenstein.'
I have already has a map of what is my full-fledged Framework and System of Morality and Ethics which is grounded on the Kantian M&E creamed with the latest advance knowledge at present and potentially in the future.

What I presented and argued so far are merely a bigger tip of the iceberg and bits & pieces of my morality FSK. I don't have intention to present my full-fledged FSK but merely toy with 'what is moral fact' thus morality is objective.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ok then. You really do need to stop and ask what objectivity does, and what are facts for, because otherwise you are going to throw out the baby with bathwater.

[Peter Holmes]

You have to make your point clearer.
How can I missed it if your point is "what is 1 + 1 = ?"

Your unclear question [only you know yourself] is also wasting my time and effort.
So it is mutually beneficial if you make your point clearer.

Ok, I am going to explain this very simply for you. But do understand, I am doing you a huge favour here, I am explaining in very simple terms, why it is that you have wasted all your effort in these matters so far, and why you need to really go back to the beginning and dump most of what you have written thus far (compare yourself to Wittgenstein if you like and try to do that second, improved version of VA).

Thanks for your intended favor to me which I think the critiques has some worth, but I have my own views of what is morality & ethics which none [in principles] agree with yours.

My core of Morality & Ethics is 95% of Kantian Morality and Ethics {M&E] which you are aware I spent 3 years full-time on Kant's CPR and his Practical Reason.
Somehow I have not discussed Kantian M&E in details because most are ignorant of it nor understand [not necessary agree with] Kantian M&E proper.
What I had discussed are bits and pieces of Kantian M&E proper here and there.

This really is ultra simple, all you need to do is look at what shape your general arguments have taken over the last couple of years, and what are the problems you were trying to overcome with each individual fix.

The following is how I got into serious research into M&E in general which obviously I am sure is worth my time spent.

I am confident Kantian M&E will prevail in the future [as partial of it are already in practice]. As such in previous years I had not put much emphasis on the lower grade M&E by other philosophers.

My initial serious foray into the M&E of others was Peter Holmes' challenge, "What could make morality objective?
I am well aware Peter's is the typical challenge to theists and the Platonists who claimed there are moral facts independent of mind thus morality is objective.
I agree theists and the Platonists claims of objective morality is not tenable nor realistic.

However I am well aware, from the Kantian perspective, there are moral normative which I extended to objective moral facts in a way.

At the sight of my presentation of the term facts and normative, I got a barrage of boulders of Hume's 'no ought from is' [NOFI] thrown and rained at me from other posters like yourself and your likes. In addition there was the fact-value distinction claimed to be impossible to be reconciled.

Since I am well versed with Kantian M&E and that Kant had countered most of Hume's challenges, I am confident Hume was short-sighted with his 'no ought from is' NOFI which in fact he was, due to the limitation of advance knowledge during his time in the 1700s.

Since Hume's morality was short-sighted, I challenged Sculptor whether he had read Hume at all, he claimed he had done that while I was still suckling.
I had read both Hume's Treaty and Inquiry long ago, so I decided to refresh and researched in particular on Hume's Morality.

The interesting part as usual when we researched on one topic we are exposed to >50 bibliography and references, and from each of those references, we have another set of > 50 references. Being aggressive in the range of knowledge, that was how I ended with >1300 books and articles in >60 folders merely under my new main Morality and Ethics Folder covering 95% of what there is to the Philosophy Morality and Ethics.

This is why I am so confident when I claimed whosoever is ignorant, shallow and narrow in thinking, dogmatic, LPs, classical analytic morality, etc.

There is no need for me to do a 'second Wittgenstein.'
I have already has a map of what is my full-fledged Framework and System of Morality and Ethics which is grounded on the Kantian M&E creamed with the latest advance knowledge at present and potentially in the future.

What I presented and argued so far are merely a bigger tip of the iceberg and bits & pieces of my morality FSK. I don't have intention to present my full-fledged FSK but merely toy with 'what is moral fact' thus morality is objective.

There's no doubt your project is Kantian. Here's the passage from the Critique of Practical Reason:

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.”

So Kant 'saw' before him 'the moral law within' him, and connected it 'immediately with the consciousness of [his] existence'.

And 95% of your fictional 'morality framework and system of knowledge' comes from, or is based on, this mystical, irrationalist, intuitionist claptrap. No wonder it's a house of cards.

Hume wasn't always right. But the 'no ought from is' claim has nothing to do with knowledge, or the 18th-century lack of it. It's simply pointing out a disconnection between two kinds of assertion: factual and non-factual - and so how the one can never entail the other. Through all our discussions, you've never once demonstrated such an entailment - and Kant never did - simply because it's impossible. That's all that Hume was pointing out.