One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

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

Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 9:01 am So the challenge to moral realists and objectivists remains what it has always been: please demonstrate the existence of even one moral fact - one moral feature of reality that is or was the case. One concrete and testable description - like 'water is H2O' - will do the trick.

(Moral objectivists who deny there are such things as facts in the first place are obviously confused, but perhaps marching out of time to a different drummer.)
Please demonstrate that this is red. If you are struggling with a demonstration, a test will suffice.

How would you test that this is red?
red.png
red.png (9.26 KiB) Viewed 1849 times
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 4:25 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:13 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:26 am
That is not my point.

What is inside a FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK is its implied constitution, the scientific method, the processes, the principles, the assumptions, defined limitations, peer review and whatever supporting elements and conditions necessary to ensure the scientific FSK is credible.

Scientific truths which are generated from the scientific FSK in compliance with its conditions. The scientific FSK the standard bearer of the credibility of truths, albeit they are only polished conjectures.
I believe you will NOT insist scientific truths are false and not objective.
The truths of science aren't inside the scientific activity. Somebody with an alternative FSK can say that world is flat and that NASA is a conspiracy and so on. There is not a seperate but equal truth of the Flat Earth FSK which claims such things though, the world itself, independently of all human action has a shape that is its shape.

Science has no issue there. Science derives ISes not OUGHTs. So if some competing idea comes along which says that science is wrong about the shape of the Earth, we don't compare how many peers have reviewwed each claim to decide how believable one is compared to the other. Nor do we say that it is true that the Earth is round if science says so and it is also true that the Earth is not round if Youtube says so. We look at the object itself, and that tells us the shape.

But your thing doesn't have that luxury. You need a rule within your FSK of a sort that science does not need. Namely this thing where the derivation of ought as a fact comes from inside the FSK.
Point is your thinking is too conventional and rigid, i.e. as systematic philosophers do in contrast to edifying philosophers who see things from different and new perspectives. [Rorty].

Yes, science justify ISes within reality [comprising ALL ISes]
But 'oughtness' is an "is" within reality [comprising ALL ISes]

All humans are "programmed" to breathe else they die.
That "program" thus generate an "oughtness", a force of compulsion that the human must act accordingly else death awaits.
This oughtness is represented by neurons, chemicals in the brain and body generating potentials and physical tensions.
That 'ougtness' is an "is" which is real and objective.

When the above scientific 'oughtness' [scientific fact] is input within a moral FSK, and after processing with other inputs, what emerges from inside the moral FSK is a moral fact.

I have given an analogy from the legal FSK which get its input from scientific facts and other inputs to be processed via the legal FSK and the output is a legal fact, e.g.
X is convicted of the murder of Y and is sentenced to death.
Surely you cannot deny this is a legal fact qualified and valid only within the legal FSK.
Your argument is circular. You depend on the FSK itself to make the claim that the same FSK is derived from fact. Nobody who doesn't agree with the conclusion about moral oughtness can possibly be persuaded by your argument, because it is circular.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 4:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:26 am
As far as the moral fact 'no human ought to enslave another' I agree with Henry since his intuition on this agrees with the verified and justified moral fact from the moral FSK.

I do not agree with Henry re his claim on "killing humans".
What he intuited in this case do not agree with the verified and justified true moral fact re 'no human ought to kill humans' period!
Henry did not claim to have a FSK but it can be implied he has a very crude and unreliable FSK on this matter.


As I had stated above the most credible facts or truths, i.e. scientific facts from the scientific FSK are merely at best 'polished conjectures' and we have to accept this limitation.

It is not a question of which FSK is "correct" but which FSK is relatively more credible than others.
Note the criteria above on what determine the scientific FSK as the most credible 'polisher' of conjectures.

In Henry's case, he is relying on his own personal intuition and he never claimed he has a credible FSK to support his claim. So he is depending on luck that his intuition will align with reality.
Your FSK is only credible to you. Without already believing the FSK, nobody has any reason to take it seriously, because you need to agree with said FSK to accept that DNA is source of truth about what is good.

Henry's FSK is no less credible than yours.
I have already explained a "1000" times, the moral FSK I proposed is similar to the scientific FSK.

see this repeat;
viewtopic.php?p=503400#p503400
You can say it as many thousands of times as you like, it still isn't true. Science looks at the natural world for answers to questions of what is. Your FSK only looks at itself for answers to what ought to be.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 4:25 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:13 pm
The truths of science aren't inside the scientific activity. Somebody with an alternative FSK can say that world is flat and that NASA is a conspiracy and so on. There is not a seperate but equal truth of the Flat Earth FSK which claims such things though, the world itself, independently of all human action has a shape that is its shape.

Science has no issue there. Science derives ISes not OUGHTs. So if some competing idea comes along which says that science is wrong about the shape of the Earth, we don't compare how many peers have reviewwed each claim to decide how believable one is compared to the other. Nor do we say that it is true that the Earth is round if science says so and it is also true that the Earth is not round if Youtube says so. We look at the object itself, and that tells us the shape.

But your thing doesn't have that luxury. You need a rule within your FSK of a sort that science does not need. Namely this thing where the derivation of ought as a fact comes from inside the FSK.
Point is your thinking is too conventional and rigid, i.e. as systematic philosophers do in contrast to edifying philosophers who see things from different and new perspectives. [Rorty].

Yes, science justify ISes within reality [comprising ALL ISes]
But 'oughtness' is an "is" within reality [comprising ALL ISes]

All humans are "programmed" to breathe else they die.
That "program" thus generate an "oughtness", a force of compulsion that the human must act accordingly else death awaits.
This oughtness is represented by neurons, chemicals in the brain and body generating potentials and physical tensions.
That 'ougtness' is an "is" which is real and objective.

When the above scientific 'oughtness' [scientific fact] is input within a moral FSK, and after processing with other inputs, what emerges from inside the moral FSK is a moral fact.

I have given an analogy from the legal FSK which get its input from scientific facts and other inputs to be processed via the legal FSK and the output is a legal fact, e.g.
X is convicted of the murder of Y and is sentenced to death.
Surely you cannot deny this is a legal fact qualified and valid only within the legal FSK.
Your argument is circular. You depend on the FSK itself to make the claim that the same FSK is derived from fact. Nobody who doesn't agree with the conclusion about moral oughtness can possibly be persuaded by your argument, because it is circular.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 4:25 am
Your FSK is only credible to you. Without already believing the FSK, nobody has any reason to take it seriously, because you need to agree with said FSK to accept that DNA is source of truth about what is good.

Henry's FSK is no less credible than yours.
I have already explained a "1000" times, the moral FSK I proposed is similar to the scientific FSK.

see this repeat;
viewtopic.php?p=503400#p503400
You can say it as many thousands of times as you like, it still isn't true. Science looks at the natural world for answers to questions of what is. Your FSK only looks at itself for answers to what ought to be.
I repeat what I have posted elsewhere regard your accusation of circularity.

Prosecutors and a jury do not 'look' inside the legal FSK to convict a murderer.
Scientists don't 'look' into the scientific FSK for scientific facts.
Moral agents do not 'look' inside a moral FSK for moral facts.

A FSK is a Framework and System of Knowledge or reality[FSR].
Do you understand how Framework & System work?
One has to comply with all the requirements of the FSK to enable the targeted fact to be justified.

You are creating your own statements.
I do not prefer and did not use the terms 'right' and 'wrong'.

Based on empirical evidences, all humans are 'programmed' with an inherent oughtness of 'not to kill humans'.
As I claim this is very self-evident and can be verified from evidences in the general public.
This scientific 'oughtness' which is an 'is' is input within the moral Framework & System that justify the moral fact 'no human ought to kill human'.

I believe you are too 'emotional' with the term 'ought' as if it is a serious command from some authority.
Point is since it is programmed then the 'ought' logically follows.

What is most ultimate and critical is whether the understanding and recognition of this inherent fact will contribute positively to humanity or not. I believe and very confident it does.

I have given you an analogy of the legal FSK with its legal facts relying upon scientific facts as analogously to the moral FSK, [note, its a moral Framework and System.]
Are you accusing a legal fact, such as "X is convicted of murder Y" as circular?

Show me the circularity is a syllogism.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:28 am I repeat what I have posted elsewhere regard your accusation of circularity.

Prosecutors and a jury do not 'look' inside the legal FSK to convict a murderer.
Scientists don't 'look' into the scientific FSK for scientific facts.
Moral agents do not 'look' inside a moral FSK for moral facts.
I don't understand the strategic decision making that leads you to invoke the legal system here at all to be honest. If a legal question is asked such as "is it against the law to eat a cheeseburger in a built up area?" the answer is a matter of what you would call an FSK all the way. But if somebody says "I obey only my own laws and will eat my cheeseburger wherever I want" that wouldn't be scientifically innacurate, it would just be an opinion that the police happen not to share.

Likewise, the question will be asked soon whether that cop who knelt on that Floyd's neck is a murderer. The question won't be about whether he knelt on the neck, that much is on video. The question will be whether that conforms to the description of murder as given in various statues applicable to that locality. But had that happened in Britain the cop would be in prison already doing plenty of time. While in Russia it would just be business as usual, and nobody would even investigate it as a crime.


Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:28 am A FSK is a Framework and System of Knowledge or reality[FSR].
Do you understand how Framework & System work?
One has to comply with all the requirements of the FSK to enable the targeted fact to be justified.

You are creating your own statements.
I do not prefer and did not use the terms 'right' and 'wrong'.
As long as you maintain such a stance you will be showing everyone that "morality-proper" is fundamentally unrelated to morality at all.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:28 am I have given you an analogy of the legal FSK with its legal facts relying upon scientific facts as analogously to the moral FSK, [note, its a moral Framework and System.]
Are you accusing a legal fact, such as "X is convicted of murder Y" as circular?

Show me the circularity is a syllogism.
A fact such as that a court has met in session to consider a charge of murder levied aganst Y in relation to the death of X, and that a jury has duly found the defendant guilty is just a matter of record.

But if somebody were to argue that the reason why murder is wrong is because it is against the law, and that the law must be right because otherwise murder wouldn't be wrong, then yes, that would be circular. And that is roughly the situation you are in.

But luckily the law operates as a sort of barometer of public moral beliefs, which change over time quite a lot. That changeable character of our moral discourse is something you cannot account for once you start to impose this notion of moral facts. So then you have a whole teleological issue. However, given how little progress you have made in all these conversations over the last couple of years, I wouldn't worry about that question for now, you have about a decade before you will be ready for that one.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:28 am I repeat what I have posted elsewhere regard your accusation of circularity.

Prosecutors and a jury do not 'look' inside the legal FSK to convict a murderer.
Scientists don't 'look' into the scientific FSK for scientific facts.
Moral agents do not 'look' inside a moral FSK for moral facts.
I don't understand the strategic decision making that leads you to invoke the legal system here at all to be honest. If a legal question is asked such as "is it against the law to eat a cheeseburger in a built up area?" the answer is a matter of what you would call an FSK all the way. But if somebody says "I obey only my own laws and will eat my cheeseburger wherever I want" that wouldn't be scientifically innacurate, it would just be an opinion that the police happen not to share.

Likewise, the question will be asked soon whether that cop who knelt on that Floyd's neck is a murderer. The question won't be about whether he knelt on the neck, that much is on video. The question will be whether that conforms to the description of murder as given in various statues applicable to that locality. But had that happened in Britain the cop would be in prison already doing plenty of time. While in Russia it would just be business as usual, and nobody would even investigate it as a crime.
Note my principle,
whatever is fact is specific to a FSK.

If the cop who knelt on Floyd's neck is convicted in a court of law as a murderer within the related State Laws,
then that is a legal fact which must be qualified to the Legal FSK of that State only [Minnesota].
It cannot be a standalone fact or legal fact but be qualified to the Legal FSK of that State only [Minnesota].
It is obvious this is a state-of-affairs, a feature of reality, and a qualified-matter-of-legal-fact.

If the above similar event happened in Russia and if no cop is convicted as a murderer in any court of law, then there is no "legal fact" at all.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:28 am A FSK is a Framework and System of Knowledge or reality[FSR].
Do you understand how Framework & System work?
One has to comply with all the requirements of the FSK to enable the targeted fact to be justified.

You are creating your own statements.
I do not prefer and did not use the terms 'right' and 'wrong'.
As long as you maintain such a stance you will be showing everyone that "morality-proper" is fundamentally unrelated to morality at all.
Problem with the majority's view on morality is too superficial and >80% are theistically inclined and leveraged on the commands an illusory God.
My morality-proper is leveraged on empirical evidences within the brains of all humans which can at least be confirmed by individuals of the majority..
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:28 am I have given you an analogy of the legal FSK with its legal facts relying upon scientific facts as analogously to the moral FSK, [note, its a moral Framework and System.]
Are you accusing a legal fact, such as "X is convicted of murder Y" as circular?

Show me the circularity is a syllogism.
A fact such as that a court has met in session to consider a charge of murder levied aganst Y in relation to the death of X, and that a jury has duly found the defendant guilty is just a matter of record.

But if somebody were to argue that the reason why murder is wrong is because it is against the law, and that the law must be right because otherwise murder wouldn't be wrong, then yes, that would be circular. And that is roughly the situation you are in.

But luckily the law operates as a sort of barometer of public moral beliefs, which change over time quite a lot. That changeable character of our moral discourse is something you cannot account for once you start to impose this notion of moral facts. So then you have a whole teleological issue. However, given how little progress you have made in all these conversations over the last couple of years, I wouldn't worry about that question for now, you have about a decade before you will be ready for that one.
You are way off in conflating morality with laws [politics].
What the laws imposed is based on intuitions [or reasonings] of what is in alignment within human nature but provide no justification of facts, i.e. moral facts.
They are based on the majority of the legislature or the dicta of a dictator.
Like Henry's intuitive insight the law can get it in alignment [luck] with what is naturally moral and can be off alignment with what is naturally moral.

Note within the legal FSK what is a crime is already decided and enacted by the legislature based on a majority or dicta of a dictator.
It is then up to the prosecutor to argue with evidences [of scientific facts and others] that a crime has been committed in alignment with the law, the defense to defend and the jury [or judge] to decide on the case in accordance to what is enacted as law.
The final decision is a legal-fact qualified to all the related conditions and FSK.

There is no circularity in the above with the emergence from the legal FSK of the legal fact, e.g. X is convicted of murdering Y [within a court of law in S].
What is a legal-fact is this case must be qualified with all the related conditions.

Note in law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty not the other way round.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

Post by Peter Holmes »

Four assertions.

1 This colour patch is red.

2 Water is H2O.

3 This painting is beautiful.

4 Abortion is morally wrong.

Do all these asseertions have the same function? If so, what is that function?

Do they all express opinions about which there can be rational disagreement?

Are they all true or false, regardless of anyone's opinion?

If so, would it be possible to verfy or falsify all of them in the same way? If yes, how could it be done?
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:22 am Four assertions.

1 This colour patch is red.

2 Water is H2O.

3 This painting is beautiful.

4 Abortion is morally wrong.

Do all these asseertions have the same function? If so, what is that function?
In so far as "asserting" is a function they are all assertions.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:22 am Do they all express opinions about which there can be rational disagreement?
Weasel words. They all express assertions.

What's the difference between "rational" and "irrational" disagreement?

I say this is green.
You say this is red.

What evidence would confirm/falsify our assertions?
What experiment would prove you wrong and me right?

red.png
red.png (9.26 KiB) Viewed 1736 times
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 6:30 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:28 am I repeat what I have posted elsewhere regard your accusation of circularity.

Prosecutors and a jury do not 'look' inside the legal FSK to convict a murderer.
Scientists don't 'look' into the scientific FSK for scientific facts.
Moral agents do not 'look' inside a moral FSK for moral facts.
I don't understand the strategic decision making that leads you to invoke the legal system here at all to be honest. If a legal question is asked such as "is it against the law to eat a cheeseburger in a built up area?" the answer is a matter of what you would call an FSK all the way. But if somebody says "I obey only my own laws and will eat my cheeseburger wherever I want" that wouldn't be scientifically innacurate, it would just be an opinion that the police happen not to share.

Likewise, the question will be asked soon whether that cop who knelt on that Floyd's neck is a murderer. The question won't be about whether he knelt on the neck, that much is on video. The question will be whether that conforms to the description of murder as given in various statues applicable to that locality. But had that happened in Britain the cop would be in prison already doing plenty of time. While in Russia it would just be business as usual, and nobody would even investigate it as a crime.
Note my principle,
whatever is fact is specific to a FSK.

If the cop who knelt on Floyd's neck is convicted in a court of law as a murderer within the related State Laws,
then that is a legal fact which must be qualified to the Legal FSK of that State only [Minnesota].
It cannot be a standalone fact or legal fact but be qualified to the Legal FSK of that State only [Minnesota].
It is obvious this is a state-of-affairs, a feature of reality, and a qualified-matter-of-legal-fact.

If the above similar event happened in Russia and if no cop is convicted as a murderer in any court of law, then there is no "legal fact" at all.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:28 am A FSK is a Framework and System of Knowledge or reality[FSR].
Do you understand how Framework & System work?
One has to comply with all the requirements of the FSK to enable the targeted fact to be justified.

You are creating your own statements.
I do not prefer and did not use the terms 'right' and 'wrong'.
As long as you maintain such a stance you will be showing everyone that "morality-proper" is fundamentally unrelated to morality at all.
Problem with the majority's view on morality is too superficial and >80% are theistically inclined and leveraged on the commands an illusory God.
My morality-proper is leveraged on empirical evidences within the brains of all humans which can at least be confirmed by individuals of the majority..
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:28 am I have given you an analogy of the legal FSK with its legal facts relying upon scientific facts as analogously to the moral FSK, [note, its a moral Framework and System.]
Are you accusing a legal fact, such as "X is convicted of murder Y" as circular?

Show me the circularity is a syllogism.
A fact such as that a court has met in session to consider a charge of murder levied aganst Y in relation to the death of X, and that a jury has duly found the defendant guilty is just a matter of record.

But if somebody were to argue that the reason why murder is wrong is because it is against the law, and that the law must be right because otherwise murder wouldn't be wrong, then yes, that would be circular. And that is roughly the situation you are in.

But luckily the law operates as a sort of barometer of public moral beliefs, which change over time quite a lot. That changeable character of our moral discourse is something you cannot account for once you start to impose this notion of moral facts. So then you have a whole teleological issue. However, given how little progress you have made in all these conversations over the last couple of years, I wouldn't worry about that question for now, you have about a decade before you will be ready for that one.
You are way off in conflating morality with laws [politics].
What the laws imposed is based on intuitions [or reasonings] of what is in alignment within human nature but provide no justification of facts, i.e. moral facts.
They are based on the majority of the legislature or the dicta of a dictator.
Like Henry's intuitive insight the law can get it in alignment [luck] with what is naturally moral and can be off alignment with what is naturally moral.

Note within the legal FSK what is a crime is already decided and enacted by the legislature based on a majority or dicta of a dictator.
It is then up to the prosecutor to argue with evidences [of scientific facts and others] that a crime has been committed in alignment with the law, the defense to defend and the jury [or judge] to decide on the case in accordance to what is enacted as law.
The final decision is a legal-fact qualified to all the related conditions and FSK.

There is no circularity in the above with the emergence from the legal FSK of the legal fact, e.g. X is convicted of murdering Y [within a court of law in S].
What is a legal-fact is this case must be qualified with all the related conditions.

Note in law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty not the other way round.
I only made extremely simple points there. You still failed either to understand or to answer relevantly. Somehow you even accused me of conflating morals and laws because I used an example of a circular argument.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 6:30 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:37 pm
I don't understand the strategic decision making that leads you to invoke the legal system here at all to be honest. If a legal question is asked such as "is it against the law to eat a cheeseburger in a built up area?" the answer is a matter of what you would call an FSK all the way. But if somebody says "I obey only my own laws and will eat my cheeseburger wherever I want" that wouldn't be scientifically innacurate, it would just be an opinion that the police happen not to share.

Likewise, the question will be asked soon whether that cop who knelt on that Floyd's neck is a murderer. The question won't be about whether he knelt on the neck, that much is on video. The question will be whether that conforms to the description of murder as given in various statues applicable to that locality. But had that happened in Britain the cop would be in prison already doing plenty of time. While in Russia it would just be business as usual, and nobody would even investigate it as a crime.
Note my principle,
whatever is fact is specific to a FSK.

If the cop who knelt on Floyd's neck is convicted in a court of law as a murderer within the related State Laws,
then that is a legal fact which must be qualified to the Legal FSK of that State only [Minnesota].
It cannot be a standalone fact or legal fact but be qualified to the Legal FSK of that State only [Minnesota].
It is obvious this is a state-of-affairs, a feature of reality, and a qualified-matter-of-legal-fact.

If the above similar event happened in Russia and if no cop is convicted as a murderer in any court of law, then there is no "legal fact" at all.
As long as you maintain such a stance you will be showing everyone that "morality-proper" is fundamentally unrelated to morality at all.
Problem with the majority's view on morality is too superficial and >80% are theistically inclined and leveraged on the commands an illusory God.
My morality-proper is leveraged on empirical evidences within the brains of all humans which can at least be confirmed by individuals of the majority..
A fact such as that a court has met in session to consider a charge of murder levied aganst Y in relation to the death of X, and that a jury has duly found the defendant guilty is just a matter of record.

But if somebody were to argue that the reason why murder is wrong is because it is against the law, and that the law must be right because otherwise murder wouldn't be wrong, then yes, that would be circular. And that is roughly the situation you are in.

But luckily the law operates as a sort of barometer of public moral beliefs, which change over time quite a lot. That changeable character of our moral discourse is something you cannot account for once you start to impose this notion of moral facts. So then you have a whole teleological issue. However, given how little progress you have made in all these conversations over the last couple of years, I wouldn't worry about that question for now, you have about a decade before you will be ready for that one.
You are way off in conflating morality with laws [politics].
What the laws imposed is based on intuitions [or reasonings] of what is in alignment within human nature but provide no justification of facts, i.e. moral facts.
They are based on the majority of the legislature or the dicta of a dictator.
Like Henry's intuitive insight the law can get it in alignment [luck] with what is naturally moral and can be off alignment with what is naturally moral.

Note within the legal FSK what is a crime is already decided and enacted by the legislature based on a majority or dicta of a dictator.
It is then up to the prosecutor to argue with evidences [of scientific facts and others] that a crime has been committed in alignment with the law, the defense to defend and the jury [or judge] to decide on the case in accordance to what is enacted as law.
The final decision is a legal-fact qualified to all the related conditions and FSK.

There is no circularity in the above with the emergence from the legal FSK of the legal fact, e.g. X is convicted of murdering Y [within a court of law in S].
What is a legal-fact is this case must be qualified with all the related conditions.

Note in law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty not the other way round.
I only made extremely simple points there. You still failed either to understand or to answer relevantly. Somehow you even accused me of conflating morals and laws because I used an example of a circular argument.
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.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:22 am Four assertions.

1 This colour patch is red.

2 Water is H2O.

3 This painting is beautiful.

4 Abortion is morally wrong.

Do all these asseertions have the same function? If so, what is that function?

Do they all express opinions about which there can be rational disagreement?

Are they all true or false, regardless of anyone's opinion?

If so, would it be possible to verfy or falsify all of them in the same way? If yes, how could it be done?
As I had stated you are too superficial and expressing your views from within an enclosed silo.

What is common with the above is they are all expressed from a generic human brain and physical self within the same Universe. That is a conventional fact.

Statement 1-4 above may be related to different subjects, but how they are expressed are traceable to specific functions and parts of the brain and can be verified and justified within the specific FSK, that is the fact of the matter.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 5:07 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:22 am Four assertions.

1 This colour patch is red.

2 Water is H2O.

3 This painting is beautiful.

4 Abortion is morally wrong.

Do all these asseertions have the same function? If so, what is that function?

Do they all express opinions about which there can be rational disagreement?

Are they all true or false, regardless of anyone's opinion?

If so, would it be possible to verfy or falsify all of them in the same way? If yes, how could it be done?
As I had stated you are too superficial and expressing your views from within an enclosed silo.

What is common with the above is they are all expressed from a generic human brain and physical self within the same Universe. That is a conventional fact.

Statement 1-4 above may be related to different subjects, but how they are expressed are traceable to specific functions and parts of the brain and can be verified and justified within the specific FSK, that is the fact of the matter.
So your answer to my questions is: all of these assertions comes from a human brain; and they can all be 'verified and justified within the specific FSK'. Which doesn't answer my questions. But hey ... why go to the trouble of actually thinking?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 5:07 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:22 am Four assertions.

1 This colour patch is red.

2 Water is H2O.

3 This painting is beautiful.

4 Abortion is morally wrong.

Do all these asseertions have the same function? If so, what is that function?

Do they all express opinions about which there can be rational disagreement?

Are they all true or false, regardless of anyone's opinion?

If so, would it be possible to verfy or falsify all of them in the same way? If yes, how could it be done?
As I had stated you are too superficial and expressing your views from within an enclosed silo.

What is common with the above is they are all expressed from a generic human brain and physical self within the same Universe. That is a conventional fact.

Statement 1-4 above may be related to different subjects, but how they are expressed are traceable to specific functions and parts of the brain and can be verified and justified within the specific FSK, that is the fact of the matter.
So your answer to my questions is: all of these assertions comes from a human brain; and they can all be 'verified and justified within the specific FSK'. Which doesn't answer my questions. But hey ... why go to the trouble of actually thinking?
That is actually a more refined in-depth thinking rather than your superficial thinking groping about on the surface of knowledge.
Note it is often more efficient and effective to seek patterns and unity on a reductive basis rather than explore the diversities of the universe.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:16 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 5:07 am
As I had stated you are too superficial and expressing your views from within an enclosed silo.

What is common with the above is they are all expressed from a generic human brain and physical self within the same Universe. That is a conventional fact.

Statement 1-4 above may be related to different subjects, but how they are expressed are traceable to specific functions and parts of the brain and can be verified and justified within the specific FSK, that is the fact of the matter.
So your answer to my questions is: all of these assertions comes from a human brain; and they can all be 'verified and justified within the specific FSK'. Which doesn't answer my questions. But hey ... why go to the trouble of actually thinking?
That is actually a more refined in-depth thinking rather than your superficial thinking groping about on the surface of knowledge.
Note it is often more efficient and effective to seek patterns and unity on a reductive basis rather than explore the diversities of the universe.
Nope. You've built an elaborate belief-system on one or two fallacies which you can't afford to recognise - or the whole house-of-cards collapses. Perhaps there's too much at stake for you. The penny must not be allowed to drop.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:33 am Nope. You've built an elaborate belief-system on one or two fallacies
What gives legitimacy to any fallacies given that you commit a fallacy by pointing one out?
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:33 am which you can't afford to recognise - or the whole house-of-cards collapses.
Perhaps you should use concrete instead of cards to build a house?
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:33 am Perhaps there's too much at stake for you. The penny must not be allowed to drop.
You are the penny. Let it drop - and kill yourself.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: One [of many] Justification of Moral Facts as Real

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:16 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:23 am

So your answer to my questions is: all of these assertions comes from a human brain; and they can all be 'verified and justified within the specific FSK'. Which doesn't answer my questions. But hey ... why go to the trouble of actually thinking?
That is actually a more refined in-depth thinking rather than your superficial thinking groping about on the surface of knowledge.
Note it is often more efficient and effective to seek patterns and unity on a reductive basis rather than explore the diversities of the universe.
Nope. You've built an elaborate belief-system on one or two fallacies which you can't afford to recognise - or the whole house-of-cards collapses. Perhaps there's too much at stake for you. The penny must not be allowed to drop.
You are merely making noises.
As Skepdick stated, you are relying on fallacies yourself to support your fallacious views.

I am confident of my views which are all based on Empirical Realism within a credible FSK i.e. all reducible to empirical evidences.
Post Reply