There are Divine "Moral Facts"

[Iwannaplato]

The title of the thread really sums it up.

There are Divine 'Moral Facts' Note the citation marks.
Think of sentences like...
Yes, I am telling you the 'truth'.
or
I'm 'sure' I saw his face.

Peter Holms for example is not arguing that

'moral facts' don't exist.

He has argued that moral facts don't exist.

It like this huge concession is made in the title of the thread, but not acknowledged.

[Iwannaplato]

There are no such things as moral facts. So there are no such things as divine moral facts. The end.

What if someone tries to beat you to death!?

Like any moral realist you would then be dead. I assume you mean, but isn't that act objectively immoral or the like. But then you need to demonstrate this.

One can disagree with moral realism and hate the idea of being beaten to death. Or someone else being beaten to death (presumably, in your example, while innocent).

One is not forced to like things one doesn't like if one doesn't believe in moral facts. Nor is one stopped from trying eliminate certain acts from society. But you are aware that it is based on your preferences rather than on objective morals.

[Sculptor]

There are no such things as moral facts. So there are no such things as divine moral facts. The end.

Indeed - so bleeding obvious.

[bahman]

There are no such things as moral facts. So there are no such things as divine moral facts. The end.

What if someone tries to beat you to death!?

Like any moral realist you would then be dead.

I don't think that he is a moral realist since he does not believe in any moral fact.

I assume you mean, but isn't that act objectively immoral or the like. But then you need to demonstrate this.

I am not a moral objectivist since I think moral facts are mind-dependent. Reality to me is made of mind and quale, quale cannot exist without mind and there is a relation between quale, the subject of experience, and any fact.

One can disagree with moral realism and hate the idea of being beaten to death. Or someone else being beaten to death (presumably, in your example, while innocent).

One is not forced to like things one doesn't like if one doesn't believe in moral facts. Nor is one stopped from trying eliminate certain acts from society. But you are aware that it is based on your preferences rather than on objective morals.

The moral facts are related to like or dislike. You cannot establish any moral fact in an indifferent world, where there is no like or dislike.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't think that he is a moral realist since he does not believe in any moral fact.

You're right. He believes in 'moral facts'. So, I don't know why he has a problem with people who don't believe in moral facts, no citation marks.

I am not a moral objectivist since I think moral facts are mind-dependent. Reality to me is made of mind and quale, quale cannot exist without mind and there is a relation between quale, the subject of experience, and any fact.

OK

One can disagree with moral realism and hate the idea of being beaten to death. Or someone else being beaten to death (presumably, in your example, while innocent).

One is not forced to like things one doesn't like if one doesn't believe in moral facts. Nor is one stopped from trying eliminate certain acts from society. But you are aware that it is based on your preferences rather than on objective morals.

The moral facts are related to like or dislike. You cannot establish any moral fact in an indifferent world, where there is no like or dislike.
[/quote]No need to introduce the category of moral facts. And I think the category 'moral facts' seems like hedging bets or sort of an unintentional trolling. Like, dislikes and then you have people following orders.

They may not like what they are told are the moral facts, but they like following orders or letting other people decide or they are scared to head out on their own because htey think they are bad or will get punished. Fear (and with some cause) can lead one to decide, OK, they must be right about X being a moral fact.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note I qualified "moral facts" in " ".

Here is my explanation to justify the OP;

1. There is no absolute knowledge.

That is not true.

2. All knowledge [truths, facts] must be conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

3. At present, Scientific truths, facts and knowledge based on the scientific FSK is the most credible.

You forgot art, mathematics, and philosophy.

I said 'scientific truths' are the MOST credible. Mathematical truth come close I often mentioned both together.
Not philosophy, because philosophy is a tool and a mean to acquire the above and other knowledge, truths and facts.

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 cannot derive moral truth from scientific FSK.

Where did I claim that?
I am arguing one can derive moral truths ONLY from a credible moral FSK.
The moral FSK rely heavily on scientific facts from the scientific FSK.

5. According to my proposed Moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK],
the inherent "ought-not-ness to kill another human" programmed within the DNA and brain of each humans is a fact, i.e. a moral fact. This is verifiable empirically and justifiable with philosophical reasonings.

There are studies that show that there is a link between specific genes and crimes.

I can agree with that, but it has nothing direct to do with my point.

6. In the Gospels of Christianity, there is the overriding pacifist command of "Love all and even enemies" thus that would cover 'Thou Shall Not Kill". This particular command from the Christianity FSK is a divine moral fact from within the Divine Moral System of Christianity.

7. However the Christianity Moral FSK is not credible at all since it is grounded on an illusory God. Nevertheless 'Thou Shall Not Kill" is still a moral fact, albeit, it is of the lowest degrees of credibility.

Killing is permissible depending on the circumstances. Think of people in locked-in syndrome.

Where in the Gospels [only] did Jesus gives permission for Christians to kill other humans?

8. The critical point is Christian moral fact is an accurate intuitive reflection of the actual inherent "ought-not-ness to kill another human". The only limitation is, it is not verified nor justified, thus it is not credible.

9. This is similar to Henry's correct intuitive insight re the moral fact of slavery where Henry agrees chattel slavery is morally wrong and is a moral fact but he does not provide "solid" justification on why it is so.

10. So there are 'Divine Moral Facts' from the Christian's Moral Framework and System of Knowledge but such moral facts are of the lowest credibility; it is based on faith on an illusory God and is not verified empirically nor justified via philosophical reasoning.

11. Whilst such divine moral facts are of the lowest credibility, they deserve to be categorized within the subset of facts [no facts are absolute anyway] because these facts do contribute positively to humanity optimal to the certain past and present state of the majority [not necessary for the future].

12. Others [Peter Holmes, et. al.] will deny the above are facts, i.e. moral facts. But that is because they are relying on a miserable framework and System of Knowledge that is based on "empty" language and words [begging the question] rather than on empirical evidence and solid philosophical reasonings.

13. So, there are divine moral facts based on the above qualified arguments.

Views?

13 does not follow.

Why not?

1. All facts [truths and knowledge] emerged and are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
2. One example of a specific FSK is the Christian Moral FSK.
3. Therefore Christian moral facts, truth, knowledge emerged and are conditioned upon the Christian moral FSK.

What is wrong with the above logic and soundness?
What is questionable is the credibility of the Christian moral facts, truth, knowledge.

What is unique [not typical] in this case is facts, truths and knowledge are placed on a continuum basis of credibility.

On a continuum basis for a mixture of only black or white, there is nothing wrong in stating 99% black is "1%white & 99% black" or 1% white is 99% black.

[FlashDangerpants]

Function?? obviously you have not bothered to understand my points.

Note this thread,
Christian Morality - The Most Optimal for the PRESENT
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34602

Thus whatever are Christian moral facts [despite its irrationality], what is critical is whether they have an optimal contribution to the individual[s] or humanity.

I had just referred to John Searle's institutional or constitutional facts in contrast to bare brute linguistic-based facts.

All my philosophical points re facts or others are always directed at functions and how they can contribute to the optimal well-being of the individual[s] and humanity in line with my definition of 'what is philosophy'.

That other thread is just absurdly stupid and I'm not going to touch it with a shitty stick.

A defining feature of facts, the concept that real people use (and which has nothing to do with any FSK thing) is that we use it to determine true and false statements. If there is a moral fact that it is morally wrong to drown a puppy in the toilet, and if there is also a moral fact that interractions between humans and animals are not moral matters, then you have used the word "fact" in error.

That's what fact does, what it means is what we do with it. You routinely misuse the concept. you have been aware of this problem for years and have done nothing but try to not deal with it.

You are bad at this stuff.

Actually your use of 'fact' as confined to states of affairs, proposition, concept [atomic] and likes are the shitty one without any solid reference to reality.
Yes, there is some use for your definition of fact, but it has to depend on the specific "invented" FSK which is shitty itself.

Note the more general acceptable definition of what is fact [the concept that real people use ].

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

Surely scientific facts has something to do with the scientific FSK and these are translatable to utility for mankind?
You deny that?

I ask Peter Holmes for his origins of 'what is fact' and the supporting reference, but so far he had failed to do so out of ignorance or fear of being exposed as a fraud. What about you, can you tell me the historical origin of 'what is fact'.

How about you starting with Russell's Logical Atomism, then logical facts, then taken by Carnap to the condemned logical positivists and therefrom improvised without any groundings by the current analytic linguistic and ordinary language philosophers.
I have been refreshing and reading on this recently.

So your sense of 'what is fact' [accepted by some influential philosophers but it] is actually shit and you want to use such shit to counter my moral fact which is more Soundly related to the WIKI's definition above.

Just don't make noises, show me origin of your term 'fact' and justification that it is most sound amidst to all the critiques against it?

The above is merely noises.

The simple fact of the matter is this. Your "moral FSK" is made up by people just agreeing that X is worse than Y and assigning "reasonable" numbers to quantify such. Anyone who disagrees with the numbers and assignations can just make their own "moral FSK" with numbers that suit themselves.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[bahman]

I don't think that he is a moral realist since he does not believe in any moral fact.

You're right. He believes in 'moral facts'. So, I don't know why he has a problem with people who don't believe in moral facts, no citation marks.

I am not a moral objectivist since I think moral facts are mind-dependent. Reality to me is made of mind and quale, quale cannot exist without mind and there is a relation between quale, the subject of experience, and any fact.

OK

One can disagree with moral realism and hate the idea of being beaten to death. Or someone else being beaten to death (presumably, in your example, while innocent).

One is not forced to like things one doesn't like if one doesn't believe in moral facts. Nor is one stopped from trying eliminate certain acts from society. But you are aware that it is based on your preferences rather than on objective morals.

The moral facts are related to like or dislike. You cannot establish any moral fact in an indifferent world, where there is no like or dislike.

No need to introduce the category of moral facts. And I think the category 'moral facts' seems like hedging bets or sort of an unintentional trolling. Like, dislikes and then you have people following orders.

They may not like what they are told are the moral facts, but they like following orders or letting other people decide or they are scared to head out on their own because they think they are bad or will get punished. Fear (and with some cause) can lead one to decide, OK, they must be right about X being a moral fact.

I cannot follow what you are trying to say here.

[Iwannaplato]

I cannot follow what you are trying to say here.

We can take it point for point. He has a thread where the title of the thread asserts There are Divine 'Moral Facts'. He put moral facts in citation marks. He doesn't say There are Divine Moral Facts. He adds a nebulous quality to the term. Which is interesting given he is an atheist. He keeps 'Divine' literal, leaving it without citation marks.

[bahman]

I cannot follow what you are trying to say here.

We can take it point for point. He has a thread where the title of the thread asserts There are Divine 'Moral Facts'. He put moral facts in citation marks. He doesn't say There are Divine Moral Facts. He adds a nebulous quality to the term. Which is interesting given he is an atheist. He keeps 'Divine' literal, leaving it without citation marks.

I see.

[Iwannaplato]

Next, I was saying that one need not introduce this idea of moral facts, especially if one believes, as you do, that what gets called morals is connect and dependent on likes/dislikes. Morals are based on like and in fact are likes. We promote those things we like and call them Good. We criticize things we dislike and call them Evil or Bad or some other value laden term. OR we follow someone in authority - who created those Morals from their preferences because we have a preference (like) for letting other people determine what we think is Good. It's PR to label these preferences (likes) morals. It's a dominance move.

[bahman]

Next, I was saying that one need not introduce this idea of moral facts, especially if one believes, as you do, that what gets called morals is connect and dependent on likes/dislikes. Morals are based on like and in fact are likes. We promote those things we like and call them Good. We criticize things we dislike and call them Evil or Bad or some other value laden term. OR we follow someone in authority - who created those Morals from their preferences because we have a preference (like) for letting other people determine what we think is Good. It's PR to label these preferences (likes) morals. It's a dominance move.

Ok. So you are at least agree with me.

[Iwannaplato]

Next, I was saying that one need not introduce this idea of moral facts, especially if one believes, as you do, that what gets called morals is connect and dependent on likes/dislikes. Morals are based on like and in fact are likes. We promote those things we like and call them Good. We criticize things we dislike and call them Evil or Bad or some other value laden term. OR we follow someone in authority - who created those Morals from their preferences because we have a preference (like) for letting other people determine what we think is Good. It's PR to label these preferences (likes) morals. It's a dominance move.

Ok. So you are at least agree with me.

I wasn't sure, but ok.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That other thread is just absurdly stupid and I'm not going to touch it with a shitty stick.

A defining feature of facts, the concept that real people use (and which has nothing to do with any FSK thing) is that we use it to determine true and false statements. If there is a moral fact that it is morally wrong to drown a puppy in the toilet, and if there is also a moral fact that interractions between humans and animals are not moral matters, then you have used the word "fact" in error.

That's what fact does, what it means is what we do with it. You routinely misuse the concept. you have been aware of this problem for years and have done nothing but try to not deal with it.

You are bad at this stuff.

Actually your use of 'fact' as confined to states of affairs, proposition, concept [atomic] and likes are the shitty one without any solid reference to reality.
Yes, there is some use for your definition of fact, but it has to depend on the specific "invented" FSK which is shitty itself.

Note the more general acceptable definition of what is fact [the concept that real people use ].

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

Surely scientific facts has something to do with the scientific FSK and these are translatable to utility for mankind?
You deny that?

I ask Peter Holmes for his origins of 'what is fact' and the supporting reference, but so far he had failed to do so out of ignorance or fear of being exposed as a fraud. What about you, can you tell me the historical origin of 'what is fact'.

How about you starting with Russell's Logical Atomism, then logical facts, then taken by Carnap to the condemned logical positivists and therefrom improvised without any groundings by the current analytic linguistic and ordinary language philosophers.
I have been refreshing and reading on this recently.

So your sense of 'what is fact' [accepted by some influential philosophers but it] is actually shit and you want to use such shit to counter my moral fact which is more Soundly related to the WIKI's definition above.

Just don't make noises, show me origin of your term 'fact' and justification that it is most sound amidst to all the critiques against it?

The above is merely noises.

The simple fact of the matter is this. Your "moral FSK" is made up by people just agreeing that X is worse than Y and assigning "reasonable" numbers to quantify such. Anyone who disagrees with the numbers and assignations can just make their own "moral FSK" with numbers that suit themselves.

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.

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?

"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.

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.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

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.

"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.

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.