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?
On what justifications, credibility and authority is your above claims true?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:13 amNot 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.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.
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.
You are begging the question here.We can and do appeal to facts to explain and justify our moral opinions - but they remain opinions.
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??