Morality: Limitations of Logic and Linguistics

[Veritas Aequitas]

You still have not give me your answers as to what philosophical theories [references requited] you are relying upon to support your philosophical stance.
I predicted your sources could come from 1 -5 above, it not, then from where and whom did you get your philosophical groundings.

1 What and where are so-called abstract things, such as concepts? Pending evidence for their existence, belief that they exist is irrational. And it follows that conceptual analysis is barely-disguised mysticism. In fact, conceptual analysis is nothing more than an explanation of the way we use or could use a word or a group of words.

As I had stated you are dogmatic, bigoted and stuck with the archaic philosophies of the logical positivists.

Note this definition and explanation as to what is concept;

Concepts are defined as abstract ideas or general notions that occur in the mind, in speech, or in thought.
They are understood to be the fundamental building blocks of thoughts and beliefs.
They play an important role in all aspects of cognition.[1][2]
As such, concepts are studied by several disciplines, such as linguistics, psychology, [neuroscience] and philosophy, and these disciplines are interested in the logical and psychological structure of concepts, and how they are put together to form thoughts and sentences.
The study of concepts has served as an important flagship of an emerging interdisciplinary approach called cognitive science.[3]

In contemporary philosophy, there are at least three prevailing ways to understand what a concept is:[4]

1. Concepts as mental representations, where concepts are entities that exist in the mind (mental objects)
2. Concepts as abilities, where concepts are abilities peculiar to cognitive agents (mental states)
3. Concepts as Fregean senses (see sense and reference), where concepts are abstract objects, as opposed to mental objects and mental states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept

Your view of concepts are as in 3 i.e. Fregean senses one of the pioneers of logic positivism where concepts are abstract objects.

What is most real in terms of reality within neuroscience, psychology and neuro-cognitive-science is, concepts are mental representations which are represented by factual neural algorithms, i.e. neural programs.

These neural algorithms that represent concepts can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically. There has been a lot of research to support that existence of such facts of mental states.

You should realized from the above you are horribly and terribly ignorant of the above and yet so arrogant to denounce what I claimed as verified and justified truths as barely-disguised mysticism.

2 To repeat: is there such a thing as a linguistic expression that isn't a linguistic expression? Let me help you out: the answer is NO. For example, 'humans ought not to kill humans' is a linguistic expression. But you call it a fact in our brains - nothing to do with language. So you're saying this linguistic expression is not a linguistic expression. Ooops. Truth is, you accuse me of linguistic limitation, ignoring the fact that we have to use language to talk about anything. When we talk about things, we're not somehow grasping the things we're talking about.

Point is no matter how true is a linguistic expression within the linguistic framework and system, it is limited in representing reality and will always remains limited.

To ensure your linguistic expression is real and true, you have to resort to truth verifying FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK or others.

Yes, "humans ought not to kill humans' is a linguistic expression which is limited and it can only be a moral fact after it has been verified and justified from a moral framework and system.

3 Rather than appeal to - and hide behind - more or less misleading theories, I prefer to deal with factual assertions and arguments.
And I've explained my starting assumptions. You can label positions as realist or anti-realist if it comforts you - but who cares? It's the claims and arguments that count. You claim there are moral facts, and sound arguments for their existence - but you've failed to justify that claim.

You stated;
I prefer to deal with factual assertions and arguments.


It is dumb just to make the above without any grounds.
But, you still have not given me your answers as to what philosophical theories [references requited] you are relying upon to support your philosophical stance.
If you don't, cannot or do not have any references, you are regarded as unschooled in philosophy, thus not philosophically credible with your claims.

You cannot deal with factual assertions until they are verified and justified as facts empirically and philosophically [theories, arguments, etc.] within a specific FSK.
Btw, FSKs are constructed by humans.
The reality or fact that is asserted as a factual assertion, is not "independent of human" as claimed by philosophical realists.

If you make the linguistic expression 'Water is H20' if and only if 'Water is H20' that is not realistic nor factual until you have support it with, "because the Chemistry and Scientific FSK said so!"

Thus whatever is a factual assertion, it must be supported by a specific FSK related to that fact. The linguistic expression is just for communication sake and have not implications for the reality of that fact.

In my case, whatever the linguistic expression of a moral fact, that moral fact MUST BE verified and justified empirically and philosophically via a specific moral FSK.
This is a critical principle that justify what is a moral fact.

I have already verified and justified there are moral facts from a specific moral FSK.
That you cannot grasp it, that is not my fault - I am not bothered at all - given that I have done that a '1000' times.

[DPMartin]

hit us with a "moral fact" that is truth

Murder is wrong.

It's trivially true. It's the default position - it requires no evidence or justification whatsoever and most people accept it at face value.

However, if you are feeling philosophical/disagreeable, then go ahead and burden yourself with justifying the rejection.

murder is wrong according to who, you? I'd say murders would disagree. I'll bet you they have justification in their own hearts for what they do. therefore their set of "morals" is different then yours.

Also, isn't it according to societies what constitutes as unjustified killing, and that they agree its "wrong" (unjustified) in their agreement (laws). therefore they are justified in prosecuting some one that commits what they agree is unjustified killing, according to the agreement. they might even agree it is justified to kill the killer in their agreement.

besides "murder" is a muddy word these days, it seems it would be clearer to stay with justified and unjustified killing and the justification is according to agreements of a nation or society in most cases.

[Skepdick]

murder is wrong according to who, you? I'd say murders would disagree. I'll bet you they have justification in their own hearts for what they do. therefore their set of "morals" is different then yours.

Also, isn't it according to societies what constitutes as unjustified killing, and that they agree its "wrong" (unjustified) in their agreement (laws). therefore they are justified in prosecuting some one that commits what they agree is unjustified killing, according to the agreement. they might even agree it is justified to kill the killer in their agreement.

besides "murder" is a muddy word these days, it seems it would be clearer to stay with justified and unjustified killing and the justification is according to agreements of a nation or society in most cases.

Yes. I've heard all of that contrarianism before, it's not at all interesting.

You went straight for the corner/edge cases/exception without addressing the substance. Like any good sophist, you are scrambling for a context in which the rule doesn't apply. And that hint at semantic skepticism of what "murder" really means... such tired old cliche.

I am not interested in your arguments - I want to see your commitment to your position.

So... go to your neighbour's house, knock on the door and when they open insert a knife into their skull - aim for the medulla oblongata. Film it. You tube it - tell the world what you did. If you don't feel comfortable doing that in your current society, pick a society where you think it will fly.

[Peter Holmes]

You still have not give me your answers as to what philosophical theories [references requited] you are relying upon to support your philosophical stance.
I predicted your sources could come from 1 -5 above, it not, then from where and whom did you get your philosophical groundings.

1 What and where are so-called abstract things, such as concepts? Pending evidence for their existence, belief that they exist is irrational. And it follows that conceptual analysis is barely-disguised mysticism. In fact, conceptual analysis is nothing more than an explanation of the way we use or could use a word or a group of words.

As I had stated you are dogmatic, bigoted and stuck with the archaic philosophies of the logical positivists.

Note this definition and explanation as to what is concept;

Concepts are defined as abstract ideas or general notions that occur in the mind, in speech, or in thought.
They are understood to be the fundamental building blocks of thoughts and beliefs.
They play an important role in all aspects of cognition.[1][2]
As such, concepts are studied by several disciplines, such as linguistics, psychology, [neuroscience] and philosophy, and these disciplines are interested in the logical and psychological structure of concepts, and how they are put together to form thoughts and sentences.
The study of concepts has served as an important flagship of an emerging interdisciplinary approach called cognitive science.[3]

In contemporary philosophy, there are at least three prevailing ways to understand what a concept is:[4]

1. Concepts as mental representations, where concepts are entities that exist in the mind (mental objects)
2. Concepts as abilities, where concepts are abilities peculiar to cognitive agents (mental states)
3. Concepts as Fregean senses (see sense and reference), where concepts are abstract objects, as opposed to mental objects and mental states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept

Your view of concepts are as in 3 i.e. Fregean senses one of the pioneers of logic positivism where concepts are abstract objects.

What is most real in terms of reality within neuroscience, psychology and neuro-cognitive-science is, concepts are mental representations which are represented by factual neural algorithms, i.e. neural programs.

These neural algorithms that represent concepts can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically. There has been a lot of research to support that existence of such facts of mental states.

You should realized from the above you are horribly and terribly ignorant of the above and yet so arrogant to denounce what I claimed as verified and justified truths as barely-disguised mysticism.

2 To repeat: is there such a thing as a linguistic expression that isn't a linguistic expression? Let me help you out: the answer is NO. For example, 'humans ought not to kill humans' is a linguistic expression. But you call it a fact in our brains - nothing to do with language. So you're saying this linguistic expression is not a linguistic expression. Ooops. Truth is, you accuse me of linguistic limitation, ignoring the fact that we have to use language to talk about anything. When we talk about things, we're not somehow grasping the things we're talking about.

Point is no matter how true is a linguistic expression within the linguistic framework and system, it is limited in representing reality and will always remains limited.

To ensure your linguistic expression is real and true, you have to resort to truth verifying FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK or others.

Yes, "humans ought not to kill humans' is a linguistic expression which is limited and it can only be a moral fact after it has been verified and justified from a moral framework and system.

3 Rather than appeal to - and hide behind - more or less misleading theories, I prefer to deal with factual assertions and arguments.
And I've explained my starting assumptions. You can label positions as realist or anti-realist if it comforts you - but who cares? It's the claims and arguments that count. You claim there are moral facts, and sound arguments for their existence - but you've failed to justify that claim.

You stated;
I prefer to deal with factual assertions and arguments.


It is dumb just to make the above without any grounds.
But, you still have not given me your answers as to what philosophical theories [references requited] you are relying upon to support your philosophical stance.
If you don't, cannot or do not have any references, you are regarded as unschooled in philosophy, thus not philosophically credible with your claims.

You cannot deal with factual assertions until they are verified and justified as facts empirically and philosophically [theories, arguments, etc.] within a specific FSK.
Btw, FSKs are constructed by humans.
The reality or fact that is asserted as a factual assertion, is not "independent of human" as claimed by philosophical realists.

If you make the linguistic expression 'Water is H20' if and only if 'Water is H20' that is not realistic nor factual until you have support it with, "because the Chemistry and Scientific FSK said so!"

Thus whatever is a factual assertion, it must be supported by a specific FSK related to that fact. The linguistic expression is just for communication sake and have not implications for the reality of that fact.

In my case, whatever the linguistic expression of a moral fact, that moral fact MUST BE verified and justified empirically and philosophically via a specific moral FSK.
This is a critical principle that justify what is a moral fact.

I have already verified and justified there are moral facts from a specific moral FSK.
That you cannot grasp it, that is not my fault - I am not bothered at all - given that I have done that a '1000' times.

1 You haven't shown that there are moral facts, and your 'moral FSK' is nothing more than a question begging invention. But hey, keep kidding yourself.

2 All this blather about concepts demonstrates my point. They're misleading metaphysical fictions, just like the minds that are supposed to 'contain' them. And your concoction - a mental represetation represented by a neural algorithm or program - is just another nonsensical mess. There's no evidence for the existence of any of the many things described as concepts. And all talk of the mental that's anything other than metaphorical is substance-dualism.

3 There are dogs (real things). There is the word 'dog' (a real thing), that we use to talk about dogs. Now, try describing or 'analysing' the supposed thing called the concept of a dog, What does it mean to do that, and what's the result? Write down your findings, and see if it amounts to anything more than a description of a dog.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 You haven't shown that there are moral facts, and your 'moral FSK' is nothing more than a question begging invention. But hey, keep kidding yourself.

2 All this blather about concepts demonstrates my point. They're misleading metaphysical fictions, just like the minds that are supposed to 'contain' them. And your concoction - a mental represetation represented by a neural algorithm or program - is just another nonsensical mess. There's no evidence for the existence of any of the many things described as concepts. And all talk of the mental that's anything other than metaphorical is substance-dualism.

3 There are dogs (real things). There is the word 'dog' (a real thing), that we use to talk about dogs. Now, try describing or 'analysing' the supposed thing called the concept of a dog, What does it mean to do that, and what's the result? Write down your findings, and see if it amounts to anything more than a description of a dog.

You are SO ignorant and yet SO arrogant.

Note I have done extensive research into cognitive science, neuro-cognitive-science, neuro-psychology and has sufficient exposure to the various neurosciences.

Here is a quickie clue from Oliver Sacks;
There are a ton of research supporting this theory related to concepts [neural correlates] in the brain;

• The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales is a 1985 book by neurologist Oliver Sacks describing the case histories of some of his patients. Sacks chose the title of the book from the case study of one of his patients who has visual agnosia,
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_W ... _for_a_Hat

In this case, there are developed neural correlates [the physical neural algorithm] of the concept of 'wife' 'face' and 'hat' in the man's brain and mind. However, since the man's brain was damaged, he was unable to match the right concept to the images from the retina and the visual cortex.

In the case of the "concept of a dog" that concept is a fact of a mental states represented by the appropriate physical neural correlates.
If the person suffers brain damage, he may see an elephant or something else, when a real dog is presented to him or he could only see lines, patches or whatever.

[Peter Holmes]

1 You haven't shown that there are moral facts, and your 'moral FSK' is nothing more than a question begging invention. But hey, keep kidding yourself.

2 All this blather about concepts demonstrates my point. They're misleading metaphysical fictions, just like the minds that are supposed to 'contain' them. And your concoction - a mental represetation represented by a neural algorithm or program - is just another nonsensical mess. There's no evidence for the existence of any of the many things described as concepts. And all talk of the mental that's anything other than metaphorical is substance-dualism.

3 There are dogs (real things). There is the word 'dog' (a real thing), that we use to talk about dogs. Now, try describing or 'analysing' the supposed thing called the concept of a dog, What does it mean to do that, and what's the result? Write down your findings, and see if it amounts to anything more than a description of a dog.

You are SO ignorant and yet SO arrogant.

Note I have done extensive research into cognitive science, neuro-cognitive-science, neuro-psychology and has sufficient exposure to the various neurosciences.

Here is a quickie clue from Oliver Sacks;
There are a ton of research supporting this theory related to concepts [neural correlates] in the brain;

• The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales is a 1985 book by neurologist Oliver Sacks describing the case histories of some of his patients. Sacks chose the title of the book from the case study of one of his patients who has visual agnosia,
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_W ... _for_a_Hat

In this case, there are developed neural correlates [the physical neural algorithm] of the concept of 'wife' 'face' and 'hat' in the man's brain and mind. However, since the man's brain was damaged, he was unable to match the right concept to the images from the retina and the visual cortex.

In the case of the "concept of a dog" that concept is a fact of a mental states represented by the appropriate physical neural correlates.
If the person suffers brain damage, he may see an elephant or something else, when a real dog is presented to him or he could only see lines, patches or whatever.

Is a so-called concept different from an idea or a thought? If so, in what way? If not, why use the word 'concept'?

Is a so-called concept a mental representation, object, entity, state or capacity of cognitive agents?

What's the difference between a mental thing and an abstract thing? Can an abstract thing be a mental thing?

How exactly do firing neurons 'represent' or 'correlate with' the supposed concept of a dog?

If brain damage leads to seeing an elephant rather than the actual dog, why is this a conceptual problem rather than a neurological problem? And if a conceptual problem is nothing more than a neurological problem, why bother talking about concepts? What explanatory role do they have?

What and where are the mind and the supposed mental things, states and events that the mind supposedly 'contains'? Do you think neuroscience has answered, or even can answer, those questions?

[DPMartin]

murder is wrong according to who, you? I'd say murders would disagree. I'll bet you they have justification in their own hearts for what they do. therefore their set of "morals" is different then yours.

Also, isn't it according to societies what constitutes as unjustified killing, and that they agree its "wrong" (unjustified) in their agreement (laws). therefore they are justified in prosecuting some one that commits what they agree is unjustified killing, according to the agreement. they might even agree it is justified to kill the killer in their agreement.

besides "murder" is a muddy word these days, it seems it would be clearer to stay with justified and unjustified killing and the justification is according to agreements of a nation or society in most cases.

Yes. I've heard all of that contrarianism before, it's not at all interesting.

You went straight for the corner/edge cases/exception without addressing the substance. Like any good sophist, you are scrambling for a context in which the rule doesn't apply. And that hint at semantic skepticism of what "murder" really means... such tired old cliche.

I am not interested in your arguments - I want to see your commitment to your position.

So... go to your neighbour's house, knock on the door and when they open insert a knife into their skull - aim for the medulla oblongata. Film it. You tube it - tell the world what you did. If you don't feel comfortable doing that in your current society, pick a society where you think it will fly.

guilt by breaking a rule one has agreed to means what? that's murder to you? if you are in a society that agrees what justified and unjustified killing is you can call that murder if you like or you can call it against the law if you like. whether one is guilty or feels guilty is irrelevant on what is justified or unjustified killing.


by the by, dismissing as though one has the high ground means you have no viable argument, but you can still deny it if you like.

[Terrapin Station]

Murder is wrong.

It's trivially true. It's the default position - it requires no evidence or justification whatsoever and most people accept it at face value.

However, if you are feeling philosophical/disagreeable, then go ahead and burden yourself with justifying the rejection.

For it to be true, at least on correspondence theory, would amount to the proposition "Murder is wrong" corresponding to the objective (that is, person-independent) fact that murder is wrong, but there appears to be no such person-independent fact.

The fact that the vast majority of people feel that murder is wrong doesn't make it true that it is wrong. Morality is noncognitive. Moral stances do not have truth values.

[Skepdick]

guilt by breaking a rule one has agreed to means what? that's murder to you? if you are in a society that agrees what justified and unjustified killing is you can call that murder if you like or you can call it against the law if you like. whether one is guilty or feels guilty is irrelevant on what is justified or unjustified killing.

*yawn*

by the by, dismissing as though one has the high ground means you have no viable argument, but you can still deny it if you like.

By which objective standard for "viability" would that be?

Or are we going to play a silly language game in which you pretend you have some true notion of "viability", but no true notion of "wrongness" ?

[Skepdick]

For it to be true, at least on correspondence theory, would amount to the proposition "Murder is wrong" corresponding to the objective (that is, person-independent) fact that murder is wrong, but there appears to be no such person-independent fact.

The fact that the vast majority of people feel that murder is wrong doesn't make it true that it is wrong. Morality is noncognitive. Moral stances do not have truth values.

Uhuh. So, given the set of truth-theories available to you what's your decision-procedure for selecting the true truth-theory?

You are playing a stupid game with yourself. I have no idea what truth is, it's just a word and I know how to use it.

It is true that murder is wrong.

[Terrapin Station]

For it to be true, at least on correspondence theory, would amount to the proposition "Murder is wrong" corresponding to the objective (that is, person-independent) fact that murder is wrong, but there appears to be no such person-independent fact.

The fact that the vast majority of people feel that murder is wrong doesn't make it true that it is wrong. Morality is noncognitive. Moral stances do not have truth values.

Uhuh. So, given the set of truth-theories available to you what's your decision-procedure for selecting the true truth-theory?

It's not selecting the "true" truth theory. I use correspondence because it makes the most sense to me, and it addresses what I'm concerned with. If you'd use something other than correspondence, which presumably you're doing by saying that "murder is wrong" is somehow true, you can explain what truth theory you're using and then we can discuss that. If you have no idea what truth is, then why in the world would you be making a claim that something is true?

"I don't really understand what this term refers to, but I'm saying this phenomenon fits the term anyway." --why would you make a claim that amounts to that?

[Skepdick]

It's not selecting the "true" truth theory. I use correspondence because it makes the most sense to me, and it addresses what I'm concerned with. If you'd use something other than correspondence, which presumably you're doing by saying that "murder is wrong" is somehow true, you can explain what truth theory you're using and then we can discuss that. If you have no idea what truth is, then why in the world would you be making a claim that something is true?

"I don't really understand what this term refers to, but I'm saying this phenomenon fits the term anyway." --why would you make a claim that amounts to that?

I am not appealing to truth theories or making any claims.

You are overthinking this.Perhaps you need to take off your Philosopher hat, and put on your Human hat?

Skepdick says: Murder is wrong.
Average human says: True (because what Skepdick says is not neither controversial nor objectionable)
Philosopher says: -- some curveball question for some unknown intellectual purpose --

[Terrapin Station]

It's not selecting the "true" truth theory. I use correspondence because it makes the most sense to me, and it addresses what I'm concerned with. If you'd use something other than correspondence, which presumably you're doing by saying that "murder is wrong" is somehow true, you can explain what truth theory you're using and then we can discuss that. If you have no idea what truth is, then why in the world would you be making a claim that something is true?

"I don't really understand what this term refers to, but I'm saying this phenomenon fits the term anyway." --why would you make a claim that amounts to that?

I am not appealing to truth theories or making any claims.

You are overthinking this.Perhaps you need to take off your Philosopher hat, and put on your Human hat?

Skepdick says: Murder is wrong.
Average human says: True (because what Skepdick says is not neither controversial nor objectionable)
Philosopher says: -- some curveball question for some unknown intellectual purpose --

If we're just saying that most people feel that murder is wrong, sure. But the whole point of this thread, in a philosophy forum, is whether there are moral facts--as in objective states of affairs that amount to moral stances, moral truths, etc. There aren't. If we want to just note that most people feel that murder is wrong, and we don't want to be very philosophical or precise with our language or anything, then what are we doing in this forum?

[Skepdick]

But the whole point of this thread, in a philosophy forum, is whether there are moral facts--as in objective states of affairs that amount to moral stances, moral truths, etc. There aren't.

Which theory/conception of objectivity and facts are you appealing to when making your assertion?

If you insist that the wrongness of murder is not a moral truth, I demand you commit to your position.

Actions speak louder than sophistry, so... go murder somebody and youtube it. Make sure you provide proof of identity/date.

If we want to just note that most people feel that murder is wrong, and we don't want to be very philosophical or precise with our language or anything, then what are we doing in this forum?

I know what I am doing here. Philosophising about the vacuousness of philosophy.

What are you doing here? Also, which theory of precision are you appealing to when you fool yourself into thinking you are being "precise" ?

We are playing with language/ideas/concepts that could mean everything and anything - it's a messy business. There's fuckall precision in this activity.

[Terrapin Station]

Which theory/conception of objectivity and facts are you appealing to when making your assertion?

No theory. The subjective/objective distinction is basically a "person-dependent"/"person-independent" distinction (or more specifically mind-dependent/mind-independent). Facts are states of affairs.

If you insist that the wrongness of murder is not a moral truth, I demand you commit to your position.

Actions speak louder than sophistry, so... go murder somebody and youtube it. Make sure you provide proof of identity/date.

So are you using "truth" to basically refer to "what one feels"? So for example, if someone feels that the recent US election was fraudulent, that's true, but if one feels that it wasn't fraudulent, then that's true?

I'm sincerely of the opinion that you're not thinking this stuff through very well. Does this mean that it's true that you're not thinking this stuff through very well?