Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 7:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 2:56 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 6:54 am
The only thing that could make morality objective is the existence of moral facts.
Do you understand what is objectivity by the way?
Note my thread on objectivity, with a focus on moral objectivity;
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707
What is objective [fact] is conditioned to a specific FSK.
Note what is most objective is scientific knowledge, facts and truths.
Do you deny that?
Scientific facts emerge from the scientific FSK [the most credible] which is conditioned to the human conditions.
All facts are conditioned to their specific FSK.
Therefore there are objective moral facts emerging from the moral FSK.
You cannot deny this?
The only question you can raise is whether the moral FSK claimed is as credible as the scientific FSK.
But there aren't any moral facts. The very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent. There can only be moral opinions.
Your thinking re 'moral' and 'fact' is too archaic on this.
Archaic thinking is a peculiarity of children and primitives. We now know this same thinking also occupies a large place in modern man and appears as soon as directed thinking ceases. Link
Your idea of 'fact' is based on the early-Wittgenstein idea of "what is fact" which W had subsequently abandoned and yet you are still stuck with it.
see:
Peter Holmes' grounding on 'Early'-Wittgenstein
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35416
Your idea of 'moral' is also too 'vulgar' and dogmatic.
vulgar: current; popular; common:
It is so evident the idea of "what is morality" that is commonly held [morality is about what is right or wrong] had failed to be efficient in promoting the progress of morality to be ahead of the potential evil facing humanity, e.g. the threat of WMDs [biological and nuclear] and other immoral issues.
If you have any "sense of morality", that would be too subjective and not an objective stance, i.e. your view that "there is no objectivity morality" is not objective itself. That would make you an amoralist and thus by definition an immoral person.
Note the recent case where Salman Rushdie was stabbed and many Muslims insisted the stabber is 'right' and is praised as a hero to Islam while others [non-Muslims] condemned it as 'wrong' i.e. evil and immoral. This stand off will go on eternally without any potential of moral progress.
Note my stance on what is morality;
My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35464
i.e. with a moral model that will drive toward perpetual peace.
So morality isn't and can't be objective.
How hard can it be to understand and accept this?
Evidently - extremely hard.
I believe you DON'T understand rationally what you are talking about.
"Know Thyself" where you are merely an empty vessel in terms of Knowledge in Philosophy and human nature.
As I had stated this thread "What could make morality objective?" is merely
trolling for it is so obvious whatever [morality. etc.] in terms of 'right' or 'wrong' [mental judgments] cannot be factual.
Here's VA's accumulative mistake. (The coinage, 'FSK', = framework and system of knowledge.)
P1 What we call facts are 'conditioned to a specific FSK' - iow, all facts exist in a descriptive context.
P2 What we call facts exist only
because there is a specific FSK.
P3 Any FSK can 'produce' what we call facts.
P4 The credibility of an FSK depends on the empirical evidence for its factual claims.
P5 There is a morality FSK.
Conclusion: Therefore, within a credible morality FSK, there can be moral facts.
Critique.
P1 This first premise conflates two radically different ways in which we use the word
fact. What we call a fact is: primarily, a feature of reality that is or was the case; or, derivatively, a description of such a feature of reality - typically, a linguistic expression. So P1 is true for the second meaning of the word
fact, but false for the first (primary) meaning.
Strawmaning as usual, especially P1.
Yes, "What we call facts are 'conditioned to a specific FSK' "
but I have never agreed that "all [such] facts exist in a descriptive context."
I have always refer to fact in this sense,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
with scientific facts from the scientific FSK as the most credible.
There are two aspects to the above, i.e.
1. The emergence of the facts as conditioned to the FSK.
2. The description of the emerged fact.
What you are strawmaning is 2 as what I am claiming as fact which I never did.
What I am claiming is the
emergence of facts as conditioned upon a FSK and there is no fact that is pre-existing and independent by itself awaiting discovery. I have also mentioned this point a 'million' times but you cannot grasp and understood [not necessary agree with] my point.
P2 is false, because it follows from the confusion in P1. The claim that what we call a fact exists only because there is a description is obviously false. For example, the fact that water is H2O doesn't exist only because, in chemistry, we describe water as H2O. Water just is what it is, how ever we describe it. A description doesn't create the thing being described, so describing the same thing in different ways doesn't create different things.
Your P1 is a strawman, thus all your other premises are strawman and useless.
Your reliance on what is fact is archaic and dogmatic;
- Your idea of 'fact' is based on the early-Wittgenstein idea of "what is fact" which W had subsequently abandoned and yet you are still stuck with it.
see:
Peter Holmes' grounding on 'Early'-Wittgenstein
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35416
OTOH, what is most realistic is where 'what is fact' as based on
emergence from a credible FSK and therefrom described by anyone.
P3 is false, because it follows from the confusion in P1 and P2. For example, the so-called astrology FSK doesn't produce or create what we call facts-as-features-of-reality. So the existence of a so-called FSK doesn't, in itself, guarantee the existence of the things it describes - and so, the truth of its claims.
Your argument here is useless because your critique of P1 is a strawman.
As I had stated "facts-as-features-of-reality" is archaic thinking from the early-Wittgenstein which was abandoned by the later-Wittgenstein as kindergartenish.
What is claimed as 'fact' must be verified and justified by a credible FSK.
We cannot deny a astrological FSK and claims of 'facts' by astrologers.
It is evident the astrological FSK is not credible, thus what is claimed as fact is not credible at all in contrast to scientific facts as the standard.
P4 Exposes the fallacy of the preceding premises, 1 to 3. If the credibility of an FSK depends on empirical evidence for its claims, that evidence must exist outside the FSK. For example, the evidence that water is H2O is not that, in chemistry, we call water H2O. That claim is circular and self-defeating.
Strawman again, I never claimed the above.
Empirical evidence is imperative but the credibility of a FSK depend on
its processes of verification and justification of empirical evidence.
Note this:
Why the Scientific FSK is the most credible and trustworthy?
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338
P5 is back-to-front, and question-begging. There can be a credible 'morality FSK' only if there is empirical evidence for the existence of so-called moral facts, outside the morality FSK. Otherwise, the morality FSK has exactly the same status as the astrology FSK: no empirical evidence = no FSK in the first place.
Again, your dependence of metaphysical realism [
outside] is not realistic and too archaic.
With reference to my point re FSK, the moral facts emerge in entanglement with the moral FSK just like scientific facts are.
I have already provided clues that the moral facts are physical in terms of moral potentials supported by neurons, neural correlates, one of which are mirror neurons.
Astrologers merely speculate their claims of astrological facts based on speculation without supporting empirical evidences, e.g. if you are born within certain days of the year then your personality, etc. will be such an such. Such claims of so-called 'facts' are very irrational.
The conclusion is the cumulative consequence of all the mistakes in the premises - so it's worthless.
Your counter is based on your ignorance, is dependent on archaic ideas and a dogmatism driven by desperate psychology. Note I raised the thread 'Know Thyself'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35481
I bet you don't know much about yourself that is critical for such a discussion.
VA's protestation that his invented 'morality proper' has nothing to do with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour - which he dismisses as merely subjective matters of opinion - confuses the whole discussion about the supposed existence of moral facts. And his perverse claim that morality-proper is about the avoidance of evil makes no sense until he explains why it's a fact that we should avoid evil, given that the issue is not moral rightness and wrongness.
Can't you see the primary purpose of morality is to avoid "evil" naturally and spontaneously.
If not what else?
You will note the elements with the heaviest weights within the topic of morality is about 'killing' [murder, genocides,] rapes, violence, serious crimes, and the likes which are elements of evilness.
The focus of morality is not primary on the 'good' because naturally avoiding evil will facilitate the related 'good' to emerge.
As I had stated I do not prefer to use the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' ['bloody' subjective] in relation to the topic of morality because such terms has been abused to the detriment and progress of moral competence within humanity.
Your strawmaning and ignorance exposed above.
Suggest you think and reflect deeper, wider and be less dogmatic on philosophical matters.