Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 9:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 4:16 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 2:52 pm
And that's the really hard thing for moral objectivists to grasp. Whatever reason we have to believe X is morally wrong, it could always be that X is not morally wrong, for some other reason. So 'X is morally wrong' can never be a fact. So there are no moral facts, and morality isn't and can't be objective.
As I had always maintained, your 'what is fact' is a traceable to the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivist.
Note again [the "thousand" times], the generally acceptable meaning of 'what is fact'.
Its ideological, you have been brainwashed to be ignorant and dogmatic, there are no moral facts from a rigid perspective.
Note the shift to this paradigm of 'what is a fact';
is an occurrence in the real world.
For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact
"The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.
In line with the above, why can't we have moral facts???
- All FSK produce their respective facts.
Since Morality has its own FSK,
Therefore the Morality FSK has its respective moral facts.
- Justified Scientific facts from its FSK has the highest standard of credibility at present.
The Morality FSK has similar features of the Scientific FSK
Therefore the justified moral facts from its FSK are expected to have a high degree of credibility.
I had claimed justified true moral facts [JTB-m] must be justified empirically and philosophically.
So, 'A fact is an occurrence in the real world' and is, generally speaking, 'independent of belief'.
This is obviously too narrow, because a fact can also be a state-of-affairs, which can only indirectly be called an occurrence. But otherwise, I accept and have always used this definition of a fact. However, we also use the word fact
to mean 'a description of a state-of-affairs', which is why we think of facts as things that are true. And only factual assertions are true or false; a state-of-affairs can be neither. Reality is not linguistic.
First of, what is critical is the existence of reality
which are represented by facts of reality.
However there are two claims of reality, i.e.
- 1. Philosophical Realists claim reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
2. Philosophical anti-realists claim reality is entangled with the human conditions
The above dichotomy is very Critical in the definition of what are the facts of reality.
is an occurrence in the real world.-wiki
'Occurrence' is not narrow in this case. See the various meanings
of 'occurrences', state, affairs.
A state-of-affairs [a fact] is comprised of connected-occurrences [facts
] within reality [of Realists' or Anti-Realists'].
Moral objectivists have yet to provide an example of a moral fact - a moral occurrence or state-of affairs in the real world that's independent of belief, or a description of such an occurrence or state-of-affairs that has the truth-value 'true'.
As I had argued above;
Therefore the Morality FSK produced its respective moral facts.
The Moral fact;
M1. No human ought to kill another
M1 -ALL humans ought-not to kill another
is a state-of-affairs that is represented by an neural algorithm within the brain of every human.
The above neural algorithm is analogous to the state-of-affairs of
B1 'ALL humans ought to breathe else they die' or
M2 'No human ought to stop another from breathing till s/he die
You cannot understand the similar principle between M1 and B1 because you are ignorant of the deeper state-of-affairs of the human conditions.
And that's because the very idea of a moral occurrence or state-of-affairs is incoherent. There are only occurrences and states-of-affairs about which we can make moral judgements. Objectivists then mistake those moral judgements for facts - but they can produce no evidence 'in the real world' to justify that claim.
Making 'moral' judgment is a state-of-affairs but it is not a moral fact [as defined] rather it is typical decision-making to take actions which are related to ethics.
When one make such a decision, there is a pre-existing overriding moral facts that one judged against.
The inherent moral fact [represented neurally
M1. No human ought to kill another
The moral agent then has to make a judgment whether to comply with the moral fact or not.
A competent moral agent do not have to make any explicit judgment nor decision to comply with the moral fact, but merely act spontaneously in alignment with the moral fact. In this case, there is no question of judgment at all - Just ACT!
Moral wrongness isn't a property of slavery 'independent of belief'. Nor is it a property of abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on. That's why there are opposed and yet rational beliefs about the morality of such things as abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on.
The stupidity of moral objectivism beggars belief.
Eating of animals is not a specific moral issue but it is related to other human issues.
Capital punishment is a moral issue related to the moral fact;
M1 -ALL humans ought-not to kill another,
This moral fact can only be a GUIDE and never enforceable.
It is a fact the North Pole exists in reality as the ultimate North of the Earth and is represented by the direction pointed by a compass needle.
This fact of the North Pole can be a GUIDE.
To go to the North Pole and a navigator in facing real obstacles can chart and vary his course East, West, South, North routes to adjust to various conditions, BUT, the net-resulting is always toward the overriding factual North in order to reach his objective.
Note the above analogy in comparison to Slavery,
Humanity had navigated the obstacles of the moral fact of slavery, i.e.
M3 - No human ought to enslaved another
since >10,000 years ago [many generations] to the present,
to achieve the undenial moral progress in alignment with the moral facts [represented neurally] of slavery [chattel].
The moral fact as justified is fixed and independent of personal opinions and beliefs used as a GUIDE to align all humans to that fact.
There will be humans who will have the impulse for slavery against the inherent moral fact of slavery within them, but eventually the inherent moral sense will drive humans [future generations] towards the natural moral fact of slavery -M3.
If there are no moral facts as the STANDARD GUIDE or humans are not activated to realize what is inherent in them, then there will be no striving to reduce, prevent and eliminate chattel and all forms of slavery.
But that is not the case as proven with the undeniable natural moral progress of slavery from the hundreds of past generations to the present.