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

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12240
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

I proposed we can justify objective moral facts from Moral Sense Theory.

In my case, I am not asserting moral facts are related to Moral Rightness or Wrongness but are rather to the Neurobiological Facts grounding the inherent Moral Sense related to Moral Sentiments proposed by Earl of Shaftesbury, Hume, Reid, Hutchinson, and other modern moral sense theorists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_sen ... ry#History
The first prominent Moral Sense Theory (especially using the term "sense") is found in Mencius (372–289 BCE).
The eponymous text deals with an innate Moral Sense possessed by all human beings.
All orthodox interpretations of Confucianism accept this view, several unorthodox groups make a point of refuting it (see: Xunzi).
This line of thinking reached its most extreme iteration in xinxue, a form of Neo-Confucianism associated with the Ming Dynasty and Wang Yangming.

In the west, the first prominent Moral Sense Theory is found in Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (1671–1713).
His major work espousing a form of Moral Sense Theory is An Inquiry Concerning Virtue, or Merit (first published in an unauthorized edition in 1699).

Subsequently, Francis Hutcheson (1694–1746) developed a version of Moral Sense Theory.
The chief statements of his theory occur in
An Inquiry Concerning the Original of Our Ideas of Virtue or Moral Good (1725;
Treatise II of An Inquiry Into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue) and
An Essay On the Nature and Conduct of the Passions and Affections, With Illustrations Upon the Moral Sense (1728).

Arguably the most prominent defender of Moral Sense Theory in the history of philosophy is David Hume (1711–1776).
While he discusses Morality in Book 3 of his Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40), Hume's most mature, positive account of the Moral Sense is found in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751).

Adam Smith also advanced a form of Moral Sense Theory in his The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759).
Smith focused less on a single faculty of the Moral Sense and more on the various sentiments that make up the Moral feelings that ground Moral judgments.

Thomas Reid (1710–1796) defends Moral Sense Theory in his Essays on the Active Powers of the Human Mind.
He compares the Moral Sense to sight and hearing, and defends its veridicality on the same ground as those.

The introduction of Herbert Spencer's Social Statics argued on behalf of Moral Sense Theory.
Arguably the most prominent defender of moral sense theory in the history of philosophy is David Hume (1711–1776).
While he discusses morality in Book 3 [Part 1 Section 1&2*] of his Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40),
Hume's most mature, positive account of the moral sense is found in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_sen ... ry#History
Moral sense theory (also known as moral sentimentalism) is a theory in moral epistemology and meta-ethics concerning the discovery of moral truths.
Moral sense theory typically holds that distinctions between morality and immorality are discovered by emotional responses to experience.

Some take it to be primarily a view about the nature of moral facts or moral beliefs (a primarily metaphysical view)—this form of the view more often goes by the name "sentimentalism".

Others take the view to be primarily about the nature of justifying moral beliefs (a primarily epistemological view)—this form of the view more often goes by the name "moral sense theory".

However, some theorists take the view to be one which claims that both moral facts and how one comes to be justified in believing them are necessarily bound up with human emotions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_sense_theory
The Principles of Moral Sense Theory:
The moral sense is often described as providing information in a way analogous to other sensory modalities, such as sight in the perception of colors. It is contrasted with the way in which one acquires a priori, non-empirical knowledge, such as mathematical knowledge for example.

One way to understand the moral sense is to draw an analogy between it and other kinds of senses.
Beauty is something we see in some faces, artworks and landscapes. We can also hear it in some pieces of music. We clearly do not need an independent aesthetic sense faculty to perceive beauty in the world. Our ordinary five senses are quite enough to observe it, though merely observing something beautiful is not by itself enough to appreciate its beauty. Suppose we give a name to this ability to appreciate the beauty in things we see: let's call it the aesthetic sense.

This aesthetic sense does not come automatically to all people with perfect vision and hearing, so it is fair to describe it as something extra, something not wholly reducible to vision and hearing.
As the aesthetic sense informs us about what is beautiful, we can analogically understand the moral sense as informing us of what is good.
People with a functioning moral sense get a clear impression of wrongness when they see (or perhaps even imagine) someone being mugged, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_sen ... y#Overview
My point:
While the Moral Sense Theorists e.g. Hume rejected any 'ought' from 'is',
they nevertheless recognize in some sense moral facts do exist, as such the related morality is objective.
Based on their days, these Moral Sense Theorists could not conceive of the existent of the corresponding physical Moral Facts underlying Moral Sense because the field of Neurosciences was not developed yet.

But in the modern era attention is being directed the Neurobiological basis of the moral sense or inherent moral potential. These are the underlying objective facts of morality.
It is not about the judgments of rightness or wrongness but rather on the real physical facts underlying morality.

What Are Moral Intuitions and Why Should We Care about Them? A Neurobiological Perspective
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27749905
There are loads of research done to justify the moral facts underlying morality.

Meanwhile posters like Peter Holmes and gang are still stuck to the dogmatic 'ancient' paradigm of moral judgments [opinions and beliefs] of rightness or wrongness.

Views?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12240
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Notes:
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12240
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here is a clue to the underlying moral facts within the human brain;
Our Brains are Wired for Morality: Evolution, Development, and Neuroscience

Abstract
Psychological and neuroscience research both tell us that morality, our mental ability to tell right from wrong in our behaviors and the behaviors of others, is a product of evolution.

Morality has been passed on through the course of evolution because it helps us to live in large social groups by enhancing our ability to get along and interact with others.

“Building blocks” of morality, such as sensing fairness, experiencing empathy, and judging others’ harmful and helpful actions, can be observed in infancy, before a child’s social environment would be able to have a strong influence.

Specific parts of the human brain are involved in moral reasoning – both the kind that happens very quickly and the kind that is thought out.

Damage to certain parts of the brain can dramatically alter moral judgment and behavior. Although human morality has been passed down through evolution, it is also dependent on the culture in which we grow up. What humans consider to be moral behavior varies from culture to culture and also varies across time.

Conclusion
Using evidence from evolutionary biology, developmental psychology, and neuroscience, we have come to realize that morality is not merely the result of cultural learning, handed to us from our families, peers, and environment.
Morality was selected by evolution in our human ancestors in order to promote cooperation and smooth social interactions. Developmental psychologists have demonstrated that some building blocks of morality are in place very early in development [3].
Additionally, the parts of the brain and the brain chemicals involved in morality and decision-making are beginning to be identified.

Neuroscience, psychology, and evolutionary biology will continue to help us gain a better understanding of how we think and make moral decisions [2]. Future research in neuroscience will help us to explain how we make decisions, weigh our options, reflect on our desires, and modify our behaviors on the basis of their moral consequences.
Hopefully, Science will also help us to understand why some people, like psychopaths, are not able to act morally, and discover ways to help them.

https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/1 ... 2016.00003
From the above the indication is that morality is inherent in human nature via evolution.
In this sense, the moral sense or function must be represented by the human DNA, genes and brain structures which are generic in ALL humans thus are objective [independent of individual's opinions, beliefs and judgments].

Throughout the history of mankind, the focus on morality has been about right and wrong actions [which are influence by environments, cultures, geography, etc.]; the existing direction has not led to great reforms and improvement in the average moral quotient of humanity.

The new direction in focus our attention to objective moral facts within human nature, the brain, genes and DNA is very new. In future we will be able to nail down to the more specific moral elements, e.g. where the 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' is represented by a detailed algorithm in the brain.

My point:
There are objective moral facts based on the above new paradigm.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by FlashDangerpants »

All his arguments for the last year or two have carried a quasi-religious yearning for DNA of all things to show him the meaning of life. And he's too stupid to ever notice.
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: Mon Jan 02, 2023 10:33 am My point:
There are objective moral facts based on the above new paradigm.
Not really; objective moral facts can't be derived from scientific understanding, because Morality relates to oughts and science / empiricism relates to what is.

An ought is necessarily subjective, because it requires a subjective point of view. "Subjective" does not mean inaccurate, illogical, optional or arbitrary. For example, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to eat a healthy diet. But the objective fact that a healthy diet is beneficial to the health of a human being does not magically create an objective ought. The ought is subjective, because it only exists from the perspective of a subject. If you remove the subject's viewpoint from the consideration, you're left with what *is* and no *ought*.

The fact that a healthy diet is good for many or even all human beings does not change this. You can't create objective oughts on the basis of commonality or consensus, because this would mean that every individual exception -- even though it's subjectively perfectly sensible -- would be somehow objectively wrong. That's tyranny.

The idea of objective Morality is not trivial; if objective Morality exists, we then should adapt all our norms and laws to be in accord with it, because conforming to objective reality is what it means to be "right". Getting objective Morality wrong can lead to a lot of ugliness.

I think the main issue is that subjectivism and objectivism get confused a lot. Aesthetics for example are completely subjective, even though there are aesthetic principles and many commonalities in aesthetic intuitions. However, if I see something and find it ugly, while you see the same thing and find it beautiful, both of our subjective experiences are perfectly valid. That's what it means for something to be subjective.

If on the other hand aesthetics were objective, then one of us would necessarily have to be wrong -- so our experience and personal evaluation of that object would become meaningless. Something external would instead determine the aesthetic value of an object. This is of course silly, because aesthetics as a whole is based on patterns and aggregates of subjective experiences. To therefore say that the concept of a combined average of experiences should override the individual experience is crazy.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12240
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 6:40 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 10:33 am My point:
There are objective moral facts based on the above new paradigm.
Not really; objective moral facts can't be derived from scientific understanding, because Morality relates to oughts and science / empiricism relates to what is.

An ought is necessarily subjective, because it requires a subjective point of view. "Subjective" does not mean inaccurate, illogical, optional or arbitrary. For example, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to eat a healthy diet. But the objective fact that a healthy diet is beneficial to the health of a human being does not magically create an objective ought. The ought is subjective, because it only exists from the perspective of a subject. If you remove the subject's viewpoint from the consideration, you're left with what *is* and no *ought*.
There are a few senses to 'ought' depending on the context.

If we are to view 'ought' as related to Hume's;
Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739):

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs;
when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
then I will agree with you that one cannot impose 'ought' from 'is' on any individual.

The point is one can impose oughts from one's inference's of 'is' from one's personal opinions or beliefs, there is no way that the other persons will comply if they do not agree; the exception is if there is coercion, threats of punishment or hellfire.

My view of 'ought' is different from the above.
The fact that a healthy diet is good for many or even all human beings does not change this. You can't create objective oughts on the basis of commonality or consensus, because this would mean that every individual exception -- even though it's subjectively perfectly sensible -- would be somehow objectively wrong. That's tyranny.
If you cannot see the sense of ought in relation to nutrition i.e. the imperative need for the essential macronutrients carbohydrates, proteins, fats, which is generic to human nature, then note
ALL humans 'ought to breathe' which can be inferred from empirical observations of human nature [is].
Surely this is an objective biological ought.
To not breathe, say suicide by asphyxiation is 'wrong' in accordance to human nature.
The idea of objective Morality is not trivial; if objective Morality exists, we then should adapt all our norms and laws to be in accord with it, because conforming to objective reality is what it means to be "right". Getting objective Morality wrong can lead to a lot of ugliness.
To discuss 'morality' one must first establish the precise definition of what is morality that is in alignment with human nature.

One of the critical element of morality is 'killing of another human', slavery and the likes.
Which country on Earth at present do not have laws that termed killing another human as murder? where the penalty is capital punishment as the most extreme, albeit with some exceptions.
However, note laws are not related to morality but rather politics and governance.

Regarding morality, the PRINCIPLE of the norm that is in alignment with human nature in inherent, i.e. "no human ought to kill another human", period.
But this inherent ought is not to be enforced on any individual but to act merely as a guide for the individual's moral progress.

I hypothesized this objective moral facts ""no human ought to kill another human" that is aligned with human nature is represented by physical neural correlates, neural algorithm, genes, DNA, & quarks which can be verified and justified scientifically and therefrom morally.
I think the main issue is that subjectivism and objectivism get confused a lot. Aesthetics for example are completely subjective, even though there are aesthetic principles and many commonalities in aesthetic intuitions. However, if I see something and find it ugly, while you see the same thing and find it beautiful, both of our subjective experiences are perfectly valid. That's what it means for something to be subjective.
Beauty in the common sense perspective is definitely subjective.
But if one were to look beyond the common sense view into the deeper philosophical perspective there is objectivity to beauty in term of its neural correlates in the brain that ALL humans are programmed with via evolution.
If on the other hand aesthetics were objective, then one of us would necessarily have to be wrong -- so our experience and personal evaluation of that object would become meaningless. Something external would instead determine the aesthetic value of an object. This is of course silly, because aesthetics as a whole is based on patterns and aggregates of subjective experiences. To therefore say that the concept of a combined average of experiences should override the individual experience is crazy.
As I stated there are two senses to aesthetics, i.e. the subjective and the objective.
One cannot simply conflate and equivocate this two different senses of aesthetics.

Great artists who understand the objectivity to aesthetics produce great arts because they align the production of their art to human nature that humans had evolved with.

Note the 'rule of thirds' in composition
Rule of Thirds in Photography: The Essential Guide
https://digital-photography-school.com/rule-of-thirds/
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 10:33 am My point:
There are objective moral facts based on the above new paradigm.
Give us a few examples. Concrete moral facts and how we can test to see if the are objectively the 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 »

Thank you for the detailed reply @Veritas Aequitas. Just to clarify, I believe Moral Sense Theory is a perfectly valid concept, and so are plenty aesthetical principles and theories. However, they're all 100% subjective (or rather inter-subjective), by definition.

I fully understand where you're coming from; I was under the same impression for a long time, and so are most other people. But it's a confusion of what the concepts "subjectivity" and "objectivity" entail.

It's not like I define these terms in an unusual way, quite the opposite:

- "objective" means "relating to external reality as it is"

- "subjective" means "relating to the perception of external reality (by subjects)"

I don't believe that these definitions are controversial, at all. However, the implications they entail are not widely understood.
For example, we understand objectively how humans taste. We understand how certain chemicals affect our taste buds and how this creates the sensation of particular flavors. We can examine a strawberry and determine objectively how much sugar it contains. We can even examine the taste buds of a person and predict how sweet they will perceive the strawberry to be. And yet, the perception of sweetness will be 100% subjective, because it only exists within the subjects sense-based experience.

Subjectivity is not superseded by objective understanding. Hence, it's not relevant how deeply we understand something; subjective perceptions will still remain subjective -- this can't be changed.

The distinction between objectivity and subjectivity is binary. You either refer to external reality as it is, or through the viewpoint of a subject.

As such, a concept that is based on subjective viewpoints is necessarily subjective. The idea of objective aesthetics is based on the fact that humans are biologically similar. Hence, there is bound to be a lot of overlap in regards to our sense of beauty (which has been shaped through our evolutionary development). However, this phenomenon is called inter-subjectivity. It describes patterns and similarities between the perceptions of multiple subjects. But this is entirely separate from objectivity. It's fallacious to conclude that something is objective because it's common to multiple subjects. This becomes more apparent if we switch contexts: for example, would you expect elephants to share our sense of aesthetics? Probably not -- to an elephant, having a trunk, tusks and big floppy ears might be the zenith of beauty. Not only that -- even highly abstract concepts such as the golden ratio, the rule of thirds and principles relating to color theory can change dramatically from species to species.

Now, my point isn't that there are exceptions to these rules. My point is that perception is inherently dependent upon the subject. Even though a perceived object exists in relation to itself, the perception of an object only exists in relation to a subject. So if you change the subject, the perception changes. If you remove the subject, the perception disappears completely. Any concept based on the perception of a subject is unavoidably subjective, so any attempt to construe it as objective is simply wrong.

I truly do understand where this confusion comes from; in order to understand the nature of an external entity objectively, a useful and intuitive method is to examine it from many different viewpoints. It is therefore easy to conclude that something which can be observed over and over again and even encapsulated in terms of a principle with clearly defined characteristics must therefore be objective. But in actuality, the fact that a subjective viewpoint is common and consistent is purely coincidental and has no bearing on its nature.

Oughts are entirely dependent upon a subjects viewpoint; hence, an ought is inherently subjective and there is no possible sense in which it could be objective. For example, let's imagine there's a man named John who happens to be diabetic. We are objectively certain that John needs insulin injections in order to survive -- this is an objective fact. Does this mean that there's therefore an objective ought to inject insulin? No, of course not -- the necessity to inject insulin only exists relative to the subject called "John" and his desire to live. It's therefore subjectively true that John *should* get insulin shots (but based on objective facts about his physiology and the effects of insulin). Jim, who does not suffer from diabetes, has no reason to inject insulin. If there was an objective ought to inject insulin, though, it would also apply to Jim, as the individual concerns of each subject would be irrelevant, since that's what it means for something to be "objective".

This is also what "objective" means in regards to Morality: if something is objectively moral, it means that it's moral regardless of any subjective considerations. Thus, things like mirror neurons and moral sense are completely irrelevant, as are the subjects personal values and preferences, as is human nature in general. Therefore, an entirely different approach is required to derive objective Morality.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 12:02 pm I proposed we can justify objective moral facts from Moral Sense Theory.
Why do you cling to the confusing term, "moral facts"? A fact is just a fact; it can be neither moral nor immoral. If you mean facts about morality, why not say that?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Sculptor »

If we all had exactly the same moral instincts about all the same people and types of people then we might be inclined to move to moral facts.

Sadly my instincts about you, do not match your instincts about me, so there is little or no prospect of doing that successfully.

Even if we did there would still be the tricky problem of moving from an is to an ought.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12240
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:43 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 12:02 pm I proposed we can justify objective moral facts from Moral Sense Theory.
Why do you cling to the confusing term, "moral facts"? A fact is just a fact; it can be neither moral nor immoral. If you mean facts about morality, why not say that?
Note the definition of what is fact?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
A fact is a datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance, which, if accepted as true and proven true, allows a logical conclusion to be reached on a true–false evaluation.
Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
If there are scientific facts why not moral facts?

Note:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

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

Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
The more precise of what is fact is this;

Whatever is a fact is conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR]. [all facts are subjected to the question of credibility]
What is a scientific fact is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
At present the scientific FKS is the most credible thus act as a standard for others.
You agree or disagree??
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12240
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:52 pm Thank you for the detailed reply @Veritas Aequitas. Just to clarify, I believe Moral Sense Theory is a perfectly valid concept, and so are plenty aesthetical principles and theories. However, they're all 100% subjective (or rather inter-subjective), by definition.
I agree it is all 100% subjective.
Even your - "objective" means "relating to external reality as it is" is subjective because it cannot exist by itself without being somewhat ultimately entangled with a subject.
I fully understand where you're coming from; I was under the same impression for a long time, and so are most other people. But it's a confusion of what the concepts "subjectivity" and "objectivity" entail.

It's not like I define these terms in an unusual way, quite the opposite:

- "objective" means "relating to external reality as it is"

- "subjective" means "relating to the perception of external reality (by subjects)"

I don't believe that these definitions are controversial, at all. However, the implications they entail are not widely understood.
I believe the default of the majority [which is common conventional sense] is
"objective" means "relating to external reality as it is"
This is where Philosophical Realism arose:
Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters. Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3] This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.
Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind ..
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Ever since philosophy emerged, the above is the view of the majority but was opposed by
ANTI-Philosophical_Realism of various sorts. [mine is Kantian Transcendental Idealism].

ANTI-Philosophical_Realism in my case define Objectivity is InterSubjectivity, i.e. intersubjective consensus.
Example: What is objective scientific facts are grounded upon the intersubjective consensus of scientific peers within the scientific Framework and System [FSK] which includes the Scientific Method and all other requirements.
There are no scientific facts in themselves other than scientific-fact-by-Scientific-FSK.

You cannot deny the existence of the US Dollar is an economic and financial fact and objective? which has a reasonable amount of credibility thus trustworthy. And this fact and objectivity is based on interSubjective consensus.

Even cryptocurrencies are objective and financial facts in a way with lower credibility due to its weaker FSK and lower intersubjective consensus.

The truth is there is no really-real independent objectivity external reality that is to be perceived by subjects. As such, there are no things in themselves existing independent of the subject in the ultimate sense.

What is subjective is related to be personal opinions and beliefs on the individuals without any verification and justification within a credible FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK being the most credible thus acting as the standard bearer.

Kant argued, to insist 'the perceived' of perception as really real is an illusion. This is merely reifying an illusion as real.
Other than speculating about it, there is no way of grasping what is really-real out there externally; so it is more effective to ignore chasing a never ending thing-in-itself. Instead it is more effective to focus on what is graspable, i.e. empirically.

Your points below are subject to the above philosophical views.
Your above is the common sense and conventional sense view which warrant deeper philosophical reflections to understand what reality really is.

For example, we understand objectively how humans taste. We understand how certain chemicals affect our taste buds and how this creates the sensation of particular flavors. We can examine a strawberry and determine objectively how much sugar it contains. We can even examine the taste buds of a person and predict how sweet they will perceive the strawberry to be. And yet, the perception of sweetness will be 100% subjective, because it only exists within the subjects sense-based experience.

Subjectivity is not superseded by objective understanding. Hence, it's not relevant how deeply we understand something; subjective perceptions will still remain subjective -- this can't be changed.

The distinction between objectivity and subjectivity is binary. You either refer to external reality as it is, or through the viewpoint of a subject.

As such, a concept that is based on subjective viewpoints is necessarily subjective. The idea of objective aesthetics is based on the fact that humans are biologically similar. Hence, there is bound to be a lot of overlap in regards to our sense of beauty (which has been shaped through our evolutionary development). However, this phenomenon is called inter-subjectivity. It describes patterns and similarities between the perceptions of multiple subjects. But this is entirely separate from objectivity. It's fallacious to conclude that something is objective because it's common to multiple subjects. This becomes more apparent if we switch contexts: for example, would you expect elephants to share our sense of aesthetics? Probably not -- to an elephant, having a trunk, tusks and big floppy ears might be the zenith of beauty. Not only that -- even highly abstract concepts such as the golden ratio, the rule of thirds and principles relating to color theory can change dramatically from species to species.

Now, my point isn't that there are exceptions to these rules. My point is that perception is inherently dependent upon the subject. Even though a perceived object exists in relation to itself, the perception of an object only exists in relation to a subject. So if you change the subject, the perception changes. If you remove the subject, the perception disappears completely. Any concept based on the perception of a subject is unavoidably subjective, so any attempt to construe it as objective is simply wrong.

I truly do understand where this confusion comes from; in order to understand the nature of an external entity objectively, a useful and intuitive method is to examine it from many different viewpoints. It is therefore easy to conclude that something which can be observed over and over again and even encapsulated in terms of a principle with clearly defined characteristics must therefore be objective. But in actuality, the fact that a subjective viewpoint is common and consistent is purely coincidental and has no bearing on its nature.

Oughts are entirely dependent upon a subjects viewpoint; hence, an ought is inherently subjective and there is no possible sense in which it could be objective. For example, let's imagine there's a man named John who happens to be diabetic. We are objectively certain that John needs insulin injections in order to survive -- this is an objective fact. Does this mean that there's therefore an objective ought to inject insulin? No, of course not -- the necessity to inject insulin only exists relative to the subject called "John" and his desire to live. It's therefore subjectively true that John *should* get insulin shots (but based on objective facts about his physiology and the effects of insulin). Jim, who does not suffer from diabetes, has no reason to inject insulin. If there was an objective ought to inject insulin, though, it would also apply to Jim, as the individual concerns of each subject would be irrelevant, since that's what it means for something to be "objective".

This is also what "objective" means in regards to Morality: if something is objectively moral, it means that it's moral regardless of any subjective considerations. Thus, things like mirror neurons and moral sense are completely irrelevant, as are the subjects personal values and preferences, as is human nature in general. Therefore, an entirely different approach is required to derive objective Morality.
Your above can be summarized as follow:

There are two senses of 'ought' to be considered;
  • 1. The typical ought arising from personal or unjustified group opinions and beliefs.

    2. The scientifically verifiable ought, e.g. potentials that is applicable to sentient Agents i.e. human subjects.
You are asserting that 1 i.e. subjects' opinions and beliefs cannot be fact, which I agree. As Hume had stated, such oughts are merely thoughts and ideas combined from expressions triggered from matter-of-facts, as such they are not facts.

What I am proposing the ought in the second sense are scientifically verifiable and justifiable oughtness inherently within all humans as human nature. These objective oughtness [2] are the matter-of-facts that trigger the subjective oughts [1] within individuals.

I defined a fact as, that which is conditioned upon a specific FSK.
The above ought in the 2nd sense is scientifically verifiable, thus a scientific fact [biological] and this is processed within a credible Moral FSK [subject to debate], thus an objective moral fact.

Since you are conditioned with dualism you believe the external thing is independent of you as as subject.

In my case, the supposedly external thing is entangled with the subject as emerged as one unified thing. Whilst the subject and object are independent within common sense, the subject and object is one thing as a higher sense.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 3:55 am
Harbal wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:43 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 30, 2022 12:02 pm I proposed we can justify objective moral facts from Moral Sense Theory.
Why do you cling to the confusing term, "moral facts"? A fact is just a fact; it can be neither moral nor immoral. If you mean facts about morality, why not say that?
Note the definition of what is fact?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
A fact is a datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance, which, if accepted as true and proven true, allows a logical conclusion to be reached on a true–false evaluation.
Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
If there are scientific facts why not moral facts?
A scientific fact is scientific, but a moral fact is not moral.
For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further, "
Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
Why not a sentence fact, a sun fact and an Abraham Linciln fact? Wouldn't that be more consistent with the method you used to arrive at "moral fact"?

Unless you are claiming that moral values can be factual, as in "it is a fact that murder is morally wrong", then I think the use of the term "moral fact" is misleading. It is almost as if you are doing it purposely to attract objections to it.
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 »

Thank you for the clarifications @Veritas Aequitas. I certainly understand where you are coming from, but the definition you use for the term "objective" is muddy and it leads to unnecessarily vague conclusions. It's also not very useful, because by your definition, there is no true objectivity, as such the best we can get is consensus based on inter-subjectivity, and so we just lazily call that objectivity... That's not how it works.

Here's the problem: Your definition of objectivity is linked to accuracy. You believe (and you're certainly not alone in this) that we can only know something objectively if we understand it truly accurately. But given how limiting our sense-experience is, it would be foolish to think that we can understand anything as it truly is. Therefore, the best we can do is come up with some form of inter-subjective agreement on the objective nature of a thing. This standard is then deemed sufficient to be called "objective". Because this standard is (philosophically) fairly low, it can also be applied to inherently subjective fields such as aesthetics and morality. As such, it makes perfect sense that there are moral facts.

However, this approach is essentially a *cheat*. In actuality, we can't magically go from inter-subjectivity to objectivity.

But the nice thing is that we don't have to. That's because objectivity is not linked to accuracy. To be objective simply means to state a concept which refers to an external object, absent of a subjective viewpoint.

So for example, if I say that the earth is a sphere, my statement is objective, because it refers to an object -- the earth -- as it is. But it's not entirely accurate, because the earth is not actually perfectly round. By measuring the shape of the earth, we can improve of our concept of its shape. So for example, if I say that the earth is an oblate ellipsoid, my statement is objectively more accurate than the previous one, because it describes the measured shape of the earth more accurately. However, both statements were already objective -- what changed was the accuracy, i.e. how well they map to observable, measurable reality.

Here's the kicker: if I were to say that the earth is flat, this statement would still be objective. Now, it does not map well to observable reality, so it's inaccurate to such a degree that we can consider it straight-out false. But it's perfectly objective nonetheless.

So that's what it means for something to be objective. It's not hard to derive at all. The challenge lies in comparing objective concepts to reality and determining their accuracy. But conceiving of objective concepts is completely trivial.

Subjective concepts are an entirely different beast. For example, if I say that the shape of the earth is pleasing, this would not refer to the actual shape of the earth, but rather my perception of it. So how do you know whether my statement is "accurate"? Well, you examine me. That's to say, you examine my biology, my neurology, my history, etc. in an attempt to determine if I actually am experiencing pleasure by contemplating the shape of the earth. In other words, you reference the subject, not the object.

This is all there is to it -- objective is that which references the object, subjective is that which references the subject (the observer). That's why it simply does not matter how many subjects you measure and how accurately you do it. You'll never, ever get an "object" out of it.

To briefly touch upon an example you made regarding (crypto) currencies: our inter-subjective evaluation of a currency is exactly that: inter-subjective. That's why the value of a currency constantly fluctuates, as it's dependent upon our collective subjective value of it. If Elon Musk tweets about Doge Coin, he manipulates the people's perception of that particular currency (he in no way changes the protocol of that crypto currency itself!).

The problem with attempting to re-brand inter-subjectivity with objectivity is that you all of a sudden don't know what to call that which is actually objective. In the case of crypto currencies, they're based upon a software protocol distributed among millions of hardware devices. These are actual objects. If our evaluation of a currency itself is already objective, then is the actual software and hardware it's built upon "merely" objective also? So there is no distinction between the collective evaluation of a thing and the thing itself?

So hopefully you see that this approach just isn't very useful. It's confusing because it's based on an unnecessary miscategorization. As such it leads to the idea that there are moral (and aesthetical) objective facts, when all it really refers to are inter-subjective patterns and overlaps, based on similarities in biology and such.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12240
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 10:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 3:55 am
Harbal wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:43 pm

Why do you cling to the confusing term, "moral facts"? A fact is just a fact; it can be neither moral nor immoral. If you mean facts about morality, why not say that?
Note the definition of what is fact?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
A fact is a datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance, which, if accepted as true and proven true, allows a logical conclusion to be reached on a true–false evaluation.
Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
If there are scientific facts why not moral facts?
A scientific fact is scientific, but a moral fact is not moral.
For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further, "
Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
Why not a sentence fact, a sun fact and an Abraham Linciln fact? Wouldn't that be more consistent with the method you used to arrive at "moral fact"?

Unless you are claiming that moral values can be factual, as in "it is a fact that murder is morally wrong", then I think the use of the term "moral fact" is misleading. It is almost as if you are doing it purposely to attract objections to it.
"A scientific fact is scientific" is meaningless, thus I have never claimed a moral fact must be moral.

I have been writing,

What is fact is conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR].
A scientific fact is conditioned upon the scientific FSK which require the compliance to the requirements of its Scientific Method, assumptions, limitations, peer reviews, and sufficient consensus.

A moral fact is conditioned upon a credible moral FSK with its methodology, philosophical principles, assumptions, limitations, peer review and sufficient consensus.
The requirement is a moral fact must first be a scientific fact [within the scientific FSK] before it is to be confirmed as a moral fact within the moral FSK.

A belief or opinion that 'murder is morally wrong' expressed by individuals or groups without any empirical verification and justification within a scientific FSK then a moral FSK is not a moral fact.
What is the moral fact is that 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' that is physically represented in the brain and body of the individual is the moral fact as conditioned to a moral FSK.

Thus, an astronomical fact must be grounded upon the astronomy FSK.
It was a fact Pluto was a Planet, then, it is a fact Pluto is a dwarf planet as conditioned via the astronomy FSK dominated by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) with its Constitutions and Methodology.
Pluto was discovered in 1930, the first object in the Kuiper belt. It was immediately hailed as the ninth planet, but its planetary status was questioned when it was found to be much smaller than expected.
These doubts increased following the discovery of additional objects in the Kuiper belt starting in the 1990s, and particularly the more massive scattered disk object Eris in 2005.

In 2006 the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
Many planetary astronomers, however, continue to consider Pluto and other dwarf planets to be planets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
Do you deny the fact that Binden is the 46th President of the USA?
It is a political fact that is conditioned by the political FSK or FSR grounded on the US Constitution. It has to be a political and legal fact to all US Citizens regardless of their objections.
However many not obligated to the US Constitution do not accept the above political fact.
Post Reply