There are Divine "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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Divine "Moral Facts"

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 9:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 4:51 am I have not presented my Moral FSK in detail and fully.
However in principle, my Moral FSK MUST and will have near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.

It will be like a credible legal FSK which will rely on scientific facts where necessary to general legal facts.
The inputs of my proposed Moral FSK will be 90% scientific facts and supported by the most rational philosophical reasonings.
You keep boasting about it as if those things were already true. They are not true of anything at all that you have presented so far.
So far I have not presented my full argument and I don't intend to.
What I have presented are merely principles as stated above, i.e.
the inputs of my proposed Moral FSK will be 90% scientific facts and supported by the most rational philosophical reasonings.

If it doesn't meet the above requirements I will throw it into the rubbish bin, but so far I am confident of what I am doing is on the right path.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 4:51 am
After that, you have two of these "moral FSK" things, which each considers the others to be engines for the manufacture of lies. Both with equal claims to moral fact.
It is possible but note the example of the Theological FSK claim of creation versus the Scientific FSK on Theory of Evolution and Cosmology. Surely all rational people will recognize the distinct difference in terms of credibility between the two FSKs.
I have claimed my proposed moral FSK MUST and will have near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.
And by your definition of fact, both nonetheless are converting opinion into fact by a process of assigning numbers that don't measure anything to opinions.
Nope those measurements are a side issue.
When a credible legal FSK generate a legal fact, e.g. "X Murdered Y", based heavily on DNA evidence, there is no such assigning of numbers.
But the way we use the word fact out in the world as living human beings does not permit that foolishness. If there are mutually exclusive claims to a fact, then one or both MUST be false, they cannot both be facts. That's a simple truth about what the word fact has to mean. If you have come up with a definition of fact that allows you to break that rule, your definition doesn't work.
Who give you such authority to assert this an absolute command? You're a God?
It's the way that language works. Try telling the judge at court that it is a fact that you stabbed a man but you would like the jury to consider that it is also a fact that you didn't stab the man.
Language? that has to be merely qualified to the Language FSK which is merely limited and very limited.

What is more critical at present in a court of law is empirical evidence and scientific facts, not language which is merely confined to communications.
Where we have video and other empirical evidences, the focus need not be on language.

No jury will make a final decision based merely on a confession or denial without the related and critical evidences.

Language is merely a tool for the establishment of fact and words [propositions] are not facts [reality] themselves.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 4:51 am "as living human beings" is only confined to a specific FSK [as i had claimed, it is improvised from the logical positivist's FSK]. Not every living human being recognized such specific FSK as absolute or authority.
This is like the Law of the Excluded Middle which does serves a purpose but it is limited within defined situations and thus must be qualified and can never be absolute.
The LEM has loads of criticisms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_ex ... Criticisms
If the Bible gives you a "moral fact" that in cases of pregnancy where fatherhood of the fetus is in doubt, then the bitter waters must be drunk so that God will kill the baby if it is the result of infidelity to punish the mother (and thus the biblical FSK sets specific terms under which abortion is required), but the Vegetable Aqueduct moral FSK says that abortion is totally wrong. That isn't two facts where one wins because the "FSK" it derives from is considered 42% better than the other one. It is a situation where either one or both claims cannot be facts at all.
Both are facts [as per my definition] but we have to review the credibility of the FSK and the justifications they are generated.
That's why your definition is shit. Nobody will ever use your definition if it comes with the absurdity of allowing for mutually exclusive truth.

The proof is in this conversation. You don't believe in mutually exclusive truth. You don't think that I am right and that you are right too. You think that if you are right I must be wrong. You don't believe your own argument.
Note my bottom line is verified and justifiable empirical evidence to reach conclusion on whatever is claimed as fact.
A theist will surely claim god exists as real is fact, but what should I be so bothered with the term 'fact,' what I am more concern is the credibility of the FSK, empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning for that claim.
For you the term 'fact' seem to send you into a frenzy.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 4:51 am You are ignorant of many things.
Let take two persons arguing about whether chattel slavery is right or wrong, say 10,000 years ago.
If I am one of them then, I would have presented my argument [C-slavery is wrong] logically, rationally, philosophically and soundly as a moral fact, say 90/100.
The other person would say my claim is not a fact and thus 100% wrong while his claim [c-slavery is right] is a 100/100 fact because his God said so.

But the real fact is there is a moral potential within all the human brains that is unfolding gradually and is supporting the moral fact that I am claiming.

10,000 years later, i.e. 2022, the evidence is supporting my claim, i.e. the moral potential had gradually unfolded to the extent that all sovereign nations has made C-slavery illegal. This event obviously must be supported by neural changes in the brains of the majority or a critical mass to generate such a state.

However the above factual moral potential [of ought-not-ness] within only affect the legal FSK at the present and the moral conscience within the moral FSK I am proposing.

As I had stated, I have not explained my proposed moral FSK fully. One additional information is my proposed Moral FSK will have to consider the expected neural changes [currently trending since 10,000 years ago] within all human beings in the future to facilitate the natural inherent moral facts that are basically supported by the scientific FSK.

There are more to it re my Moral FSK.
Point is you are condemning my moral FSK based on ignorance, dogmatism and arrogance.
However note my basic claim,
my Moral FSK MUST and will have near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.
Weird mysticism and yet more made up numbers won't help you.
Noted your ignorance on this.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: There are Divine "Moral Facts"

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 11:24 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 9:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 4:51 am I have not presented my Moral FSK in detail and fully.
However in principle, my Moral FSK MUST and will have near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.

It will be like a credible legal FSK which will rely on scientific facts where necessary to general legal facts.
The inputs of my proposed Moral FSK will be 90% scientific facts and supported by the most rational philosophical reasonings.
You keep boasting about it as if those things were already true. They are not true of anything at all that you have presented so far.
So far I have not presented my full argument and I don't intend to.
Then you are just playing fantasy philosophy.

Nobody is interested in how amazing the secret arguments you won't share with us are.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Divine "Moral Facts"

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 1:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 11:24 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 9:49 am
You keep boasting about it as if those things were already true. They are not true of anything at all that you have presented so far.
So far I have not presented my full argument and I don't intend to.
Then you are just playing fantasy philosophy.

Nobody is interested in how amazing the secret arguments you won't share with us are.
I have intention of writing a book.
Not revealing all so to prevent plagiarism of my novel ideas.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: There are Divine "Moral Facts"

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 4:23 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 1:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 11:24 am
So far I have not presented my full argument and I don't intend to.
Then you are just playing fantasy philosophy.

Nobody is interested in how amazing the secret arguments you won't share with us are.
I have intention of writing a book.
Not revealing all so to prevent plagiarism of my novel ideas.
All the ideas and arguments you have laid out so far are shit and nobody in the world finds them remotely persuasive.

Your Canadian Girlfriend of really great ideas that can't be shared is a fraud.
Post Reply