There are Objective 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

bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by bobmax »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:01 am
bobmax wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:28 pm A fact is objective if its truth does not depend on me.
Conversely, if my contribution is needed then that fact cannot be objective.
The above is very obvious so no issue.

The problem is whether what is objective is absolutely independent of any entanglement of human conditions which would have included you and all other humans.

Point is, scientific facts, truths and knowledge are recognized as objective, i.e. independent of any individual's opinions or beliefs.
But on a closer review, they are not absolutely independent of the human conditions because they must be conditioned to the specific scientific methods, models and system [FSR] that inevitably must involved humans interventions and participations.
The scientific FSR is the most credible at present.

From the above, the principle is all facts, truths and knowledge that are objective are conditioned upon a specific framework and system of reality [FSR].
Therefore there are objective moral facts which are conditioned upon the moral FSR which should have near equivalence credibility to the scientific FSR.

Do you agree to the above?
I agree with you regarding the scientific approach.

I am convinced it is the only reliable way to get to know the world.
And this knowledge cannot be separated from how we know.
That is, it is conditioned by what we are.

Furthermore, all that we can know is known only because it can be objectified.

Even the ways in which we know, our inner conditioning, the presuppositions that support our understanding, can only be known if we can objectify them.

All that is knowable is such only because it is made an object.

On the other hand, what cannot be objectified cannot be known.
It can be lived, but it cannot be known.

The subject, for example, always remains behind the scenes, it is never objectified.
Therefore it cannot be known.

But in general, what underlies each FSR can never be objectified.

If we try to objectify it, we find ourselves facing the limit.
What is the basis of all our knowledge is there and also is not there...
If I try to understand it, it escapes, fading into nothingness.

If I try to build an FSR of morality, I find myself with the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.
Without ever being able to objectify and therefore know them.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bobmax wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:57 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:01 am
bobmax wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:28 pm A fact is objective if its truth does not depend on me.
Conversely, if my contribution is needed then that fact cannot be objective.
The above is very obvious so no issue.

The problem is whether what is objective is absolutely independent of any entanglement of human conditions which would have included you and all other humans.

Point is, scientific facts, truths and knowledge are recognized as objective, i.e. independent of any individual's opinions or beliefs.
But on a closer review, they are not absolutely independent of the human conditions because they must be conditioned to the specific scientific methods, models and system [FSR] that inevitably must involved humans interventions and participations.
The scientific FSR is the most credible at present.

From the above, the principle is all facts, truths and knowledge that are objective are conditioned upon a specific framework and system of reality [FSR].
Therefore there are objective moral facts which are conditioned upon the moral FSR which should have near equivalence credibility to the scientific FSR.

Do you agree to the above?
I agree with you regarding the scientific approach.

I am convinced it is the only reliable way to get to know the world.
And this knowledge cannot be separated from how we know.
That is, it is conditioned by what we are.

Furthermore, all that we can know is known only because it can be objectified.

Even the ways in which we know, our inner conditioning, the presuppositions that support our understanding, can only be known if we can objectify them.

All that is knowable is such only because it is made an object.

On the other hand, what cannot be objectified cannot be known.
It can be lived, but it cannot be known.

The subject, for example, always remains behind the scenes, it is never objectified.
Therefore it cannot be known.

But in general, what underlies each FSR can never be objectified.

If we try to objectify it, we find ourselves facing the limit.
What is the basis of all our knowledge is there and also is not there...
If I try to understand it, it escapes, fading into nothingness.

If I try to build an FSR of morality, I find myself with the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.
Without ever being able to objectify and therefore know them.
Noted your agreement'
"I agree with you regarding the scientific approach.
I am convinced it is the only reliable way to get to know the world.
And this knowledge cannot be separated from how we know.
That is, it is conditioned by what we are.
Furthermore, all that we can know is known only because it can be objectified."


If you agree with the above, then the scientific FSR and what underlies it is objective itself in enabling its scientific facts to be objective, else it does not follow.
There are criteria to determine the objectivity of the scientific FSR.
In this case, there is no need to dig into what underlies or beyond the scientific FSR.

The same principle is applicable to the objectivity of all other FSR.
As I had stated, the moral FSR or FSK that I propose will have near equivalent objectivity [based on the criteria assessed] to the scientific FSR.
So in principle the objective moral facts from the specific moral FSK will have near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.

For example, in a legal FSR, i.e. a court of law, and when scientific facts [forensic] such as DNA evidence is relied upon beyond any reasonable doubt, the culminated legal fact that "X is guilty as a rapist" will have high credibility. Do you dispute this?
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by bobmax »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:19 am If you agree with the above, then the scientific FSR and what underlies it is objective itself in enabling its scientific facts to be objective, else it does not follow.
There are criteria to determine the objectivity of the scientific FSR.
In this case, there is no need to dig into what underlies or beyond the scientific FSR.

The same principle is applicable to the objectivity of all other FSR.
As I had stated, the moral FSR or FSK that I propose will have near equivalent objectivity [based on the criteria assessed] to the scientific FSR.
So in principle the objective moral facts from the specific moral FSK will have near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.

For example, in a legal FSR, i.e. a court of law, and when scientific facts [forensic] such as DNA evidence is relied upon beyond any reasonable doubt, the culminated legal fact that "X is guilty as a rapist" will have high credibility. Do you dispute this?
What founds any system of knowledge, which is necessarily objective, cannot itself be objective.

That is, it cannot really be known.

It is the illusion of rational thought, for which there is only what can be objectified, that mistakenly believes that the limit of the understandable is an object, but it is not.

The need to dig into what founds an FSR is not about trying to know it, which is impossible.
Instead, it is about the possibility of experiencing the limit.

And if you can live on the edge... you are inevitably rejected to yourself.

For rationality there is no limit, however you can verify its presence.

In your example, guilt is objective.
And it is precisely because it necessarily derives from what is inside the reference system.

In establishing this objectivity we neglect, consciously or not it does not matter, what is the basis of the frame of reference itself.

While the whole meaning of this objectivity lies precisely in the foundations of the system itself.

For example, the accused is guilty because he is truly responsible for what happened, as he could have acted differently.
That is, it is assumed that he is endowed with free will.

If, on the other hand, we question free will, then we may send the accused to prison anyway, but not because he is truly held accountable.
There are other reasons.
Just as the meaning of the story is completely different.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bobmax wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:19 am If you agree with the above, then the scientific FSR and what underlies it is objective itself in enabling its scientific facts to be objective, else it does not follow.
There are criteria to determine the objectivity of the scientific FSR.
In this case, there is no need to dig into what underlies or beyond the scientific FSR.

The same principle is applicable to the objectivity of all other FSR.
As I had stated, the moral FSR or FSK that I propose will have near equivalent objectivity [based on the criteria assessed] to the scientific FSR.
So in principle the objective moral facts from the specific moral FSK will have near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.

For example, in a legal FSR, i.e. a court of law, and when scientific facts [forensic] such as DNA evidence is relied upon beyond any reasonable doubt, the culminated legal fact that "X is guilty as a rapist" will have high credibility. Do you dispute this?
What founds any system of knowledge, which is necessarily objective, cannot itself be objective.

That is, it cannot really be known.

It is the illusion of rational thought, for which there is only what can be objectified, that mistakenly believes that the limit of the understandable is an object, but it is not.

The need to dig into what founds an FSR is not about trying to know it, which is impossible.
Instead, it is about the possibility of experiencing the limit.

And if you can live on the edge... you are inevitably rejected to yourself.

For rationality there is no limit, however you can verify its presence.

In your example, guilt is objective.
And it is precisely because it necessarily derives from what is inside the reference system.

In establishing this objectivity we neglect, consciously or not it does not matter, what is the basis of the frame of reference itself.

While the whole meaning of this objectivity lies precisely in the foundations of the system itself.
Note;
  • 1. ABC is objective.
    2. Yes, objectivity is determined by a reference system.
    3. The reference system is man-made.
    4. So the foundation of the system itself is man itself.
    5. What is the foundation of man itself?
    6. That will take us down to evolution then to the Big Bang.
You need to know what is critical with the need of 'objectivity' of a reference system is the pragmatism and utilities it can contribute to the well being of the individual and humanity. What else is the purpose of such 'objectivity'?
To ensure the objectivity is credible, we must ensure the credibility of the reference system.
Then we verify the credibility of the objectivity against the utilities it has produced for the individuals and to humanity.

As such while you can reflect on the presence of what is beyond the reference system, such an exercise has no practical value, thus not critical.
For example, the accused is guilty because he is truly responsible for what happened, as he could have acted differently.
That is, it is assumed that he is endowed with free will.

If, on the other hand, we question free will, then we may send the accused to prison anyway, but not because he is truly held accountable.
There are other reasons.
Just as the meaning of the story is completely different.
Re 'the accused is guilty'.
There is no need to consider the 'question of free will'.
What we need to consider is the credibility of the objectivity of the reference system that sent the accused to prison.
In this case we have to study the whole system and its operations then expect changes [e.g. the laws, persecution, judging, jury, etc. processes ] to be made to ensure the system more objective as far as objectivity is concern.

But note, a criminal court is not about morality-proper. That is the political and governance system not a moral system.

A credible objective moral system will strive to prevent whatever the crime from happening in the first place via the development of the moral competence within the individual and by himself voluntarily with freedom.
As such there is no coercion, threats of penalties or threat of hell within a credible objective moral system guided by objective moral facts.
Do you have a counter to this?
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by bobmax »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:33 am You need to know what is critical with the need of 'objectivity' of a reference system is the pragmatism and utilities it can contribute to the well being of the individual and humanity. What else is the purpose of such 'objectivity'?
To ensure the objectivity is credible, we must ensure the credibility of the reference system.
Then we verify the credibility of the objectivity against the utilities it has produced for the individuals and to humanity.

As such while you can reflect on the presence of what is beyond the reference system, such an exercise has no practical value, thus not critical.
Utility is not something based on itself.
But on the interpretation of what is really critical.

And what is critical establishes the reference system.

The genocide of the Jews was useful for the Nazis.
And their frame of reference was consistent with this pragmatism.

The Nazis were not stupid, in fact, they were very logical.
But they avoided investigating what founded their frame of reference.

Just as you would like to do, defining as non-critical what underlies it.

While it is just the opposite.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bobmax wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 4:33 am You need to know what is critical with the need of 'objectivity' of a reference system is the pragmatism and utilities it can contribute to the well being of the individual and humanity. What else is the purpose of such 'objectivity'?
To ensure the objectivity is credible, we must ensure the credibility of the reference system.
Then we verify the credibility of the objectivity against the utilities it has produced for the individuals and to humanity.

As such while you can reflect on the presence of what is beyond the reference system, such an exercise has no practical value, thus not critical.
Utility is not something based on itself.
But on the interpretation of what is really critical.

And what is critical establishes the reference system.

The genocide of the Jews was useful for the Nazis.
And their frame of reference was consistent with this pragmatism.

The Nazis were not stupid, in fact, they were very logical.
But they avoided investigating what founded their frame of reference.

Just as you would like to do, defining as non-critical what underlies it.

While it is just the opposite.
The original point we are debating is;

BMX: What founds any system of knowledge, which is necessarily objective, cannot itself be objective. [A]

My point is there is no critical necessity to dig into the objectivity of the foundation in this case, [else it will lead to an infinite regression and uselessness].

Thus what is critical is the pragmatism and utilities of a necessary objective system of knowledge [FSK] in relation to its contribution to the well being of the individual[s]and humanity.

The above is sufficient to counter your point A above and note you did not take into account 'the well being of humanity'.

Yes, the framework and system of Nazism is objective, pragmatic and has its relative utilities only for its believers.
You might as well state, the objective scientific facts from the scientific FSK has potential for pragmatism and utilities which could lead to the production of nuclear WMDs that could exterminate the human species.

That's where we come back to the need for morality to steer away from evil acts such as Nazism which humanity has done so intuitively driven by our inherent moral potentials; but this is done not very effectively.
This is why we need an objective moral FSK to recognize objective moral facts as a standard to drive the inherent moral potential more expeditiously and effectively.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by bobmax »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:20 am The original point we are debating is;

BMX: What founds any system of knowledge, which is necessarily objective, cannot itself be objective. [A]

My point is there is no critical necessity to dig into the objectivity of the foundation in this case, [else it will lead to an infinite regression and uselessness].

Thus what is critical is the pragmatism and utilities of a necessary objective system of knowledge [FSK] in relation to its contribution to the well being of the individual[s]and humanity.

The above is sufficient to counter your point A above and note you did not take into account 'the well being of humanity'.

Yes, the framework and system of Nazism is objective, pragmatic and has its relative utilities only for its believers.
You might as well state, the objective scientific facts from the scientific FSK has potential for pragmatism and utilities which could lead to the production of nuclear WMDs that could exterminate the human species.

That's where we come back to the need for morality to steer away from evil acts such as Nazism which humanity has done so intuitively driven by our inherent moral potentials; but this is done not very effectively.
This is why we need an objective moral FSK to recognize objective moral facts as a standard to drive the inherent moral potential more expeditiously and effectively.
What is good for humanity may be the purpose of an FSK.

But the construction of this FSK must offer objective ways of evaluating the morality of each fact.

And the good of humanity is too vague a concept to be sufficient.
Therefore rules are established that practically specify what is good and what is not for the good of humanity.

And here the castle falls!

Because even the Nazi FSK had as its goal the good of humanity, where humanity was theirs while others were not worthy of being considered human.

Then it can be added that human beings all have equal dignity, and that races do not exist.

But then there are the rich and the poor.
Is it right that there are the poor?
We can say yes, because well-being is a matter of merit, or say no because everyone has the right to live worthily even if they do not contribute to general well-being.

In short, any FSK is inevitably a forcing that occurs in that specific historical moment.

So is there no hope of grasping the Good?

No!
There is certainly hope, since Good is the purpose of life.

But it's your purpose, your quest, your probable hell.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bobmax wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:14 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:20 am The original point we are debating is;

BMX: What founds any system of knowledge, which is necessarily objective, cannot itself be objective. [A]

My point is there is no critical necessity to dig into the objectivity of the foundation in this case, [else it will lead to an infinite regression and uselessness].

Thus what is critical is the pragmatism and utilities of a necessary objective system of knowledge [FSK] in relation to its contribution to the well being of the individual[s]and humanity.

The above is sufficient to counter your point A above and note you did not take into account 'the well being of humanity'.

Yes, the framework and system of Nazism is objective, pragmatic and has its relative utilities only for its believers.
You might as well state, the objective scientific facts from the scientific FSK has potential for pragmatism and utilities which could lead to the production of nuclear WMDs that could exterminate the human species.

That's where we come back to the need for morality to steer away from evil acts such as Nazism which humanity has done so intuitively driven by our inherent moral potentials; but this is done not very effectively.
This is why we need an objective moral FSK to recognize objective moral facts as a standard to drive the inherent moral potential more expeditiously and effectively.
What is good for humanity may be the purpose of an FSK.

But the construction of this FSK must offer objective ways of evaluating the morality of each fact.

And the good of humanity is too vague a concept to be sufficient.
Therefore rules are established that practically specify what is good and what is not for the good of humanity.

And here the castle falls!

Because even the Nazi FSK had as its goal the good of humanity, where humanity was theirs while others were not worthy of being considered human.

Then it can be added that human beings all have equal dignity, and that races do not exist.

But then there are the rich and the poor.
Is it right that there are the poor?
We can say yes, because well-being is a matter of merit, or say no because everyone has the right to live worthily even if they do not contribute to general well-being.

In short, any FSK is inevitably a forcing that occurs in that specific historical moment.

So is there no hope of grasping the Good?

No!
There is certainly hope, since Good is the purpose of life.

But it's your purpose, your quest, your probable hell.
I agree whatever the moral fact claimed to be objective must be verified and justified based on empirical evidence PLUS philosophical reasonings [this latter is critical].

Instead of verifying and justifying moral facts, let me give you an analogy,

You cannot deny the 'oughtness to breathe' is obviously categorically 'Good' for all humans?
You also cannot deny this 'oughtness to breathe' is represented by a physical neural network comprising physical neurons together with other physical elements of the person.
You cannot deny the above because it is at least intuitively right for any rational person.
The above is a biological fact from the biological FSK.
There are definitely a more thorough rational basis for the above, but it is too complex to explain, so I don't want to waste my time on that.

From the above analogy,
there is the 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' which like the 'oughtness to breathe' is 'Good' for all humans.
This as evident is intuitively right for the majority.
That the majority agree with it indicates a reasonable degree of objectivity based on intersubjective consensus.
That some humans do kill humans cannot obviate that inherent moral potential and moral fact in the brain and the body of the person.

It is the same as, that different types of genders [a minority] can manifest from different persons does not obviate the fact that every human has an inherent generic sexual potential via the DNA.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by bobmax »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:15 am I agree whatever the moral fact claimed to be objective must be verified and justified based on empirical evidence PLUS philosophical reasonings [this latter is critical].

Instead of verifying and justifying moral facts, let me give you an analogy,

You cannot deny the 'oughtness to breathe' is obviously categorically 'Good' for all humans?
You also cannot deny this 'oughtness to breathe' is represented by a physical neural network comprising physical neurons together with other physical elements of the person.
You cannot deny the above because it is at least intuitively right for any rational person.
The above is a biological fact from the biological FSK.
There are definitely a more thorough rational basis for the above, but it is too complex to explain, so I don't want to waste my time on that.

From the above analogy,
there is the 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' which like the 'oughtness to breathe' is 'Good' for all humans.
This as evident is intuitively right for the majority.
That the majority agree with it indicates a reasonable degree of objectivity based on intersubjective consensus.
That some humans do kill humans cannot obviate that inherent moral potential and moral fact in the brain and the body of the person.

It is the same as, that different types of genders [a minority] can manifest from different persons does not obviate the fact that every human has an inherent generic sexual potential via the DNA.
There is a substantial difference between having to breathe and not having to kill.

A living human being is such only because he breathes.
Breathing is not a duty, but a peculiarity of every living human being.
Denying that a human being has to breathe is a contradiction.
It has nothing to do with intuition.

Conversely, not having to kill is not Good in itself.
But it is a law that can be accepted by you according to your feelings.
And this feeling refers to the Truth, which you do not possess, but which you have an inkling of.

You are at stake yourself!

And it has nothing to do with most people.
Because the Truth is never an opinion, it is not put to a vote.

I think your research is sincere.
But this approach of yours can only lead to an ethical state or in any case to a totalitarian regime.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bobmax wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 8:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:15 am I agree whatever the moral fact claimed to be objective must be verified and justified based on empirical evidence PLUS philosophical reasonings [this latter is critical].

Instead of verifying and justifying moral facts, let me give you an analogy,

You cannot deny the 'oughtness to breathe' is obviously categorically 'Good' for all humans?
You also cannot deny this 'oughtness to breathe' is represented by a physical neural network comprising physical neurons together with other physical elements of the person.
You cannot deny the above because it is at least intuitively right for any rational person.
The above is a biological fact from the biological FSK.
There are definitely a more thorough rational basis for the above, but it is too complex to explain, so I don't want to waste my time on that.

From the above analogy,
there is the 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' which like the 'oughtness to breathe' is 'Good' for all humans.
This as evident is intuitively right for the majority.
That the majority agree with it indicates a reasonable degree of objectivity based on intersubjective consensus.
That some humans do kill humans cannot obviate that inherent moral potential and moral fact in the brain and the body of the person.

It is the same as, that different types of genders [a minority] can manifest from different persons does not obviate the fact that every human has an inherent generic sexual potential via the DNA.
There is a substantial difference between having to breathe and not having to kill.

A living human being is such only because he breathes.
Breathing is not a duty, but a peculiarity of every living human being.
Denying that a human being has to breathe is a contradiction.
It has nothing to do with intuition.
Yes, there is a difference between having to breathe and not-to-kill in terms of actions, but they are fundamentally the same in terms of neural potentials in the brain.
They are all similar neural sets to avoid premature death and harms, as such has element of 'good' for all humans.
It has nothing to do with duty nor intuition in this case.
Conversely, not having to kill is not Good in itself.
But it is a law that can be accepted by you according to your feelings.
And this feeling refers to the Truth, which you do not possess, but which you have an inkling of.
There is no thing-in-itself, thus no good-in-itself.
As stated above, the ought-to-breathe and ought-not-to-kill-humans is a 'good' for humanity.
You are at stake yourself!
And it has nothing to do with most people.
Because the Truth is never an opinion, it is not put to a vote.
There is no such thing as 'Truth' with a capital 'T' since I have stated there is no thing-in-itself. Can you prove such a thing-in-itself which is absolutely independent by itself and independent of human conditions?
I think your research is sincere.
But this approach of yours can only lead to an ethical state or in any case to a totalitarian regime.
Where did you get such an idea?

I am proposing that all humans need to strive [possible in the future not now] that they recognized the inherent moral facts within themselves so that they can develop their moral potential and their moral competence to the extent that they will spontaneously and naturally act morally without any coercion, enforcement, threats of penalties or threat of hell.

How can this lead to an ethical state or a totalitarian regime?
Even it that is the case, what wrong with an ethical state or totalitarian regime that dictate "no human can kill another human".
This would be like the Ten Commandments [Thou Shall Not Kill!] or Jesus' love all even enemies [so no killing of humans]. I am not proposing such a state or a regime.
However I don't think a totalitarian regime will ever accept "no human can kill another human" absolutely as a law.

My point;
There are objective moral facts [physical in terms of neural networks] emerging from a credible moral FSK.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by bobmax »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:36 am There is no such thing as 'Truth' with a capital 'T' since I have stated there is no thing-in-itself.
This is the crux of our discussion. In fact, for you existence is the same being.

While existence is only possible due to being.
But it is not the same being.

Existence is being there.
And "being there" is not "being".
Being is the same being true.
Being = Truth.

It is important to consider that every affirmation necessarily appeals to Being.
That is, appeal to the Truth.
Which is not known, because it is not there.

It is not there precisely because being is not being there.

To say that since the thing itself does not exist then the Truth does not exist is therefore correct.
But only because the Truth is!

The Truth does not appear, it does not exist, precisely because it is.

And you are being, what else would you ever be?
So you are the Truth, which is not there.

Nothing and no one can tell you what is True.
Only you in perfect solitude can seek the Truth in yourself.
Because this you are.

The belief that killing is wrong can only arise within you.
And that's not necessarily the truth.
Because there is nothing objective that can confirm this for you.

Only you, with love and trembling, always with the doubt of being able to make mistakes, can affirm what is right.

But if you pretend to set the stakes that guide humanity. Then you are forcing the game, establishing what the True is.
Hence totalitarianisms, ethical states, the days of terror.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bobmax wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 8:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:36 am There is no such thing as 'Truth' with a capital 'T' since I have stated there is no thing-in-itself.
This is the crux of our discussion. In fact, for you existence is the same being.

While existence is only possible due to being.
But it is not the same being.

Existence is being there.
And "being there" is not "being".
Being is the same being true.
Being = Truth.

It is important to consider that every affirmation necessarily appeals to Being.
That is, appeal to the Truth.
Which is not known, because it is not there.

It is not there precisely because being is not being there.

To say that since the thing itself does not exist then the Truth does not exist is therefore correct.
But only because the Truth is!

The Truth does not appear, it does not exist, precisely because it is.

And you are being, what else would you ever be?
So you are the Truth, which is not there.

Nothing and no one can tell you what is True.
Only you in perfect solitude can seek the Truth in yourself.
Because this you are.

The belief that killing is wrong can only arise within you.
And that's not necessarily the truth.
Because there is nothing objective that can confirm this for you.

Only you, with love and trembling, always with the doubt of being able to make mistakes, can affirm what is right.

But if you pretend to set the stakes that guide humanity. Then you are forcing the game, establishing what the True is.
Hence totalitarianisms, ethical states, the days of terror.
What I am proposing as standards [moral] are merely abstracted from reality, i.e. empirical reality.
I am claiming such standards are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.
As such, if the moral standard abstracted is 'no killing of humans' to be use a guide for all humans, how can this be of a totalitarian, ethical states, the days of terror?
Show in details how your claim is possible at all?

Note 'existence' and 'being' are not predicates.
They are both copula, i.e. "is" to join the subject with the predicate.
To merely state 'X exists' is groundless and empty.

As such the proper statement should be,

X exists as 'that.'
X is being 'that.'

What is 'that' must be verified and justified as real within an objective credible FSK.

If a theist state 'God exists' - that is not sufficient,
the theist must complete the statement 'God exists as that-thing.'
In this case, the theist must verify and justify what 'that-thing' is.
The most credible FSK to verify and justify what is real, true and factual is the scientific FSK.
As such, theists must prove God exists based on a credible FSK of near equivalence to that of the scientific FSK.

But no, the theists will instead rely on a FSK or FSR that is based on blind faith driven by the feelings of tremblings and fears.
Note this thread;
God as a Psychological Derivative
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=35084

OTOH, when scientists assert "Water exists as H2O," that is not based on blind faith, but rather "proven" in accordance to the conditions of the scientific FSK with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning with the challenge to anyone that they will produce the same results if they do the same experiments that the scientists did to arrive at their conclusions.

Your basis of what is 'existence' 'being' 'Truth' is baseless and groundless.
If otherwise proof it on a real basis and not merely by words and blind faith.

My point:
What I am proposing as standards [moral] are merely abstracted from reality, i.e. empirical reality.
I am claiming such standards are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.
As such, if the moral standard abstracted is 'no killing of humans' to be use a guide for all humans, how can this be of a totalitarian, ethical states, the days of terror?
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by bobmax »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 9:11 am As such, if the moral standard abstracted is 'no killing of humans' to be use a guide for all humans, how can this be of a totalitarian, ethical states, the days of terror?
Show in details how your claim is possible at all?

Note 'existence' and 'being' are not predicates.
They are both copula, i.e. "is" to join the subject with the predicate.
To merely state 'X exists' is groundless and empty.

As such the proper statement should be,

X exists as 'that.'
X is being 'that.'

What is 'that' must be verified and justified as real within an objective credible FSK.

If a theist state 'God exists' - that is not sufficient,
the theist must complete the statement 'God exists as that-thing.'
In this case, the theist must verify and justify what 'that-thing' is.
The most credible FSK to verify and justify what is real, true and factual is the scientific FSK.
As such, theists must prove God exists based on a credible FSK of near equivalence to that of the scientific FSK.

But no, the theists will instead rely on a FSK or FSR that is based on blind faith driven by the feelings of tremblings and fears.
Note this thread;
God as a Psychological Derivative
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=35084

OTOH, when scientists assert "Water exists as H2O," that is not based on blind faith, but rather "proven" in accordance to the conditions of the scientific FSK with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning with the challenge to anyone that they will produce the same results if they do the same experiments that the scientists did to arrive at their conclusions.

Your basis of what is 'existence' 'being' 'Truth' is baseless and groundless.
If otherwise proof it on a real basis and not merely by words and blind faith.

My point:
What I am proposing as standards [moral] are merely abstracted from reality, i.e. empirical reality.
I am claiming such standards are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.
As such, if the moral standard abstracted is 'no killing of humans' to be use a guide for all humans, how can this be of a totalitarian, ethical states, the days of terror?
Any law we set because we believe it to be a good, if we take it literally as the foundation of a system, it becomes an inevitable evil.
Because any law must be interpreted.

And its interpretation derives in turn from "truths" which can never be laws themselves.

The need not to kill is therefore only a generic indication, which must be included in each specific situation in order to verify its effective validity.
Because in the face of this commandment there may be other requirements, equally valid if not more, which would not enforce it.

For example, if taken literally, euthanasia would certainly be wrong. But then the absolute value of life would prevail over any trampled dignity, over suffering without hope.
Would it be fair?

Abortion would certainly be denied.
But what about woman's freedom then? Should a girl who has been raped necessarily give birth to the violence she suffered (as is actually happening in the US)?

Is the suicide really guilty?
Are you not even masters of your own life?

To what extent does the oppressed have to endure oppression if their only option is to get rid of the oppressor by killing him?

Don't dwell on the use of the verbs exist and to be.
It is in that copulation that what really matters is hidden.
Existence is what is most real. It's the same situation as you.
While being is what grounds it.

You ask me to prove existence and being.
Which are precisely what allows any possible proof!

Existence is the fact. Your situation. Which you can never ignore.
But since this situation, this existence, questions you directly, calls yourself into question, here is the awareness of Being.

That is, of the Truth.
Which allows existence.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bobmax wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 1:57 pmAny law we set because we believe it to be a good, if we take it literally as the foundation of a system, it becomes an inevitable evil.
Because any law must be interpreted.
That is a strawman, I did not mention 'law' at all in this case nor anything to be taken literally as the foundation of system.

I stated,
"As such, if the moral standard abstracted is 'no killing of humans' to be use a guide for all humans, how can this be of a totalitarian, ethical states, the days of terror?"

The critical terms here are 'standard' and 'guide' and how can those terms denote 'evil'.
What is your definition for evil?
To me, evil [not-good] is related to any human acts or thoughts that are a net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and humanity.

The moral facts as abstracted are therefore standards and guide for the individual[s] to improved their moral competence in their own time and circumstances on a natural and spontaneous basis.
And its interpretation derives in turn from "truths" which can never be laws themselves.
As stated above, there is no law and interpretation involved. There is only the drive for moral improvement against the standard.
The need not to kill is therefore only a generic indication, which must be included in each specific situation in order to verify its effective validity.
Because in the face of this commandment there may be other requirements, equally valid if not more, which would not enforce it.

For example, if taken literally, euthanasia would certainly be wrong. But then the absolute value of life would prevail over any trampled dignity, over suffering without hope.
Would it be fair?

Abortion would certainly be denied.
But what about woman's freedom then? Should a girl who has been raped necessarily give birth to the violence she suffered (as is actually happening in the US)?

Is the suicide really guilty?
Are you not even masters of your own life?

To what extent does the oppressed have to endure oppression if their only option is to get rid of the oppressor by killing him?
The 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' is merely a standard as a guide, thus it is not a commandment.

At present, the majority are still active with their inherited beastly nature as such SOME will engage in killing of humans [murders, wars, suicide, euthanasia, abortion and the like]. In this circumstances there would be a need for just-wars and just-killings but such killings should not be expected to continue eternally.

When individuals and humanity are mindful of the standard [moral fact] they will realize there is a moral deviation between their actual evil acts and the moral standard. This will trigger and drive for improvements, i.e. reduction in evil acts.

ALL humans are also 'programmed' with the potential for continual improvement over their current state, as such, this potential [& conscience] will drive them to improve their moral competence towards the standard.
If we start now on the drive for moral progress based on a moral FSK, we cannot expect results immediately but the results will flow significantly after say >50, >100 or >150 years later.

Don't dwell on the use of the verbs exist and to be.
It is in that copulation that what really matters is hidden.
Existence is what is most real. It's the same situation as you.
While being is what grounds it.

You ask me to prove existence and being.
Which are precisely what allows any possible proof!

Existence is the fact. Your situation. Which you can never ignore.
But since this situation, this existence, questions you directly, calls yourself into question, here is the awareness of Being.

That is, of the Truth.
Which allows existence.
We are doing philosophy here, thus there is a need to be more precise with the terms we used.

BMX: "Existence is the fact"
Fact of what that is factual?

I am aware "I-exists" but precisely,
'I exists' as an empirical self and person that is verifiable and justifiable as real [till mortality] at the least with common sense but more refined within the scientific FSK.
This is a fact and factual.

However there is the hasty and jumping to conclusion by the majority [mostly theists] who insist,
"I exists" as an independent 'soul' [a transcendental self] that will survive physical death and will go to heaven or hell somewhere.
This is not factual but merely believing in an illusory soul thus delusional.
Here is the possibility where believers [especially Islam and its believers] could exterminate the human species with WMDs based on the illusory beliefs.

See the difference and why the need to be more rigoristic with the terms used, 'existence' in this case?
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by bobmax »

Veritas,

then there are no objectively moral facts, but only suggestions, guides that indicate a direction.
However, nothing objective.
Because objective means defined once and for all.

Instead, here we have a standard, a guide, nothing objectively defined.

So your FSK can only be an exhortation to the Good.
Not unlike the many religious or philosophical exhortations.
Where there is nothing really objective.

The assertion of existing comes before any reasoning.
It is the wonder that precedes all thoughts.
And when one tries to describe it rationally, its essence has already been lost.

If we want to remain in the philosophical field, do you really think that we must define what is the basis of each definition?
Don't you see the absurdity of this claim?

You said there is no Truth.
Okay, but can you deny that the Truth is?

If you just try... you should fall silent.
Post Reply