Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 23, 2022 9:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Apr 23, 2022 7:48 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 23, 2022 6:02 am
Begging the question means using the conclusion to support a premise.
Don't you realize you are begging more of the question than anyone else.
To you;
A fact is a fact only and only if it is a fact [of whatever form].
You definition of fact restricted your specific FSK do not extend to empirical verification and justification via philosophical reasoning of the fact.
Your conclusion is that there are moral facts. And your premise is that a god baked moral facts into the universe. So: there are moral facts because there are moral facts. Or: if there are moral facts, then there are moral facts.
Note this thread I raised
There are Divine "Moral Facts"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34655
8. The critical point is Christian moral fact is an accurate intuitive reflection of the actual inherent "ought-not-ness to kill another human". The only limitation is, it is not verified nor justified, thus it is not credible.
9. This is similar to Henry's correct intuitive insight re the moral fact of slavery where Henry agrees chattel slavery is morally wrong and is a moral fact but he does not provide "solid" justification on why it is so.
In this case, it is not that IC is intuitive, but he is merely a blind follower.
The moral fact intuited was done by the founders who compiled the Gospels and turned them into a religion.
As I had claimed, the inherent moral fact 'ought-not-ness to kill another human" within all humans was intuited by the founders of the religion and that is incorporated as a doctrine from an illusory God.
Regardless of the fakeness of God, the intuited moral fact "ought-not-ness to kill another human" was intuited correctly and what is critical is when incorporated as a command with threat of Hellfire, it does work optimally to contribute the well being of humanity relative the past and present [not necessary the future].
Your views are ruthless, heartless and cruel, you don't give a damn to the well-being of humanity relative to the psychological state of the majority within specific time period.
Once more time.
What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion - or a description of such a feature of reality that is true, in context,
given the way we use the words or other signs involved.
And the conditions 'independent from opinion' and 'true within a descriptive context' are critical. (We can and do describe things in many different ways.)
The above is merely empty talk about nothing.
given the way we use the words or other signs involved
Who are "we" here.
The "we" is merely a group of people agreeing among themselves with reference to at best ordinary language or at the worst the ideology of the 'logical positivist'.
Note the majority, i.e. 90% who are theists would not agree with you outright and you have no grounds to dispute with them at all.
What you are relying to counter my claims are merely words and noises without any thing of substance in relation to reality.
Rather, if you claim facts are scientific facts conditioned upon the scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK], that would be more realistic, i.e. the most credible of all knowledge at present. But note, scientific facts are best are merely
polished conjectures.
There are other facts but they must be conditioned by their specific FSKs, e.g. legal, economics, finance, political, etc.
You have no choice but to accept the above, and in that case you have to accept there are moral facts which are conditioned upon its respective moral FSK.
In my case, I claimed the moral facts I proposed has near equivalent credibility to that of scientific facts, thus has reasonable credibility of reality.
Given this, there are and can be no moral facts. And your appeal to intuition - the last refuge of the irrationalist - demonstrates that you have no valid and sound argument for the existence of so-called moral facts.
I am not appealing to intuition like those of the Christian's 'Love all, even enemies' thus 'Thou Shall not kill' nor the intuitive moral facts re Chattel Slavery like that of Henry's which happened to be correct with the inherent factual moral facts of humanity.
A factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion, because the is/ought barrier is insuperable. And every one of your actual or putative premises are factual - such as that people 'intuited' that it's wrong to kill other humans. Even if they did and do, it doesn't follow that it's morally wrong to kill other humans - just as, if people 'intuited' that it's right to kill other humans, it wouldn't follow that it's morally right to kill other humans. There's no logical connection to either moral conclusion.
Nope, all humans has the potential to kill [humans and other living things] but that was and is still critical for survival of the species but with limitations.
Whilst in one way, killing facilitate the survival of the species at its primal state, this potential to kill is a double-sided blade which can also exterminate the species, especially with the advent of very lethal Weapons of Mass Destruction. Surely you cannot dispute this?
As such there is an inherent inhibitor, i.e. the moral potential to modulate and mitigate this will-be-obsolete
killing potential which is not necessary in some future time.
As such the "ought-not-ness to kill humans" is the fact or a moral potential, i.e. a moral fact which has been unfolding and we need to expedite this moral potential [a moral fact] to ensure the human species is not exterminated by someone or a group pressing that
RED BUTTON!
I and others have explained this to you innumerable times, and you seem incapable of following this reasoning. But perhaps someone else following this discussion can produce an explanation that will help the penny to drop for you. Also, pigs may fly.
Nah you are the one who is dogmatically stuck with archaic thinking.
We need to expound the inherent moral fact or the inherent moral potential, i.e. to inculcate the 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' in all individuals so that we have fool proof state where no one will ever press that RED Button and no nations will stock WMDs in the future. [note in the future, not now].
We need to understand these moral facts so that we can expeditious self-develop in all individual
in the future this necessary moral reality of the 'ought-not-ness to kill humans'.
Btw, even with the lowest credibility of moral facts, the divine moral facts of Christianity is sufficient to prevent their genuine followers from pressing the Red Button. But this is not extensive and will be obsolete
in the future, we need to get every human on board and thus has to promote the realistic moral facts within all humans via a credible moral FSK.
With your claims of no moral facts, humanity will remain in status quo in this regards and thus increase the possibility the human species could be exterminated by some rogue dictators or evil groups with the latest lethal WMDs
in the future.