I have no problem understanding your views which is very limited and kindergartenish.
But you are unable to shift paradigm to understand my views because your problem is you are suffering from cognitive dissonance [thus the bias confirmation and selective attention] which you need to seek a cure.
My detailed argument is as follows;
Nope P2 is not an assumption.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 7:04 amCan you see what's wrong with the following argument?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 4:52 am
What is wrong with the following argument?
- P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
P2 There is a morality FSK [that enable the emergence of moral facts]
C Therefore, there are moral facts.
P1 What we call facts exist within a framework and system of knowledge (FSK).
P2 Astrology is an FSK (that enables the emergence of astrological facts).
C Therefore, there are astrological facts.
I'm sure you notice that P2 makes an assumption. It assumes the conclusion is true. And using a conclusion to support a premise is called a begging the question fallacy. P2 is false, or at least not shown to be true. So the argument is unsound.
Now, exactly the same refutation applies to your argument about morality. Your conclusion that morality is indeed an FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts begs the question. An FSK doesn't create the facts that it describes. If there are no facts (see astrology), there simply is no FSK at all.
P2 does follow from P1 as defined.
The argument is valid and sound.
What need to be question is, if that is a fact as defined, then we have to establish whether that fact [as defined] is credible or not.
It is obvious the astronomical FSK [scientific based] is more credible than the astrological FSK based on what we know of both FSK.
Thus there are astrological facts [as defined] but their credibility is way lower than the astronomical facts [as defined].
Note my emphasis if fact 'as defined'.
Who give you the authority that your fact [as defined] is absolute.
Note Skepdick's usual counter;
Where I have qualified my FSK, I can claim the below is a "green" circle.
The above presentation is just not typical but rather extreme. There is nothing wrong with the above logic as long as I qualify the terms and meanings I used within a specific FSK.
Obviously I will not resort to such extreme normally, but just to show you what I meant when what is fact is conditioned upon a FSK.
The word here is not the critical thing but rather what is critical is what is experienced within a defined FSK.
However my definition of fact in relation to a specific FSK is quite normal, note, as implied here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Your problem is you are suffering from cognitive dissonance which you need to seek a cure.
Strawman again,No, the trouble is that you know a factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion, but you don't apply that knowledge to your own argument.Btw,
I am not claiming for moral opinions.
I am claiming moral facts as moral potentials as a matter of fact represented by neural correlates and other physical feature within the brain [& body]. Note a clue [not the full details] to the physical referent here;
Mirror Neurons and Moral Oughtness
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34812
Problem is you are stuck in a very old dogmatic paradigm re morality.
The existence of mirror neurons is a (recently discovered) fact about our brains - that helps to explain our behaviour. But it's not a 'moral fact', anymore than the existence of our brains is a 'moral fact'. (In the same way, the fact that humans must breathe or they die is also just a fact, with no moral significance.) Your non sequitur fallacy is this:
Mirror neurons programme us to do X; therefore, doing X is morally right.
To repeat, a factual premise (of any kind whatsoever) can't entail a moral conclusion. And that's because a conclusion can't contain information not present in the premise or premises. If there's no claim about moral rightness/wrongness in the premise(s), the conclusion can't logically make a moral claim, because that won't follow from the premise(s). It really is that simple.
I NEVER agreed,
"you know a factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion,"
rather
'you know a factual premise [empirical] can't entail a moral opinion"
BUT
a factual premise [empirical] can entail a moral fact via a moral FSK.
PH: "Mirror neurons programme us to do X; therefore, doing X is morally right."
How many more '000s of times do I need to point out your strawman factory job?
What I have claimed is,
mirror neurons are the elements of the moral potentials or moral oughtness which is a matter of fact that are represented by the physical referent of neural correlates in the brain [& body].
This moral potential [physical as above] is a moral fact that drives ethical acts and evaluations.
For example in terms of hunger, I am not referring to people making choices based on their preferences in what to eat to satisfy their hunger.
What I am pointing out is the neural correlates in the brain and physical elements in the body that generate the hunger drive. This is the matter of fact I am referring. In terms of digestion FSK this is a fact of digestion.
I have no problem understanding your views which is very limited and kindergartenish.
But you are unable to shift paradigm to understand my views because your problem is you are suffering from cognitive dissonance [thus the bias confirmation and selective attention] which you need to seek a cure.