There are Moral Facts

[Veritas Aequitas]

'If there are no moral facts, nothing is, or can be said to be, morally right or wrong.'

Your understanding of what is fact and reality is outdated. You have this 'analytical' arrogance that you are a philosophical-KING and everyone's ideas other than yours is wrong.

Whatever you are postulating is based on the Linguistic FSK which is useless unless linked to some more credible FSK.

The most credible facts we have at present are those from the Scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

As long as there is a FSK what is true or false is conditioned upon that specific FSK.
Note the true or false of the Scientific FSK which is based on Model Dependent Realism, i.e.

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2]
The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.

Therefore whatever is true or false [scientific] is always relative to the scientific model, i.e. the FSK. As such, the claim that God Exists as Real is false within the Scientific FSK.

Moral facts are thus those are are verifiable and justified empirically and philosophically within a Moral FSK. As such there are moral facts conditioned upon the specific Moral FSK.

There is the Christianity Moral FSK and whatever is justified within the Christianity Moral FSK are true moral facts as qualified. Thus 'God exists as real' is true within the Christianity Moral FSK [e.g. because the holy texts said so] but it is ONLY and only within the the Christianity Moral FSK and not others.

Whilst there are Christian Moral Facts [as argued] these facts [conditional] are not credible [say 5-10/100] relative to scientific facts [50-80/100] because the Christianity Moral FSK is grounded on an illusory God is not credible.

Whilst the Christian Moral Facts are not credible, the Christian Moral System does and had been successful optimally in practice within the applicable constraints, within evolution and time-period up to the present. However it will loose its efficiency in the future given the expected changes within the human neural physiology and psychology.

Therefore it is philosophically irrational for you to generalize there are ABSOLUTELY [without qualifications] no moral facts.

[DPMartin]

'If there are no moral facts, nothing is, or can be said to be, morally right or wrong.'

Your understanding of what is fact and reality is outdated. You have this 'analytical' arrogance that you are a philosophical-KING and everyone's ideas other than yours is wrong.

Whatever you are postulating is based on the Linguistic FSK which is useless unless linked to some more credible FSK.

The most credible facts we have at present are those from the Scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

As long as there is a FSK what is true or false is conditioned upon that specific FSK.
Note the true or false of the Scientific FSK which is based on Model Dependent Realism, i.e.

Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]
It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2]
The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.

Therefore whatever is true or false [scientific] is always relative to the scientific model, i.e. the FSK. As such, the claim that God Exists as Real is false within the Scientific FSK.

Moral facts are thus those are are verifiable and justified empirically and philosophically within a Moral FSK. As such there are moral facts conditioned upon the specific Moral FSK.

There is the Christianity Moral FSK and whatever is justified within the Christianity Moral FSK are true moral facts as qualified. Thus 'God exists as real' is true within the Christianity Moral FSK [e.g. because the holy texts said so] but it is ONLY and only within the the Christianity Moral FSK and not others.

Whilst there are Christian Moral Facts [as argued] these facts [conditional] are not credible [say 5-10/100] relative to scientific facts [50-80/100] because the Christianity Moral FSK is grounded on an illusory God is not credible.

Whilst the Christian Moral Facts are not credible, the Christian Moral System does and had been successful optimally in practice within the applicable constraints, within evolution and time-period up to the present. However it will loose its efficiency in the future given the expected changes within the human neural physiology and psychology.

Therefore it is philosophically irrational for you to generalize there are ABSOLUTELY [without qualifications] no moral facts.

a moral fact is:
“moral facts” includes both the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true of an individual

and that is a judgement according to who? note "allegedly true"

and morals are a agreement, a contract, a covenant, law. and according to whatever agreement proves one moral or not by evidence of the actions of the one accused on whether or not the accused has offended.

the fact: "thou shall not kill", which is an agreement or part of a well known covenant also called a law.

but according to who? and who is able to supersede that agreed statement without offending the agreement or those in the said agreement? and anyone not in the agreement can they offend an agreement they are not bound to?

there are no morals without an agreement.

[popeye1945]

There are no moral facts in raw nature, meaning outside of any form of community. The physical world is meaningless! Shakespeare, " There is no such thing as right or wrong only thinking makes it so." Heraclitus, "To God, all things are right and good, only to man somethings are and some things are not." Biological consciousness defines reality there is no other source, the debate about morality being objective or subjective is nonsense, morality is a natural extension into the outer world which in and of itself is meaningless. Morality correctly serves the well-being of the biology that creates it. Religion is a monstrosity of fantasy, mythology, and hit-and-miss common sense and attributed to a fairy. We learn certain facts from the physical world in as much as its life-supporting or life-negating, meaning is from the effective changes made upon our bodies. We create morality out of the self interest in our own well being, There is no meaning in the physical world that is not bestowed upon it by biological consciousness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

a moral fact is:
“moral facts” includes both the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true of an individual

and that is a judgement according to who? note "allegedly true"

and morals are a agreement, a contract, a covenant, law. and according to whatever agreement proves one moral or not by evidence of the actions of the one accused on whether or not the accused has offended.

the fact: "thou shall not kill", which is an agreement or part of a well known covenant also called a law.

but according to who? and who is able to supersede that agreed statement without offending the agreement or those in the said agreement? and anyone not in the agreement can they offend an agreement they are not bound to?

there are no morals without an agreement.

I believe by now Wiki can be adopted as the default starting point subject to agreement/disagreement.

• 1. Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1]
  2. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or
  3. it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]
  4. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

What is critical here is 3, i.e. universality.
However in contrast to 3 above, Universality cannot be 'a person believes' as such it has to be intersubjectively agreed based on credible empirical and philosophical justifications.


There are no standalone facts, show me if otherwise or if you deny it?

For a fact to be objective, it must be intersubjectively agreed upon via a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
For example, the most credible facts we have at present are scientific facts which are conditioned if and only if they are processed via the Scientific FSK.

As such moral facts exists as conditioned upon a credible Moral FSK.
For a Moral FSK to be credible it must be at least has near credibility to the Scientific FSK as such moral facts must be empirically and philosophically verifiable like scientific facts.

"Thou Shall not kill" is not a moral fact but rather a command issued from some authorities and it is not verified empirically nor philosophically.

What is deemed a moral fact is 'the ought-not-ness to kill another human' which is a universal moral potential within all humans.

When this 'the ought-not-ness to kill another human' is fully developed within an individual, he will naturally and spontaneously be a non-killer of humans. There is no need for 'thou shall not kill' to be imposed on such an individual[s].

As such, objective moral objective moral facts exist under the above conditions.
Do you have any counter to the above?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are no moral facts in raw nature, meaning outside of any form of community. The physical world is meaningless!
...........

Re moral facts, see my post above.

Note I stated,

There are no standalone facts independent of some community of people.
For a fact to be objective, it must be intersubjectively agreed upon via a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] sustained by a community of individuals.
What is critical is the objectivity and credibility of these facts.

[DPMartin]

a moral fact is:
“moral facts” includes both the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true of an individual

and that is a judgement according to who? note "allegedly true"

and morals are a agreement, a contract, a covenant, law. and according to whatever agreement proves one moral or not by evidence of the actions of the one accused on whether or not the accused has offended.

the fact: "thou shall not kill", which is an agreement or part of a well known covenant also called a law.

but according to who? and who is able to supersede that agreed statement without offending the agreement or those in the said agreement? and anyone not in the agreement can they offend an agreement they are not bound to?

there are no morals without an agreement.

I believe by now Wiki can be adopted as the default starting point subject to agreement/disagreement.

• 1. Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1]
  2. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or
  3. it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]
  4. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

What is critical here is 3, i.e. universality.
However in contrast to 3 above, Universality cannot be 'a person believes' as such it has to be intersubjectively agreed based on credible empirical and philosophical justifications.


There are no standalone facts, show me if otherwise or if you deny it?

For a fact to be objective, it must be intersubjectively agreed upon via a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
For example, the most credible facts we have at present are scientific facts which are conditioned if and only if they are processed via the Scientific FSK.

As such moral facts exists as conditioned upon a credible Moral FSK.
For a Moral FSK to be credible it must be at least has near credibility to the Scientific FSK as such moral facts must be empirically and philosophically verifiable like scientific facts.

"Thou Shall not kill" is not a moral fact but rather a command issued from some authorities and it is not verified empirically nor philosophically.

What is deemed a moral fact is 'the ought-not-ness to kill another human' which is a universal moral potential within all humans.

When this 'the ought-not-ness to kill another human' is fully developed within an individual, he will naturally and spontaneously be a non-killer of humans. There is no need for 'thou shall not kill' to be imposed on such an individual[s].

As such, objective moral objective moral facts exist under the above conditions.
Do you have any counter to the above?

sorry but you insistence for 3 " it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal." A standard that a person believes should be universal is a person's opinion or one's own judgment of what ought to be moral or what rules all should live by, which is irrelevant because if there be no agreement with another, then there is no obligation to keep it, and no one can hold you to it. heck if your own rules don't suit your desire you just change your own personal rules and call it moral. sounds like a justification of a serial killer he justifies his actions within himself, also animals go by their own ways with out being in agreement with anything else.

if you want globalism were as all live by one set of rules then you have to have a set of rules that the whole world agrees on, hence an agreement is required for the recognition of what is moral and not.


FYI, Thou Shall not kill is a part of a covenant you might see it as the ten commandments, but its called a covenant by the One who Moses said gave it, which is an agreement.

[RCSaunders]

There are no moral facts in raw nature, meaning outside of any form of community. The physical world is meaningless!

Everyone who aspires to be a philosopher ought to take at least one course in survival and spend at least two weeks (better a month) surviving in some wilderness. It would soon disabuse them of any notion that there are no princicple of right and wrong actions in raw nature. One either learns what their own nature and the nature this world they live in requires them to do to survive and prosper and does it or they suffer the consequences and dies. It has nothing to do with communities or agreements, and no community or agreement cancels the ruthless requirements of reality.

[popeye1945]

There are no moral facts in raw nature, meaning outside of any form of community. The physical world is meaningless!...........

Re moral facts, see my post above.

Note I stated,

There are no standalone facts independent of some community of people.
For a fact to be objective, it must be intersubjectively agreed upon via a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] sustained by a community of individuals.
What is critical is the objectivity and credibility of these facts.

Veritas,
Sounds like we are on the same page here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe by now Wiki can be adopted as the default starting point subject to agreement/disagreement.

• 1. Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1]
  2. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or
  3. it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]
  4. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

What is critical here is 3, i.e. universality.
However in contrast to 3 above, Universality cannot be 'a person believes' as such it has to be intersubjectively agreed based on credible empirical and philosophical justifications.


There are no standalone facts, show me if otherwise or if you deny it?

For a fact to be objective, it must be intersubjectively agreed upon via a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
For example, the most credible facts we have at present are scientific facts which are conditioned if and only if they are processed via the Scientific FSK.

As such moral facts exists as conditioned upon a credible Moral FSK.
For a Moral FSK to be credible it must be at least has near credibility to the Scientific FSK as such moral facts must be empirically and philosophically verifiable like scientific facts.

"Thou Shall not kill" is not a moral fact but rather a command issued from some authorities and it is not verified empirically nor philosophically.

What is deemed a moral fact is 'the ought-not-ness to kill another human' which is a universal moral potential within all humans.

When this 'the ought-not-ness to kill another human' is fully developed within an individual, he will naturally and spontaneously be a non-killer of humans. There is no need for 'thou shall not kill' to be imposed on such an individual[s].

As such, objective moral objective moral facts exist under the above conditions.
Do you have any counter to the above?

sorry but you insistence for 3 " it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal."
A standard that a person believes should be universal is a person's opinion or one's own judgment of what ought to be moral or what rules all should live by, which is irrelevant because if there be no agreement with another, then there is no obligation to keep it, and no one can hold you to it. heck if your own rules don't suit your desire you just change your own personal rules and call it moral. sounds like a justification of a serial killer he justifies his actions within himself, also animals go by their own ways with out being in agreement with anything else.

Did you read what I wrote?? i.e.

What is critical here is 3, i.e. universality.
However in contrast to 3 above, Universality cannot be 'a person believes'
as such it has to be intersubjectively agreed based on credible empirical and philosophical justifications.

if you want globalism were as all live by one set of rules then you have to have a set of rules that the whole world agrees on, hence an agreement is required for the recognition of what is moral and not.

I also and repeated the following;

• For a fact to be objective, it must be intersubjectively agreed upon via a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
  For example, the most credible facts we have at present are scientific facts which are conditioned if and only if they are processed via the Scientific FSK.

FYI, Thou Shall not kill is a part of a covenant you might see it as the ten commandments, but its called a covenant by the One who Moses said gave it, which is an agreement.

There is no agreement re 'Thou Shall NOT KILL re the Ten Commandments.
There is only an agreement if one enter into a contract [covenant] to agree with it thus the need for compliance.

"Thou Shall not kill" is in the old testament, as such is not even binding on Christians.

Christians enter into a contract with Jesus and God where the binding terms are in the Gospels and not in the OT.
The OT for Christians is merely an appendix or for guidance only.

"Thou Shall not Kill" worded accordingly in modern form is enacted as severe criminal offence in all sovereign nations. This is a legal command not a moral thing.

I suggest you realign your bearing to the truths of the above points.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are no moral facts in raw nature, meaning outside of any form of community. The physical world is meaningless!

Everyone who aspires to be a philosopher ought to take at least one course in survival and spend at least two weeks (better a month) surviving in some wilderness. It would soon disabuse them of any notion that there are no princicple of right and wrong actions in raw nature. One either learns what their own nature and the nature this world they live in requires them to do to survive and prosper and does it or they suffer the consequences and dies. It has nothing to do with communities or agreements, and no community or agreement cancels the ruthless requirements of reality.

There you go with your 'ignorance' on the related issue.

True, one will learn a lot on a lone survival course in two week or a month. But that cannot cancel out the synergy arising from living within a community.

Since living things emerge 4 billion years ago, the positive trend is there is greater chance of survival and progress when living in community & groups against loners.

• Group selection is a proposed mechanism of evolution in which natural selection acts at the level of the group, instead of at the level of the individual or gene.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection#:

To sustain the advantages of living in groups over being alone, living things has evolved with inherent rules that each individual will comply so that the maximum synergy can be maintained to facilitate survival of the group thereby the species.

Within humanity as a group and in sub-groups, moral facts [active, mildly active, dormant] had been programmed within all humans to facilitate survival in groups in the short and long run.

[popeye1945]

Veritas,

EXCELLENT!!

[Peter Holmes]

I and others have explained why there aren't and can't be moral facts - that the expression 'moral fact' is incoherent - carefully and largely patiently, and at tedious length.

Just saying.

[Iwannaplato]

"Thou Shall not kill" is not a moral fact but rather a command issued from some authorities and it is not verified empirically nor philosophically.

What is deemed a moral fact is 'the ought-not-ness to kill another human' which is a universal moral potential within all humans.

When this 'the ought-not-ness to kill another human' is fully developed within an individual, he will naturally and spontaneously be a non-killer of humans. There is no need for 'thou shall not kill' to be imposed on such an individual[s].

As such, objective moral objective moral facts exist under the above conditions.
Do you have any counter to the above?

The problem arises where I bolded and underlined. That is not a coherent sentence.
You say that Thou shalt not kill is not a moral fact. It is a command from authority not verified empirically or philosophically. OK, let's set aside the vagueness of verifying something philosophically. Let's agree so far.
Then comes the bolded underlined sentence....

What is deemed a moral fact is 'the ought-not-ness to kill another human' which is a universal moral potential within all humans.

What is deemed...by whom? How did they deem it? I see many who do not deem it a moral fact. I see no philosophicall tools that can convince such people that they are wrong. They have different VALUES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we might convince them, some of them, certainly not all, that it is better for them to not kill or better for their societies.
The second problem there is no explanation of what a universal moral potential is. Whatever it is, it is not a moral fact. IOW sure, maybe everyone has the potential to decide it's not ok to kill other people. Or that they don't want to or that society functions better (again VALUES!!!!! creep in there are we do not all share the same values, even tempermentally).

What we have there is a number of unstated or unsupported claims. A moral potential is a moral fact. It is a fact that we all have this moral potential.

The passive 'what is deemed' is a giveaway. Instead of an active construction like
I have deemed
we have deemed
Experts have deemed
The majority has
Immediately reveals one of the problems. It might be an ad populum argument. It might be a claim to know on your part. It might be claim that since the experts have agreed, it so. The second is obviously problematic. The last is problematic since who gets to decide who the experts are? There will be VALUE judgements in there also. IOW what is being presented as objective is supported by subjective values.

And then the rather glaring error of the act in question being the killing of another. Nearly every society allows for killing people in a wide variety of contexts and with variation between cultures
It might be possible to get people who disagree to agree if they had a particular goal. Like if their goal was to have more babies be born and one could scientifically show that allowing the killing of others, reduces the birthrate. But that's not a moral fact. That's a practical bit of advice based on what we can scientifically analyze (though not easily: sociology is incredibly complex and separating correlation from cause is not easy, often)

Regardless we have moved out of the realm of morals, but into practical considerations.
If you want to achieve X, then Y should be eliminated. It is possible to give evidence for that. But that's not morals.

YOu also seem to conflate objectivity and universality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I and others have explained why there aren't and can't be moral facts - that the expression 'moral fact' is incoherent - carefully and largely patiently, and at tedious length.

Just saying.

As explained in the OP,
what is fact and truth are conditioned upon specific Framework and System of Knowledge.

It is 'your' and the likes' specific FSK, i.e. linguistic which cannot account for the existence of 'moral facts'.
Point is your linguistic FSK is very limited and do not align with reality effectively.
Your linguistic FSK is an adaption from the old archaic condemned Logical Positivist framework.

Note:

Ayer was catapulted to fame by Language, Truth and Logic, a book published at the philosophically precocious age of 26. Inspired by a year in Austria in the company of the Vienna Circle, he had returned to proselytise his version of the group’s creed.
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.

Ayer died 30 years ago this month, before I had graduated. His reputation soon followed into terminal decline: a case of Ayer today, gone tomorrow. Rarely has an intellectual star fallen so swiftly—at least by the measure of the stately pace of philosophical change.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/phil ... of-aj-ayer

Problem is you are still stuck with archaic ideas while the knowledge at present has expanded exponential since Ayer's time.
Today, there is recognition that objective moral facts do exist.

Here is one clue where moral facts are inherent within humanity;

The Moral Life of Babies
Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

Your ideas on morality is very outdated which is likely to keep people in the dark ages.

[Peter Holmes]

I and others have explained why there aren't and can't be moral facts - that the expression 'moral fact' is incoherent - carefully and largely patiently, and at tedious length.

Just saying.

As explained in the OP,
what is fact and truth are conditioned upon specific Framework and System of Knowledge.

It is 'your' and the likes' specific FSK, i.e. linguistic which cannot account for the existence of 'moral facts'.
Point is your linguistic FSK is very limited and do not align with reality effectively.
Your linguistic FSK is an adaption from the old archaic condemned Logical Positivist framework.

Note:

Ayer was catapulted to fame by Language, Truth and Logic, a book published at the philosophically precocious age of 26. Inspired by a year in Austria in the company of the Vienna Circle, he had returned to proselytise his version of the group’s creed.
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.

Ayer died 30 years ago this month, before I had graduated. His reputation soon followed into terminal decline: a case of Ayer today, gone tomorrow. Rarely has an intellectual star fallen so swiftly—at least by the measure of the stately pace of philosophical change.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/phil ... of-aj-ayer

Problem is you are still stuck with archaic ideas while the knowledge at present has expanded exponential since Ayer's time.
Today, there is recognition that objective moral facts do exist.

Here is one clue where moral facts are inherent within humanity;

The Moral Life of Babies
Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

Your ideas on morality is very outdated which is likely to keep people in the dark ages.

These are all fallacious arguments, as I and others have demonstrated. Twere tedious to repeat the refutations, so I recommend anyone new to this discussion have a browse. May take a day or two.