From Moral Sense Theory to 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

User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:54 am Kant presented 'what is held to be true' in a continuum from;
1. opinions [high subjectivity]
2. beliefs [low subjectivity - personal]
3. knowledge [high objectivity with consensus].

1. Copernicus would have started with a sort of opinion, guess, approximation based on abduction.
2. When Copernicus make more observations and is personally convinced, that is his belief with personal conviction but it is still subjective i.e. subject dependent.
3. The Heliocentric model was only 'knowledge' when more astronomers accepted the Heliocentric model as confirmed by empirical evidence; this consensus is then considered 'objective' knowledge because it is now independent from Copernicus the individual.

At present when the Heliocentric model is accepted as true not because Copernicus [the individual] said so but because the Astronomy FSK [collective of subjects] said so.

Every scientific theory initiated by a person, e.g. Newton, Mendel, Einstein, and others would have gone through the above continuum and process from opinion, personal belief to objective knowledge based on consensus within a FSK.

There is no such pre-existing objectivity as you 'it was already 'objectively true' ".
As I had been debating with Popeye, objectivity is intersubjectivity.

There is no standalone, God-eyes-view objectivity.
Whatever is objective must be conditioned a specific FSK.
The scientific FSK is the most reliable at present and has the highest rated objectivity in contrast to other FSKs.
I understand that this is the epistemological model which you accept to be true. But accepting this model means that your own theory -- including this epistemological model itself -- will only become objective knowledge with enough consensus. In other words, until there is a sufficient amount of agreement among other intellectuals, your model, for all intents and purposes, is equivalent in its truth value to any other random opinion of belief. Furthermore, it's not possible to say whether it's true or false in any meaningful sense until there is sufficient consensus, because any criticism constitutes just a subjective opinion or personal belief, which can be dismissed on this basis.

Do you understand / agree with this assessment (even if you don't agree that this is deeply problematic)?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:54 am What is morality [a feature of human nature] is aligned as follow;

1. Evidently, All humans are programmed to survive as long as possible till the inevitable.
2. To achieve 1, all humans strive to have optimal well-being targeting the maximum.
3. To achieve 2, all humans strive for the highest good and avoiding all evil [bad].
4. To achieve 3, all humans are programmed with a moral function, i.e. Morality.
This sounds circular. Humans can't be programmed with "morality", i.e. the very thing that you're defining. What they're "programmed" with are functions to either inhibit or trigger certain behaviors, which have been evolutionarily selected for because they promote social cohesion and "fitness" of the group (in the evolutionary sense). None of this has an inherent moral character, unless it's added to it. What I mean is that the logic you present here works perfectly fine without moral terminology:

1. Evidently, All humans are programmed to survive as long as possible till the inevitable (for the most part).
2. To achieve 1, all humans strive to have optimal well-being targeting the maximum (among other things).
3. To achieve 2, all humans strive towards that which increases well-being, and avoid that which decreases well-being (tendentially).
4. To achieve 3, all humans are programmed with cognitive abilities that help them in those regards.

This is a perfectly clear description which needs no moral language whatsoever. The only reason to insert moral language is for tactical purposes, i.e. to make it more emotionally salient. It does not add any additional information or clarity.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:54 am My point with the article is merely to show that there is now at present a serious philosophical consideration of 'what is evil' whereas in the past it was more of a religious term.
Thus we have to initiate a definition of what is evil then to seek consensus based on verification and justification based on empirical evidences, culminating in a science of evil.
After having defined 'evil', for a start, I assigned the act of genocide as 95/100 degree of evilness which [.. I am confident] would be accepted by all normal humans.
Can you agree with that? if not why?
Sure, we can start with this assumption. I fully agree that we can ascertain some degree of agreement regarding the "evilness" of various acts based on intuitive evaluations. But this isn't enough for a "science of evil"; we need exact criteria how to judge and compare various "evil" acts more specifically. For example, is there a difference in killing 10 soldiers in a war and killing 10 innocent children? What exactly is it that makes one act more evil than another?

My point is that once you start thinking about it more deeply, you will find that there is no single parameter that determines "evilness". It's a combination of many factors, which is why it's necessary to look at it from many different angles. In other words, you can't simply look at "well-being" and use this to explain why certain acts appear intuitively more evil than others. Some acts can be cruel without even affecting well-being, at all. So if well-being is not sufficient to explain "evil" fully, then how can it be the only parameter for morality? Do you see that this is a significant inadequacy in your proposed approach?
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:56 am Naturally as programmed via evolution, the survival of all human live [born or unborn] are critical.
If there is no 'ought-not-ness-to-abortion' then in theory the human species could go extinct.
Secularly it would be a safer bet for the human species if the 'ought-not-ness-to-abortion' is recognized as a moral fact via biology whilst not enforcing it.
I'm not quite convinced by this abstraction; it seems too simplistic. From a detached point of view, abortions are simply a tool to avoid unwanted pregnancies. The existence of unwanted pregnancies does not mean that all pregnancies are unwanted.

Now, an 'ought-not-ness-to-abortion' clearly exists in the form of an emotional reaction that mothers who do desire a pregnancy clearly exhibit. Like all emotions, this one can also be inhibited. The real question is when inhibiting those emotions is the "correct" thing to do. The classic case where this can be convincingly argued (meaning, most people will intuitively agree with this proposition) is that of a medical emergency, where an abortion is medically required to save the life of the mother.

This means that identifying an 'ought-not-ness-to-abortion' in itself tells us nothing about when an abortion would be "moral" or not.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:56 am I don't have any subjective nor emotional biasness for Christianity. Rather, rationally, Christianity as a religion with its overriding pacifist maxim is not evil-laden in contrast to the Islam.
The reason why biases are so problematic is because we aren't consciously aware of them. I think it's better to assume that one does have certain biases (and be wrong about it), than to be certain that one does not have any biases (and be wrong about it).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:56 am The term deontological at present has as sort of ugly connotation to rules, laws from religious and other authorities.

The term "teleological" also has ugly connotation as it is normally related to religion's ultimate destination of heaven or paradise.
Sure, with the qualification that these terms are used without those negative connotations, I believe they can be used to fairly describe your proposition.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:56 am The only action I would proposed in this case is to nudge all humans to self-develop their moral competence.
Then whatever follow from a competent moral function within will be natural.

There is a difference in deliberating to act morally and being-moral naturally.
It seems to me that we have both an "oughtness-to-kill" and an "oughtness-not-to-kill". Normally, when both these functions are healthy, our impulse to kill is inhibited by the impulse not to kill, provided the environment we live in is generally peaceful, meaning: until a situation arises where our intuition tells us that killing is preferable.

Do you say that we should aim to increase the "oughtness-not-to-kill" and decrease the "oughtness-to-kill"? (A)

Or are you arguing that we should improve our moral intuition, such that we can better decide when to resort to the "oughtness-to-kill"? (B)

Personally, I believe (A) would be a bad idea -- it makes perfect sense to ensure that both the "oughtness-to-kill" and the "oughtness-not-to-kill" are "healthy" and working as naturally intended. But it's unwise to manipulate them, given that they're both there for a reason.

Option (B) is therefore preferable, but requires more than just the knowledge of the "oughtness-to-kill" and the "oughtness-not-to-kill". It requires the wisdom to make sensible moral decisions, which is not something that is already included in our biology, but rather trained and developed over time.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 1:27 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:54 am Kant presented 'what is held to be true' in a continuum from;
1. opinions [high subjectivity]
2. beliefs [low subjectivity - personal]
3. knowledge [high objectivity with consensus].

1. Copernicus would have started with a sort of opinion, guess, approximation based on abduction.
2. When Copernicus make more observations and is personally convinced, that is his belief with personal conviction but it is still subjective i.e. subject dependent.
3. The Heliocentric model was only 'knowledge' when more astronomers accepted the Heliocentric model as confirmed by empirical evidence; this consensus is then considered 'objective' knowledge because it is now independent from Copernicus the individual.

At present when the Heliocentric model is accepted as true not because Copernicus [the individual] said so but because the Astronomy FSK [collective of subjects] said so.

Every scientific theory initiated by a person, e.g. Newton, Mendel, Einstein, and others would have gone through the above continuum and process from opinion, personal belief to objective knowledge based on consensus within a FSK.

There is no such pre-existing objectivity as you 'it was already 'objectively true' ".
As I had been debating with Popeye, objectivity is intersubjectivity.

There is no standalone, God-eyes-view objectivity.
Whatever is objective must be conditioned a specific FSK.
The scientific FSK is the most reliable at present and has the highest rated objectivity in contrast to other FSKs.
I understand that this is the epistemological model which you accept to be true. But accepting this model means that your own theory -- including this epistemological model itself -- will only become objective knowledge with enough consensus. In other words, until there is a sufficient amount of agreement among other intellectuals, your model, for all intents and purposes, is equivalent in its truth value to any other random opinion of belief. Furthermore, it's not possible to say whether it's true or false in any meaningful sense until there is sufficient consensus, because any criticism constitutes just a subjective opinion or personal belief, which can be dismissed on this basis.

Do you understand / agree with this assessment (even if you don't agree that this is deeply problematic)?
Seem you missed what I wrote above re Kant's continuum of truth from subjective opinion, belief to objective knowledge. Copernicus, Einstein must have very strong personal conviction of their theories but they are not objective until there was sufficient consensus based on testing and repeatability. Have a read again.

In alignment with what I wrote above, what I presented re Morality is merely a personal belief with high personal conviction but it is not knowledge that is objective.

At present, as anticipated and expected, the majority is not likely to accept my thesis.
However I am confident with more polished, my thesis would be acceptable to those who are rational because what I presented is merely a more refined version of a cruder model of pseudo-moral systems in which are already practiced at present, e.g. the Buddhist Moral Model.

Note even the current scientific Framework and System of Knowledge & Reality is guided by ideals which drive advancements and improvement in knowledge.
Generally science ASSUMES [based on faith] there are things and ultimate things out there awaiting discovery; this ideal is impossible in Science but nevertheless such an ideal [wishful thinking] drives advancement and progress in scientific knowledge.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:54 am What is morality [a feature of human nature] is aligned as follow;

1. Evidently, All humans are programmed to survive as long as possible till the inevitable.
2. To achieve 1, all humans strive to have optimal well-being targeting the maximum.
3. To achieve 2, all humans strive for the highest good and avoiding all evil [bad].
4. To achieve 3, all humans are programmed with a moral function, i.e. Morality.
This sounds circular. Humans can't be programmed with "morality", i.e. the very thing that you're defining. What they're "programmed" with are functions to either inhibit or trigger certain behaviors, which have been evolutionarily selected for because they promote social cohesion and "fitness" of the group (in the evolutionary sense). None of this has an inherent moral character, unless it's added to it. What I mean is that the logic you present here works perfectly fine without moral terminology:

1. Evidently, All humans are programmed to survive as long as possible till the inevitable (for the most part).
2. To achieve 1, all humans strive to have optimal well-being targeting the maximum (among other things).
3. To achieve 2, all humans strive towards that which increases well-being, and avoid that which decreases well-being (tendentially).
4. To achieve 3, all humans are programmed with cognitive abilities that help them in those regards.

This is a perfectly clear description which needs no moral language whatsoever. The only reason to insert moral language is for tactical purposes, i.e. to make it more emotionally salient. It does not add any additional information or clarity.
You need to exercise the Principle of Charity in this case.
Humans are programmed with sexual elements in the body and brain, but there is the subject of Sexuality [Science and psychology] and its functions.
If sexuality and the like are acceptable, why not 'morality' [as defined]?

Btw, Darwinian Morality is based on the above line of thoughts.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:54 am My point with the article is merely to show that there is now at present a serious philosophical consideration of 'what is evil' whereas in the past it was more of a religious term.
Thus we have to initiate a definition of what is evil then to seek consensus based on verification and justification based on empirical evidences, culminating in a science of evil.
After having defined 'evil', for a start, I assigned the act of genocide as 95/100 degree of evilness which [.. I am confident] would be accepted by all normal humans.
Can you agree with that? if not why?
Sure, we can start with this assumption. I fully agree that we can ascertain some degree of agreement regarding the "evilness" of various acts based on intuitive evaluations. But this isn't enough for a "science of evil"; we need exact criteria how to judge and compare various "evil" acts more specifically. For example, is there a difference in killing 10 soldiers in a war and killing 10 innocent children? What exactly is it that makes one act more evil than another?

My point is that once you start thinking about it more deeply, you will find that there is no single parameter that determines "evilness". It's a combination of many factors, which is why it's necessary to look at it from many different angles. In other words, you can't simply look at "well-being" and use this to explain why certain acts appear intuitively more evil than others. Some acts can be cruel without even affecting well-being, at all. So if well-being is not sufficient to explain "evil" fully, then how can it be the only parameter for morality? Do you see that this is a significant inadequacy in your proposed approach?
I have defined what is evil and will list what are categorized as evil acts.
'Killing of any human by humans' is basically an evil act.
As such, whether it is killing one human [born or unborn], 5, 10 or a billion is fundamentally evil, thus immoral and degrees of immorality are relative to the number of humans killed.

The vision and mission of the moral FSK is to drive progressively toward the ideal of ZERO human killed by humans.
For example, is there a difference in killing 10 soldiers in a war and killing 10 innocent children? What exactly is it that makes one act more evil than another?
Killing of one human by another human is an evil act.
I believe it is quite common sense that killing 10 soldiers in a legalized political war is less evil than killing 10 innocent children in that war or in other situations.

For such cases, in the current humanity should prioritized the degrees of evil and act optimally to prevent the above from that recurring; but that is a primarily a political action not a moral action nor issue albeit with some overlapping.

What are moral actions are to deal with the root causes, i.e. developing a stronger 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' within all humans progressively and expeditiously to reach a point where there are no situations for human to start wars and where the 'ought-to-kill' is strongly inhibited and modulated.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 7:06 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:56 am Naturally as programmed via evolution, the survival of all human live [born or unborn] are critical.
If there is no 'ought-not-ness-to-abortion' then in theory the human species could go extinct.
Secularly it would be a safer bet for the human species if the 'ought-not-ness-to-abortion' is recognized as a moral fact via biology whilst not enforcing it.
I'm not quite convinced by this abstraction; it seems too simplistic. From a detached point of view, abortions are simply a tool to avoid unwanted pregnancies. The existence of unwanted pregnancies does not mean that all pregnancies are unwanted.

Now, an 'ought-not-ness-to-abortion' clearly exists in the form of an emotional reaction that mothers who do desire a pregnancy clearly exhibit. Like all emotions, this one can also be inhibited. The real question is when inhibiting those emotions is the "correct" thing to do. The classic case where this can be convincingly argued (meaning, most people will intuitively agree with this proposition) is that of a medical emergency, where an abortion is medically required to save the life of the mother.

This means that identifying an 'ought-not-ness-to-abortion' in itself tells us nothing about when an abortion would be "moral" or not.
The basic moral fact is the 'ought-not -ness-to-kill-human [born or unborn'
thus it follows, there is the, "ought-not-ness-to-abortion" which is merely an ideal with no enforcement.
Since this is a moral fact, it is not an emotion.

At present, abortion is a tool to avoid [also abused, exploited] unwanted pregnancies for various reasons.
Since the "ought-not-ness-to-abortion" is merely an ideal, humanity should prevent unplanned pregnancies towards the future but tackling the root causes arising from impulsive sexual lusts.
However, abortion should NOT be banned so as to cater for exceptions, e.g. for medical or other acceptable reasons.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:56 am The only action I would proposed in this case is to nudge all humans to self-develop their moral competence.
Then whatever follow from a competent moral function within will be natural.

There is a difference in deliberating to act morally and being-moral naturally.
It seems to me that we have both an "oughtness-to-kill" and an "oughtness-not-to-kill". Normally, when both these functions are healthy, our impulse to kill is inhibited by the impulse not to kill, provided the environment we live in is generally peaceful, meaning: until a situation arises where our intuition tells us that killing is preferable.

Do you say that we should aim to increase the "oughtness-not-to-kill" and decrease the "oughtness-to-kill"? (A)

Or are you arguing that we should improve our moral intuition, such that we can better decide when to resort to the "oughtness-to-kill"? (B)

Personally, I believe (A) would be a bad idea -- it makes perfect sense to ensure that both the "oughtness-to-kill" and the "oughtness-not-to-kill" are "healthy" and working as naturally intended. But it's unwise to manipulate them, given that they're both there for a reason.

Option (B) is therefore preferable, but requires more than just the knowledge of the "oughtness-to-kill" and the "oughtness-not-to-kill". It requires the wisdom to make sensible moral decisions, which is not something that is already included in our biology, but rather trained and developed over time.
The default is the "oughtness-to-kill" which is very proto and primal.
I agree the "oughtness-to-kill" should be well managed efficiently, e.g. like Aristotle's anger management,

"Anyone can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
with the right person, and
to the right degree and
at the right time, and
for the right purpose, and
in the right way
that is not within everyone's power and that is not easy."

But re Morality the "oughtness-not-to-kill-HUMANs" must be an absolute ideal.
In this case, the "oughtness-not-to-kill-HUMANs" inhibitors must be developed to the extent the "oughtness-to-kill" is never directed at humans at all.

Wherever and whenever any human is killed by human[s] then the root causes must be traced and eliminated so that any killing of humans will be as near as optimally possible to the ZERO human killed target.

At the early stages while progressing to the ideal target, decisions related to morality may have to be made but this is secondary to the specific vision and mission of the moral FSK.
When the "oughtness-not-to-kill-HUMANs" inhibitors are effective, there will only rare or very minimal decisions to be made in relating to moral elements.

Note at present with the > 8 billion people, even with the supposedly low morality competence, how many people has to deal with 'moral' decisions involving the killing of humans.
At present there are about 20+ million military personnel in the World
https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/01/28/qu ... -military/#:~
but not all are assign duties that involved killing humans.
There may only a 100-200 authorized executioners re capital punishments in the world at present.

So it seem the above low numbers are a good start to deal with the root causes that lead to humans killing humans.

Point is I have done extensive knowledge on the advancing knowledge and I am confident in the future [50, 75 >100 years], we will be able to enable all humans to develop their moral competence in a FOOLPROOF approach.

For info,
The daring Chinese biophysicist who created the world’s first gene-edited children has been set free after three years in a Chinese prison.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/0 ... pr-babies/
The world’s first genetically edited children are living happily with their parents, according to He Jiankui, the controversial scientist who created three gene-edited babies in 2018 and 2019.
“They have a normal, peaceful and undisturbed life. This is their wish and we should respect them,” He told the South China Morning Post in an interview on Friday.
He said he did not want to see the children being disturbed too much for the purpose of scientific research, adding that “the happiness of the children and their families should come first”.
Link
He Jiankui was hasty, took the risk and paid for it with imprisonment, but what he had already done and since it is so far so good, that will enable scientists the breakthrough pathway of the possibility of GMO of humans; it a hope they can take it further in a FOOLPROOF approach.

So it is a matter of time [ 75, 100 >150 years] when we could have FOOLPROOF GMO morally competent humans.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:56 am Seem you missed what I wrote above re Kant's continuum of truth from subjective opinion, belief to objective knowledge. Copernicus, Einstein must have very strong personal conviction of their theories but they are not objective until there was sufficient consensus based on testing and repeatability. Have a read again.

In alignment with what I wrote above, what I presented re Morality is merely a personal belief with high personal conviction but it is not knowledge that is objective.

At present, as anticipated and expected, the majority is not likely to accept my thesis.
However I am confident with more polished, my thesis would be acceptable to those who are rational because what I presented is merely a more refined version of a cruder model of pseudo-moral systems in which are already practiced at present, e.g. the Buddhist Moral Model.

Note even the current scientific Framework and System of Knowledge & Reality is guided by ideals which drive advancements and improvement in knowledge.
Generally science ASSUMES [based on faith] there are things and ultimate things out there awaiting discovery; this ideal is impossible in Science but nevertheless such an ideal [wishful thinking] drives advancement and progress in scientific knowledge.
I'm not familiar with Kant's continuum of truth in the way you describe it. As far as I know, Kant made a distinction between analytic (logical) and synthetic (experiential) knowledge. The validity of analytic knowledge can be ascertained through pure reason, independently from experience. Therefore, empiricism is not a required or valid criterion in this context. Synthetic knowledge on the other hand is derived from experience, so the degree of certainty we can attribute to a piece of synthetic knowledge is always dependent on the available empirical data, and certainty in this case can only ever be approximated, never perfectly established.

In any case, I would like to present you with a list of criteria which I believe to be required to evaluate the truth value of a theory. Perhaps you can let me know if this is what you have in mind when you refer to the "science FSK", or if you disagree with some of these points:

- internal consistency: whether a theory is logically sound and none of its propositions contradict one another. If this criterion is not met, a theory is considered false (not "subjective"). As such, it is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for a theory to be considered truthful

- explanatory power: how much sense a theory can make of the available data. Ideally, a theory should account for all existing values in a data set. The less data that it can explain, the lower its explanatory power. A theory must have at least some explanatory power, as otherwise it would be useless ("esoteric")

- predictiveness / predictive power: how accurately empirical observations align with the predictions of the theory, as well as how much predictive capability it provides. A theory which offers no predictive power is not necessarily false, but lower quality and less useful

- testability & falsifiability: how feasible it is to come up with tests to invalidate the theory. Any theory must provide methods by which it can be disproved. The degree to which attempts to disprove it fail is the degree to which certainty of the theories validity is increased. A theory which is not falsifiable can be said to have no discernible relationship to observed reality, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate it

- replicability: how consistently the theory can be reproduced or applied with the predicted results. Ideally, a theory should reliably lead to the same conclusions / results given the same input and conditions. The degree to which this is not the case represents the theories unreliability / inadequacy

A theory which meets all these criteria can be considered valid, but in order to be considered truthful, it must be exhaustively tested based on these different considerations.

Based on this understanding, it seems to me that there are a number of distinct "maturity grades" which a theory can reach:

1) verification of internal consistency (logical analysis)

2) testing (comparing predictions against data, explaining observations, attempts to falsify, etc.)

3) independent confirmation of test results (iteration, peer review, expert consensus, etc.)

It's important to understand that this process is designed to establish our certainty regarding the quality of the theory. In this way, it's possible, in principle, to establish with a high degree of certainty ("objectivity") that a theory is useless, inconsistent and / or contradictory. In other words, the "objectivity" derived by this process is not a property of the theory itself, but only of our evaluation of the theory. We must therefore be careful not to conflate the "objectivity" of our evaluation with the "objectivity" of the theory itself.

Now, given that there are at least three distinct grades regarding the evaluation of a theory, there are at least 9 logically possible states of evaluation that a theory can be in at any given time (if we assume that a particular grade can either be met, not yet met, or failed):

A) no grade is met -> unknown
B) first grade failed -> unsound
C) only first grade is met -> sound, but untested
D) first grade met, second failed -> sound, but presumably invalid / inapplicable
E) first grade met, second failed, third failed -> sound, but initial testing confirmed to be flawed
F) first grade met, second failed, third met -> sound, but confirmed to be invalid / inapplicable
G) first grade met and second grade met -> sound and presumably valid
H) first grade met, second met, third failed -> sound, but initial testing confirmed to be invalid / inapplicable
I) first grade met, second met, third met -> sound, valid and confirmed to be consistently reliable

If I understand you correctly, you would only qualify state I) as "objective". Can you confirm?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:56 am Humans are programmed with sexual elements in the body and brain, but there is the subject of Sexuality [Science and psychology] and its functions.
If sexuality and the like are acceptable, why not 'morality' [as defined]?
Because morality is an already reserved term. What you're suggesting is akin to saying: "why is it not acceptable to replace the subject of Sexuality with "political activism pertaining to sexual self-identification"?" (just as an example)

In other words, you're taking a subject that you deem to be vital and you're making an appeal that the existing, wider term should be used for the more narrow definition that you consider more essential.

There is nothing wrong with doing that, except if other people don't agree with you. So sure, if you can convince others that your definition describes morality more properly, then there is no problem. I just don't think it will work with your proposition as it currently is / as I understand it to be, but I certainly won't exclude the possibility of it reaching a higher degree of maturity that would make it more appealing to a wider audience.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:56 am I have defined what is evil and will list what are categorized as evil acts.
'Killing of any human by humans' is basically an evil act.
As such, whether it is killing one human [born or unborn], 5, 10 or a billion is fundamentally evil, thus immoral and degrees of immorality are relative to the number of humans killed.

The vision and mission of the moral FSK is to drive progressively toward the ideal of ZERO human killed by humans.
Again, this feels really simplistic and ambiguous... For example, what value of evil do you assign to 10 gang members who've killed each other in a shootout, versus 10 children who have been killed by criminals to harvest their organs? According to your metric, both incidents should have the same value, since the same number of people were killed. But if you were to ask this question to real people, practically all of them would assign a much, much higher "evilness" value to the second case. So the question is: how does your model explain this observation?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:56 am Killing of one human by another human is an evil act.
I believe it is quite common sense that killing 10 soldiers in a legalized political war is less evil than killing 10 innocent children in that war or in other situations.

For such cases, in the current humanity should prioritized the degrees of evil and act optimally to prevent the above from that recurring; but that is a primarily a political action not a moral action nor issue albeit with some overlapping.

What are moral actions are to deal with the root causes, i.e. developing a stronger 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' within all humans progressively and expeditiously to reach a point where there are no situations for human to start wars and where the 'ought-to-kill' is strongly inhibited and modulated.
What you are saying here is merely an appeal, which is fine, but it's not a theory. Once you introduce a metric such as this scale of evil, you have to provide a model by which the "evil" value of a particular act can be quantified, as well as a means of testing it.

You have proposed to base this on "well-being" and suggested that this can be tested on the basis of a survey.

However, I have demonstrated that survey results would not agree with the predictions made on the basis of the well-being model.

It would therefore seem to me that your model does not work, meaning it can't be used to consistently predict and explain the empirically collected data.

To be clear, what I'm saying is that the well-being model would only predict / explain a small number of possible cases, but end up being way off on most others. My point is that well-being is a relevant factor to determine "evilness", but it's clearly not sufficient. As such, any model that only relies on well-being can't capture the whole scope of evil, but merely a fraction of it, and is for this reason of a low quality. This reinforces my point that a morality based only on well-being can't replace the entire discipline of morality, which involves way more considerations (including well-being).
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 7:22 am The basic moral fact is the 'ought-not -ness-to-kill-human [born or unborn'
thus it follows, there is the, "ought-not-ness-to-abortion" which is merely an ideal with no enforcement.
Since this is a moral fact, it is not an emotion.
I don't understand. Isn't your argument that the "oughtness-not-to-kill" is derived from physical processes? Why shouldn't this also include emotions, which are also chemical processes? As far as I'm concerned, a "moral fact" derived on the basis of chemical processes is as valid as a "moral fact" derived on the basis of neurological processes (which are all interconnected, anyway). How do you justify that certain biological processes constitute "moral facts", while others do not?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 7:22 am However, abortion should NOT be banned so as to cater for exceptions, e.g. for medical or other acceptable reasons.
The question is how do we determine what reasons are valid. This is exactly what the discipline of morality is intended to explore. It seems counterproductive to say that this endeavor is pointless or should be left to some other FSK...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 7:22 am He Jiankui was hasty, took the risk and paid for it with imprisonment, but what he had already done and since it is so far so good, that will enable scientists the breakthrough pathway of the possibility of GMO of humans; it a hope they can take it further in a FOOLPROOF approach.
That's not foolproof 😅

You know how a human without an impulse to kill is called? A victim.

As I already explained, there is a good reason why humans have both a capacity for killing / harming others, as well as inhibiting these impulses. Devising methods how to align / correct / normalize these impulses is OK, as that is fundamentally a medical problem. However, to deliberately manipulate them in one direction or the other is crazy. Either you get murdering monsters, or subservient slaves -- none of which constitutes any kind of improvement.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:56 am Seem you missed what I wrote above re Kant's continuum of truth from subjective opinion, belief to objective knowledge. Copernicus, Einstein must have very strong personal conviction of their theories but they are not objective until there was sufficient consensus based on testing and repeatability. Have a read again.

In alignment with what I wrote above, what I presented re Morality is merely a personal belief with high personal conviction but it is not knowledge that is objective.

At present, as anticipated and expected, the majority is not likely to accept my thesis.
However I am confident with more polished, my thesis would be acceptable to those who are rational because what I presented is merely a more refined version of a cruder model of pseudo-moral systems in which are already practiced at present, e.g. the Buddhist Moral Model.

Note even the current scientific Framework and System of Knowledge & Reality is guided by ideals which drive advancements and improvement in knowledge.
Generally science ASSUMES [based on faith] there are things and ultimate things out there awaiting discovery; this ideal is impossible in Science but nevertheless such an ideal [wishful thinking] drives advancement and progress in scientific knowledge.
I'm not familiar with Kant's continuum of truth in the way you describe it. As far as I know, Kant made a distinction between analytic (logical) and synthetic (experiential) knowledge. The validity of analytic knowledge can be ascertained through pure reason, independently from experience. Therefore, empiricism is not a required or valid criterion in this context. Synthetic knowledge on the other hand is derived from experience, so the degree of certainty we can attribute to a piece of synthetic knowledge is always dependent on the available empirical data, and certainty in this case can only ever be approximated, never perfectly established.
The above is very basic Kantian principles. The development of what is knowledge goes through the phases of the continuum from opinions to belief to knowledge.
In any case, I would like to present you with a list of criteria which I believe to be required to evaluate the truth value of a theory. Perhaps you can let me know if this is what you have in mind when you refer to the "science FSK", or if you disagree with some of these points:

- internal consistency: whether a theory is logically sound and none of its propositions contradict one another. If this criterion is not met, a theory is considered false (not "subjective"). As such, it is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for a theory to be considered truthful

- explanatory power: how much sense a theory can make of the available data. Ideally, a theory should account for all existing values in a data set. The less data that it can explain, the lower its explanatory power. A theory must have at least some explanatory power, as otherwise it would be useless ("esoteric")

- predictiveness / predictive power: how accurately empirical observations align with the predictions of the theory, as well as how much predictive capability it provides. A theory which offers no predictive power is not necessarily false, but lower quality and less useful

- testability & falsifiability: how feasible it is to come up with tests to invalidate the theory. Any theory must provide methods by which it can be disproved. The degree to which attempts to disprove it fail is the degree to which certainty of the theories validity is increased. A theory which is not falsifiable can be said to have no discernible relationship to observed reality, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate it

- replicability: how consistently the theory can be reproduced or applied with the predicted results. Ideally, a theory should reliably lead to the same conclusions / results given the same input and conditions. The degree to which this is not the case represents the theories unreliability / inadequacy

A theory which meets all these criteria can be considered valid, but in order to be considered truthful, it must be exhaustively tested based on these different considerations.

Based on this understanding, it seems to me that there are a number of distinct "maturity grades" which a theory can reach:

1) verification of internal consistency (logical analysis)

2) testing (comparing predictions against data, explaining observations, attempts to falsify, etc.)

3) independent confirmation of test results (iteration, peer review, expert consensus, etc.)

It's important to understand that this process is designed to establish our certainty regarding the quality of the theory. In this way, it's possible, in principle, to establish with a high degree of certainty ("objectivity") that a theory is useless, inconsistent and / or contradictory. In other words, the "objectivity" derived by this process is not a property of the theory itself, but only of our evaluation of the theory. We must therefore be careful not to conflate the "objectivity" of our evaluation with the "objectivity" of the theory itself.

Now, given that there are at least three distinct grades regarding the evaluation of a theory, there are at least 9 logically possible states of evaluation that a theory can be in at any given time (if we assume that a particular grade can either be met, not yet met, or failed):

A) no grade is met -> unknown
B) first grade failed -> unsound
C) only first grade is met -> sound, but untested
D) first grade met, second failed -> sound, but presumably invalid / inapplicable
E) first grade met, second failed, third failed -> sound, but initial testing confirmed to be flawed
F) first grade met, second failed, third met -> sound, but confirmed to be invalid / inapplicable
G) first grade met and second grade met -> sound and presumably valid
H) first grade met, second met, third failed -> sound, but initial testing confirmed to be invalid / inapplicable
I) first grade met, second met, third met -> sound, valid and confirmed to be consistently reliable

If I understand you correctly, you would only qualify state I) as "objective". Can you confirm?
I had defined whatever is fact and is objective must be conditioned upon a specific FSK with a range of credibility, reliability and objectivity.

Since scientific facts are conditioned upon the science FSK, they are objective as defined.

What you have presented above is related to the credibility and reliability of the science FSK or other FSKs.
I agree with your above in evaluating the science FSK [Grade I] as the most credible and reliable at PRESENT.

One point to add to the evaluation credibility and reliability and objectivity, is the net-positive utilities from the science FSK that has contributed to the progress of humanity.

As long as a claim is made from some sort of reasonable FSK, it is considered objective, but its degree of objectivity, credibility and reliability will vary depending on the criteria you listed above.
For example,
that X is a convicted murder by Y-Legal-FSK is an objective legal fact,
that Joe Biden is the 46th President of the USA is a political fact from the FSK of the US Constitution,
that Brazil won the 2022 World Cup of Football is a sporting fact within the FIFA FSK,
all these are objective but with varying degrees of objectivity.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:56 am Humans are programmed with sexual elements in the body and brain, but there is the subject of Sexuality [Science and psychology] and its functions.
If sexuality and the like are acceptable, why not 'morality' [as defined]?
Because morality is an already reserved term. What you're suggesting is akin to saying: "why is it not acceptable to replace the subject of Sexuality with "political activism pertaining to sexual self-identification"?" (just as an example)

In other words, you're taking a subject that you deem to be vital and you're making an appeal that the existing, wider term should be used for the more narrow definition that you consider more essential.

There is nothing wrong with doing that, except if other people don't agree with you. So sure, if you can convince others that your definition describes morality more properly, then there is no problem. I just don't think it will work with your proposition as it currently is / as I understand it to be, but I certainly won't exclude the possibility of it reaching a higher degree of maturity that would make it more appealing to a wider audience.
When it comes to etymology and in philosophy, no word is immutable nor be carved in stone.

What I am pinning to the term 'morality' is what is represented as a fact within human nature.
From the exhaustive coverage of what is dealt as morality within the philosophical communities, I believe what the present majority is grappling with the term 'morality' is grounded to that fact [referent] of a specific function within human nature [which is subliminal].
I have no issue with whatever the term, name or label as long as it is the same referent we are referring to.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:56 am I have defined what is evil and will list what are categorized as evil acts.
'Killing of any human by humans' is basically an evil act.
As such, whether it is killing one human [born or unborn], 5, 10 or a billion is fundamentally evil, thus immoral and degrees of immorality are relative to the number of humans killed.

The vision and mission of the moral FSK is to drive progressively toward the ideal of ZERO human killed by humans.
Again, this feels really simplistic and ambiguous... For example, what value of evil do you assign to 10 gang members who've killed each other in a shootout, versus 10 children who have been killed by criminals to harvest their organs? According to your metric, both incidents should have the same value, since the same number of people were killed. But if you were to ask this question to real people, practically all of them would assign a much, much higher "evilness" value to the second case. So the question is: how does your model explain this observation?
What I stated was both case have the same range of value.
If 'humans killing humans' is rated 9/10 evilness, we can rate the different types of killing within the range of 9.001 to 9.999 which will provide for 1000 types of killing a human.
Since 'humans killing humans' is rated 9/10 of evilness, it will have greater priority than say rape, non-fatal violence or slavery [taking into account numbers and frequency].
Since humans killing humans' is rated 9/10 evilness we will strive for ZERO human killed by humans and consider priority those that are 9.999 over 9.001.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:56 am Killing of one human by another human is an evil act.
I believe it is quite common sense that killing 10 soldiers in a legalized political war is less evil than killing 10 innocent children in that war or in other situations.

For such cases, in the current humanity should prioritized the degrees of evil and act optimally to prevent the above from that recurring; but that is a primarily a political action not a moral action nor issue albeit with some overlapping.

What are moral actions are to deal with the root causes, i.e. developing a stronger 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' within all humans progressively and expeditiously to reach a point where there are no situations for human to start wars and where the 'ought-to-kill' is strongly inhibited and modulated.
What you are saying here is merely an appeal, which is fine, but it's not a theory. Once you introduce a metric such as this scale of evil, you have to provide a model by which the "evil" value of a particular act can be quantified, as well as a means of testing it.

You have proposed to base this on "well-being" and suggested that this can be tested on the basis of a survey.

However, I have demonstrated that survey results would not agree with the predictions made on the basis of the well-being model.
Note the subject of Axiology i.e. the Science of Values can be used to manage the above effectively.
It would therefore seem to me that your model does not work, meaning it can't be used to consistently predict and explain the empirically collected data.

To be clear, what I'm saying is that the well-being model would only predict / explain a small number of possible cases, but end up being way off on most others. My point is that well-being is a relevant factor to determine "evilness", but it's clearly not sufficient. As such, any model that only relies on well-being can't capture the whole scope of evil, but merely a fraction of it, and is for this reason of a low quality. This reinforces my point that a morality based only on well-being can't replace the entire discipline of morality, which involves way more considerations (including well-being).
As I had stated 'well-being' is a very fundamental state of human nature that covers all aspects of human behavior.
As in my case, nothing relevant to the issue of morality will be missed out.

The main focus of the my moral FSK model is about reducing evil acts via the self-development of the personal moral function.

The effectiveness of the FSK model can be evaluated by the number of evil acts committed within humanity in terms of the number of human killed by humans, violence, rapes, slavery [starting with chattel], etc.
This numbers can be plotted in a graph over time [now, 50, 75, 100, >150 years].
A reducing trend* towards ZERO will indicate my moral FSK is effective.
A upward shift in any of the variables must be attended to resolve it at the root causes.

* note Steven Pinkers'
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature
    The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1] The book uses data simply documenting declining violence across time and geography. This paints a picture of massive declines in the violence of all forms, from war, to improved treatment of children.
I believe the above decline is due to the subliminal workings of the internal moral function but the trend will be greatly expedited if we establish a morality-proper FSK.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am The above is very basic Kantian principles. The development of what is knowledge goes through the phases of the continuum from opinions to belief to knowledge.
I think that's a simplification which Kant wouldn't agree with... Maybe you can provide a source. Not that it's super important, but this doesn't sound very Kant-like to me (not the idea of these three different types of knowledge, but rather that they can be viewed as a continuum).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am I had defined whatever is fact and is objective must be conditioned upon a specific FSK with a range of credibility, reliability and objectivity.
You can't just "define" implications; a fact is already defined as that which is accurate, objective and true. Once this definition is established, the methods and standards by which a piece of information can be analyzed pertaining to its factual value are derived, not defined.

It's therefore meaningless to say "I define facts as being conditioned upon a specific FSK with a range of credibility, reliability and objectivity". Rather, you could say: "a specific FSK describes the standards upon which a fact must be conditioned, as derived on the basis of the unique constraints of a particular field of knowledge."

Do you see the difference? In your formulation, it seems that you're arbitrarily deciding what should constitute a fact. In the second formulation, you're describing how facts can be established as inferred by their nature (as defined).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am As long as a claim is made from some sort of reasonable FSK, it is considered objective, but its degree of objectivity, credibility and reliability will vary depending on the criteria you listed above.
For example,
that X is a convicted murder by Y-Legal-FSK is an objective legal fact,
that Joe Biden is the 46th President of the USA is a political fact from the FSK of the US Constitution,
that Brazil won the 2022 World Cup of Football is a sporting fact within the FIFA FSK,
all these are objective but with varying degrees of objectivity.
I can't bring myself to appreciate this "FSK" based model very much -- it's very vague. What exactly does it mean that there are "varying degrees of objectivity"?

In my opinion, being more concrete could add a lot more clarity.

As I have explained before, a number of requirements which are necessary to establish the validity / truthfulness of a theory or proposition can be implicitly identified. But depending on the nature of the subject, not all of them are necessary / available. Most fundamentally, there is a difference between analytic (a priori) and synthetic (a posteriori) knowledge, to bring this back to Kant.

A priori subjects such as math, geometry, logic, etc. don't have to meet any requirements except for internal consistency. They don't necessarily have to explain or predict anything empirically. Just making sense internally is a sufficient requirement.

But once you start to apply an analytic theory, it must have explanatory & predictive power, and it must be testable, falsifiable and replicable.

All possible FSK's can be categorized as either of type a priori or a posteriori. So for example, the "US constitution FSK" and the "FIFA FSK" are functionally identical (type "a posteriori"). They only differ by their context, but the requirements for determining facts and truths are identical (only the details change, based on the different contexts).

Even a fictional world, say "Harry Potter FSK", will have those same requirements. For a theory or proposition regarding the "Harry Potter FSK" to be valid / truthful, it must have some explanatory and predictive power, it must be testable, falsifiable and replicable. The degree to which these requirements are met is the degree to which a particular concept can be said to be objective.

For example, consider the statement "elves in the world of Harry Potter have droopy, pointy ears". Based on this statement, we can deduce what it predicts: that elves exist in the Harry Potter universe, and that they have droopy, pointy ears. This in turn informs us how we can test our prediction: by examining elf characters within the source material. This also tells us how this theory can be falsified: if the elf characters are described as having some other ear shape. Naturally, other people can replicate this effort to confirm for themselves whether elves in the Harry Potter universe have, in fact, droopy, pointy ears.

My point is that it's not very descriptive and informative to say that different FSK's have different degrees of objectivity. What varies, concretely, is this:

- whether the concept is analytic or synthetic

- the details of the concept (axioms, units, definitions, etc.)

- in the case of synthetic concepts, the tools and methods by which empirical data can be collected and tests can be performed

So it's not like the requirements for truth change based on the FSK. Only the details change. In this way, there really is no fundamental difference between the science FSK and any other FSK.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am When it comes to etymology and in philosophy, no word is immutable nor be carved in stone.
Yes, I agree with that. My argument is that in order to cause a change in the definition of a term, it's necessary to demonstrate why the previous definition was inadequate in some way, compared to the new one. Most people won't accept a new definition if it's just "different", but not superior.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am What I am pinning to the term 'morality' is what is represented as a fact within human nature.
Well, I disagree... Morality is a container term which includes much more than just human nature, unless you define human nature so broadly as to include everything that is somehow related to humanity. But this in turn is so unspecific that it's no longer useful.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am What I am pinning to the term 'morality' is what is represented as a fact within human nature.
From the exhaustive coverage of what is dealt as morality within the philosophical communities, I believe what the present majority is grappling with the term 'morality' is grounded to that fact [referent] of a specific function within human nature [which is subliminal].

I have no issue with whatever the term, name or label as long as it is the same referent we are referring to.
Again, this sounds exceedingly vague and arbitrary. How exactly do you determine what is a "fact" within human nature and what isn't? Isn't literally everything that we do, a fact of "human nature"? Is picking your nose a fact of human nature? If yes -- so what? If no -- why?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am What I stated was both case have the same range of value.
If 'humans killing humans' is rated 9/10 evilness, we can rate the different types of killing within the range of 9.001 to 9.999 which will provide for 1000 types of killing a human.
Since 'humans killing humans' is rated 9/10 of evilness, it will have greater priority than say rape, non-fatal violence or slavery [taking into account numbers and frequency].
Since humans killing humans' is rated 9/10 evilness we will strive for ZERO human killed by humans and consider priority those that are 9.999 over 9.001.
It seems like you're mixing two different metrics here: quality (the type / grade of evil) and quantity (number of victims). This isn't a good idea. Both metrics should be independent, otherwise it'll just be confusing and imply nonsensical conclusions. For example, say 8/10 evilness is rape. Would this mean that a thousand rapes is as evil as one killing? Based on this approach, it would. But it should be obvious that this would be a silly conclusion.

For this reason, mixing quantity and quality in one metric is really not advisable, and also not necessary. The rate of killing doesn't have to be (and can't be) represented on a 0-10 scale, because there is no fixed ceiling to it. It's completely sufficient to say that the goal is a rate of 0 murders (per year or whatever), and anything above this value is "in need of improvement".

The 0-10 scale can only be used for quality, but the question, again, is how to assign the proper value to a particular act. I realize that this undermines the logic you envisioned, but it simply wasn't well thought-out, for the reasons described.

As far as I can tell, it's unavoidable to use an empirical approach and basically just ask how people would order various types of evil acts on this scale, and then calculate the average distribution. However, these acts must be relative to one victim, because quantity must be an independent metric. So "genocide" wouldn't be included on the evil scale. Rather, it would "emerge" if you multiply the value of "killing" with the quantity of victims. It should be intuitively obvious that this approach is superior; for example, if lying is a 2/10, rape is a 9/10 and murder a 10/10, then 125 lies would equal an "evilness" of 25, while 125 rapes would equal an "evilness" of 112,5, whereas 125 murders would equal an "evilness" of 125.

I still don't think this metric is anywhere near to being complete, but it's an improvement.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am Note the subject of Axiology i.e. the Science of Values can be used to manage the above effectively.
Perhaps you can demonstrate it, then? 😊

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am As I had stated 'well-being' is a very fundamental state of human nature that covers all aspects of human behavior.
As in my case, nothing relevant to the issue of morality will be missed out.

The main focus of the my moral FSK model is about reducing evil acts via the self-development of the personal moral function.
You can restrict a "science of well-being" model to be non-enforceable, that's not a problem. But it only works if it's unrelated to the evilness metric.

As soon as you include the evilness metric (in order to get "morality FSK"), you can no longer make it non-enforceable, because that would mean that for some strange reason, we're not allowed to contain evil behavior.

So in reality, you have a "well-being FSK" and an "evilness FSK", both of which are quite different in their nature. You can't just "merge" them into one to make them both non-enforceable.

The "evilness FSK" must be enforceable for it to have any meaning. It would be preposterous to say that it's possible for us to identify an act as "evil", but not be able to ascertain the value of an action which attempts to prevent or contain that evil act (which can obviously be used to determine if and how an evil act can be contained).

Once it becomes clear that we can evaluate attempts at countering evil acts, many new questions pertaining to justice and judgement emerge.

I understand that you want to "define" your approach in a specific, constrained way, but problems such as these naturally appear once you examine it without any preconceptions; they can't be "defined away".
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 3:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am The above is very basic Kantian principles. The development of what is knowledge goes through the phases of the continuum from opinions to belief to knowledge.
I think that's a simplification which Kant wouldn't agree with... Maybe you can provide a source. Not that it's super important, but this doesn't sound very Kant-like to me (not the idea of these three different types of knowledge, but rather that they can be viewed as a continuum).
How do you know Kant wouldn't agree with it? It is not Kant-like to you because I presume you have not read Kant thoroughly. I would strongly recommend all those interested in philosophy to read and understand [not necessary agree with] Kant thoroughly to strengthen their foundation in philosophy. I'd spent 3 years full time reading and researching on Kant.

Here is the reference from Kant:
The holding of a Thing to be true, or the Subjective Validity of the Judgment, in its Relation to conviction (which is at the same time Objectively Valid), has the following three degrees:
1. opining,
2. believing, and
3. knowing.
Opining is such holding of a Judgment as is consciously insufficient, not only objectively, but also subjectively.
If our holding of the Judgment be only subjectively sufficient, and is at the same time taken as being objectively insufficient, we have what is termed Believing.
Lastly, when the holding of a Thing to be true is sufficient both subjectively and objectively, it is Knowledge.
B850 Critique of Pure Reason - Kant
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am I had defined whatever is fact and is objective must be conditioned upon a specific FSK with a range of credibility, reliability and objectivity.
You can't just "define" implications; a fact is already defined as that which is accurate, objective and true. Once this definition is established, the methods and standards by which a piece of information can be analyzed pertaining to its factual value are derived, not defined.

It's therefore meaningless to say "I define facts as being conditioned upon a specific FSK with a range of credibility, reliability and objectivity". Rather, you could say: "a specific FSK describes the standards upon which a fact must be conditioned, as derived on the basis of the unique constraints of a particular field of knowledge."

Do you see the difference? In your formulation, it seems that you're arbitrarily deciding what should constitute a fact. In the second formulation, you're describing how facts can be established as inferred by their nature (as defined).
You are too pedantic on the above.
Basically what I meant is, whatever one claim as a fact, it is conditioned to a specific FSK, there can be no fact without such a qualification.
For example, if it is a scientific fact, then it is conditioned to the scientific FSK.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am As long as a claim is made from some sort of reasonable FSK, it is considered objective, but its degree of objectivity, credibility and reliability will vary depending on the criteria you listed above.
For example,
that X is a convicted murder by Y-Legal-FSK is an objective legal fact,
that Joe Biden is the 46th President of the USA is a political fact from the FSK of the US Constitution,
that Brazil won the 2022 World Cup of Football is a sporting fact within the FIFA FSK,
all these are objective but with varying degrees of objectivity.
I can't bring myself to appreciate this "FSK" based model very much -- it's very vague. What exactly does it mean that there are "varying degrees of objectivity"?
In my opinion, being more concrete could add a lot more clarity.
Point is you don't seem to have sufficient philosophical depth and width in these topics;
Objectivity is a value.
To call a thing objective implies that it has a certain importance to us and that we approve of it.
Objectivity comes in degrees.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/
I hope you are familiar with "plato.stanford.edu" which has very reasonable credibility with philosophical articles.
95% of what I post are traceable at the least to some references I have read.
As I have explained before, a number of requirements which are necessary to establish the validity / truthfulness of a theory or proposition can be implicitly identified. But depending on the nature of the subject, not all of them are necessary / available. Most fundamentally, there is a difference between analytic (a priori) and synthetic (a posteriori) knowledge, to bring this back to Kant.

A priori subjects such as math, geometry, logic, etc. don't have to meet any requirements except for internal consistency. They don't necessarily have to explain or predict anything empirically. Just making sense internally is a sufficient requirement.

But once you start to apply an analytic theory, it must have explanatory & predictive power, and it must be testable, falsifiable and replicable.

All possible FSK's can be categorized as either of type a priori or a posteriori. So for example, the "US constitution FSK" and the "FIFA FSK" are functionally identical (type "a posteriori"). They only differ by their context, but the requirements for determining facts and truths are identical (only the details change, based on the different contexts).

Even a fictional world, say "Harry Potter FSK", will have those same requirements. For a theory or proposition regarding the "Harry Potter FSK" to be valid / truthful, it must have some explanatory and predictive power, it must be testable, falsifiable and replicable. The degree to which these requirements are met is the degree to which a particular concept can be said to be objective.

For example, consider the statement "elves in the world of Harry Potter have droopy, pointy ears". Based on this statement, we can deduce what it predicts: that elves exist in the Harry Potter universe, and that they have droopy, pointy ears. This in turn informs us how we can test our prediction: by examining elf characters within the source material. This also tells us how this theory can be falsified: if the elf characters are described as having some other ear shape. Naturally, other people can replicate this effort to confirm for themselves whether elves in the Harry Potter universe have, in fact, droopy, pointy ears.

My point is that it's not very descriptive and informative to say that different FSK's have different degrees of objectivity. What varies, concretely, is this:

- whether the concept is analytic or synthetic

- the details of the concept (axioms, units, definitions, etc.)

- in the case of synthetic concepts, the tools and methods by which empirical data can be collected and tests can be performed

So it's not like the requirements for truth change based on the FSK. Only the details change. In this way, there really is no fundamental difference between the science FSK and any other FSK.
You got confused with Kant's a priori vs a posteriori and analytic vs synthetic, then there is the synthetic a priori.

"In natural science no less than in mathematics, Kant held, synthetic a priori judgments provide the necessary foundations for human knowledge.
the Kantian conception that the basic propositions of geometry and physics are synthetic a priori
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... a%20priori#:
"
Objectivity comes in degrees.
All FSKs are basically 'objective' [thus of various degrees].
The scientific and Mathematics FSK has the highest degrees of Objectivity [say 90/100] based on the criteria you listed earlier. They are the standards for all other FSKs to be evaluated upon.

The facts, knowledge of the "US constitution FSK" and the "FIFA FSK" or a Legal-FSK' as conditioned to the respective FSK can also be verified with science and mathematics, thus has a reasonable degree of objectivity, say 75/100.
Surely it is a fact 'Brazil won the 2022 Football World Cup' because FIFA [per its Constitution] said so, regardless of individual[s] opinions, beliefs and judgments or their complains some Brazilians players from the bench were inside the field when Messi scored the winning goals.

As for the "Harry Potter FSK" of the entities are claimed as objective, we can rate them at 0.1/100 objectivity which is equivalent to falsehood if they are claimed to be real in contrast to the science FSK. The same can be said for the claims of the theological FSK.
Because the degree of objectivity is negligible and zero, in general we can ignore them in terms of objectivity, except where necessary.
So it's not like the requirements for truth change based on the FSK. Only the details change. In this way, there really is no fundamental difference between the science FSK and any other FSK.
If you deliberate the above from the Philosophical Realism perspective, i.e. reality is objective in the mind-independent sense, then, your statement is applicable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
To me, I have argued philosophical realism [heavily driven by psychology] is unrealistic and untenable.

In contrast, my approach is similar to Kant's Transcendental Idealism and Empirical Realism perspective.
In a way, humans [within the respective FSKs] are the 'co-creator' of the reality they are in.
As such reality and its truth change relative to the imputed FSK.

This point re philosophical_realism vs anti-philosophical_realism is discussed in other threads.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 3:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am When it comes to etymology and in philosophy, no word is immutable nor be carved in stone.
Yes, I agree with that. My argument is that in order to cause a change in the definition of a term, it's necessary to demonstrate why the previous definition was inadequate in some way, compared to the new one. Most people won't accept a new definition if it's just "different", but not superior.
That is what I have been trying to do, i.e. I will present my arguments why 'morality' as I had defined should be 'morality-proper' in alignment with the moral function inherent within humanity's human nature.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am What I am pinning to the term 'morality' is what is represented as a fact within human nature.
Well, I disagree... Morality is a container term which includes much more than just human nature, unless you define human nature so broadly as to include everything that is somehow related to humanity. But this in turn is so unspecific that it's no longer useful.
It is not difficult to define what is human nature.
We can easily identify human nature in terms of biology, psychology, anthropology, social, and all human behaviors that are observer at present and in the past via empirical evidences.
I don't see the difficulties at all.
We can ground human nature to the Human Genome which is 100% sequenced.

A pattern of human behaviors from past to present can be identified as what is considered to be 'morality' which is vague at present.
But all human behavior are traceable to the physical, i.e. body, brain, neurons, genes, DNA etc.
What is morality must have manifested from certain neurons in the brain which we can trace to.
So, what is morality is represented by its corresponding physical elements in the brain, neurons, genes, DNA that manifest actions and behavior which we can group as 'morality' within human nature.

The point is when one is doing research on morality thoroughly, one has to be familiar with all the deliberations of what is morality from all over the world since the beginning. From that I have determined what is the generic core of what morality is as per human nature as represented by the physical elements in the body, brain, neural algorithms, neurons, genes, etc.

Note almost every moralists in the world [from past to present] believe empathy is an essential element of morality, then the guess, talk and talk, beating around the bush from outside a black-box of the self.
It is only recently discovered that mirror-neurons has something to do with empathy.
Neuroscientists such as Marco Iacoboni (UCLA) have argued that mirror neuron systems in the human brain help us understand the actions and intentions of other people. In a study published in March 2005 Iacoboni and his colleagues reported that mirror neuron activity could predict whether another person who was picking up a cup of tea planned to drink from it or clear it from the table.[16] In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron
Note this is crude, there is more to the above in reference to morality. But it is indication of the trend to nail morality to its physical referent in the brain.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am What I am pinning to the term 'morality' is what is represented as a fact within human nature.
From the exhaustive coverage of what is dealt as morality within the philosophical communities, I believe what the present majority is grappling with the term 'morality' is grounded to that fact [referent] of a specific function within human nature [which is subliminal].

I have no issue with whatever the term, name or label as long as it is the same referent we are referring to.
Again, this sounds exceedingly vague and arbitrary. How exactly do you determine what is a "fact" within human nature and what isn't? Isn't literally everything that we do, a fact of "human nature"? Is picking your nose a fact of human nature? If yes -- so what? If no -- why?
As I had stated, whatever that can be related to humans is 'human nature'.
However such 'human nature' can be categorized into its generic, core and variable elements.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am What I stated was both case have the same range of value.
If 'humans killing humans' is rated 9/10 evilness, we can rate the different types of killing within the range of 9.001 to 9.999 which will provide for 1000 types of killing a human.
Since 'humans killing humans' is rated 9/10 of evilness, it will have greater priority than say rape, non-fatal violence or slavery [taking into account numbers and frequency].
Since humans killing humans' is rated 9/10 evilness we will strive for ZERO human killed by humans and consider priority those that are 9.999 over 9.001.
It seems like you're mixing two different metrics here: quality (the type / grade of evil) and quantity (number of victims). This isn't a good idea. Both metrics should be independent, otherwise it'll just be confusing and imply nonsensical conclusions. For example, say 8/10 evilness is rape. Would this mean that a thousand rapes is as evil as one killing? Based on this approach, it would. But it should be obvious that this would be a silly conclusion.

For this reason, mixing quantity and quality in one metric is really not advisable, and also not necessary. The rate of killing doesn't have to be (and can't be) represented on a 0-10 scale, because there is no fixed ceiling to it. It's completely sufficient to say that the goal is a rate of 0 murders (per year or whatever), and anything above this value is "in need of improvement".

The 0-10 scale can only be used for quality, but the question, again, is how to assign the proper value to a particular act. I realize that this undermines the logic you envisioned, but it simply wasn't well thought-out, for the reasons described.

As far as I can tell, it's unavoidable to use an empirical approach and basically just ask how people would order various types of evil acts on this scale, and then calculate the average distribution. However, these acts must be relative to one victim, because quantity must be an independent metric. So "genocide" wouldn't be included on the evil scale. Rather, it would "emerge" if you multiply the value of "killing" with the quantity of victims. It should be intuitively obvious that this approach is superior; for example, if lying is a 2/10, rape is a 9/10 and murder a 10/10, then 125 lies would equal an "evilness" of 25, while 125 rapes would equal an "evilness" of 112,5, whereas 125 murders would equal an "evilness" of 125.

I still don't think this metric is anywhere near to being complete, but it's an improvement.
What I intend here is to place a minimal rating for each type of evil.
Thus 'human killing humans' is rated at a minimum of 9/10.
If rape is rated at say 8/10, then it can go up to say 9.3 in variation of the number of rapes.

'Genocide' is merely a convenient term and genocide generally implies the number killed are more than 50 in reference to killing of a specific group of people. Other than that we have serial killer or mass murders. But the bottom line to all these categories are the actual number of people killed.

This is merely discussion of the general idea.
In practice we will have to be precise and specific with putting a lots of thoughts into it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am Note the subject of Axiology i.e. the Science of Values can be used to manage the above effectively.
Perhaps you can demonstrate it, then? 😊
You can do some research on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiology
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:51 am As I had stated 'well-being' is a very fundamental state of human nature that covers all aspects of human behavior.
As in my case, nothing relevant to the issue of morality will be missed out.

The main focus of the my moral FSK model is about reducing evil acts via the self-development of the personal moral function.
You can restrict a "science of well-being" model to be non-enforceable, that's not a problem. But it only works if it's unrelated to the evilness metric.

As soon as you include the evilness metric (in order to get "morality FSK"), you can no longer make it non-enforceable, because that would mean that for some strange reason, we're not allowed to contain evil behavior.

So in reality, you have a "well-being FSK" and an "evilness FSK", both of which are quite different in their nature. You can't just "merge" them into one to make them both non-enforceable.

The "evilness FSK" must be enforceable for it to have any meaning. It would be preposterous to say that it's possible for us to identify an act as "evil", but not be able to ascertain the value of an action which attempts to prevent or contain that evil act (which can obviously be used to determine if and how an evil act can be contained).

Once it becomes clear that we can evaluate attempts at countering evil acts, many new questions pertaining to justice and judgement emerge.

I understand that you want to "define" your approach in a specific, constrained way, but problems such as these naturally appear once you examine it without any preconceptions; they can't be "defined away".
Should be no problem for me to include the term 'evilness' and yet ensure it is not enforceable but merely used it as a guide for moral progress.

You familiar with the Pareto 80/20 ratio and how to apply it in reality?
The ranking of evilness will facilitate and guide humanity to focus on the 20% of evil causes to reduce the 80% of potential evil.
Thus if social scientists were given the task to reduce potential evilness within humanity, they will merely used the evil metrics as a guide, there is no enforcements on any individuals in this case.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:54 am Here is the reference from Kant:
The holding of a Thing to be true, or the Subjective Validity of the Judgment, in its Relation to conviction (which is at the same time Objectively Valid), has the following three degrees:
1. opining,
2. believing, and
3. knowing.
Opining is such holding of a Judgment as is consciously insufficient, not only objectively, but also subjectively.
If our holding of the Judgment be only subjectively sufficient, and is at the same time taken as being objectively insufficient, we have what is termed Believing.
Lastly, when the holding of a Thing to be true is sufficient both subjectively and objectively, it is Knowledge.
B850 Critique of Pure Reason - Kant
Thanks for the reference! Well, to be honest, one can study Kant for 30 years and still not know everything about his work, so yeah 😂

Here's another quote from him:
Hence it is absurd to have an opinion in pure mathematics; either we must know, or we must abstain from all acts of judgment.
In other words, to Kant, this isn't a continuum; you can't "opine" on a priori knowledge, because it's meaningless to have subjective opinions or beliefs about things based purely on reason and logic. On the other hand, a posteriori knowledge is always subjective in its nature and can at best only approximate objective knowledge. That's why I don't think Kant would agree with calling this a "spectrum".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:54 am You are too pedantic on the above.
Basically what I meant is, whatever one claim as a fact, it is conditioned to a specific FSK, there can be no fact without such a qualification.
For example, if it is a scientific fact, then it is conditioned to the scientific FSK.
Sure, but proper terminology is important. But let's leave it at that 😅

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:54 am Objectivity is a value.
To call a thing objective implies that it has a certain importance to us and that we approve of it.
Objectivity comes in degrees.
I think you misunderstand my point: I'm not debating whether objectivity can be quantified. What I'm questioning is why certain FSK are more objective than others. My point is that your descriptions don't show how such an evaluation can be derived objectively -- meaning, in such a way that someone else could arrive at the same conclusions as you only by using the same principles, but otherwise not sharing any of your beliefs. So I would like for you to explain the principles on whose basis you arrive at your conclusions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:54 am You got confused with Kant's a priori vs a posteriori and analytic vs synthetic, then there is the synthetic a priori.

"In natural science no less than in mathematics, Kant held, synthetic a priori judgments provide the necessary foundations for human knowledge.
the Kantian conception that the basic propositions of geometry and physics are synthetic a priori
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... a%20priori#:"
You're being pedantic 😂
I think my argument worked fine without the invocation of synthetic a priori knowledge. But that's OK, touché.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:54 am The facts, knowledge of the "US constitution FSK" and the "FIFA FSK" or a Legal-FSK' as conditioned to the respective FSK can also be verified with science and mathematics, thus has a reasonable degree of objectivity, say 75/100.
Surely it is a fact 'Brazil won the 2022 Football World Cup' because FIFA [per its Constitution] said so, regardless of individual[s] opinions, beliefs and judgments or their complains some Brazilians players from the bench were inside the field when Messi scored the winning goals.

As for the "Harry Potter FSK" of the entities are claimed as objective, we can rate them at 0.1/100 objectivity which is equivalent to falsehood if they are claimed to be real in contrast to the science FSK. The same can be said for the claims of the theological FSK.
Because the degree of objectivity is negligible and zero, in general we can ignore them in terms of objectivity, except where necessary.
I can't agree with this model, but maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

The reason why you evaluate the "Harry Potter FSK" as 0.1/100 objectivity is because you compare it against the "real" world, rather than the Harry Potter universe. This makes no sense to me. For example, what is the objective value of the offside rule in football? If you give it a reasonably high degree of objectivity because FIFA said so, then why not give a reasonably high degree of objectivity to the Harry Potter fact that elves in that imaginary world have droopy pointy ears, because the ultimate authority on the subject, J.K. Rowling, has declared it to be so? What's the difference between a completely made-up soccer rules vs. completely made up rules of a Fantasy universe?

My point is that there is clearly a point of reference against which a particular fact must be compared. If you compare "elves" against the real world, then that concept should rightly have a vanishingly low objectivity value. But if you compare it against the Harry Potter universe, it should have a high objective value. Similarly, if you compare football rules against baseball, you'll end up with incorrect information.

If you ignore this fact, then your model will break down once we dig a little deeper, because now everything has an objectivity in itself somehow. For example, what objective value would language have? What about the elvish language that J.R.R. Tolkien invented, or even Klingon? Would they have a low objectivity value? Why? What would happen if an entire country adopted elvish? Would it's objectivity value rise? How would any of this work?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:54 am To me, I have argued philosophical realism [heavily driven by psychology] is unrealistic and untenable.

In contrast, my approach is similar to Kant's Transcendental Idealism and Empirical Realism perspective.
In a way, humans [within the respective FSKs] are the 'co-creator' of the reality they are in.
As such reality and its truth change relative to the imputed FSK.

This point re philosophical_realism vs anti-philosophical_realism is discussed in other threads.
You have described the term "FSK" many times, but to my knowledge, never really explained it in-depth (maybe I haven't found it yet). The terms "system" and "framework" imply that it's based on logical principles, but as far as I can tell this would basically constitute precisely the principles I have described before. So in what way does this differ to philosophical realism? Is intersubjective consensus the only differentiating factor? But consensus is already included in the principles I described and has its proper role. So what exactly is different? Can you break it down into its constituent parts similarly how I did it?

A conceptual model is only as useful as it can be communicated effectively and adopted by others.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 2:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:54 am Here is the reference from Kant:
The holding of a Thing to be true, or the Subjective Validity of the Judgment, in its Relation to conviction (which is at the same time Objectively Valid), has the following three degrees:
1. opining,
2. believing, and
3. knowing.
Opining is such holding of a Judgment as is consciously insufficient, not only objectively, but also subjectively.
If our holding of the Judgment be only subjectively sufficient, and is at the same time taken as being objectively insufficient, we have what is termed Believing.
Lastly, when the holding of a Thing to be true is sufficient both subjectively and objectively, it is Knowledge.
B850 Critique of Pure Reason - Kant
Thanks for the reference! Well, to be honest, one can study Kant for 30 years and still not know everything about his work, so yeah 😂
Agree 'absolutely'.
Allison, [Henry Edward Allison (born April 25, 1937) is a scholar of Immanuel Kant, widely considered to be one of the most eminent English-language Kant scholars of the postwar era - WIKI]
I believe Allison missed out on a very critical principle in dialectic which was interpreted by his student - Michelle Grier after like 40 years after he first read Kant]. Guyer is another Kant veteran who is stuck with the analytic in reading Kant.

I believe I have a reasonable grasp of Kant when I supersede [supervene] Kantian philosophy with Eastern philosophy [esp. Buddhism] which is my forte.
Here's another quote from him:
Hence it is absurd to have an opinion in pure mathematics; either we must know, or we must abstain from all acts of judgment.
In other words, to Kant, this isn't a continuum; you can't "opine" on a priori knowledge, because it's meaningless to have subjective opinions or beliefs about things based purely on reason and logic. On the other hand, a posteriori knowledge is always subjective in its nature and can at best only approximate objective knowledge. That's why I don't think Kant would agree with calling this a "spectrum".
Kant did not mention 'continuum' but he stated "three degrees" not three types.
I am applying Kant's thoughts on the above to where it is relevant.
You CANNOT denial there is the emergence of knowledge from thoughts going through the process of being opinions [loose views] to beliefs [hypothesis] to knowledge [thesis].
The above apply even to mathematics theory that were discovered a priori.

For example before any mathematic theory was proven to be true, someone or a groups of people must started with some opinions of it, then process it as a belief and then confirm as knowledge.

Note opinions can be inputted into a valid deductive syllogism but the conclusion will remain opinion, GIGO, Garbage in Garbage out.

What Kant referred to mathematics as not subject to opinion is when it is confirmed as a theory because according to Kant, mathematical truths are apodictic [clearly established or beyond dispute].
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:54 am Objectivity is a value.
To call a thing objective implies that it has a certain importance to us and that we approve of it.
Objectivity comes in degrees.
I think you misunderstand my point: I'm not debating whether objectivity can be quantified. What I'm questioning is why certain FSK are more objective than others. My point is that your descriptions don't show how such an evaluation can be derived objectively -- meaning, in such a way that someone else could arrive at the same conclusions as you only by using the same principles, but otherwise not sharing any of your beliefs. So I would like for you to explain the principles on whose basis you arrive at your conclusions.
Objective meant independent of any individual[s] feelings, opinions, beliefs or judgments.

A FSK is any organized conceptual framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)
In the social sciences, framing comprises a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies organize, perceive, and communicate about reality.

At present the scientific FSK is generally recognized as the most objective, credible and reliable FSK. [comparing the best performance of all FSKs.]
I believe you have listed the criteria where we can evaluate the objectivity and credibility of each FSK.

So, you have already established a method of evaluating the objectivity of a FSK; I mentioned the addition criteria of reinforcement is to include the productivity of the FSK and its contribution to the progress of humanity.
Can you find that post? I want to keep it for future reference as criteria for evaluating the objectivity of a FSK.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:54 am The facts, knowledge of the "US constitution FSK" and the "FIFA FSK" or a Legal-FSK' as conditioned to the respective FSK can also be verified with science and mathematics, thus has a reasonable degree of objectivity, say 75/100.
Surely it is a fact 'Brazil won the 2022 Football World Cup' because FIFA [per its Constitution] said so, regardless of individual[s] opinions, beliefs and judgments or their complains some Brazilians players from the bench were inside the field when Messi scored the winning goals.

As for the "Harry Potter FSK" of the entities are claimed as objective, we can rate them at 0.1/100 objectivity which is equivalent to falsehood if they are claimed to be real in contrast to the science FSK. The same can be said for the claims of the theological FSK.
Because the degree of objectivity is negligible and zero, in general we can ignore them in terms of objectivity, except where necessary.
I can't agree with this model, but maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

The reason why you evaluate the "Harry Potter FSK" as 0.1/100 objectivity is because you compare it against the "real" world, rather than the Harry Potter universe. This makes no sense to me. For example, what is the objective value of the offside rule in football? If you give it a reasonably high degree of objectivity because FIFA said so, then why not give a reasonably high degree of objectivity to the Harry Potter fact that elves in that imaginary world have droopy pointy ears, because the ultimate authority on the subject, J.K. Rowling, has declared it to be so? What's the difference between a completely made-up soccer rules vs. completely made up rules of a Fantasy universe?

My point is that there is clearly a point of reference against which a particular fact must be compared. If you compare "elves" against the real world, then that concept should rightly have a vanishingly low objectivity value. But if you compare it against the Harry Potter universe, it should have a high objective value. Similarly, if you compare football rules against baseball, you'll end up with incorrect information.

If you ignore this fact, then your model will break down once we dig a little deeper, because now everything has an objectivity in itself somehow. For example, what objective value would language have? What about the elvish language that J.R.R. Tolkien invented, or even Klingon? Would they have a low objectivity value? Why? What would happen if an entire country adopted elvish? Would it's objectivity value rise? How would any of this work?
As long as we can establish some sort of organized framework for the idea of Harry Potter, then it qualify to be objective.
But I would rate the Harry Potter FSK at 0.01 objectivity vs the FIFA FSK objectivity much higher at say 75/100 because of the critical criteria i.e. empirical evidence.
There are no empirical evidences to justify elves exist empirically.

The FIFA FSK has medium objectivity [empirical video evidence] because of the lack of repeatability and consistency, if the same game was to be replayed within FIFA FSK rules, the winning team could possibly loose, there is no consistent results that can be repeated.

The scientific FSK has high objectivity, say 'Water is H20' of which the result will be the same regardless of the number of times it is repeatedly tested within the compliance of the science-chemistry FSK.

That is how I evaluate the objectivity of the range of FSKs.
You have described the term "FSK" many times, but to my knowledge, never really explained it in-depth (maybe I haven't found it yet). The terms "system" and "framework" imply that it's based on logical principles, but as far as I can tell this would basically constitute precisely the principles I have described before. So in what way does this differ to philosophical realism? Is intersubjective consensus the only differentiating factor? But consensus is already included in the principles I described and has its proper role. So what exactly is different? Can you break it down into its constituent parts similarly how I did it?

A conceptual model is only as useful as it can be communicated effectively and adopted by others.
As I had stated, a FSK is merely a framework of knowledge of that is some kind of system [input -output - feedback] which implied 'organized'.

Here again,
A FSK is any organized conceptual framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)
In the social sciences, framing comprises a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies organize, perceive, and communicate about reality.

A mathematical theory is a mathematical model of a branch of mathematics that is based on a set of axioms. It can also simultaneously be a body of knowledge (e.g., based on known axioms and definitions), and so in this sense can refer to an area of mathematical research within the established framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_theory

A basic FSK has a basic system but need not be based on logical principles [say classical or advance logic].
  • A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules [explicit or implicit] to form a unified whole. WIKI
As long as it qualify as a FSK it is deem 'objective' with a range of objectivity degrees from 0.0001 to 99.9999%.
Then the next question is how objective is the FSK whereupon we use various criteria for evaluation.

At present I am not focusing on the effectiveness [too complex to deal with here] of my moral FSK.
What I am interested is there are objective moral facts because
'whatever is fact is conditioned upon a FSK'
therefore there are objective moral facts from a moral FSK.
This is to counter PH's view that there is absolutely no moral facts, thus morality cannot be objective. To insist otherwise is nonsense.
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

How credible is my moral FSK would be another topic.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:44 am Kant did not mention 'continuum' but he stated "three degrees" not three types.
I am applying Kant's thoughts on the above to where it is relevant.
You CANNOT denial there is the emergence of knowledge from thoughts going through the process of being opinions [loose views] to beliefs [hypothesis] to knowledge [thesis].
The above apply even to mathematics theory that were discovered a priori.
I agree that this is a very common view; my point is just that it's not particularly Kantian.

In the common view, these three things can be understood to describe various degrees of certainty: an opinion holds little certainty, a belief holds a moderate amount of certainty, and knowledge holds a high amount of certainty.

However, it's important to realize that these terms refer to the subjective confidence one has in the validity and truthfulness of a claim. So they don't describe the validity and truthfulness of the claim itself.

It seems that me that you are merging these two concepts into one, which is quite confusing.

When it comes to the "claim" itself, it obviously can't have "certainty", as this merely describes a personal attitude. Rather, it has "accuracy", which describes how well the claim represents observed reality.

This distinction between the "subjective" belief in a claim and it's "objective" truth value is crucial, because it allows us to formulate propositions such as these:

"I have very little understanding of the general theory of relativity, but I strongly believe that it is valid and accurate based on the available experimental evidence, the functional technologies designed on its basis, interviews with reputable physicists and consensus among experts."

In other words, it's possible to believe things for perfectly good reasons, but without possessing complete knowledge about them.

Conversely, it's also possible to not believe perfectly valid and truthful claims, and this doesn't change anything about their validity and truth-value.

In the approach you propose, it seems to me that this simple and useful distinction isn't possible, because there is no difference between the belief in / acceptance of a claim, and the validity / truth-value of the claim itself.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:44 am For example before any mathematic theory was proven to be true, someone or a groups of people must started with some opinions of it, then process it as a belief and then confirm as knowledge.

Note opinions can be inputted into a valid deductive syllogism but the conclusion will remain opinion, GIGO, Garbage in Garbage out.

What Kant referred to mathematics as not subject to opinion is when it is confirmed as a theory because according to Kant, mathematical truths are apodictic [clearly established or beyond dispute].
Here it is very clear again that you're applying the terms opinion, belief and knowledge to the theory itself, rather than the subjective attitude of people towards it. This is simply incorrect...

A theory (particularly a mathematical one) doesn't start as an opinion; a mathematician can have an opinion about something and come up with i.e. a formula on that basis, but the formula itself is neither an opinion, nor a belief, nor knowledge. The formula can be evaluated by criteria such as consistency, validity and elegance, but only people can have opinions, beliefs or knowledge about it.

If the formula scores well across all the relevant criteria, chances are that it will get widely accepted. But this changes nothing about the content of the formula; rather, this simply serves to increase general certainty and confidence in its consistency, validity and elegance.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:44 am As long as we can establish some sort of organized framework for the idea of Harry Potter, then it qualify to be objective.
But I would rate the Harry Potter FSK at 0.01 objectivity vs the FIFA FSK objectivity much higher at say 75/100 because of the critical criteria i.e. empirical evidence.
There are no empirical evidences to justify elves exist empirically.

The FIFA FSK has medium objectivity [empirical video evidence] because of the lack of repeatability and consistency, if the same game was to be replayed within FIFA FSK rules, the winning team could possibly loose, there is no consistent results that can be repeated.

The scientific FSK has high objectivity, say 'Water is H20' of which the result will be the same regardless of the number of times it is repeatedly tested within the compliance of the science-chemistry FSK.

That is how I evaluate the objectivity of the range of FSKs.
From what you wrote here it seems to me that the main criterion for objectivity is "certainty regarding natural, empirically measurable reality".

So if a proposition refers to a fictional world, or invented game rules, or if it can't be reliably predicted / repeated, then it's not objective.

However, it appears that this criterion is not actually FSK-dependent. Quite the opposite: this criterion is always the same, regardless of the FSK. So the FSK does not affect the criterion for objectivity, but rather describes how well the propositions contained within it fulfill this criterion.

This makes sense to me -- but it's not really clear based on your descriptions...

When you say that the "X FSK" has a low / medium / high objectivity, it sounds like the FSK sets the standard for objectivity (because that's what you expect from a system for knowledge), but this is actually not the case.

Now, I'm sure you won't like this, but it would also seem to me that the term "FSK" could be completely removed and replaced with field / domain / subject, because from what I understand there aren't any differing FSK's, but rather just the scientific method, which simply differs in its concrete implementation based on the unique constraints of the particular field. So the following statements should be just as accurate as the ones you made:

"Within the domain of the natural sciences, propositions can attain a high degree of certainty regarding natural, empirically measurable reality"

"Within the domain of politics, propositions can attain a low to medium degree of certainty regarding natural, empirically measurable reality"

Am I correct?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:44 am As I had stated, a FSK is merely a framework of knowledge of that is some kind of system [input -output - feedback] which implied 'organized'.
This is literally a minimalistic description of the scientific method.

As I observed above, it seems to me that there really is no such thing as an "FSK", strictly speaking. What you're referring to is simply the scientific method within the constraints of a particular field of inquiry. So for example, "history FSK" follows the same standards as any other scientific field of study in order to ascertain "objective" truths, but the concrete tools and procedures it utilizes are different than in the "geology FSK". But this is simply a coincidence -- it just so happened that certain things work better to evaluate historical facts, and certain other things work better to evaluate geological facts.

This to me also explains why your descriptions of what constitutes an FSK are so vague, i.e.: "A basic FSK has a basic system but need not be based on logical principles [say classical or advance logic]."

What is a "basic system"? If it doesn't have to be based on logical principles, then what does it have to be based on? That statement tells me absolutely nothing 😂
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:44 am As long as it qualify as a FSK it is deem 'objective' with a range of objectivity degrees from 0.0001 to 99.9999%.
But what exactly are the qualifying criteria? Are they actually distinct from the scientific method, or are they simply different implementations of the scientific method?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:44 am Then the next question is how objective is the FSK whereupon we use various criteria for evaluation.
"Various criteria" is once again exceedingly specific... Again, are they actually distinct from what we would derive from the principles of the scientific method, or are they simply different implementations?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:44 am At present I am not focusing on the effectiveness [too complex to deal with here] of my moral FSK.
What I am interested is there are objective moral facts because
'whatever is fact is conditioned upon a FSK'
Well, it seems to me that what you're actually saying is: "Whatever is fact is conditioned upon the particular implementation of the scientific method within a specific field of inquiry"

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:44 am therefore there are objective moral facts from a moral FSK.
This is to counter PH's view that there is absolutely no moral facts, thus morality cannot be objective. To insist otherwise is nonsense.
What could make morality objective?
As you pointed out yourself, this question can only be answered if we define morality in a descriptive way, and as far as I know there are only two ways to do so:

1) descriptive moral relativism, i.e. what do people and cultures consider to be moral or immoral?
2) biological / evolutionary morality, i.e. how and why our moral intuitions evolved and how that works

It seems to me like your approach is a combination of both. If it is, then sure, there can be moral facts in this sense. They just don't have any inherent prescriptive value. The prescriptive value is injected based on subjective preferences.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Sat Feb 18, 2023 2:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:44 am Kant did not mention 'continuum' but he stated "three degrees" not three types.
I am applying Kant's thoughts on the above to where it is relevant.
You CANNOT denial there is the emergence of knowledge from thoughts going through the process of being opinions [loose views] to beliefs [hypothesis] to knowledge [thesis].
The above apply even to mathematics theory that were discovered a priori.
I agree that this is a very common view; my point is just that it's not particularly Kantian.

In the common view, these three things can be understood to describe various degrees of certainty: an opinion holds little certainty, a belief holds a moderate amount of certainty, and knowledge holds a high amount of certainty.

However, it's important to realize that these terms refer to the subjective confidence one has in the validity and truthfulness of a claim. So they don't describe the validity and truthfulness of the claim itself.

It seems that me that you are merging these two concepts into one, which is quite confusing.

When it comes to the "claim" itself, it obviously can't have "certainty", as this merely describes a personal attitude. Rather, it has "accuracy", which describes how well the claim represents observed reality.

This distinction between the "subjective" belief in a claim and it's "objective" truth value is crucial, because it allows us to formulate propositions such as these:

"I have very little understanding of the general theory of relativity, but I strongly believe that it is valid and accurate based on the available experimental evidence, the functional technologies designed on its basis, interviews with reputable physicists and consensus among experts."

In other words, it's possible to believe things for perfectly good reasons, but without possessing complete knowledge about them.

Conversely, it's also possible to not believe perfectly valid and truthful claims, and this doesn't change anything about their validity and truth-value.

In the approach you propose, it seems to me that this simple and useful distinction isn't possible, because there is no difference between the belief in / acceptance of a claim, and the validity / truth-value of the claim itself.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:44 am For example before any mathematic theory was proven to be true, someone or a groups of people must started with some opinions of it, then process it as a belief and then confirm as knowledge.

Note opinions can be inputted into a valid deductive syllogism but the conclusion will remain opinion, GIGO, Garbage in Garbage out.

What Kant referred to mathematics as not subject to opinion is when it is confirmed as a theory because according to Kant, mathematical truths are apodictic [clearly established or beyond dispute].
Here it is very clear again that you're applying the terms opinion, belief and knowledge to the theory itself, rather than the subjective attitude of people towards it. This is simply incorrect...

A theory (particularly a mathematical one) doesn't start as an opinion; a mathematician can have an opinion about something and come up with i.e. a formula on that basis, but the formula itself is neither an opinion, nor a belief, nor knowledge. The formula can be evaluated by criteria such as consistency, validity and elegance, but only people can have opinions, beliefs or knowledge about it.

If the formula scores well across all the relevant criteria, chances are that it will get widely accepted. But this changes nothing about the content of the formula; rather, this simply serves to increase general certainty and confidence in its consistency, validity and elegance.
In general the 'object' is distinct from the 'subject'. Example, there is the perceiver and the-perceived are separate things.

But in this specific case, I am asserting that 'the subject together with the subject' is 'one particular set of reality'.

As such,
"I have very strong understanding of the general theory of relativity, and I strongly believe that it is valid and accurate based on the fact that the scientists as human are the "co-creators" of those Laws of Relativity via the scientific FSK; based upon available experimental evidence, the functional technologies designed on its basis, interviews with reputable physicists and consensus among experts."

Note this thread;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili

Note Kant;
Kant: Laws of Nature, We Ourselves Introduce [CPR A125]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33772

Note this post re the merging of subject with object:
viewtopic.php?p=624583#p624583
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:44 am As long as we can establish some sort of organized framework for the idea of Harry Potter, then it qualify to be objective.
But I would rate the Harry Potter FSK at 0.01 objectivity vs the FIFA FSK objectivity much higher at say 75/100 because of the critical criteria i.e. empirical evidence.
There are no empirical evidences to justify elves exist empirically.

The FIFA FSK has medium objectivity [empirical video evidence] because of the lack of repeatability and consistency, if the same game was to be replayed within FIFA FSK rules, the winning team could possibly loose, there is no consistent results that can be repeated.

The scientific FSK has high objectivity, say 'Water is H20' of which the result will be the same regardless of the number of times it is repeatedly tested within the compliance of the science-chemistry FSK.

That is how I evaluate the objectivity of the range of FSKs.
From what you wrote here it seems to me that the main criterion for objectivity is "certainty regarding natural, empirically measurable reality".

So if a proposition refers to a fictional world, or invented game rules, or if it can't be reliably predicted / repeated, then it's not objective.

However, it appears that this criterion is not actually FSK-dependent. Quite the opposite: this criterion is always the same, regardless of the FSK. So the FSK does not affect the criterion for objectivity, but rather describes how well the propositions contained within it fulfill this criterion.

This makes sense to me -- but it's not really clear based on your descriptions...

When you say that the "X FSK" has a low / medium / high objectivity, it sounds like the FSK sets the standard for objectivity (because that's what you expect from a system for knowledge), but this is actually not the case.

Now, I'm sure you won't like this, but it would also seem to me that the term "FSK" could be completely removed and replaced with field / domain / subject, because from what I understand there aren't any differing FSK's, but rather just the scientific method, which simply differs in its concrete implementation based on the unique constraints of the particular field. So the following statements should be just as accurate as the ones you made:

"Within the domain of the natural sciences, propositions can attain a high degree of certainty regarding natural, empirically measurable reality"

"Within the domain of politics, propositions can attain a low to medium degree of certainty regarding natural, empirically measurable reality"

Am I correct?
I stated as long as there is some sort of organized FSK [collective not individual based], then, its conclusions are objective.
I have stated at present the scientific [also mathematics] FSK is the most credible and reliable [based on the criteria you listed somewhere], thus will be used as a standard to evaluate all other FSKs.
If we rate the Scientific FSK at 100/100 objectivity [based on verification and justification of empirical evidences], then we can approximate the Harry Porter FSK relatively as 5 or zero/100 objectivity.

Domain sounds OK but I think it is not all encompassing.

The FSK is more appropriately related to 'paradigms';
In science and philosophy, a paradigm (/ˈpærədaɪm/) is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitute legitimate contributions to a field. -WIKI

The scientific methods within the scientific FSK is merely one element amongst all others element associated with science including the philosophical elements.
Thus my use of FSK is to ensure it is all encompassing and cover whatever conditions are necessary and related to the resulting conclusions from a FSK.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:44 am As I had stated, a FSK is merely a framework of knowledge of that is some kind of system [input -output - feedback] which implied 'organized'.
This is literally a minimalistic description of the scientific method.

As I observed above, it seems to me that there really is no such thing as an "FSK", strictly speaking. What you're referring to is simply the scientific method within the constraints of a particular field of inquiry. So for example, "history FSK" follows the same standards as any other scientific field of study in order to ascertain "objective" truths, but the concrete tools and procedures it utilizes are different than in the "geology FSK". But this is simply a coincidence -- it just so happened that certain things work better to evaluate historical facts, and certain other things work better to evaluate geological facts.

This to me also explains why your descriptions of what constitutes an FSK are so vague, i.e.: "A basic FSK has a basic system but need not be based on logical principles [say classical or advance logic]."

What is a "basic system"? If it doesn't have to be based on logical principles, then what does it have to be based on? That statement tells me absolutely nothing 😂
"is some kind of system [input -output - feedback] which implied 'organized' " is minimal but the critical is 'organized'.

All systems has implied logical processes; what I mean is a FSK do not need explicit logic as a mathematic FSK and other explicitly logical based FSK.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:44 am As long as it qualify as a FSK it is deem 'objective' with a range of objectivity degrees from 0.0001 to 99.9999%.
But what exactly are the qualifying criteria? Are they actually distinct from the scientific method, or are they simply different implementations of the scientific method?
As explained above. It is solely in reference the scientific method, a theistic FSK that God exists is objective [albeit 0.1/100] is not based on any scientific method.
We can refer to the criteria you listed which can be the basis of evaluation of why we can rate the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective at present.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:44 am Then the next question is how objective is the FSK whereupon we use various criteria for evaluation.
"Various criteria" is once again exceedingly specific... Again, are they actually distinct from what we would derive from the principles of the scientific method, or are they simply different implementations?
Not different implementation.
The question is whether they adopt a similar scientific method or not, if they [e.g. medical, psychology and the likes] do, we rate them higher, if they [Harry-Potter, or theistic] don't then we give them a lower rating.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:44 am At present I am not focusing on the effectiveness [too complex to deal with here] of my moral FSK.
What I am interested is there are objective moral facts because
'whatever is fact is conditioned upon a FSK'
Well, it seems to me that what you're actually saying is: "Whatever is fact is conditioned upon the particular implementation of the scientific method within a specific field of inquiry"
As highlighted as explained, it is not the scientific method which is merely one element of a FSK or paradigm.
What is fact is conditioned upon a specific FSK [a collective] not individual's opinions.
How objective is a FSK we evaluate it against the scientific FSK as the standard at 100/100 objectivity.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 4:44 am therefore there are objective moral facts from a moral FSK.
This is to counter PH's view that there is absolutely no moral facts, thus morality cannot be objective. To insist otherwise is nonsense.
What could make morality objective?
As you pointed out yourself, this question can only be answered if we define morality in a descriptive way, and as far as I know there are only two ways to do so:

1) descriptive moral relativism, i.e. what do people and cultures consider to be moral or immoral?
2) biological / evolutionary morality, i.e. how and why our moral intuitions evolved and how that works

It seems to me like your approach is a combination of both. If it is, then sure, there can be moral facts in this sense. They just don't have any inherent prescriptive value. The prescriptive value is injected based on subjective preferences.
My proposed moral FSK do not involved prescriptive values, i.e. it is not to be prescribed as in being enforced upon individuals.
Whatever the objective moral facts, they are merely to be standards to guide the individual's moral progress.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 18, 2023 7:20 am As such,
"I have very strong understanding of the general theory of relativity, and I strongly believe that it is valid and accurate based on the fact that the scientists as human are the "co-creators" of those Laws of Relativity via the scientific FSK; based upon available experimental evidence, the functional technologies designed on its basis, interviews with reputable physicists and consensus among experts."
I understand what you're saying regarding humans being the co-creators of their theories, as all of our understanding of the natural world is fundamentally conceptual. It is therefore self-evident that scientific theories are man-made. I think what you're saying is that these theories are all that we can know, and we can only speculate about what is "actually real". Therefore, it makes no sense to speak of reality independent of our theoretical (scientific) knowledge about it. But I think it's incorrect to say that our knowledge of reality IS reality, because this would be a circular thought. Knowledge is a representation of reality, so it would make no sense to say that "reality is a representation of reality".

So I would assert: "Humans are the co-creators of their understanding of the reality they are in"

Reality in this case is simply defined as that which our conceptual knowledge attempts to represent.

Now, the way in which you rephrased my original statement brings up the following questions:

1) you changed "very little understanding" to "very strong understanding". Does this imply that one can't believe in something unless one has very strong understanding of it? This seems like an untenable proposition...

2) the statement in your formulation no longer says anything about my belief in the validity of the theory itself, only the fact that it was created by humans. Was this intentional or a mistake in the formulation? This, too, seems untenable to me, because clearly the fact that humans are co-creators of this theory should have no bearing on whether I believe in the validity of the theory or not. This seems like a quint-essential non sequitur.

Just to clarify, I was and am referring to the scientific method, not "scientific methods":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method describes the process of how knowledge about the natural world can be attained, in the most general, fundamental manner:

Observation → Question / problem → Hypothesis (tentative explanation / prediction) → Criteria for confirmation / falsification → Experimentation → Analysis → Conclusion → Reporting (publication) → Replication (peer review) → rinse & repeat

It seems to me that there is no real alternative to this approach, it's just a question of the degree to which it's followed (which is a qualitative measurement).

The scientific method does not prescribe implementation details -- the implementation depends on the particular field of study, the nature of the particular subject / problem and so on.

With this in mind, it seems to me that the scientific method encompasses things such as paradigms, as these emerge based on the findings and established theories within particular fields of study. The fields of study in turn contain paradigms. A "paradigm" is therefore a more specific concept than a field or domain (as a field / domain can include multiple paradigms, and those can change over time).

So I think the scientific method is exactly what you're referring to when you talk about FSK's. In other words, any statement about FSK's can be changed to talk about the scientific method without losing anything, i.e.:

"the scientists as humans are the "co-creators" of those Laws of Relativity via the scientific method"

In this case, it is already clear that the scientific method is used within the context of physics, as the theory of relativity is contained within the domain of physics. To talk about "science FSK" or "physics FSK" is therefore redundant, as it would be akin to saying:

"the scientists as humans are the "co-creators" of those Laws of Relativity via the scientific method within the context of science / physics"

Now, if you think that the term "FSK" contains something that isn't already covered by the scientific method (and, by implication, the context, i.e. the field of study and its current paradigm), then what is that thing, exactly?

Also, whenever you talk about other FSK's and their degree of objectivity, what you seem to be referring to is the degree to which they follow the scientific method. So the only reason why the FIFA FSK is less objective than the science FSK is because it doesn't follow the scientific method to the same degree.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 18, 2023 7:20 am My proposed moral FSK do not involved prescriptive values, i.e. it is not to be prescribed as in being enforced upon individuals.
Whatever the objective moral facts, they are merely to be standards to guide the individual's moral progress.
If it's a standard to guide an individual's moral progress, isn't it then prescriptive by definition?

"Prescriptive" doesn't mean "enforceable". Anything that promotes or suggests a particular behavior is prescriptive.

But from what I understand, the moral facts you refer to don't promote a particular behavior in themselves. Rather, they refer to the things that drive us to behave "morally" (i.e. mirror neurons), as per your definition.

But in this case, your proposition would fit neatly inside of option 2), so I really don't think it's distinct from these two existing approaches.
Post Reply