Is morality objective or subjective?

[surreptitious57]

I am not entirely clear whether you are claiming that a fact has to be objectively true or is taken to be objectively true

What would be the status of the hypothesis all swans are white assuming it was taken to be objectively true prior to the discovery of a black swan

Scientific facts are taken to be objectively true until they have been falsified by new evidence
Because of the limitation of induction it is not appropriate to consider such facts to be absolute

Even theories - which are the highest classification in science - are treated as being capable of falsification at least potentially
Everyone accepts that a theory of quantum gravity will either modify or falsify general relativity or quantum mechanics
Newtons universal law of gravitation is a theory in its own right but yet was still falsified by Einsteins general relativity

One black swan falsifies the hypothesis that all swans are white - even if it is the only black swan in all of existence
But no black swan does not prove that all swans are white only that all known swans are white - a subtle distinction

So falsification provides absolute knowledge while non falsification provides temporary knowledge
This is precisely why falsification in science has a much higher epistemological value than evidence

[Veritas Aequitas]

• How can the moral maxim within the moral FSK,
  'no human ought to kill another'
  logically and possibly leads to throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, or flying planes into those buildings??

You totally ignore the above question and jump so blatantly to your weird thinking.
Something is wrong with you here.

People who think there are moral facts also think their own moral opinions are facts. So here's one supposed moral 'fact': no human ought to kill another'.
But here's another supposed moral 'fact': homosexuals are an abomination and must be killed. Oops. Now, which supposed moral fact has priority? Perhaps there's another supposed moral fact about that question. And so on.

Why do you find this so hard to understand?

What???

You are so blinded with confirmation bias that you have lost your intellectual ability to arrive at such dumb views.

One serious problem I have complained is you have not defined 'morality' clearly.
Morality-proper fundamentally is about promoting only the good as justified and rejecting evil.

Another point is we need to differentiate between morality and pseudo-morality.

Yes, those which are of pseudo-morality, e.g. theistic-based will claim their doctrines are moral 'facts' from a God.
Whilst some of the theistic doctrines are good, there are many that are evil-laden, e.g. in Islam, it is supposedly 'morally good' to kill non-Muslims, homosexuals, to have slaves, etc. The God of Christianity did not denounce 'slavery' in its immutable doctrines.

Essentially the evil-laden 'moral-facts' from a pseudo-moral model are evil commands, thus cannot be justified as moral-facts per-se of morality-proper.
In addition, theism is groundless since God is a mere illusion, what that follow its factuality is groundless.
If placed on a continuum, they are "0.0001% pseudo-moral facts - 99.999% falsehoods".

As I had stated, your thinking in this case is too narrow, shallow, dogmatic with evidence of suffering from confirmation bias.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have stated the contextual moral facts must be justified empirically and philosophically and I have provided justifications for them.

Yes to empirical justification in the form of evidence - we're agreed there. But what you call 'philosophical justification' can only be a valid and sound argument that cites empirical evidence to justify a conclusion. There's nothing special about 'philosophical justification'.

So, to summarise, we agree that a factual assertion in any context - of any kind - needs empirical evidence before it can be called a fact - a true factual assertion. Let's hang on to that.

Nope! I don't agree to your very plain view.

Philosophical justifications do not meant "logically valid and sound argument" alone but entails critical thinking to bring in other facts and justifications to bring the matter to a coherent conclusion.
Note: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/
Do you understand the above concept?

Note for example, the Scientific FSK produce its specific scientific fact, but note how the Philosophy of Science address what is scientific fact within a broader perspective, questioning causality, problem of induction, etc.

Note I mentioned the use of the Continuum Concept in this case and the degree of veracity.
Yes, whatever is claimed as fact must be justified empirically and philosophically.
Theists claim 'God exists' is a fact, and the onus is on them to produce their evidences and justification.

I claim 'no human ought to stop another from breathing till they die' is a moral-fact and I have provided the empirical evidences and philosophical justifications.

Okay. So what is the empirical evidence for that moral assertion? The facts of the matter are clear: humans must breathe or they die; if someone stops a person breathing, that person will die.

But what exactly is the evidence for the moral assertion that 'no person ought to stop another from breathing till they die'. What feature of reality that can be experienced empirically does the 'ought' describe or express? If, as you say, the moral assertion is a fact, then it must describe that feature of reality - because, as we agree, every factual claim needs empirical evidence.

It's no good saying 'it's a fact in the context of the moral FSK', because that tells us nothing about the empirical evidence for the claim. For example, if someone asks 'what's the evidence for the claim that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen'? To answer 'it's a fact in the chemistry FSK' would be ridiculous. That doesn't answer the question.

So, please focus on this question: what exactly is the empirical evidence for the moral assertion about not suffocating people? Try listing the evidence - making sure that it really is evidence and not something else, such as a moral principle. I'd like to see what you come up with.

Where we arrive at the scientific fact, water is H2O, philosophically, we must not forget this fact is conditioned upon the Scientific Framework and System, along with its strength, weaknesses, limitations, assumption and whatever that is necessary to support that scientific fact which is merely a polished conjecture.
In addition, we need to take into account the full perspectives of philosophical perspectives relevant to scientific facts.

It is the same with morality-proper.
This is why it is so critical to define what is morality-proper & Ethics that cover its full perspective philosophically. I will not go into the details here, but you can note its analogy how philosophy deals with Science.

One fundamental point with morality-proper is,
how individual[s] and groups is the question is 'what I/we ought to act".
This cover what one ought to act 'good' and ought-not to act to avoid evil.
Thus the concept of ought [mental state] is imperative within the Moral FSK and its practices.

The other principles of pseudo-morality is there is no "ought" within morality, but one is merely led to act from a noose-by-the-nose via what is most desirously pleasurable, i.e. Hume's version of morality. It is more likely that such a morality will lead to genocides, homosexuals killed, and other evils where moral agents could be misled by their desire, relative pleasure and happiness as had happened in the past and will be in the future.

In contrast, note the morality-proper I proposed, with the following moral fact as a maxim;

• How can the moral maxim within the moral FSK,
  'no human ought to kill another'
  logically and possibly leads to throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, or flying planes into those buildings??

Are you insisting that 'slavery is not morally wrong' such that you are willing to be enslaved by other human?
It is not morally wrong for others to enslave you, your family, kins and others, to the extent you and them can be sold as chattel slaves, sex slaves, etc.?

Right, now this argument is utterly fallacious: 'people don't want to be enslaved; therefore slavery is morally wrong'. If the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness is 'what people want', then if people want to enslave others, slavery is not morally wrong. And if 50% of people want to enslave others, and 50% don't, then slavery is half morally right and half morally wrong. The whole idea is absurd.

And worse: the nature of a fact - a true factual assertion - is that its truth is independent from what people think. For example, if 'slavery is morally wrong' is a fact, then whether people think it is - and how many think it is - are completely irrelevant. - Just as, in the context of chemistry, that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen is a fact, regardless of what people think - because there's empirical evidence for that fact.

There you go again, you are thinking within your own box and not outside-the-box into the box-of-morality-proper [as defined].

Philosophically, to arrive at what is a 'moral-fact' we have to go through the whole gamut of the Moral Framework and System.


I have given you the essential elements beside the hypothesis, no normal human would want to be enslaved by another.
I know it is subjective, but do you personally want to be enslaved by another human.
Now if you are philosophically minded, you would want to know what the views of other humans and the human nature involved on this issue?

You avoided my question which is essential to the point re slavery;

• Are you insisting that 'slavery is not morally wrong' such that you are willing to be enslaved by other human?
  It is not morally wrong for others to enslave you, your family, kins and others, to the extent you and them can be sold as chattel slaves, sex slaves, etc.?

I cannot imagine that you will agree to the above, i.e. slavery is not morally wrong.
Surely you personally as a modern normal human being will agree slavery is morally wrong??
If you agree to that, that is your direct empirical evidence.
You can confirm the above empirical evidence with your family, kins, friends, colleagues and if they are 'normal' will provide the empirical evidence to further support the point, slavery is morally wrong.

Unless you are autistic and mentally ill, you will be very convinced all normal human beings will not voluntarily want to be enslaved by another human.
If you are so pedantic, do a poll with sampling from all over the world.

Look up the argument from popularity fallacy.

I have stated the above is not the ONLY point that one is to rely upon.

For you: Look up the the need for philosophical critical thinking and lateral thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking
Do you ever practice such a method of thinking beside your very primitive one-track vertical thinking.

There are many other empirical evidences from history and present why slavery is morally wrong.
There is so much of empirically evident acts of evil and sufferings associated with slavery. Are you insisting such terrible evil acts and suffering related to slavery are not morally wrong.

No - these are not 'empirical evidences' for the moral wrongness of slavery being a fact. All you're saying is: slavery is morally wrong because it has caused and causes terrible human suffering. (Which I agree, of course.) But then, why is causing terrible human suffering morally wrong? And is that a fact? In other words, you're merely pushing the explanation for a moral judgement back to another moral judgement. And that can keep going back and back for ever, never reaching an actual empirical fact. At bottom is always a moral judgement or principle.

That is not "ALL I am saying is."
As I had defined, morality-proper is about 'ought_ness' i.e. what one ought to do in accordance with human nature.

• Humans are "programmed" with the pain neural algorithm to avoid sufferings.
  Therefore as "programmed" human ought to avoid sufferings.
  Since slavery triggers sufferings,
  humans ought to reject slavery.

The above is not the only justifications, I have given others and there are many more within the perspective of the Moral FSK from the philosophical perspective.

The other is the argument from the principles of basic human dignity.

Another is the Golden Rule.

There are other justifications why slavery is morally wrong is a moral fact.

QED. And btw, the Golden Rule is an imperative, so it can't be a fact - a declarative - anyway. And in declarative form - it is morally right to 'do as you would be done-by' - is just another moral assertion, for which, as usual, there is and can be no empirical evidence.

If the only empirical evidence you have for your claim that there are moral facts - such as 'slavery is morally wrong' - is that people think slavery is morally wrong - then you have no empirical evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery.

And the difference between morality and chemistry is clear. The evidence for the factual assertion that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen is not 'everyone thinks it is' - the evidence is genuinely empirical - there really is a feature of reality involved. And calling the chemical fact a contextual 'polished conjecture' is neither here nor there, because water and gases are real things, unlike moral rightness and wrongness, which are not independent features of reality.

Why do you find this so hard to understand?

Note I have to keep reminding you we are dealing with the Moral [ethics] Framework & System, but you are so stuck within your own dogmatic whatever-framework of Chemistry, Science, blah,blah, blah.

You cannot equivocate the Scientific Framework with the Moral Framework where the psychological elements are critical.

Within the Moral Framework [as defined], it comprises of emotions, motives, desires, passion, wants, needs, human actions [good or evil], will, free-will, freedom, neurons, individuals, groups, etc. etc.. These cannot be directly equivocated with the justification processes of Science.
As I have insisted you need to take into account the whole gamut of the Moral Framework and System, which at present you are VERY ignorant of.

The Golden Rule is a declarative within the linguistic & epistemological framework but it is a justifiable moral fact within the Moral Framework and System.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A Moral Framework and System is just like the Scientific Framework and System with all its relevant structures, processes, principles, assumptions, limitations, rules, etc.

In that case it is contingent, subject to change and not objective.
In other words, it's precisely the sort of "Moral Framework and System" that everyone gets by with already.

Are you insisting scientific facts [which are open to change] are not objective?
What is objectivity is intersubjectivity within the conditions of a Framework and System of Knowledge.

Point is scientific facts justified from the Scientific FSK are represented within a continuum of objectivity from 1/100 credibility to 99/100 high credibility.

Scientific 'facts' that are merely theories but have not or cannot be tested. has lower credibility. Scientists must state and explain the methods, samplings used, limitations, assumptions, etc. in how they arrive at their conclusion, which will enable others to assess the credibility of their conclusions.
There are scientific facts that are highly credible and had stood the test of time and tests by others, e.g. the scientific fact that water is H2O and the likes.

Initial moral opinions or beliefs can also be polished [with justifications, testing, verifications, etc.] up to a very fine level like what is Science is doing to its conjectures.

And there you have it - scientific conjectures are just that: so is any moral pronouncement.

As with the scientific processes, it is the same with Moral facts which are comprised of high-credibility and low-credibility.
"No human ought to kill another" is of high credibility as justified within the Moral Framework such that this maxim is adopted with all political and religious framework.

In other words, it's precisely the sort of "Moral Framework and System" that everyone gets by with already.

Everyone???
You are very wrong on this.
What is supposedly "morality" within all the theistic moral system are based on immutable moral laws from an omnipotent God.

Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... opulations
From the above 70% of the world's population are theistic, i.e. depend on their morality from a God which issue immutable moral commands, thus claimed to be 'objective'.

The other Moral Framework and System of moral relativism are not grounded and guided by highly credible moral facts.
The moral acts within the utilitarianism-moral-systems are led by a noose on merely desires and what is felt to pleasurable [happiness]. There is no absolute 'ought-not' to restrain anyone who kill other humans because their desire led them to kill and they feel the pleasure, happiness and the approbations with it.

[Peter Holmes]

I have stated the contextual moral facts must be justified empirically and philosophically and I have provided justifications for them.

Yes to empirical justification in the form of evidence - we're agreed there. But what you call 'philosophical justification' can only be a valid and sound argument that cites empirical evidence to justify a conclusion. There's nothing special about 'philosophical justification'.

So, to summarise, we agree that a factual assertion in any context - of any kind - needs empirical evidence before it can be called a fact - a true factual assertion. Let's hang on to that.

Nope! I don't agree to your very plain view.

Philosophical justifications do not meant "logically valid and sound argument" alone but entails critical thinking to bring in other facts and justifications to bring the matter to a coherent conclusion.
Note: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/
Do you understand the above concept?

Note for example, the Scientific FSK produce its specific scientific fact, but note how the Philosophy of Science address what is scientific fact within a broader perspective, questioning causality, problem of induction, etc.

Note I mentioned the use of the Continuum Concept in this case and the degree of veracity.
Yes, whatever is claimed as fact must be justified empirically and philosophically.
Theists claim 'God exists' is a fact, and the onus is on them to produce their evidences and justification.

I claim 'no human ought to stop another from breathing till they die' is a moral-fact and I have provided the empirical evidences and philosophical justifications.

Okay. So what is the empirical evidence for that moral assertion? The facts of the matter are clear: humans must breathe or they die; if someone stops a person breathing, that person will die.

But what exactly is the evidence for the moral assertion that 'no person ought to stop another from breathing till they die'. What feature of reality that can be experienced empirically does the 'ought' describe or express? If, as you say, the moral assertion is a fact, then it must describe that feature of reality - because, as we agree, every factual claim needs empirical evidence.

It's no good saying 'it's a fact in the context of the moral FSK', because that tells us nothing about the empirical evidence for the claim. For example, if someone asks 'what's the evidence for the claim that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen'? To answer 'it's a fact in the chemistry FSK' would be ridiculous. That doesn't answer the question.

So, please focus on this question: what exactly is the empirical evidence for the moral assertion about not suffocating people? Try listing the evidence - making sure that it really is evidence and not something else, such as a moral principle. I'd like to see what you come up with.

Where we arrive at the scientific fact, water is H2O, philosophically, we must not forget this fact is conditioned upon the Scientific Framework and System, along with its strength, weaknesses, limitations, assumption and whatever that is necessary to support that scientific fact which is merely a polished conjecture.
In addition, we need to take into account the full perspectives of philosophical perspectives relevant to scientific facts.

It is the same with morality-proper.
This is why it is so critical to define what is morality-proper & Ethics that cover its full perspective philosophically. I will not go into the details here, but you can note its analogy how philosophy deals with Science.

One fundamental point with morality-proper is,
how individual[s] and groups is the question is 'what I/we ought to act".
This cover what one ought to act 'good' and ought-not to act to avoid evil.
Thus the concept of ought [mental state] is imperative within the Moral FSK and its practices.

The other principles of pseudo-morality is there is no "ought" within morality, but one is merely led to act from a noose-by-the-nose via what is most desirously pleasurable, i.e. Hume's version of morality. It is more likely that such a morality will lead to genocides, homosexuals killed, and other evils where moral agents could be misled by their desire, relative pleasure and happiness as had happened in the past and will be in the future.

In contrast, note the morality-proper I proposed, with the following moral fact as a maxim;

• How can the moral maxim within the moral FSK,
  'no human ought to kill another'
  logically and possibly leads to throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, or flying planes into those buildings??

Are you insisting that 'slavery is not morally wrong' such that you are willing to be enslaved by other human?
It is not morally wrong for others to enslave you, your family, kins and others, to the extent you and them can be sold as chattel slaves, sex slaves, etc.?

Right, now this argument is utterly fallacious: 'people don't want to be enslaved; therefore slavery is morally wrong'. If the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness is 'what people want', then if people want to enslave others, slavery is not morally wrong. And if 50% of people want to enslave others, and 50% don't, then slavery is half morally right and half morally wrong. The whole idea is absurd.

And worse: the nature of a fact - a true factual assertion - is that its truth is independent from what people think. For example, if 'slavery is morally wrong' is a fact, then whether people think it is - and how many think it is - are completely irrelevant. - Just as, in the context of chemistry, that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen is a fact, regardless of what people think - because there's empirical evidence for that fact.

There you go again, you are thinking within your own box and not outside-the-box into the box-of-morality-proper [as defined].

Philosophically, to arrive at what is a 'moral-fact' we have to go through the whole gamut of the Moral Framework and System.


I have given you the essential elements beside the hypothesis, no normal human would want to be enslaved by another.
I know it is subjective, but do you personally want to be enslaved by another human.
Now if you are philosophically minded, you would want to know what the views of other humans and the human nature involved on this issue?

You avoided my question which is essential to the point re slavery;

• Are you insisting that 'slavery is not morally wrong' such that you are willing to be enslaved by other human?
  It is not morally wrong for others to enslave you, your family, kins and others, to the extent you and them can be sold as chattel slaves, sex slaves, etc.?

I cannot imagine that you will agree to the above, i.e. slavery is not morally wrong.
Surely you personally as a modern normal human being will agree slavery is morally wrong??
If you agree to that, that is your direct empirical evidence.
You can confirm the above empirical evidence with your family, kins, friends, colleagues and if they are 'normal' will provide the empirical evidence to further support the point, slavery is morally wrong.

Unless you are autistic and mentally ill, you will be very convinced all normal human beings will not voluntarily want to be enslaved by another human.
If you are so pedantic, do a poll with sampling from all over the world.

Look up the argument from popularity fallacy.

I have stated the above is not the ONLY point that one is to rely upon.

For you: Look up the the need for philosophical critical thinking and lateral thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking
Do you ever practice such a method of thinking beside your very primitive one-track vertical thinking.

There are many other empirical evidences from history and present why slavery is morally wrong.
There is so much of empirically evident acts of evil and sufferings associated with slavery. Are you insisting such terrible evil acts and suffering related to slavery are not morally wrong.

No - these are not 'empirical evidences' for the moral wrongness of slavery being a fact. All you're saying is: slavery is morally wrong because it has caused and causes terrible human suffering. (Which I agree, of course.) But then, why is causing terrible human suffering morally wrong? And is that a fact? In other words, you're merely pushing the explanation for a moral judgement back to another moral judgement. And that can keep going back and back for ever, never reaching an actual empirical fact. At bottom is always a moral judgement or principle.

That is not "ALL I am saying is."
As I had defined, morality-proper is about 'ought_ness' i.e. what one ought to do in accordance with human nature.

• Humans are "programmed" with the pain neural algorithm to avoid sufferings.
  Therefore as "programmed" human ought to avoid sufferings.
  Since slavery triggers sufferings,
  humans ought to reject slavery.

The above is not the only justifications, I have given others and there are many more within the perspective of the Moral FSK from the philosophical perspective.

The other is the argument from the principles of basic human dignity.

Another is the Golden Rule.

There are other justifications why slavery is morally wrong is a moral fact.

QED. And btw, the Golden Rule is an imperative, so it can't be a fact - a declarative - anyway. And in declarative form - it is morally right to 'do as you would be done-by' - is just another moral assertion, for which, as usual, there is and can be no empirical evidence.

If the only empirical evidence you have for your claim that there are moral facts - such as 'slavery is morally wrong' - is that people think slavery is morally wrong - then you have no empirical evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery.

And the difference between morality and chemistry is clear. The evidence for the factual assertion that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen is not 'everyone thinks it is' - the evidence is genuinely empirical - there really is a feature of reality involved. And calling the chemical fact a contextual 'polished conjecture' is neither here nor there, because water and gases are real things, unlike moral rightness and wrongness, which are not independent features of reality.

Why do you find this so hard to understand?

Note I have to keep reminding you we are dealing with the Moral [ethics] Framework & System, but you are so stuck within your own dogmatic whatever-framework of Chemistry, Science, blah,blah, blah.

You cannot equivocate the Scientific Framework with the Moral Framework where the psychological elements are critical.

Within the Moral Framework [as defined], it comprises of emotions, motives, desires, passion, wants, needs, human actions [good or evil], will, free-will, freedom, neurons, individuals, groups, etc. etc.. These cannot be directly equivocated with the justification processes of Science.
As I have insisted you need to take into account the whole gamut of the Moral Framework and System, which at present you are VERY ignorant of.

The Golden Rule is a declarative within the linguistic & epistemological framework but it is a justifiable moral fact within the Moral Framework and System.

Sorry, but you either ignore or don't understand the refutation of your argument. And after countless efforts to explain, it really is clear that nothing will work. So it's a waste of our time. Red letter note to self.

[uwot]

Scientific facts are taken to be objectively true until they have been falsified by new evidence

As I understand you, that would mean that until the Renaissance, it was a fact that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Personally I think the evidence is the facts.

Because of the limitation of induction it is not appropriate to consider such facts to be absolute

I think it is useful to make a clear distinction between facts and hypotheses. In essence induction is generating an hypothesis to account for a series of facts. To take the swan example: the hypothesis 'all swans are white' is based on a number of observations of white swans. Each individual observation is a fact - Alice and Bob are walking along the canal; they see a swan; it is white; they both agree they saw a white swan - it is an objective fact that they saw a white swan. It's a long walk, they see many white swans and agree that the evidence supports the hypothesis that all swans are white. Then of course they see a black one, which shatters the hypothesis, but it was never a 'fact' that all swans are white, any more than it was ever a fact that Earth is the centre of the universe.

Even theories - which are the highest classification in science - are treated as being capable of falsification at least potentially

I've heard that line used by people defending evolution against the creationist claim that evolution is 'only a theory'. The mistake is down to Darwin calling his book The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. There is nothing theoretical about organisms evolving, this current pandemic is proof of that. The theory bit, and what creationists object to, is 'by Natural Selection'; in other words 'not by intelligent design'.

Everyone accepts that a theory of quantum gravity will either modify or falsify general relativity or quantum mechanics

That's like saying all swans are white. All it takes is one physicist who doesn't accept it and pop goes your hypothesis, but then neither general relativity nor quantum mechanics are 'facts'.

Newtons universal law of gravitation is a theory in its own right but yet was still falsified by Einsteins general relativity

Right; this is why theories are not "the highest classification in science". Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is basically his inverse square equation F=Gm1m2/rr. It's a law because it accounts for the observations that have been made, all the available facts in other words; and it makes very accurate predictions about observations that will be made in the future. (I wrote an article on this too, as it happens: https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia ) Newton's Law was not falsified by Einstein, it was falsified by observations of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury; in other words, it was falsified by facts.

One black swan falsifies the hypothesis that all swans are white - even if it is the only black swan in all of existence
But no black swan does not prove that all swans are white only that all known swans are white - a subtle distinction

Well no. If there are no black swans (or any colour than white), then it would be true that all swans are white. It would be a 'fact', but it would be underdetermined because we could not rule out the possibility of seeing a non-white swan, just as we can't rule out the possibility that evolution is directed by intelligent design.

So falsification provides absolute knowledge while non falsification provides temporary knowledge
This is precisely why falsification in science has a much higher epistemological value than evidence

What if all non-white swans become extinct?

[Peter Holmes]

What I'm saying is, if you believe your moral opinions are facts - so that no different opinions matter - and if, what's worse, you think the creator of the universe agrees with your moral opinions, which means they must be facts - then all rational moral disagreement, debate and change is finished.

The same can be said of the moral non-realist. If you believe there is no moral reality, no moral fact; if you believe morality is nuthin' but consensus over the long haul; virtually all manner of depravity can be excused or rationalized. Margret Sanger's eugenics, for example.

I just want you to acknowledge this.


The evil of moral objectivism is its function as an enabling belief. Without it, opinions over the moral rightness and wrongness of actions is open to rational argument and, mercifully, improvement.

It's naive to believe discountin' moral realism leads to *rational thinkin'. Again: Sanger's eugenics is a good example.

No, the possibility of deplorable thinkin' and action isn't limited to moral realists any more than the possibility of reason is limited moral non-realists.

I just want you to acknowledge this.

I acknowledge it. Moral non-realists/non-objectivists can do good and bad things just as much as moral realists/objectivists.

But I think what matters is being rational and good, so that the fewer reasons we have for being irrational and wicked, the better.

There are no moral facts, so moral objectivism is irrational. And it provides a reason for some people to be wicked with a clear conscience, because they think their moral opinions are facts. (At least, I've never come across an exception to this rule.)

*the horrifyin' alternative, of course, is: the dismissal of a moral reality leads directly to rational thinkin' (as opposed to reasoning)...it could be a strict rationalism naturally leads to, for example, the utilitarian efforts of someone like Sanger to better society through culling the unfit...I can see the rational man advocatin' for all kinds of nonsense the reasonable man would object to

I have no idea what 'moral reality' is - though it sounds like a metaphysical fiction - sublimated religion.

And I agree we need both rationality and rational moral values aimed at well-being for all equally - but including some other species in the scope of our moral concern. It's largely a secular humanist position.

[uwot]

Are you insisting scientific facts [which are open to change] are not objective?

Well, as I was just saying to surreptitious57, a 'fact' is something like your observation that if you prevent someone breathing for long enough, they will die. That is demonstrably true, objectively so, but not likely to change any time soon.

What is objectivity is intersubjectivity within the conditions of a Framework and System of Knowledge.

Or as Thomas Kuhn called it, a paradigm. The thing is any "Framework and System of Knowledge" you care to create will not be objective. I've already mentioned the article I wrote. Here's a little bit from it:
The ‘theory-dependence of observation’ is this idea that exactly the same information can be interpreted in different ways. Kuhn argued that just as your worldview is influenced by your experience, so your scientific paradigm is determined in part by the education you’ve had. This led to accusations of relativism, which Kuhn tried to counter by saying that there are objective criteria for deciding between paradigmatic theories:

1. How accurately a theory agrees with the evidence.

2. It’s consistent within itself and with other accepted theories.

3. It should explain more than just the phenomenon it was designed to explain.

4. The simplest explanation is the best. (In other words, apply Occam’s Razor.)

5. It should make predictions that come true.

However, Kuhn had to concede that there is no objective way to establish which of those criteria is the most important, and so scientists would make their own mind up for subjective reasons. In choosing between competing theories, two scientists “fully committed to the same list of criteria for choice may nevertheless reach different conclusions.” https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996

Scientific 'facts' that are merely theories but have not or cannot be tested. has lower credibility.

Theories are not facts. It's kinda why they're called theories in the first place. A theory is an idea that some bright spark comes up with to account for a series of facts.

"No human ought to kill another" is of high credibility as justified within the Moral Framework such that this maxim is adopted with all political and religious framework.

Tell that to 6 million dead jews. Look, I'm with you on the not killing people thing, I just don't see the need for a "Moral Framework" to support it.

[uwot]

Well, I thought bounder meant dishonorable opportunist .

Nah, that's just what the dictionary says.

I don't know: are you a bastard?

Not according to the dictionary. Plenty of people will tell you otherwise though.

[henry quirk]

I acknowledge it. Moral non-realists/non-objectivists can do good and bad things just as much as moral realists/objectivists.




But I think what matters is being rational and good, so that the fewer reasons we have for being irrational and wicked, the better.

Abortion is wicked. Human trafficking is wicked. The overall indifference the West has toward both is wicked. I could generate a long list of wicked things, all rooted in moral non-realism, a list that would rival a list you might compile of wickedness done out of a belief in moral fact.

Again: it's naive to believe rationality naturally bends toward the good.


There are no moral facts, so moral objectivism is irrational. And it provides a reason for some people to be wicked with a clear conscience, because they think their moral opinions are facts. (At least, I've never come across an exception to this rule.)

I get this. And in this same light: believin' there is no moral reality (moral fact) most surely can lead a man to rationalize all manner of wickedness (license and banal atrocity).

[RCSaunders]

In that case, a fact can only be known if there is demonstrable evidence for it...

The thing is evidence is only ever evidence. Take the example I used earlier:

...'drop a brick and it falls to the ground'...

It is a fact, but what is it evidence of? One the one hand, the answer is simple: the fact that bricks fall is evidence that something is making them fall. So we can make all sorts of measurements, do a bit of maths and work out a formula that allows us to generalise the behaviour of falling bodies and call it gravity and infer that something causes gravity. All that from observing the fact that bricks fall and how, but that's all there is demonstrable evidence for; you can make up any story you like for why gravity affects massive objects.

Thank you. I see the problem. If you observe a brick, it is a fact. If you see the brick fall, that is a fact. There is one more fact because what is observed is not just an entity, but an event. The nature (details) of the event are also a fact. The brick did not just stay in place, it moved. It did not just move (sideways for example) it moved down.

The actual motion of the brick is a fact. One can give a name to that behavior (gravity, for example). The mistake comes from assuming that gravity is a, "thing," that, "causes," the brick to fall, but all that is observed is the brick falling.

Every time a brick (or anything else) behaves the way the brick does (and so far everything observed behaves the same way) the behavior (which happens to be an acceleration of one mass toward another) is referred to as gravity, but the only fact that is observed is the acceleration. There is no thing or stuff that can be pointed to (or observed in any other way) that can be called gravity. But the behavior, the acceleration of masses toward one another definitely can and is observed and is a fact. The mistake is in calling the behavior a, "cause," (blame Hume for that), not in naming the observed behavior, "gravity." Newton himself pointed out that why masses accelerated toward each other was not known. I think we actually agree here, perhaps with slightly different language.

One can certainly know facts without knowing everything there is to know about them. The fact that you are alive you know and no, "model," is required for you to know it.

Not necessarily; it is conceivable (but probably pointless to do so) that we are all just characters in a computer simulation/part of a single universal consciousness/brains in vats/a holographic image broadcast from the event horizon of a black hole. I'm not gonna try and defend any of those positions, but they are all taken seriously by people who are not mental. It's all that Descartes' fault; the only thing that is certain is that there are experiences; for instance: seeing a brick fall.[/quote]
I don't think we agree here, however. What is a computer? What is a simulation? A simulation cannot be a simulation of a simulation. If a simulation is only a simulated simulation it's not a simulation. These double negative semantic word games are not philosophy. It is only "conceivable we are all just characters in a computer simulation," to schizophrenics and the creators of science fiction.

[RCSaunders]

Abortion is wicked. Human trafficking is wicked. The overall indifference the West has toward both is wicked. I could generate a long list of wicked things, all rooted in moral non-realism, a list that would rival a list you might compile of wickedness done out of a belief in moral fact.

Is this your list Henry?

What do you mean by, "wicked?"

[henry quirk]

Abortion is wicked. Human trafficking is wicked. The overall indifference the West has toward both is wicked.


Is this your list Henry?

Three examples from a hypothetical list. Really, though, such a list could be summed as anything that violates a man's ownness is wrong.


What do you mean by, "wicked?"

That was Pete's word: I just adopted it. Me, bein' plain, say wicked, in context, means wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes to empirical justification in the form of evidence - we're agreed there. But what you call 'philosophical justification' can only be a valid and sound argument that cites empirical evidence to justify a conclusion. There's nothing special about 'philosophical justification'.

So, to summarise, we agree that a factual assertion in any context - of any kind - needs empirical evidence before it can be called a fact - a true factual assertion. Let's hang on to that.

Nope! I don't agree to your very plain view.

Philosophical justifications do not meant "logically valid and sound argument" alone but entails critical thinking to bring in other facts and justifications to bring the matter to a coherent conclusion.
Note: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/
Do you understand the above concept?

Note for example, the Scientific FSK produce its specific scientific fact, but note how the Philosophy of Science address what is scientific fact within a broader perspective, questioning causality, problem of induction, etc.

Okay. So what is the empirical evidence for that moral assertion? The facts of the matter are clear: humans must breathe or they die; if someone stops a person breathing, that person will die.

But what exactly is the evidence for the moral assertion that 'no person ought to stop another from breathing till they die'. What feature of reality that can be experienced empirically does the 'ought' describe or express? If, as you say, the moral assertion is a fact, then it must describe that feature of reality - because, as we agree, every factual claim needs empirical evidence.

It's no good saying 'it's a fact in the context of the moral FSK', because that tells us nothing about the empirical evidence for the claim. For example, if someone asks 'what's the evidence for the claim that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen'? To answer 'it's a fact in the chemistry FSK' would be ridiculous. That doesn't answer the question.

So, please focus on this question: what exactly is the empirical evidence for the moral assertion about not suffocating people? Try listing the evidence - making sure that it really is evidence and not something else, such as a moral principle. I'd like to see what you come up with.

Where we arrive at the scientific fact, water is H2O, philosophically, we must not forget this fact is conditioned upon the Scientific Framework and System, along with its strength, weaknesses, limitations, assumption and whatever that is necessary to support that scientific fact which is merely a polished conjecture.
In addition, we need to take into account the full perspectives of philosophical perspectives relevant to scientific facts.

It is the same with morality-proper.
This is why it is so critical to define what is morality-proper & Ethics that cover its full perspective philosophically. I will not go into the details here, but you can note its analogy how philosophy deals with Science.

One fundamental point with morality-proper is,
how individual[s] and groups is the question is 'what I/we ought to act".
This cover what one ought to act 'good' and ought-not to act to avoid evil.
Thus the concept of ought [mental state] is imperative within the Moral FSK and its practices.

The other principles of pseudo-morality is there is no "ought" within morality, but one is merely led to act from a noose-by-the-nose via what is most desirously pleasurable, i.e. Hume's version of morality. It is more likely that such a morality will lead to genocides, homosexuals killed, and other evils where moral agents could be misled by their desire, relative pleasure and happiness as had happened in the past and will be in the future.

In contrast, note the morality-proper I proposed, with the following moral fact as a maxim;

• How can the moral maxim within the moral FSK,
  'no human ought to kill another'
  logically and possibly leads to throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, or flying planes into those buildings??

Right, now this argument is utterly fallacious: 'people don't want to be enslaved; therefore slavery is morally wrong'. If the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness is 'what people want', then if people want to enslave others, slavery is not morally wrong. And if 50% of people want to enslave others, and 50% don't, then slavery is half morally right and half morally wrong. The whole idea is absurd.

And worse: the nature of a fact - a true factual assertion - is that its truth is independent from what people think. For example, if 'slavery is morally wrong' is a fact, then whether people think it is - and how many think it is - are completely irrelevant. - Just as, in the context of chemistry, that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen is a fact, regardless of what people think - because there's empirical evidence for that fact.

There you go again, you are thinking within your own box and not outside-the-box into the box-of-morality-proper [as defined].

Philosophically, to arrive at what is a 'moral-fact' we have to go through the whole gamut of the Moral Framework and System.


I have given you the essential elements beside the hypothesis, no normal human would want to be enslaved by another.
I know it is subjective, but do you personally want to be enslaved by another human.
Now if you are philosophically minded, you would want to know what the views of other humans and the human nature involved on this issue?

You avoided my question which is essential to the point re slavery;

• Are you insisting that 'slavery is not morally wrong' such that you are willing to be enslaved by other human?
  It is not morally wrong for others to enslave you, your family, kins and others, to the extent you and them can be sold as chattel slaves, sex slaves, etc.?

Look up the argument from popularity fallacy.

I have stated the above is not the ONLY point that one is to rely upon.

For you: Look up the the need for philosophical critical thinking and lateral thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking
Do you ever practice such a method of thinking beside your very primitive one-track vertical thinking.

No - these are not 'empirical evidences' for the moral wrongness of slavery being a fact. All you're saying is: slavery is morally wrong because it has caused and causes terrible human suffering. (Which I agree, of course.) But then, why is causing terrible human suffering morally wrong? And is that a fact? In other words, you're merely pushing the explanation for a moral judgement back to another moral judgement. And that can keep going back and back for ever, never reaching an actual empirical fact. At bottom is always a moral judgement or principle.

That is not "ALL I am saying is."
As I had defined, morality-proper is about 'ought_ness' i.e. what one ought to do in accordance with human nature.

• Humans are "programmed" with the pain neural algorithm to avoid sufferings.
  Therefore as "programmed" human ought to avoid sufferings.
  Since slavery triggers sufferings,
  humans ought to reject slavery.

The above is not the only justifications, I have given others and there are many more within the perspective of the Moral FSK from the philosophical perspective.

QED. And btw, the Golden Rule is an imperative, so it can't be a fact - a declarative - anyway. And in declarative form - it is morally right to 'do as you would be done-by' - is just another moral assertion, for which, as usual, there is and can be no empirical evidence.

If the only empirical evidence you have for your claim that there are moral facts - such as 'slavery is morally wrong' - is that people think slavery is morally wrong - then you have no empirical evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery.

And the difference between morality and chemistry is clear. The evidence for the factual assertion that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen is not 'everyone thinks it is' - the evidence is genuinely empirical - there really is a feature of reality involved. And calling the chemical fact a contextual 'polished conjecture' is neither here nor there, because water and gases are real things, unlike moral rightness and wrongness, which are not independent features of reality.

Why do you find this so hard to understand?

Note I have to keep reminding you we are dealing with the Moral [ethics] Framework & System, but you are so stuck within your own dogmatic whatever-framework of Chemistry, Science, blah,blah, blah.

You cannot equivocate the Scientific Framework with the Moral Framework where the psychological elements are critical.

Within the Moral Framework [as defined], it comprises of emotions, motives, desires, passion, wants, needs, human actions [good or evil], will, free-will, freedom, neurons, individuals, groups, etc. etc.. These cannot be directly equivocated with the justification processes of Science.
As I have insisted you need to take into account the whole gamut of the Moral Framework and System, which at present you are VERY ignorant of.

The Golden Rule is a declarative within the linguistic & epistemological framework but it is a justifiable moral fact within the Moral Framework and System.

Sorry, but you either ignore or don't understand the refutation of your argument. And after countless efforts to explain, it really is clear that nothing will work. So it's a waste of our time. Red letter note to self.

I understand but don't agree with your refutations against my arguments.
Your refutation is based on the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivist, i.e. a statement/matter-of-fact cannot be evaluative.

I have provided loads of counter to your arguments.
One is that of Searle's where a statement of fact has both descriptive and prescriptive elements and these comprised of statement of moral facts.

All you do is simply brush off whatever arguments that is put forth to you, but you don't counter them with justifications, rather you merely push your ideological and dogmatic views.

If you are so lazy or incapable, at least throw in some references from other reputable philosophers - other than Hume. If you refer to Hume, give your justifications why you think Hume is right in supporting your views. If you cannot, refer to some other philosophers who insist Hume is right.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you insisting scientific facts [which are open to change] are not objective?

Well, as I was just saying to surreptitious57, a 'fact' is something like your observation that if you prevent someone breathing for long enough, they will die.
That is demonstrably true, objectively so, but not likely to change any time soon.

I agree with your above.

But we need to understand precisely what is meant by 'demonstrably true' and 'objectively so.'
What is 'demonstrable true' is based on the principle of 'cause and effect'.

What other framework can you ground your 'objectively so' than the Scientific Framework which rely on cause and effect despite the Problem of Induction.

But yet, below, you condemn Scientific Framework and scientific knowledge as not 'objective'.

What is objectivity is intersubjectivity within the conditions of a Framework and System of Knowledge.

Or as Thomas Kuhn called it, a paradigm. The thing is any "Framework and System of Knowledge" you care to create will not be objective. I've already mentioned the article I wrote. Here's a little bit from it:
The ‘theory-dependence of observation’ is this idea that exactly the same information can be interpreted in different ways. Kuhn argued that just as your worldview is influenced by your experience, so your scientific paradigm is determined in part by the education you’ve had. This led to accusations of relativism, which Kuhn tried to counter by saying that there are objective criteria for deciding between paradigmatic theories:

1. How accurately a theory agrees with the evidence.

2. It’s consistent within itself and with other accepted theories.

3. It should explain more than just the phenomenon it was designed to explain.

4. The simplest explanation is the best. (In other words, apply Occam’s Razor.)

5. It should make predictions that come true.

However, Kuhn had to concede that there is no objective way to establish which of those criteria is the most important, and so scientists would make their own mind up for subjective reasons. In choosing between competing theories, two scientists “fully committed to the same list of criteria for choice may nevertheless reach different conclusions.” https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996

One limitation of your article is you did not define 'objectivity' more rigorously which is a necessity is such a situation.

I agree with Kuhn's concept of "Paradigm Shift" in Scientific Knowledge from the ancients to the modern, but within all the changes there is one generic objective structure and processes that generated those knowledge that had changed through time. Such a structure and its processes are inherent within all humans to know more and more driven by continuous improvements.
In fact, the objective structure and process provide for changes in knowledge.

But despite the potential changes in 'knowledge', scientific knowledge is still objective by nature of its inherent objective structure.
There is no such thing as absolute-objectivity [like God']. Note I mentioned there are degrees of objectivity depending on various factors, assumptions and limitation that are defined and make-known explicitly.

As such in this case, what I refer to as objectivity is relative-objectivity, i.e. related to the specific Framework and System of Knowledge with its defined characteristics.
What the logical positivists are claiming is absolute-objectivity as in Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Scientific 'facts' that are merely theories but have not or cannot be tested. has lower credibility.

Theories are not facts. It's kinda why they're called theories in the first place. A theory is an idea that some bright spark comes up with to account for a series of facts.

In this case I have applied the concept of continuum to what is fact, i.e. facts are justified information from a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
The Big Bang Theory is a scientific fact. Whilst it has much utility, it is of low credibility as a fact because it can never be tested repeatably.
As such, theories that are not tested empirically are 'fact' nevertheless but with lower credibility based on the explicit limitations as qualified.

"No human ought to kill another" is of high credibility as justified within the Moral Framework such that this maxim is adopted with all political and religious framework.

Tell that to 6 million dead jews. Look, I'm with you on the not killing people thing, I just don't see the need for a "Moral Framework" to support it.

The question is whether Morality is more efficient with a GUIDING framework and system or just allowed to unfold itself naturally without and formal framework, system and structure.

The killing of 6 million Jews happened while there was no efficient Moral Framework and System.
It was the same with the millions of chattel-slaves of the past when there was no efficient Moral Framework and System.

It was only after WW II and 6 million dead Jews plus millions of others that humanity strove to establish some sort of CRUDE Moral Framework and System with the UN with is Human Rights Convention.
Because the above Moral FSK is very CRUDE, there are improvements in the prevention of World Wars and chattel slavery, but such are still below normal expectations.

Morality is an inherent function within all humans and the establishment of an effective Moral Framework and System will enable the intrinsic moral function to unfold systematically, efficiently and expeditiously.
Btw, the system-approach - I will argue - is more effective than any ad-hoc willy nilly and rudderless approach. Do you dispute this point?
The trend to improvement and efficiency is most aspects of life is systematization.
Note, humans are natural auto-servo mechanisms which need to be guided by justified grounded objectives/standards.

Thus to ensure the Moral Framework and System works efficiently it is critical that is guided by grounded objectives - thus my proposed Justified True Moral Beliefs to be used as GUIDES with the moral system.