Doctor: Your test results arrived. Looks like you have cancer. We ought to treat it.
Got any harder "challenges" ?
What a amusing thing to claim on Juneteenth Day!!Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:17 amIdiot. The value-system is an objective, historical fact. The moral code is an objective, historical fact.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:02 am Once again what you are failing to consider is the value system which you inevitably have to insert BETWEEN the evidence and the moral code; the opinion with which you decide the OUGHT based on the the IS.
Until you are honest about your values and you opinions everything you do is rubbish.
This is basically what everyone is telling you.
Your failure to acknowledge your values and your opinion is not NORMAL.
You are failing to use the most basic cognitive faculty.
Key word WAS.Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:37 am What a amusing thing to claim on Juneteenth Day!!
Yes, historically slavery was "objectively" right. And seen as the moral duty of all Greeks to enslave Barbarians.
That particular "value" stopped being so Objectively true in 1807, when the trade was made illegal on the high seas by the British Empire.
LOLSkepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:38 amKey word WAS.Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:37 am What a amusing thing to claim on Juneteenth Day!!
Yes, historically slavery was "objectively" right. And seen as the moral duty of all Greeks to enslave Barbarians.
That particular "value" stopped being so Objectively true in 1807, when the trade was made illegal on the high seas by the British Empire.
And then it all changed. Somehow.
It may have already been pointed out, but in most cases, facts are subject to change. In relation to Framework and System of Knowledge facts change as more knowledge is acquired.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:43 am
From the above it is obvious 'what is fact' is relative to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
Note in the case, facts of history are facts nevertheless but they are very subjective and depend on intersubjective consensus.
If such is the case, why is the dispute and rejection of moral facts which are more soundly justified than historical facts?
Thus;
From the above who would still insist there are not moral facts which are justified and derived from a specific Framework and System of Morality
- P1 'What is fact' is relative to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
P2 Morality is managed via a specific Framework and System of Morality
C1 Therefore Moral facts exists as justified and derived from a specific Framework and System of Morality
Everyone in this Forum??Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:33 amSculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:02 am This is basically what everyone is telling you.
Your failure to acknowledge your values and your opinion is not NORMAL.
You are failing to use the most basic cognitive faculty.
When the rest of the world is telling you that you are wrong maybe its time to stop talking and start listening.Tut tut - megalomania too??
No, idiot everyone on the Forum. You think too much of yourself - which is perhaps part of the problem.
I have done this many times.Please prove a SINGLE "OUGHT from an empirical "IS" without an opinion. Go on I challenge you.
Yes, facts are never absolute nor 100% certain, thus will change as many have been changed or even rejected.VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 11:31 pmIt may have already been pointed out, but in most cases, facts are subject to change. In relation to Framework and System of Knowledge facts change as more knowledge is acquired.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:43 am
From the above it is obvious 'what is fact' is relative to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
Note in the case, facts of history are facts nevertheless but they are very subjective and depend on intersubjective consensus.
If such is the case, why is the dispute and rejection of moral facts which are more soundly justified than historical facts?
Thus;
From the above who would still insist there are not moral facts which are justified and derived from a specific Framework and System of Morality
- P1 'What is fact' is relative to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
P2 Morality is managed via a specific Framework and System of Morality
C1 Therefore Moral facts exists as justified and derived from a specific Framework and System of Morality
If there is a Framework and System of Morality it is therefore a subset of the Framework and System of Knowledge as it too gets information and from that, knowledge.
And obviously morality [re Framework and System of Morality] is subject to change, as historical facts verify.
( What are the [other] facts about morality?)
Facts are like lose stones in the river of human experience [data].
All morality is justified, even if some morality contradicts other morality.
It appears to be factual that morality can be contradictory.
In the case of many types of fact, it is prudent to understand that facts on their own are subject to misinterpretation, which renders such facts as more non factual when viewed/used as such...hence the phrase "Let the facts speak for themselves" - Since they can't, then be aware [beware] of simply using ones inner voice or relying on eternal voices to 'fill in the gaps' for you...if one wants to get it right steer a course away from misinterpretation.
This is not to say one shouldn't develop their own interpretations or not listen to other interpretations. This is to say "avoid bandwagons or use of off-handed/hand waving rejections. "
Remain Agnostic in relation to facts.
Belief is a fickle thing too and can change...I would agree that it would take a 'hurricane' to change those ones mentioned above.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 4:38 amYes, facts are never absolute nor 100% certain, thus will change as many have been changed or even rejected.VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 11:31 pmIt may have already been pointed out, but in most cases, facts are subject to change. In relation to Framework and System of Knowledge facts change as more knowledge is acquired.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:43 am
From the above it is obvious 'what is fact' is relative to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
Note in the case, facts of history are facts nevertheless but they are very subjective and depend on intersubjective consensus.
If such is the case, why is the dispute and rejection of moral facts which are more soundly justified than historical facts?
Thus;
From the above who would still insist there are not moral facts which are justified and derived from a specific Framework and System of Morality
- P1 'What is fact' is relative to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
P2 Morality is managed via a specific Framework and System of Morality
C1 Therefore Moral facts exists as justified and derived from a specific Framework and System of Morality
If there is a Framework and System of Morality it is therefore a subset of the Framework and System of Knowledge as it too gets information and from that, knowledge.
And obviously morality [re Framework and System of Morality] is subject to change, as historical facts verify.
( What are the [other] facts about morality?)
Facts are like lose stones in the river of human experience [data].
All morality is justified, even if some morality contradicts other morality.
It appears to be factual that morality can be contradictory.
In the case of many types of fact, it is prudent to understand that facts on their own are subject to misinterpretation, which renders such facts as more non factual when viewed/used as such...hence the phrase "Let the facts speak for themselves" - Since they can't, then be aware [beware] of simply using ones inner voice or relying on eternal voices to 'fill in the gaps' for you...if one wants to get it right steer a course away from misinterpretation.
This is not to say one shouldn't develop their own interpretations or not listen to other interpretations. This is to say "avoid bandwagons or use of off-handed/hand waving rejections. "
Remain Agnostic in relation to facts.
But some facts are more steady and resistant to change than others depending on its nature and the methods of justifications.
While some facts will change, I don't believe the ones below will change [albeit not 100% but 99.9% certainty].
- Facts from the Scientific Framework and System
1. All humans breathe - empirical fact
2. All human ought to breathe else they will die - empirical biological fact.
Applying the Principles of Universality and others;
3. No human ought to stop another from breathing till they die - moral fact.
1. Dead humans do not breathe.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 4:26 am
A. From common sense and the Scientific Framework and System;
The above ought is not an opinion[as defined] but an obvious fact independent of anyone's opinions and beliefs.
- 1. All humans breathe - empirical fact
2. All human ought to breathe else they will die - empirical biological fact.
Is a body of a human a human?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 12:31 pm1. Dead humans do not breathe.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 4:26 am
A. From common sense and the Scientific Framework and System;
The above ought is not an opinion[as defined] but an obvious fact independent of anyone's opinions and beliefs.
- 1. All humans breathe - empirical fact
2. All human ought to breathe else they will die - empirical biological fact.
The irony of suicide is that one will be reborn with less knowledge...yet again.
MOST OF THEM appear to be unworthy of life from a certain POV.
All humans eat - empirical fact!!!!Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 12:31 pm1. Dead humans do not breathe.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 4:26 am
A. From common sense and the Scientific Framework and System;
The above ought is not an opinion[as defined] but an obvious fact independent of anyone's opinions and beliefs.
- 1. All humans breathe - empirical fact
2. All human ought to breathe else they will die - empirical biological fact.
2. Some humans want to die.
3. Thus some humans should stop breathing.
FACT
So you agree 'OUGHT' can be derived from 'IS' as your argument above proved.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 12:31 pm1. Dead humans do not breathe.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 4:26 am
A. From common sense and the Scientific Framework and System;
The above ought is not an opinion[as defined] but an obvious fact independent of anyone's opinions and beliefs.
- 1. All humans breathe - empirical fact
2. All human ought to breathe else they will die - empirical biological fact.
2. Some humans want to die.
3. Thus some humans should [ought to] stop breathing.
FACT
I agree, note,VVilliam wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 5:33 amBelief is a fickle thing too and can change...I would agree that it would take a 'hurricane' to change those ones mentioned above.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 4:38 am Yes, facts are never absolute nor 100% certain, thus will change as many have been changed or even rejected.
But some facts are more steady and resistant to change than others depending on its nature and the methods of justifications.
While some facts will change, I don't believe the ones below will change [albeit not 100% but 99.9% certainty].
- Facts from the Scientific Framework and System
1. All humans breathe - empirical fact
2. All human ought to breathe else they will die - empirical biological fact.
Applying the Principles of Universality and others;
3. No human ought to stop another from breathing till they die - moral fact.
1: as a fact is not in itself an unchangeable fact as nature has a way of exterminating whole species. That is a fact.
Why no 'ought' about it??2: All humans have to breath. I see no 'ought' about it. Ought implies choice. "All humans have no choice but to breath, else they will die. 2 therefore has to change.
Moral fact 3 has nothing to do with politics.3. Unless the law say's otherwise. [Political fact] 3 might not be subject to change as a moral statement, but in that, there are other factors involved which do bring changes to it's overall sentiment...add to the statement 'unless'[followed by stipulations] and the statement changes, as it should really.
As a moral statement it has no firm roots in the fact of wider facts pertaining to it. It [3] is not a great statement of fact....
A fact never changes. If what is thought to be a, "fact," changes, it was never a fact.