P_Holmes: Moral Facts remain Moral Opinions. WTF

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

P_Holmes: Moral Facts remain Moral Opinions. WTF

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes claims dogmatically whatever the moral facts they remain Moral Opinion. WTF view is that??

I agree in most cases at present whatever are moral claims they are merely opinions or divine commands from an illusory God because they are not supported by empirical justifications and philosophical reasonings.

However in my case, what I claimed as objective moral facts are based on empirical justifications and philosophical reasonings from a moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] which is near equivalent to that of the scientific FSK.

Therefore upon justification as facts they cannot be mere moral opinions.

Your views on my justifications below?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 7:58 am ..............
At present we have sufficient knowledge to prove Hume was too hasty and wrong re NOFI relative to his time.
I don't believe Hume [intelligent and rational as he was] will stick to his NOFI if he were to be alive today.
Not so. No amount of knowledge of what is the case can entail a conclusion as to what should be the case. So new knowledge makes no difference. We can and do appeal to facts to explain and justify our moral opinions - but they remain opinions.
On what justifications, credibility and authority is your above claims true?
It is merely based on your reliance on the words [agreement] of a bunch of 'analytic' philosophers improvising upon the ideas of the earlier condemned logical positivists.
Show me convincing justifications your point is sound?

Note the following principles re 'Knowledge'.
1. There is no absolute knowledge.
2. All knowledge [truths, facts] must be conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
3. Scientific truths, facts and knowledge based on the scientific FSK is the most credible.
4. Where moral truths, facts and knowledge are similar to the scientific FSK, then such moral facts has a certain degree of reasonable credibility.
We can and do appeal to facts to explain and justify our moral opinions - but they remain opinions.
You are begging the question here.
When we appeal to facts to explain and justify a hypothesis [opinion] within a credible FSK, they are then facts specific to the FSK.
As such, scientific facts started as conjectures [opinions, hypothesis] but when justified via the scientific FSK. But the irony is scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures'.

Similarly moral facts [my version] started as conjectures [opinions, hypothesis] but when justified via the Moral FSK. But the irony is moral facts are also at best 'polished conjectures'.

Generally, most moral claims and opinions started as opinions and remained opinions but not in the case of my claims of moral facts as justified above.
Show me how is my claim wrong?
If you insist my claim of moral facts are wrong, then you are also claiming currently justified scientific facts are wrong.

Views??
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: P_Holmes: Moral Facts remain Moral Opinions. WTF

Post by DPMartin »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 5:11 am Peter Holmes claims dogmatically whatever the moral facts they remain Moral Opinion. WTF view is that??

I agree in most cases at present whatever are moral claims they are merely opinions or divine commands from an illusory God because they are not supported by empirical justifications and philosophical reasonings.

However in my case, what I claimed as objective moral facts are based on empirical justifications and philosophical reasonings from a moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] which is near equivalent to that of the scientific FSK.

Therefore upon justification as facts they cannot be mere moral opinions.

Your views on my justifications below?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 7:58 am ..............
At present we have sufficient knowledge to prove Hume was too hasty and wrong re NOFI relative to his time.
I don't believe Hume [intelligent and rational as he was] will stick to his NOFI if he were to be alive today.
Not so. No amount of knowledge of what is the case can entail a conclusion as to what should be the case. So new knowledge makes no difference. We can and do appeal to facts to explain and justify our moral opinions - but they remain opinions.
On what justifications, credibility and authority is your above claims true?
It is merely based on your reliance on the words [agreement] of a bunch of 'analytic' philosophers improvising upon the ideas of the earlier condemned logical positivists.
Show me convincing justifications your point is sound?

Note the following principles re 'Knowledge'.
1. There is no absolute knowledge.
2. All knowledge [truths, facts] must be conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
3. Scientific truths, facts and knowledge based on the scientific FSK is the most credible.
4. Where moral truths, facts and knowledge are similar to the scientific FSK, then such moral facts has a certain degree of reasonable credibility.
We can and do appeal to facts to explain and justify our moral opinions - but they remain opinions.
You are begging the question here.
When we appeal to facts to explain and justify a hypothesis [opinion] within a credible FSK, they are then facts specific to the FSK.
As such, scientific facts started as conjectures [opinions, hypothesis] but when justified via the scientific FSK. But the irony is scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures'.

Similarly moral facts [my version] started as conjectures [opinions, hypothesis] but when justified via the Moral FSK. But the irony is moral facts are also at best 'polished conjectures'.

Generally, most moral claims and opinions started as opinions and remained opinions but not in the case of my claims of moral facts as justified above.
Show me how is my claim wrong?
If you insist my claim of moral facts are wrong, then you are also claiming currently justified scientific facts are wrong.

Views??
again, there are no mortals without an agreement, rules law so on and so forth. the only way a moral can be a fact is if its a part of an agreement. (provable like documentation, or trusted memory)

there is no science involved no matter how hard you try. you're trying to jam a square peg in a round hole, because nothing is evil without an agreement. if there's an agreement then what offends the agreement or those in the agreement according to the agreement is evil, wrong, bad, according to judgement of those who made the agreement.

no agreements, then all is fair, just as in the wild, and in the wild, nothing is evil, nothing is wrong because there is no agreement to show that it is wrong. one can only do wrong to another if there is a justifiable expectation of the offended by a mutual agreement that such shouldn't have happened.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: Moral Facts remain Moral Opinions. WTF

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

DPMartin wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 9:55 pm again, there are no mortals without an agreement, rules law so on and so forth. the only way a moral can be a fact is if its a part of an agreement. (provable like documentation, or trusted memory)

there is no science involved no matter how hard you try. you're trying to jam a square peg in a round hole, because nothing is evil without an agreement. if there's an agreement then what offends the agreement or those in the agreement according to the agreement is evil, wrong, bad, according to judgement of those who made the agreement.

no agreements, then all is fair, just as in the wild, and in the wild, nothing is evil, nothing is wrong because there is no agreement to show that it is wrong. one can only do wrong to another if there is a justifiable expectation of the offended by a mutual agreement that such shouldn't have happened.
You got a point here if you are not referring to some sort of contractual agreement conditioned by the Principles of Contract Law.

I mentioned the following above;
  • Note the following principles re 'Knowledge'.
    1. There is no absolute knowledge.
    2. All knowledge [truths, facts] must be conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
    3. Scientific truths, facts and knowledge based on the scientific FSK is the most credible.
    4. Where moral truths, facts and knowledge are similar to the scientific FSK, then such moral facts has a certain degree of reasonable credibility.
You are right when you said,
the only way a moral can be a fact is if its a part of an agreement.

Based on my points above, nothing can be a fact unless there is an "agreement" but in this case the effective word should be "consensus" [no contracts] within members and users of a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.

Scientific facts [the most credible exists] because of intersubjective consensus ["agreement"] amongst peers of scientists and users or believers within the conditions of the scientific FSK.
Creationists within their own divine FSK will not agree with the Evolutionary Theory within the recognized scientific FSK and community.

In the case of Peter Holmes, he is defining 'what is fact' within his the specific linguistic FSK agreed by merely a group of philosophers and believers. Peter's 'what is fact' is empty and not credible because it has no grounds of verification except for words and language.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: P_Holmes: Moral Facts remain Moral Opinions. WTF

Post by DPMartin »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 4:57 am
Based on my points above, nothing can be a fact unless there is an "agreement" but in this case the effective word should be "consensus" [no contracts] within members and users of a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.

Scientific facts [the most credible exists] because of intersubjective consensus ["agreement"] amongst peers of scientists and users or believers within the conditions of the scientific FSK.
Creationists within their own divine FSK will not agree with the Evolutionary Theory within the recognized scientific FSK and community.

In the case of Peter Holmes, he is defining 'what is fact' within his the specific linguistic FSK agreed by merely a group of philosophers and believers. Peter's 'what is fact' is empty and not credible because it has no grounds of verification except for words and language.
na, something can be a fact without an agreement and even mans knowledge or awareness of it. whereas a moral doesn't really exist unless there is a agreement with that moral in it which does require man's knowledge and awareness of it to be an agreement.

the creation v evolution example i don't see the similarity. evolution is a group of those who have the authority to say and interpret evidence found and agree. creation is what it is, believe it or not, as far as i know, no group of people sat around and decided what fits the theory and what don't, its not a theory.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: Moral Facts remain Moral Opinions. WTF

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

DPMartin wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 5:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 4:57 am
Based on my points above, nothing can be a fact unless there is an "agreement" but in this case the effective word should be "consensus" [no contracts] within members and users of a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.

Scientific facts [the most credible exists] because of intersubjective consensus ["agreement"] amongst peers of scientists and users or believers within the conditions of the scientific FSK.
Creationists within their own divine FSK will not agree with the Evolutionary Theory within the recognized scientific FSK and community.

In the case of Peter Holmes, he is defining 'what is fact' within his the specific linguistic FSK agreed by merely a group of philosophers and believers. Peter's 'what is fact' is empty and not credible because it has no grounds of verification except for words and language.
na, something can be a fact without an agreement and even mans knowledge or awareness of it. whereas a moral doesn't really exist unless there is a agreement with that moral in it which does require man's knowledge and awareness of it to be an agreement.

the creation v evolution example i don't see the similarity. evolution is a group of those who have the authority to say and interpret evidence found and agree. creation is what it is, believe it or not, as far as i know, no group of people sat around and decided what fits the theory and what don't, its not a theory.
Show me one fact that is independent, absolute, by itself that do not entangle with any human consensus [agreement] within a specific framework and system of knowledge.

Note,
the definition of 'fact'.
A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
You can introduce your own definition if you don't agree with the above [subject to my agreement].
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: P_Holmes: Moral Facts remain Moral Opinions. WTF

Post by DPMartin »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 4:21 am
Show me one fact that is independent, absolute, by itself that do not entangle with any human consensus [agreement] within a specific framework and system of knowledge.

Note,
the definition of 'fact'.
A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
You can introduce your own definition if you don't agree with the above [subject to my agreement].
what ever is in another solar system such as how many planets that's in a galaxy no one knows of. or exactly how many ton of nuclear relevant material that's in the earth. its a fact its true yet no one is aware of it. except God, but that's nether here or there in this case.


you can't be serious about something not being a fact or true without man's awareness thereof. man is not all knowing, that is a fact whether you know that or not.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: Moral Facts remain Moral Opinions. WTF

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

DPMartin wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 4:48 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 4:21 am
Show me one fact that is independent, absolute, by itself that do not entangle with any human consensus [agreement] within a specific framework and system of knowledge.

Note,
the definition of 'fact'.
A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
You can introduce your own definition if you don't agree with the above [subject to my agreement].
what ever is in another solar system such as how many planets that's in a galaxy no one knows of. or exactly how many ton of nuclear relevant material that's in the earth. its a fact its true yet no one is aware of it. except God, but that's nether here or there in this case.

you can't be serious about something not being a fact or true without man's awareness thereof. man is not all knowing, that is a fact whether you know that or not.
Did you read what I posted above?
  • Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
Note 'verified' in the past tense.
Whatever is not verified and agreed via intersubjective consensus [agreement] that is not a fact.

However one can differentiate a potential fact from a falsehood.
If I state there are square-circles in Jupiter, that is a clear-cut falsehood and an impossibility.

That there are possibility of the exact tons of nuclear materials on Earth is merely a potential fact but it is not a fact per se until the exact numbers are verified and measured and accepted via the scientific process.

I can say there is a distance between Earth and the Sun. Surely this is not a fact per se.
The fact is the Earth is 93 million miles [on average] from the Sun.
Even then this supposed fact is a mere approximation and varies.

It is irrational to claim only God knows, when you cannot prove God exists as real.
you can't be serious about something not being a fact or true without man's awareness thereof. man is not all knowing, that is a fact whether you know that or not.
Note I defined fact as,

whatever is fact must be conditioned upon a man-made Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK]. The scientific FSK with its scientific facts is the gold standard.

There cannot be any "fact" without it being conditioned with 'man's involvement.
Show me if otherwise?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: Moral Facts remain Moral Opinions. WTF

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 5:11 am Peter Holmes claims dogmatically whatever the moral facts they remain Moral Opinion. WTF view is that??
It's closer to being a more demonstrable fact than any of the things you have spent the last 5 or so years trying to cook up.

It's all quite simple really. You have been banging on about these "FSK" things for yearts now, yet still anyone can use the exact same reasoning that you do to create a "moral FSK" that operates exactly like yours, but recommends significantly different resulting action.

Nothing from outside any of the competing "moral FSKs" could determine which "FSK" had been used to arrive at a correct answer, so you either end up describing the results as mutually exclusive truths, making these "FSK" things little more than factories for the generating of unresolvable errors ... or the results of the FSK are still mere opinion.

This is a problem you have been warned of repeatedly over the years you have been flogging this useless theory of yours. You have a garbage in garbage out problem, you just feed a bunch of opinions into an "FSK" and hope that it spits out facts. But the only thing you are employing to convert these opinions into fact is a ritual of repeated opinion.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: P_Holmes: Moral Facts remain Moral Opinions. WTF

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 5:11 am Note the following principles re 'Knowledge'.
1. There is no absolute knowledge.
2. All knowledge [truths, facts] must be conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
3. Scientific truths, facts and knowledge based on the scientific FSK is the most credible.
4. Where moral truths, facts and knowledge are similar to the scientific FSK, then such moral facts has a certain degree of reasonable credibility.
We can and do appeal to facts to explain and justify our moral opinions - but they remain opinions.
You are begging the question here.
When we appeal to facts to explain and justify a hypothesis [opinion] within a credible FSK, they are then facts specific to the FSK.
As such, scientific facts started as conjectures [opinions, hypothesis] but when justified via the scientific FSK. But the irony is scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures'.

Similarly moral facts [my version] started as conjectures [opinions, hypothesis] but when justified via the Moral FSK. But the irony is moral facts are also at best 'polished conjectures'.

Generally, most moral claims and opinions started as opinions and remained opinions but not in the case of my claims of moral facts as justified above.
Show me how is my claim wrong?
If you insist my claim of moral facts are wrong, then you are also claiming currently justified scientific facts are wrong.

Views??
Here's the problem. Yes, scientific hypotheses and even communal beliefs start out as opinions or hypotheses. And then as the evidence grows they become theory or accepted fact.

The problem with moral facts is you ALWAYS have to add in another moral value to evaluate the earlier opinion. You cannot simply gather information. So, you ALWAYS have a subjective value justifying a moral position that itself is a subjective opinion.

Let's work with your not-killing is good. How do we evaluate that? Well, we can certainly look at what happens when people kill. We can try to catalogue the societal effects of killing. So, we get statistics, perhaps about people's sense of well being, or children's fear and a whole lot of other phenomena, including deaths in a society. But we can only evaluate those statistics as good or bad (compared to cultures that allow killing say)
with a value that we then must justify. It will be an opinion. A taste. It's bad that children are nervous. Then we need to justify that. Science does not rely on an emotional value. You can JUST LOOK AT THE RESULTS.

If I do X, Y tends to follow. We try that in 500 labs and that's what happens.

With morals we can get some kind of data, but then at that last step, again we come in with emotional evaluations.

Your schema is precisely confused because you think the only subjectivity is at the beginning. Someone suggests that killing is bad. But through whatever process you engage in to evaluate this your FINAL STEPS must necessarily include emotional evaluations.

You don't start with a hypothesis and then process data by recording.

You have emotional reactions to the results, to the data. So it starts and ends and generally all through the middle necessitates emotional evaluations.

Of course there can be paradigmatic biases in science and other problems. But scientific methodology and moral systems have very little in common. Of course one can use science to bolster one's position on morals. Especially if those you are talking to share values with you. If both of you want children to be less scared, then sure sociology might help you both have similar EMOTIONAL FINAL EVALUATIONS at the end of the study.

But even if there was some objective morality (for humans) it might actually turn out that humans are pernicious, so human subjective emotional evaluations might necessarily be wrong.

You know, the advanced intergalactic species who agree with you that there can be moral facts have noted that human like species end up destroying so much life they are deemed a net negative. You are paving the way for our eradication being objectively moral, if decided upon by more advanced species who have more data.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: P_Holmes: Moral Facts remain Moral Opinions. WTF

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 2:21 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 5:11 am Peter Holmes claims dogmatically whatever the moral facts they remain Moral Opinion. WTF view is that??
It's closer to being a more demonstrable fact than any of the things you have spent the last 5 or so years trying to cook up.

It's all quite simple really. You have been banging on about these "FSK" things for yearts now, yet still anyone can use the exact same reasoning that you do to create a "moral FSK" that operates exactly like yours, but recommends significantly different resulting action.

Nothing from outside any of the competing "moral FSKs" could determine which "FSK" had been used to arrive at a correct answer, so you either end up describing the results as mutually exclusive truths, making these "FSK" things little more than factories for the generating of unresolvable errors ... or the results of the FSK are still mere opinion.

This is a problem you have been warned of repeatedly over the years you have been flogging this useless theory of yours. You have a garbage in garbage out problem, you just feed a bunch of opinions into an "FSK" and hope that it spits out facts. But the only thing you are employing to convert these opinions into fact is a ritual of repeated opinion.
What Flash says.

And, to clariify, I don't claim moral facts are opinions. I say there are no such things as moral facts - that the very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent. Just saying.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: Moral Facts remain Moral Opinions. WTF

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 2:21 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 5:11 am Peter Holmes claims dogmatically whatever the moral facts they remain Moral Opinion. WTF view is that??
It's closer to being a more demonstrable fact than any of the things you have spent the last 5 or so years trying to cook up.

It's all quite simple really. You have been banging on about these "FSK" things for yearts now, yet still anyone can use the exact same reasoning that you do to create a "moral FSK" that operates exactly like yours, but recommends significantly different resulting action.

Nothing from outside any of the competing "moral FSKs" could determine which "FSK" had been used to arrive at a correct answer, so you either end up describing the results as mutually exclusive truths, making these "FSK" things little more than factories for the generating of unresolvable errors ... or the results of the FSK are still mere opinion.

This is a problem you have been warned of repeatedly over the years you have been flogging this useless theory of yours. You have a garbage in garbage out problem, you just feed a bunch of opinions into an "FSK" and hope that it spits out facts. But the only thing you are employing to convert these opinions into fact is a ritual of repeated opinion.
I have always argued the Moral FSK proposed is as close as possible to the scientific FSK which I would rate at say 80/100 degree of credibility.
Relatively I had stated the theistic Moral FSK would be 10/100.
My proposed Moral FSK will be rated at 70/100.
The Consequentialism & Utilitarianism Moral FSK I would rate at 30/100.

I have not presented the complete details of my proposed moral FSK.
However, 90% of the input into my proposed moral FSK MUST be scientific facts from the scientific FSK [and it sub-FSKs], the rest are supported by other evidences and solid philosophical reasonings.

As such, in principle, when you don't give consideration to my proposed moral FSK, then you are indirectly condemning the scientific facts from the scientific FSK.

Note as an example,
It is a scientific fact, ALL humans must breathe else they die.
Anyone or Group upon relying on the above scientific fact [setting aside common sense], can establish their own FSK and incorporated the maxim,
"ALL normal humans ought to breathe".
What is wrong with that.

Similarly my Moral FSK [more difficult to explain] can do the same with various scientific facts to establish various moral facts specific to the Moral FSK.

For a concept of FSK, note Carnap's "Aufbau" [just read about it] where he talked of reality centered on Frameworks.
I don't agree with Carnap's overall views but I agree with his concept [only] of Aufbau and ultimately whatever the Aufbau it must be as credible as the Scientific "Aufbau".
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: Moral Facts remain Moral Opinions. WTF

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:36 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 2:21 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 5:11 am Peter Holmes claims dogmatically whatever the moral facts they remain Moral Opinion. WTF view is that??
It's closer to being a more demonstrable fact than any of the things you have spent the last 5 or so years trying to cook up.

It's all quite simple really. You have been banging on about these "FSK" things for yearts now, yet still anyone can use the exact same reasoning that you do to create a "moral FSK" that operates exactly like yours, but recommends significantly different resulting action.

Nothing from outside any of the competing "moral FSKs" could determine which "FSK" had been used to arrive at a correct answer, so you either end up describing the results as mutually exclusive truths, making these "FSK" things little more than factories for the generating of unresolvable errors ... or the results of the FSK are still mere opinion.

This is a problem you have been warned of repeatedly over the years you have been flogging this useless theory of yours. You have a garbage in garbage out problem, you just feed a bunch of opinions into an "FSK" and hope that it spits out facts. But the only thing you are employing to convert these opinions into fact is a ritual of repeated opinion.
I have always argued the Moral FSK proposed is as close as possible to the scientific FSK which I would rate at say 80/100 degree of credibility.
Relatively I had stated the theistic Moral FSK would be 10/100.
My proposed Moral FSK will be rated at 70/100.
The Consequentialism & Utilitarianism Moral FSK I would rate at 30/100.
I don't care that you rate your own homework at 70/100, I rate it very much lower than that and there's no factual reason why I am wrong in this regard.

I can use your exact method to create an exactly similar "FSK" that says your own is wrong and that its "facts" are in fact counterfactual. That is a fact.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: Moral Facts remain Moral Opinions. WTF

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 9:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:36 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 2:21 pm
It's closer to being a more demonstrable fact than any of the things you have spent the last 5 or so years trying to cook up.

It's all quite simple really. You have been banging on about these "FSK" things for yearts now, yet still anyone can use the exact same reasoning that you do to create a "moral FSK" that operates exactly like yours, but recommends significantly different resulting action.

Nothing from outside any of the competing "moral FSKs" could determine which "FSK" had been used to arrive at a correct answer, so you either end up describing the results as mutually exclusive truths, making these "FSK" things little more than factories for the generating of unresolvable errors ... or the results of the FSK are still mere opinion.

This is a problem you have been warned of repeatedly over the years you have been flogging this useless theory of yours. You have a garbage in garbage out problem, you just feed a bunch of opinions into an "FSK" and hope that it spits out facts. But the only thing you are employing to convert these opinions into fact is a ritual of repeated opinion.
I have always argued the Moral FSK proposed is as close as possible to the scientific FSK which I would rate at say 80/100 degree of credibility.
Relatively I had stated the theistic Moral FSK would be 10/100.
My proposed Moral FSK will be rated at 70/100.
The Consequentialism & Utilitarianism Moral FSK I would rate at 30/100.
I don't care that you rate your own homework at 70/100, I rate it very much lower than that and there's no factual reason why I am wrong in this regard.

I can use your exact method to create an exactly similar "FSK" that says your own is wrong and that its "facts" are in fact counterfactual. That is a fact.
I will be very pleased to welcome your very necessary criticisms of my proposed moral FSK [I have not presented the full details [so far only principles] of the framework and system yet]. You can critique whatever you know of it so far. I relied on scientific facts to a large degree, do you condemn that?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: Moral Facts remain Moral Opinions. WTF

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 9:10 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 9:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:36 am
I have always argued the Moral FSK proposed is as close as possible to the scientific FSK which I would rate at say 80/100 degree of credibility.
Relatively I had stated the theistic Moral FSK would be 10/100.
My proposed Moral FSK will be rated at 70/100.
The Consequentialism & Utilitarianism Moral FSK I would rate at 30/100.
I don't care that you rate your own homework at 70/100, I rate it very much lower than that and there's no factual reason why I am wrong in this regard.

I can use your exact method to create an exactly similar "FSK" that says your own is wrong and that its "facts" are in fact counterfactual. That is a fact.
I will be very pleased to welcome your very necessary criticisms of my proposed moral FSK [I have not presented the full details [so far only principles] of the framework and system yet]. You can critique whatever you know of it so far. I relied on scientific facts to a large degree, do you condemn that?
You are completely pseudoscientific. Your measuring system for the badness of actions is nothing more than a list of some things with an estimate of "badness units" out of 100 that you just make up as you go along. All anyone has to do is make their own list and have different priorities than you and there is an equally valid counterscience ranged against you.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: Moral Facts remain Moral Opinions. WTF

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:57 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 9:10 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 9:03 am
I don't care that you rate your own homework at 70/100, I rate it very much lower than that and there's no factual reason why I am wrong in this regard.

I can use your exact method to create an exactly similar "FSK" that says your own is wrong and that its "facts" are in fact counterfactual. That is a fact.
I will be very pleased to welcome your very necessary criticisms of my proposed moral FSK [I have not presented the full details [so far only principles] of the framework and system yet]. You can critique whatever you know of it so far. I relied on scientific facts to a large degree, do you condemn that?
You are completely pseudoscientific. Your measuring system for the badness of actions is nothing more than a list of some things with an estimate of "badness units" out of 100 that you just make up as you go along. All anyone has to do is make their own list and have different priorities than you and there is an equally valid counterscience ranged against you.
I agree at this stage it is a rough abductive guess.
Surely any rational person will agree to an initial relative difference in credibility of Science [proper] given a rating of 80/100 while theism is given 10/100. You dispute this guess?
From the above, we can proceed to do a more serious measurement that most rational person will accept.

As for my proposed moral system riding on the credibility of the scientific FSK, I will definitely have to present a detailed justifications of my ratings that any rational person will accept, give & take with a 5% margin of error.
Post Reply