There are Moral Facts

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

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 2:19 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 12:39 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:47 am
Your thinking is too old fashion and primitive.
Why can moral facts not be old fashioned and primitive.
How do you manage to live without killing?
Please let us all know. We need a good laugh!
What are you talking about?? You are laughable, i.e. at your own ignorance.
So I ask you how do you live without killing, and you think I am joking?
As I had always claimed, morality per se is only applicable to humans NEVER non-humans.
That is your sad opinion, putting you completely at odds with millions of forward thinking people that even include the ecology, the environment and the world as a whole.
You are old fashioned and primitive.

If killing of non-humans is a moral issue, how can we account for the killing of zillions of good and bad bacteria, viruses, insects, micro-organisms, killing of non-humans for food, etc.

As such the killings of non-humans is not a moral issue but of course killing of non-humans has other non-moral consideration implications, limitations and restrictions.
Ignorant and primitive.

Note you ignore this more critical point;

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 recognize and expedite this moral potential [a moral fact] to ensure the human species is not exterminated by someone or a group pressing that RED BUTTON! in the future.
Blah blah blah.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 10:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 2:19 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 12:39 pm

Why can moral facts not be old fashioned and primitive.
How do you manage to live without killing?
Please let us all know. We need a good laugh!
What are you talking about?? You are laughable, i.e. at your own ignorance.
So I ask you how do you live without killing, and you think I am joking?
Without killing humans??
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:27 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 10:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 2:19 am
What are you talking about?? You are laughable, i.e. at your own ignorance.
So I ask you how do you live without killing, and you think I am joking?
Without killing humans??
Not killing humans is not a moral fact.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 10:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:27 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 10:45 am
So I ask you how do you live without killing, and you think I am joking?
Without killing humans??
Not killing humans is not a moral fact.
The inherent ought-not-ness to kill humans is a moral fact as a moral potential, i.e. a neural impulse within all human beings.

It is the same as the inherent "ought-not-ness to jump down a cliff" [re Acrophobia] or re the primal instincts to avoid any obvious dangers.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:29 am 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.
"Fallaciousness" is a normative judgment about an argument. To argue that an argument is "fallacious" is to implicitly distinguish between fallacious and non-fallacious argumenst; and to explicitly express a prefference for non-fallacious arguments. You are promoting a normative view in which arguments ought not be fallacious..

If there are no moral facts, then there can be no such thing as factual normatives. About anything. Not even arguments.
If there are no moral facts then fallacious arguments must be as good; or as bad as non-fallacious arguments since any qualitative preference for one type of argument over another is inherently subjective.

The "fallaciousness" of arguments is just your opinion.Either there are moral facts, or there are no such things as "invalid" arguments. There are just arguments you don't like.

Either you recognise the social norms of Philosophy as factual or you are declaring all philosophy as entirely defunct.

If there are no moral facts then anything goes. Contradictions, unsound, invalid, fallacious arguments. It's all the same!

It's tedious having to re-explain this to you. Over and over and over.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 10:34 am Not killing humans is not a moral fact.
It's a social norm. Social norms are causal/factual because you can't justify the social norms; or the yardsticks used to appraise the quality of arguments.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 1:08 pm
The "fallaciousness" of arguments is just your opinion.
That an argument is morally wrong, bad because it is fallacious would be a problem for PH. Fallacious means that the imputed logic in an argument does not hold. It's an is issue. You might be able to catch PH morally judging fallacious arguments, but he's not contradicting himself by treating fallacious as an is issue.

And you won't find someone defending their own argument as, yes, fallacious, but what's wrong with that. They think it is not fallacious and will try to show this.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 1:49 pm That an argument is morally wrong, bad because it is fallacious would be a problem for PH.
By the exact same token that PH says that "In the absence of moral facts what is it that makes murder wrong?" I ask "In the absence of moral facts what makes fallacious arguments wrong; or bad?".

If there can be no such things as factual value-judgments then what makes any argument a "problem"?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 1:49 pm Fallacious means that the imputed logic in an argument does not hold. It's an is issue. You might be able to catch PH morally judging fallacious arguments, but he's not contradicting himself by treating fallacious as an is issue.
Rinse repeat for the slow kids in the classroom.

In order to assert that an argument doesn't live up to/doesn't hold to some standard of logic you have to:

1. Invent a standard of logic.
2. Promote your normative standard as an authority on the matter.
3. Hold arguments accountable to your made-up authority.

But if your standards and authorities are all made up (and they are!) why should anyone care to subject themselves to them?

If the is-ought gap is insurmountable then... OUGHT we adhere to the law of non-contradiction?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 1:49 pm And you won't find someone defending their own argument as, yes, fallacious, but what's wrong with that. They think it is not fallacious and will try to show this.
I am doing it. Right now. Non-contradiction is a social norm.

But if there are no such things are moral facts. And there are no such things as factual normatives - why should anybody care about the "law" of non-contradiction?

At the very least the dialetheists are objecting to the current social norms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Apr 25, 2022 2:43 pm, edited 7 times in total.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 11:39 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 10:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:27 am
Without killing humans??
Not killing humans is not a moral fact.
The inherent ought-not-ness to kill humans is a moral fact as a moral potential, i.e. a neural impulse within all human beings.

It is the same as the inherent "ought-not-ness to jump down a cliff" [re Acrophobia] or re the primal instincts to avoid any obvious dangers.
No many people love to kill.


People's phobias are no indication of morality.
You are dreadfully confused
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 1:18 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 10:34 am Not killing humans is not a moral fact.
It's a social norm. Social norms are causal/factual because you can't justify the social norms; or the yardsticks used to appraise the quality of arguments.
Norms are not objective. They are just averages.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 2:21 pm No many people love to kill.

People's phobias are no indication of morality.
You are dreadfully confused
Many people love to contradict themselves.

Philosopher's phobias of contradictions are no indication of any wrongdoing of any sort.
You are dredfully irrelevant.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 2:21 pm Norms are not objective. They are just averages.
Well yeah. On average all humans are mortal. Except the immortal ones.

Every single premise you use for reasoning in deductive logic is arrived at by statistical induction. Statistical averages - norms.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 2:22 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 2:21 pm No many people love to kill.

People's phobias are no indication of morality.
You are dreadfully confused
Many people love to contradict themselves.

Philosopher's phobias of contradictions are no indication of any wrongdoing of any sort.
You are dredfully irrelevant.
Funny you should post something so meaningless , and end by accusing someone else of irrelevance.
Are you still eating twinkies, as I think your brain is failing you.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 2:19 pm By the exact same token that PH says that "In the absence of moral facts what is it that makes murder wrong?" I ask "In the absence of moral facts what makes fallacious arguments wrong; or bad?".
It can be logically wrong, while not being morally wrong.
"No one has ever been able to prove that extraterrestrials do not exist, so they must be real."
That's not morally wrong. It's logically wrong. It is a fallacious appeal to ignorance. If I am PH, I could agree that there is nothing objectively MORALLY wrong with using that argument. But I can say that it is wrong in the IS realm.

Let's not equivocate on the two types of wrong. He can point out that someone's argument failed to make sense, be convincing, be logical. He cannot say that it objectively evil (or some other negative moral term) to use that argument.



If there can be no such things as factual value-judgments then what makes any argument a "problem"?
It doesn't achieve it's goal. It does not demonstrate what the person intends it to. It's like putting a duck on my car engine and saying my techinique fixed my transmission. No, it didn't work.
In order to assert that an argument doesn't live up to/doesn't hold to some standard of logic you have to:

1. Invent a standard of logic.
2. Promote your normative standard as an authority on the matter.
3. Hold arguments accountable to your made-up authority.
Not normative.
But if your standards and authorities are all made up (and they are!) why should anyone care to subject themselves to them?

If the is-ought gap is insurmountable then... OUGHT we adhere to the law of non-contradiction?
No. But if we are trying to make sense, we need to. If you are willing to admit, tacitly, that you don't care if it is logical or not, do whatever you want.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 1:49 pm And you won't find someone defending their own argument as, yes, fallacious, but what's wrong with that. They think it is not fallacious and will try to show this.
I am doing it. Right now. Non-contradiction is a social norm.
It seems like you are trying to mount a logical argument. If you don't care if your argument is fallacious, let me suggest that it is much easier to write gibberish.
But if there are no such things are moral facts. And there are no such things as factual normatives - why should anybody care about the "law" of non-contradiction?
I never said anyone should
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There are Moral Facts

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm It can be logically wrong, while not being morally wrong.
Logical "wrongs" are normatives - what makes them "wrong" is you've violated a social norm about logic.
Moral "wrongs" are normatives - what makes them "wrong" is the exact same thing as logical wrongs. You have violated some social norm.

If there can be such thing as a logical wrong then there can be such thing as a moral wrong.

Just so it happens people get a whole lot more outraged by murder than by logical contradictions - either way. They are both social norms.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm "No one has ever been able to prove that extraterrestrials do not exist, so they must be real."
That's not morally wrong. It's logically wrong.
There is a logic in which it's defined as wrong.
There's a logic in which its defined as right.

All that is necessary for a logical wrong to become a logical right is to choose a different logic - a different set of premises/axioms.

In the trivial case - one can simply assume a contradictory/explosive logic. Which proves everything.

The irony of your argument, of course is that in classical logic absence of negative evidence is sufficient for proving existence.
That is how all proof-by-contradiction works.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm It is a fallacious appeal to ignorance.
No, it isn't. It's just a valid rule of inference in my logic. It's a valid principle of agnosticism too.

In the absence of evidence for God AND the absence of evidence against God both theism and atheism are idiotic positions. But you can still hold those position simply on the basis of choosing to do so.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm If I am PH, I could agree that there is nothing objectively MORALLY wrong with using that argument. But I can say that it is wrong in the IS realm.
Which realm is "THIS" realm? The realm of YOUR normative logic; or the realm of my normative logic?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm Let's not equivocate on the two types of wrong.
Lets not equivocate on "this realm". Which realm are you talking about?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm He can point out that someone's argument failed to make sense, be convincing, be logical.
He can't do any of those things without appealing to subjective/normative rules for "making sense", "be convincing" or "being logical".
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm It doesn't achieve it's goal.
Arguments don't have goals. That's an anthromorphism.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm It does not demonstrate what the person intends it to. It's like putting a duck on my car engine and saying my techinique fixed my transmission. No, it didn't work.
I say it worked. You say it didn't work. By what objective criteria do we determine whether an argument works?

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm No. But if we are trying to make sense, we need to. If you are willing to admit, tacitly, that you don't care if it is logical or not, do whatever you want.
No, I am willing to admit that YOU don't care about logic and YOU do whatever you want under the pretense of being "civil", "rational" and "logical".

Because you can't get to argue that the is-ought gap is insurmountable and in the very next breath insist that we OUGHT to be logical, consistent, reasonable or whatever else.

I am literally DOING what you are asking of me. I am being consistent. Perfectly consistent, mind you. LIke a dumb computer perfectly and literally following the rules of logic.

IF the is-ought gap is insurmountable then there is no argument you can present. No reason you can present why we OUGHT to be loigical, rational or whatever else you insist we OUGHT to do in order to meet our needs.

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm It seems like you are trying to mount a logical argument. If you don't care if your argument is fallacious, let me suggest that it is much easier to write gibberish.
I am writing gibberish. Where do you see any logic in the fact that I am intentionally contradicting myself to argue against non-contradiction?

Give it up already. Logic is just rule-following. That shit's for robots/computers.

You are human.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:06 pm I never said anyone should
But you do care about it, don't you? Even if you haven't said it.

So it is subjectively or objectively true that you care about the law of non-contradiction?
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:42 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Post Reply