Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:37 am
I have challenged your points raised above.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:23 pm 4 If you think my account of these facts about our linguistic practice - our use of the words 'fact' and 'objectivity' - is incorrect, then by all means challenge it. Because, if you disagree with but don't challenge my account, we're just talking past each other.
5 An example of a fact is that what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call hydrogen and what we call oxygen. Because this feature of reality is the case, the (simplified) factual assertion 'water is H2O' is true, given the way we use those signs. Now, in my opinion, that assertion is true. But what I or anyone thinks is fucking irrelevant, simply because it happens to be the case that water is H2O. That is a feature of reality - what we (English speakers) call a fact, as explained above.
6 Now, given the explanation so far, I hope you understand what the question 'are there moral facts?' means. For example, is the moral wrongness of needlessly killing animals a feature of reality that is the case, in the way that water being H2O is the case? For example, could we go out and empirically demonstrate that needlessly killing animals is morally wrong, so that anyone's opinion on the matter would be irrelevant?
Now, please have a really good, careful think about this. And instead of shooting off ill-considered questions, work out exactly where you think my reasoning goes wrong - and state your argument.
Note 'water is H20' is only valid within a scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] as supported by the semantics FSK.
Whatever is a scientific fact/truth within the scientific FSK is at best merely a 'polished conjecture'.
Therefore the scientific fact/truth 'water is H20' is merely a polished conjecture.
Thus whatever is to be the case based on a scientific fact or truth, it is at best merely a conjecture, i.e. a conditional polished conjecture.
In a claim of moral facts/truths, it is the same with that of scientific facts or truths, i.e. whatever is a moral fact or truth is a best a polished conjecture within the Moral FSK [Framework & System of Knowledge].
My claim is that the Moral FSK I proposed is a near-equivalent to the scientific FSK, because my Moral FSK is dependents of scientific truths with philosophical arguments.
Note your semantics and linguistic FSK you relied upon is not a critical factor in this debate because we all use the same semantics and linguistic standards. It is the same with the logic we use.
What is critical is how robust and credible is the moral FSK that is used.
My claim is that the Moral FSK I proposed is a near-equivalent to the scientific FSK, because my Moral FSK is dependents of scientific truths with philosophical arguments.