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

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

There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

There are Objective Moral Facts

First a Caveat:
Moral statements [descriptive and prescriptive of moral-ought] related to opinions and beliefs of individuals and groups are not moral facts.

1. What is Fact?
We must first differentiate the two main types facts, i.e.
  • A. Metaphysical/Philosophical Realism's Fact
    B. Anti-Realism's Fact.
A. Metaphysical/Philosophical Realism's Fact
This is Peter Holmes' et. al. sort of facts [Metaphysical Realism] where 'fact' is a feature of 'reality' and is truth-apt, i.e. capable of being true or false.
Such fact is not grounded upon reality but merely grounded on linguistic matters, thus such facts are not realistic at all.

B. Anti-Realism's Fact.
What is fact to me is the Anti-Realism's Fact in opposite to the Metaphysical/Philosophical Realism's Fact.
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.

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
From the above what is fact [anti-realist] is conditioned by a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

2. What is Morality
I have defined what is morality here in terms of Ethics represented by Moral [Pure] and Applied [Ethics in practice].
What is Ethics & Morality is fundamentally the management of Good over Evil. What is Good is not-Evil.
What is evil is any human act or thoughts that is a net-negative to the well-being of the individual and to humanity towards the preservation of the human species.

3. What is Objectivity?
What is Philosophical Objectivity is explained in this thread;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
As explained above,
  • what is a scientific fact is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
    A scientific fact is objective
    What is scientific objectivity is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
From the above;
What is objectivity is thus conditioned upon a specific FSK. [3]
A fact [anti-realist] is conditioned upon a specific FSK. [1B]
Thus a fact is objective when conditioned upon a specific FSK

A fact is moral when conditioned upon a moral FSK.
Therefore a moral fact is objective when conditioned upon a moral FSK.
As such, there are objective moral facts.

Caveat: Moral statements [descriptive and prescriptive of moral-ought] related to opinions and beliefs of individuals and groups are not moral facts.

What are objective moral facts?
Objective moral facts emerge from the moral FSK based on a matter-of-fact of moral-potentiality as justified by the scientific FSK and are represented by physical neural correlates in the brain and body.

Thus my point;
There are Objective Moral Facts

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

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Note:

I have argued the most credible facts are the scientific facts from the scientific FSK [also the mathematical FSK] based on acceptable criteria.
My proposed moral FSK that enables the emergence of moral facts will be of near equivalence to the scientific FSK.
My moral FSK as credible is valid in principle and I agree I will have to justify this near-equivalence.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 9:31 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 11, 2022 7:04 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 10:54 am The description of subjectivity as mind-dependence, and objectivity as mind-independence, perpetuates the myth that there are two substances: the mental and the physical - a myth still promoted by many dictionaries, both philosophical and general. (Mentalist talk gets everywhere.)
I have countered the above a "million" times yet you are so stuck dogmatically with your archaic thinking.

Yes, subjectivity is mind-dependence [entangled with the mind].
But objectivity is mind-independence at one level but mind-dependence at a higher level.

Note scientific facts are supposedly objective. You deny this?
As such they are independent of the scientist's or any subject's opinion and beliefs.
But objective scientific facts are subjective in a higher perspective, i.e. it is intersubjective based on the scientific FSK which is created and sustained by human subjects and mind, thus subjective.
There is no myth of two substance in this case.
So what is objectivity is intersubjectivity, i.e. fundamentally 'subjective'.
How do you counter this?
And that myth is at the root of - and still causes - much philosophical confusion, not least in the debate about the nature of morality - what we call moral rightness and wrongness: are they mind-dependent or mind-independent?
Which ever individual claim his rightness or wrongness is moral and based on his personal FSK, that is purely subjective.
But any claims of moral facts from a credible moral FSK of near credibility to the scientific FSK, is objective based on intersubjectivity, thus fundamentally subjective.
Thus moral facts are possible when they meet the above criteria.

You have not countered my claim here,

There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002
The existence of a feature of reality (what we call a fact), such as the chemical composition of water, doesn't depend on a descriptive context. And it doesn't depend on our intersubjective consensus that it exists. So these two conditions for what constitutes a fact are not necessary - and therefore not jointly sufficient.

And the very reliabiity of natural science descriptions and the knowledge they embody - on which we agree - comes from an explicit rejection of these two conditions. A scientist who claimed that water is H2O simply because we agree it is, and agree how to describe it, would be rightly ignored or ridiculed.
Your thinking above is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic.

Your reality, fact and it
are merely from your fictional illusory creations thus delusional.

What you failed to understand is the following 4 conditions;
  • 1. The reality, fact and it by themselves which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

    2. The emergence & realization of reality of which the participating person[s] are intricately part and parcel of.

    3. The verification and justification of the realization of the entangled-reality via a specific FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK as the most credible.

    4. The reporting and description of the facts from 2 & 3.
What is really real is 2 & 3 and 1 is the fictional illusions that you have invented.
Your reality, fact and it existing by themselves in 1 are those illusional realities which are inferred via the Correspondence Theory of Truth. [you are in it no matter how you deny you are not].
You are trying to mirror [correspond] your description with illusions as conceived in 1 above.
Thus you have ended with Nihilism and Solipsism.

That 'mirroring' is what Rorty had been condemning in his "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature".
Many of us have been suckered by a tired postmodern canard that was fashionable around seventy years ago: the arse-puckering, pernicious idea that scientists deal with merely polished conjectures about reality, not reality (nature) itself.

Meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with morality - opinions about moral rightness and wrongness.
From my argument above, it is realistic to see scientific facts at their best as mere 'polished conjectures'.

It has relevance to moral facts which are equated as of near credibility to scientific facts.

Of course! I agree there are no moral facts IF they are equated with your reality, fact and it existing by themselves [re 1], because there are no such "facts" such as your 1 which are illusory.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:49 am Because to say something is morally right or wrong can only ever be to express a value-judgement, belief or opinion, which is necessarily subjective.

And that's why people can perfectly rationally disagree over such issues as abortion, capital punishment and killing animals for food or sport.

There are no features of reality (facts) whose demonstrable existence can settle the disagreements.
So moral assertions don't make verifiable or falsifiable factual truth-claims. That's why there are no moral facts.
Your above thinking is too shallow and narrow.

Kant presented a continuum of truth [fact & knowledge] as;
  • 1. Opinion - personal and arbitrary - highly subjective
    2. Beliefs - personal and justified - rationalized subjective
    3. Knowledge - intersubjectively [FSK] justified - objective
I agree when one made moral statements in terms of 1-opinions and 2-beliefs, these are highly subjective.
The point is mankind have been engaged in deliberation of moral matters for a long time and whilst much of these are opinions and beliefs, they had sprung intuitively from an essence of what is morality.

The moral descriptions manifested intuitively are based on moral facts, knowledge re 3. of moral oughtness or ought-not-ness which can be verified and justified via the scientific FSK and then a credible FSK.

Throughout the history of mankind, killing of humans [for example] is a critical issue and this has manifested in killing as a taboo via customs, culture, politics then laws.
However the majority are ignorant 'killing as a taboo' manifests from a moral potential of 'no humans ought to kill humans' driven by evolutionary fundamentals.
This moral potential is a moral fact represented by physical neural networks.

Abortion is a very contentious issue and is subjective.
However one need to note anti-abortion is supported by the majority of people at present, perhaps >70% comprising Christians, Muslims and other anti-abortion religions.
With such majority support there is likely to be a moral essence [moral fact] to it.

I believe anti-abortion has a moral base driven from a moral potential [moral fact] driven by evolutionary forces [current].
Morality is about universal standards.
To make abortion permissible as a universal would mean the extinction of the human race.
Thus universally 'abortion is not permissible' period, but this is only a standard which need not be enforceable on any individuals but merely to act as a guide for improvements in the future.
In the meantime, abortion should be legalized as being pragmatic to optimize against current psychological states and social conditions.

At present, the majority of humans are beasts and thus driven by beastly sexual lusts that end up with unplanned births.
In the future, humanity could come up with pleasures 1000 times more gratifying than sex such that sexual lust is relegated as a low priority. Then human will only have sex with its relative low level of pleasure to satisfy their inherent unavoidable maternal or paternal instincts.

From the above, there are features of reality of moral facts from the moral potential that are represented by physical neurons and the specific neural networks.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2022 9:00 pm A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong, good or bad - or that we should or shouldn't do something because it's morally right or wrong, and so on. An assertion that doesn't say one of those things is non-moral. For example, the assertion 'the entire universe is moral' is non-moral.
The OP is about 'morality'.

As I had insisted your thinking in this case is too narrow, shallow, dogmatic and stuck to your own archaic paradigm of what is morality as influenced by the logical positivists who blindly zoomed on Hume's "no is from ought" maxim which was mainly to counter religious commands from a God.

Note the basic definition of what is morality.
  • Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1]
    Morality can be
    • a body of standards or
      principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or
      it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]
    Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Thus morality is NOT merely about your,
"A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong, good or bad - or that we should or shouldn't do something because it's morally right or wrong, and so on."

You have been 'beating a dead horse' all along.

Morality [per definition above] should be effectively focused on
-a body of standards or
-it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]

Morality should not so narrow as you insisted. The essence of 'morality' is linked to evolution. From the above there are definitely moral facts which are objective and can be abstracted from a credible moral FSK [leveraged upon the scientific FSK].
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Iwannaplato »

This is the 16th thread VA has started with moral facts in the title.
These threads could all be one thread, as threads in a philosophy forum take up different arguments.
Is the production of so many threads related to a psychological derivative having to do with VA's self image.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:10 pm 1 Objective morality - the existence of moral facts - isn't even a very remote possibility.
You have not countered this OP?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6213
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Can anyone see anything new in the OP that require some new counter?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:06 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:10 pm 1 Objective morality - the existence of moral facts - isn't even a very remote possibility.
You have not countered this OP?
It's good he presents this as a question. And the answer is yes. In fact the actually truth is it need not be countered.
The examples of linguistics, history and astronomy
are not at all
like is moral FSK. He thinks that by stating this, it is so. But we are talking about evidence of things that belong to a set of things that, for example, scientific research considers real. There is no support for the reality of morals and parsimony would lead one to NOT create an entity 'moral facts' when we already have perfectly good explanations for neurons, behavior and attitudes with out it. It adds nothing to the explanation of anything.

His explanation of PH's position is a strawman, also, not that this matter much.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Peter Holmes »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:06 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 1:10 pm 1 Objective morality - the existence of moral facts - isn't even a very remote possibility.
You have not countered this OP?
It's good he presents this as a question. And the answer is yes. In fact the actually truth is it need not be countered.
The examples of linguistics, history and astronomy
are not at all
like is moral FSK. He thinks that by stating this, it is so. But we are talking about evidence of things that belong to a set of things that, for example, scientific research considers real. There is no support for the reality of morals and parsimony would lead one to NOT create an entity 'moral facts' when we already have perfectly good explanations for neurons, behavior and attitudes with out it. It adds nothing to the explanation of anything.

His explanation of PH's position is a strawman, also, not that this matter much.
Agreed. I'd also point out, again, that the expression 'objective fact' is a redundancy, because there are no 'subjective facts'. There are, of course, facts about what people subjectively think or feel. For example, it's a fact that I think slavery is morally wrong. But that doesn't make 'slavery is morally wrong' a 'subjective' factual assertion with a truth-value: true or false. The confusion in the OP title is indicative.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:51 pm Agreed. I'd also point out, again, that the expression 'objective fact' is a redundancy, because there are no 'subjective facts'. There are, of course, facts about what people subjectively think or feel. For example, it's a fact that I think slavery is morally wrong. But that doesn't make 'slavery is morally wrong' a 'subjective' factual assertion with a truth-value: true or false. The confusion in the OP title is indicative.
Agreed.
I see two fallacies and one lack of parsimony:
1) circular reasoning -
he values empathy (as do I) so he looks at the part of the brain associated with empathy (mirror neurons). Calls this now a moral fact because their is a brain potential for empathy. This leads to good things: not so easy to kill if you feel empathy. He evaluates the outcome, again from his already present moral value, and somehow this confirms the already present moral value he had at the beginning.
2) cherry picking (or 'brain picking') - he does not generate moral facts from other parts of the brain. For example those that lead to aggression. He does not, for example, go to the brain, see what potentials are there, and using those findings to propose a morality. (there would still be an is/out problem, I am just highlighting the cherry picking.
3) lack of parsimony - if we look at mirror neurons, yes, I think a good argument can be made that this brain structure can lead to attitudes/behaviors of a certain kind. They might even be attitudes/behaviors that help humans with survival. We find no moral facts, even with the best electron microscopes.

Plus my previous quibble on subjective moral assertions. I am not sure it makes sense for you to say you think slavery is morally wrong. I think you don't like it. I am not sure what added information I am getting when you use that word 'morally'. (I think others add in meanings, those who think morals can be objective). And, yes of course, I get that your dislike is of a different category than disliking butterscotch ice cream and different intensity. But the category is not moral vs. taste, I would say it's social rather than taste.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Peter Holmes »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:48 pm Plus my previous quibble on subjective moral assertions. I am not sure it makes sense for you to say you think slavery is morally wrong. I think you don't like it. I am not sure what added information I am getting when you use that word 'morally'. (I think others add in meanings, those who think morals can be objective). And, yes of course, I get that your dislike is of a different category than disliking butterscotch ice cream and different intensity. But the category is not moral vs. taste, I would say it's social rather than taste.
To generalise, do you think that what we call a moral assertion merely expresses a 'social' like or dislike? That what we call moral rightness and wrongness - the stuff of morality - amount to nothing more than that?

And can you say more about the difference between a matter of 'social' liking or disliking, and a matter of taste?

Genuine questions!
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:59 pm To generalise, do you think that what we call a moral assertion merely expresses a 'social' like or dislike? That what we call moral rightness and wrongness - the stuff of morality - amount to nothing more than that?
The simple answer is yes. I considered using the phrase interpersonal feelings, went for the more sparse, but that's what I meant. Think of how incredibly powerful a parents feelings are if their child is in danger. I don't see that as a moral issue, necessarily at all. If you're watching television and realize you are seeing live footage of your son who has just shot some innocent people and you see the police moving toward your son. On a moral level, your son, should he not surrender and continues to be a potentials deserves to be shot, according to most moral systems, but your love for your son would likely overwhelm that. So, the phrase 'nothing more than that' to me implies that this is some trivial or not suffiently more than trivial value for us.

What do you tihnk the word morally entails that is more than our sense of interpersonal feelings?
And can you say more about the difference between a matter of 'social' liking or disliking, and a matter of taste?
Well, I love chocolate ice cream and I love my son. So, the power of the latter is of a vastly higher order of magnitude and also informs my preferences for a world where people, invovled in distant wars and disasters, are usually loved ones for someone. I prefer a world where we try to avoid killing loved ones. But it's a preference, just as my preference for chocolate is a preference. Words with moral as their root seem to give things a greater oomph, but really I wonder what people are calling into play when they use those words, especially if they do not believe in objective morals. It can be of the utmost importance to us how people treat each other. The word morally should not function as an intensifier. It's a category, not a proclamation of greater importance.

What is missing from a description of what you feel/think that words like dislike, hate, loathe, like, prefer and love, for ex, for your values about interpersonal behavior? What are we failing to describe?

But I think it is wrong to enslave someone AND I do not believe in objective morals.
How is that not a preference related to how you feel about people, if one backed up by extremely strong emotions.

It feels wrong ratherr than it is wrong. I would feel unpleasant feelings if it were the law here. My heart would break (due to mirror neurons and empathy if my society allowed it.

I don't see what essence I am missing if it is described this way. It feels like an attempt to gain some extra justification for my preferences, that just isn't there.

Of course, I am not naive. I understand that we have used certain words for thousands of years and also these words were used when we were children. It's not easy for me to let them go. But I don't know what they mean between moral antirealists.

I can understand how they can be tactically useful in a world where everyone is use moral terms, and I use them in many contexts. As tactics. And also when in Rome...people would just be confused if I left them out.

And I realize it may sound selfish to just use emotional terms, but given that empathy is present, both emotional and cognitive versions, it is not just about me. It is what I want for what is around me for them also.

But using the terms 'moral' or 'morally' assertions here leaves you open to things like
If you can't make any moral observations then what is this "morality" you are speaking about.

How did you learn about it?
How did you get the idea that murder; or rape is wrong?
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by bobmax »

A fact is objective if its truth does not depend on me.

Conversely, if my contribution is needed then that fact cannot be objective.

Physical evidence, for example, does not need my position.
They are there, objective.
Maybe their "truth" evolves over time as new information is known, but in any case they ignore me.

But the moral facts necessarily call me into question.
Does this mean that they are subjective then?

Yes, but also no.

They are subjective when the truth of their morality springs from my judgment with which I identify myself.

But they are also objective if I investigate the causes of my judgment.

A difficult investigation to carry out, because the causes that ignore me are lost in the depths of my life story.

As long as I identify myself with my will that judges, then the moral fact is not objective, and since it is not objective, I take responsibility for my judgment.
And I'm also responsible for the moral choices I make!

This responsibility, if truth is what matters to me, inevitably leads me to hell.
From which I absolutely cannot get out.
If not, dying to myself.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There are Objective Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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?
Post Reply