Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

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

surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

Post by surreptitious57 »

Skepdick wrote:
Using the word better contradicts absolute relativism
There is where there is universal agreement that A is better than B but nowhere else
But I dont actually think there is only absolute relativism or only absolute objectivity
They co exist on a spectrum where some things are relative and some things are objective
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

Post by surreptitious57 »

Skepdick wrote:
Weak evidence is better than no evidence
Long as the degree of weakness or strength is directly proportional to how true a particular hypothesis with said evidence is taken to be
And so the weaker the evidence the less true the hypothesis may be and the stronger the evidence the more true the hypothesis may be
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

Post by surreptitious57 »

Skepdick wrote:
Somehow you get by doing the impossible every day of your life
Were it actually impossible then it would not be at all doable
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4618
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:30 am
Skepdick wrote:
I have name for it Objective morality

If you disagree you are welcome to present your arguments / reasons for why steering the Titanic towards an iceberg is
better than steering it away
How would you apply the principle of objective morality to an issue that is not as black and white as your specific example ?
Or do you think that every single moral choice has a definitive answer to it and so therefore can be universally agreed upon ?
As I had pointed out to Peter in the other thread and raising a thread to explain the potential confusion,
the term 'moral objective' can be confusing;

What could make morality objective? 2
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29390

First one need to define 'what is morality' else we will be talking pass each other.
Fundamentally morality is not about making moral choices - which is an impossibility to make a moral decision on every actions we intend to act or act spontaneously.

Second we need to differentiate between;
1. Absolutely-absolute objective moral facts - God's moral commands.
2. Relative objective moral facts - empirically justified moral facts.

Morality is dealt within a Framework and System of Morality, where the relative objective moral facts act a moral GUIDE-only to improve on the moral competence of the individual.

One of the most critical relative objective moral facts, maxim, law, principle or standard is;
"No human ought to kill others humans" period!

Thus to deliberately steer the titanic [or similar ship] directly into an iceberg would contravene the above moral maxim/standard.

Since the maxim is not supposed to be enforceable but merely a Guide only, there is no moral crime involved, except the defendant will have to face the political law of the land which is not morality but politics.

The contravention of the above maxim generate a moral variance.
Moral and Ethics wise, the next action is to ensure there is no such moral variance in the future via improving the moral competence of the individuals such that they act spontaneously in alignment with the inherent moral fact or maxim.

Since there is no moral choice involved, there is no special attention to give to cases which is grey and not black or white.
The strategy is, if there is a moral variance, take steps to prevent the moral variance.

You will note, the above proposals will not work immediately due to the existing psychological state of the majority. If we start the process now, progressively results will only appear in say 50, 75 or >100 years given resistance to change is a default.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

Post by surreptitious57 »

Skepdick wrote:
please start by elucidating how a relativist might even assert betterness and worseness in a relativistic framework . Relative to what fixed point ?
Why does it always have to be a fixed point ? Is this the only way that relativism can actually be measured ?
Now it would be more practical if all points were fixed but it can still be determined from non fixed ones too

This is not an exact science that we are dealing with here
Because it is messy and fuzzy with many shades of grey
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
the above proposals will not work immediately due to the existing psychological state of the majority
Human beings are gradually becoming more moral over time but we will never become morally perfect beings
This is because we will always be morally imperfect as we have free will so can choose between good and bad
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Since the maxim is not supposed to be enforceable but merely a Guide only there is no moral crime involved except the defendant will
have to face the political law of the land which is not morality but politics
This is not true because law is the codification of morality so is made by the Legislator who are our politically elected representatives
They determine what becomes law based upon their own individual moral code and so morality and politics are very connected indeed
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4618
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:11 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
the above proposals will not work immediately due to the existing psychological state of the majority
Human beings are gradually becoming more moral over time but we will never become morally perfect beings
This is because we will always be morally imperfect as we have free will so can choose between good and bad
The moral progress is obvious if you look at the moral trends since 200,000 years ago to the present.
This moral progress is supported by the unfoldment of the inherent moral potential [DNA/RNA] within each human being.

I believe the moral competence of the individual is independent of his Free Will because the moral potential will unfold greater spontaneity of actions which are aligned with the inherent moral facts.
You will when people do what is genuinely good, they just do it spontaneously without even knowing why they have done that.
A moral fake can pretend to do what is defined as good and give the impression s/he is a good person.

Perfection is merely an idea but an impossibility within the empirical and moral world, thus humans will never be morally perfect beings.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4618
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:18 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Since the maxim is not supposed to be enforceable but merely a Guide only there is no moral crime involved except the defendant will
have to face the political law of the land which is not morality but politics
This is not true because law is the codification of morality so is made by the Legislator who are our politically elected representatives
They determine what becomes law based upon their own individual moral code and so morality and politics are very connected indeed
In the legal and courts, the defendant and prosecutor rely-on/borrow scientific facts and knowledge.

It is the same with politics and the legislature which borrow from the moral impulses of human nature to establish laws.
Politics, so is theology, are fundamentally independent of morality.

Morality-proper is something very new to humanity along the evolutionary timeline.
However with the advent and the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, there is now an increasing trend of knowledge of what is morality proper in relation to evolution, DNA/RNA, neural connectivity and so on.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
In the legal and courts the defendant and prosecutor rely on / borrow scientific facts and knowledge
The innocence or guilt of a defendant may be determined by scientific facts such as DNA evidence for example
But if the defendant is found guilty then they will be sentenced by the judge according to what the law says
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Perfection is merely an idea but an impossibility within the empirical and moral world thus humans will never be morally perfect beings
No we wont but we can still strive to be less morally imperfect and so use unattainable perfection as an incentive to achieve this
It is an eternal work in progress that occurs over the lifetime of human beings of sound mind to try and become the best they can
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2465
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:32 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:20 am
Your counter is short-sighted.

If you have done Economic 101, you will understand whatever is of market value is imbued with an element of sentiment in relation to the object. The most obvious the Share Price of Shares in the Stock Market.
You cannot deny there are economic facts which are imbued with elements of sentiments.
You aren't equipped to argue economics with me, I say that as just friendly advice. You are talking about the intangible component of a utility function and desire for the object itself resulting from sentiment is only one factor informing prices, along with others such as expectations (what have other people been paying for this item) and scarcity, as well as other motivations aside from admiration such as need. Prices are signals only of what a market has paid for a given commodity recently and where sellers and buyers believe those prices are heading. That's something else you would learn in econ 101.

But of course you know that, which is why you chose the words "imbued with an element of". If beer is imbued with an element of alcohol, I don't pretend I am measuring its alcohol content by just just pouring the beer into a measuring jug and announcing "1 pint of alcohol". If I need to know what the alcohol content of the beer is, I need to find out what percentage of the total beer the aclohol represents. You can't do that ion your example, so you aren't measuring the thing you are pretending to. and you know this too, you are making a clumsy attempt to hoodwink me, but that only exposes the fact that you know you need to mislead me.

Your whole schema here is much like a price tag applied to an item on a supermarket chelf I guess. Not any indication of the intangible value of anything itself, but just a blunt measure of how the item is currently trending. An easy mistake to make, but still a mistake.
I am not an expert in the full range Economics, but I understand Economics 101 and the generic principles of how human nature supervenes on whatever the economic theories.

Note the contention here is;
You insist fact is fact -from the Philosophical Realist position
I insist value-of-fact is fact.
No I don't, I insist fact is fact from a common language position. Realism/antirealism is a nonsensical sideboob issue with one camp arguing that reality is real-real-reality and the other that it is not-real-but-feels-reality. Both are descriptions of a world which will behave in exactly the way the world does behave, making them irrelevant to all matters and doubly so to this one where they wouldn't matter even if they predicted different worlds.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:32 am I have argued,

Price [value] is an economic fact
Elements of price = the object + sentiment or even pure sentiment.
Therefore economic fact is comprised of the element of sentiment [feelings, sensations].
Again, this is your usual clumsiness in action. You are trying to hide the fact that sentiment is merely an element of the price, and you aren't doing it well.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:32 am An economic fact is a fact
Therefore there are facts that comprised of the element of sentiment [feelings, sensations].
Your argument fact is confined only to fact-of-matter is false.
Let's do a story shall we?
Geoff goes into a shop and buys a new couch for $1000.
That price is an economic fact. At this point you now assume that Geoff values the couch at $1000 worth of sentiment.
but actually Geoff is buying the couch because his wife made him, and to get the $1000 dollars, Geoff worked double shifts for a week in his horrible job.
So what Geoff traded was also time and unhappiness, poorly measured by the $1000 which of course was a value placed on his time and unhappiness by the person who paid him for that time and unhappiness.
but the guy who employed Geoff to purchase his unhappiness wasn't really valuing that unhappiness at $1000, he was valuing something Geoff does at work.
and Geoff isn't actually valuing to couch at $1000, he is valuing his wife.
Oh, but what about his wife is he valuing. Is it her happiness, or is it her silence?
ctually it's neither, you see Geoff is a bad man who cheated on his wife, and the reason he has to buy a new couch is that he banged the babysitter on the other couch, so his wife is making him replace it or she will divorce him (according to complex reasons of her own which are hard to express in dollar terms).
So what Geoff values at $1000 is "not getting divorced". And hey' he got that rather cheaply, so perhaps that's what we are saying is science of fact wroth $1000?

But we don't know what else he would have paid do we? We only knwo what Geoff got charged in a single transaction. He would have been prepared to buy something much more expensive to not get divorced, so we don't have any information on the cash value of keeping his family, only that it is > $1000.

Seriously I can do this all day. The second you actually think about it at all, you reaslise the absurdity of linking a market transaction directly onto an emotion. I can't understand why you need help to undertand this shit.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:20 am
What original object is a measurable type?
There is no such thing.
Everything regardless it is physical or mental is measurable as long as there is a recognized Framework of Measurement that has intersubjective consensus.
Tell me exactly who is precisely the happiest man in the world today. Now tell me how you measured his exact happiness, and tell is what the current world record for happiness is. Design a machine to measure it.

I think Vermeer's The Milkmaid is the greatest work of art ever, something about it's use of negative space really sparks my joy. My friend is convinced that the cubist masterpiece Guernica surpasses it though. Another friend thinks we are both nuts, ant that The Thieving Magpie Overture by Rossini far surpasses any painting. You can now use your science to prove which of us is right.

You haven't even attempted to cover an interesting topic with your stylings, it's all just "is murder wrong?". If you could do something interesting like examine the role of morality adjacent intangibles such as honour or piety in ethics you wouldn't be stuck doing such banal crap so don't get ahead of yourself.
I have asserted and demonstrated in the other thread,
Whatever conclusions drawn from a recognized framework of knowledge/claims are facts.
The veracity of such facts range from .01% to 99.99%.
The demonstration failed. You should be able to tell really that such assertions are by nature undemonstrable anyway. You keep trying to just make up percentages and pretend they measure an actual probability. It's making me feel bad for you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:32 am That is how the Art [painting] community works based on the Framework and System of Art Paintings where the facts of prices/values for paintings are established, negotiated and traded with the respective currency.

Vermeer's The Milkmaid is not valued perhaps it is priceless.
That it is priceless is still a fact, i.e. it is a fact Vermeer's The Milkmaid is priceless.

Whenever a price is given for any painting or traded, that is an established fact within the art world. And this fact is imbued with elements of sentiments.
There you go again: "imbued with elements". I mean the art world is also notorious for money laundering, which has a huge influence on prices, so how are you distilling your element from the others? How can you pretend to seperately measuring a thing that you unable to separate from all the other things it is mixed with?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:32 am To measure who is the happiest man in the world or within any specific groups of people, what we need is to establish a Framework and System of Measuring Happiness. In this case the criteria of assessment will have to be developed and carefully weighted based on consensus.
In this case we can find out who is the happiest man in the world [on assumption we can survey every man on Earth] or within a Nation, state or a selected group.
The result will be a fact but must be qualified to the conditions of that specific Framework and System of Measuring Happiness.
To be clear, you are defintely asserting that you will measure happiness by measuring something else entirely, and then calling it happiness. Just as fake as all your probabilities.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:32 am Note this attempt to measure happiness which can only be relative but never absolutely-absolute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness
"Gross National Happiness (also known by the acronym: GNH) is a philosophy that guides the government of Bhutan. It includes an index which is used to measure the collective happiness and well-being of a population."
Indeed. Now take a look at how they arrive at their calulations. It's a textbook example of taking data that is available and extrapolating from that to an intangible.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:32 am There is no way we can measure an absolutely-absolute state of happiness. 'What is happiness' is always relative to various conditions or defined conditions.
Are you happy right now? Would you be happier or less happy if I just died right now? There's a thing that it means to "be happy", there just isn't any way to measure it, nor any meaning in the attempt to quantify such a state of being. You understand that, you just don't like it, it makes you unhappy in some way.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:32 am Don't be too arrogant, there is also no absolute-absolute fact justified from empirical evidence which the best Framework and System is Science. At the reservation is scientific knowledge are at best polished conjectures [Popper].
Empirical evidence is your problem. The artfulness of a painting isn't an empirical fact. I don't need a scientific basis for my assessment of any painting because I don't claim my opinion the matter to be an empirical fact of the painting's quality at all.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:32 am Therefore you do not have any solid grounds or authority to judge what is claim as fact is not up to your standard.
What is critical is for one to provide the relevant justifications and the defined Framework and System of Knowledge to provide the qualified contexts and grounds.
Because the artfulness of the paining is not an empirical question, there is no valid factual claim to be made about that at all. You can make any number of claims you want to about how many people have how many opinions on the quality of a painting, and none of it amounts to empirical evidence about the artfulness of the pianting because there is no such thing as empirical artfulness. Thus there can be no relevant justifications for them, because relevance is impossible. And thus there can be no Framework of Knowledge because Knowledge is impossible.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:20 am You think 'the table you are writing on is measurable' with absoluteness?
Note Russell's doubt 'Perhaps there is no real table at all' when deliberated with the most refined philosophical reflection.
As such, measuring a table in this case is measuring an illusory object.
Ugh, you and your antirealism. The point of debating that endlessly is that the world as we experience it isn't any different either way. Otherwise there would be a way of testing the question. Try to think through the implication that has for any argument you try to shore up with your antirealism stylings and you might get a hint as to why I always ignore them. A question that you would have learned to ask in Philosophy 101 is "what rests on this?" and the answer for you here is "nothing, nothing at all, so quit trying to rescue bad little arguments by with superscope issues"
This is critical!
As stated above, what grounds and authority do YOU have to judge others are wrong when your grounds are so flimsy.
All you do is "Ugh, you and your antirealism".
Show me your justifications to claim your grounds are solid?
The world of experience wouldn't be different either way though would it? The world we participate in and belong to is eaxctly whatever it is, and realism and antirealism are just two ways of conceptualising it. That's it, that's all it takes to move on from this diversionary tactic of yours. There is simply nothing that depends on the outcome of the reaslism debate. The act of measuring that table would still eacheive exactly what it does in either case.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:20 am
Whatever your views, there is the fact is, Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019. This is an undisputable fact at present.
Value arise from evaluations, in this case, there is evaluation by the judges.
Thus the value-of-fact is a fact-of-value which fundamentally a fact.
So what? That is a fact about an opinion survey. It doesn't tell us anything about what it is that makes a person beautiful, nor anything else from which to extrapolate any information about beauty. You can collect data about all the Miss World winners there have ever been and decide what height is best for winning a beauty pageant, but why use Miss World as your data source for this sort of thing instead of Pornhub, which must collect vastly more information? If Miss World asserts that the most beuatiful women in the world are 5feet and nine inches tall, but Pornhub says they are 3 inches shorter than that, which gave you your fact about what beauty is?
So what??
A fact-of-opinion is still a fact relative to the Miss World Organization and the criteria established by that organization in arriving at that fact.
Regardless of what you think, there is consensus 'Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019' is a fact [albeit qualified].
This fact is recognized by many to the extend she is invited by various organizations and paid for her attendance.[/quote]
Yes, so what?
A fact-of-opinion is just a fact about opinion. It does nothing to answer my question to just tell me the same thing again.
Pornhub has more data on the subject of beauty than Miss World could possibly assemble, so if their data suggests different standards it must be them that are right and Miss World should be shut down as a fraudulent entity.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:20 am
Whatever it is, they are recognize as historical facts, i.e. facts except in this case, they must be taken with the recognized reservations but the majority will not do that.
Mutually exclusive facts. Which is something you really should have adressed already.

If one historian asserts that Rome fell when Odoacer didn't declare himself emporer, styling himself high king of Italy because the traditions of his tribal group were important to maintain than those of the empire he had conquered. To answer the question why did Rome fall, he answers barbarian invasion.

Another says that Rome fell a century before that, when the first provincial governor realised he no longer had to send tax revenues back to Rome and used the money to establish himself as a local king. His given asnwer for the cause of Rome's fall is disintegration.

A third blames the unequal split between East and West, as well as the establishment of Christianity resulting in 4 major power bases and revenue collecting points where there had been only one. A fourth tells us that climate change driven disease and famine broke the empire...

These are interpretations, not facts, informed by historiography - which is basically the stories historians tell to paint a picture of how and why stuff may have worked. If you downgrade your science to that level we will have to take your facts and downgrade those to interpretations too.
The Framework and System of History produces facts but such fact vary from 1% veracity to 99.99% veracity.
Whichever fact is disputed, those in the know will rate its veracity on the lower side.

But the point is whatever historical fact is accepted at 99.99% there is no certainty it will represent the true state-of-affairs of some past reality. In any case, there is no absolutely-absolute state-of-affairs of reality, whatever the result, it is still relative.
Ok, so just for clairty, if two competing facts each assert the other is untrue, they are both true, just not entirely true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:20 am My purpose is to promote morality-proper for the well being of humanity.
To be effective we need to establish a model, i.e. a Framework and System [F&S] of Morality and Ethics based on empirical evidence of human nature supported by philosophical reasoning.
You are attempting an impossible task. "Empirical evidence of human nature" can only yield behavioural information, but you keep trying to assert that your information goes deeper than that. You have a total mismatch between input and output and you will have to pick one. Either become a behaviourist and get it over with, or keep falling between two stools.
You are too shallow and narrow in this case.

Here is why my information goes deeper than what is known at present.
Information that "goes deeper than what is known" is called specualtion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:32 am "Empirical evidence of human nature" since the beginning [200,000 years ago] has progressed the current state of the knowledge of the full human genome [which was once thought impossible] and we are now progressing with the Human Connectome,
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
i.e. the full wirings of the human neurons and their effects [which as usual some pessimists claim is impossible].

I believe in the future, humanity will be able to pinpoint the neural connectivity that represent the inherent moral algorithm in the brain and be able to expedite its function of morality progressively.
That's a belief. Stop pretending it's a fact until it becomes one.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:32 am By then, what you claim exclusively as a matter-of-fact will be a matter-of-fart.
Top bants.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4618
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:29 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Perfection is merely an idea but an impossibility within the empirical and moral world thus humans will never be morally perfect beings
No we wont but we can still strive to be less morally imperfect and so use unattainable perfection as an incentive to achieve this
It is an eternal work in progress that occurs over the lifetime of human beings of sound mind to try and become the best they can
I agree with the above.
I have been sounding that all along.

First we justify perfection i.e. rounded with philosophical reasoning, i.e. the moral fact,
'No human ought to kill another human" period is a statement of perfection.

Being humans that is fallible, the above is not achievable in practice.
Thus the strategy is to strive to as close as possible to the impossible to achieve perfection.
Atla
Posts: 2960
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:13 am
surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:29 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Perfection is merely an idea but an impossibility within the empirical and moral world thus humans will never be morally perfect beings
No we wont but we can still strive to be less morally imperfect and so use unattainable perfection as an incentive to achieve this
It is an eternal work in progress that occurs over the lifetime of human beings of sound mind to try and become the best they can
I agree with the above.
I have been sounding that all along.

First we justify perfection i.e. rounded with philosophical reasoning, i.e. the moral fact,
'No human ought to kill another human" period is a statement of perfection.

Being humans that is fallible, the above is not achievable in practice.
Thus the strategy is to strive to as close as possible to the impossible to achieve perfection.
Were you better at English, you would know that anyone remotely sane already agrees with this (except it's not really called a fact).

Which brings up the question, is "thou shalt not kill" a novel insight where you live?
Skepdick
Posts: 5019
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Fact is not Value but Value-of-Fact is Fact.

Post by Skepdick »

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:30 am How would you apply the principle of objective morality to an issue that is not as black and white as your specific example ?
Or do you think that every single moral choice has a definitive answer to it and so therefore can be universally agreed upon ?
I am not sure I even understand your question.

Every single moral issue has an "agreeable" outcome.
Or rather every conflict has a mode of resolution even if the resolution requires war
A war was required to abolish slavery in America.

But war is an extreme option, before people resort to war there's a long list of other options...

Agreement/cooperation is one way.
Debate/argument is another.
Negotiation/compromise.
Democratic elections.
Intimidation/bluffing.
Violence/terrorism.

Taking all of the above "horrendous human behaviour" into account (which I simply observe as a fact of human social dynamics), I simply ask the question "Is society in today better than society 10000 years ago?"

If you are a honest relativist you will tell me there has been zero improvement in the 10000 years of human history.

If you can determine that society is "better" - then morality is objective.

Humans generally prefer non-violent conflict resolutions to violent ones. The exceptions to the rule don't make the general statement false.
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:41 am, edited 5 times in total.
Post Reply