Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 9:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 8:50 am
I have already demonstrated,
"
No human ought to prevent another human from breathing"
as a
moral fact derived from a Framework of Morality and is justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.
Above moral fact is merely one example, I have justified a hierarchy of justified moral facts.
In addition, I stated the above imperative is merely a
Guide to be incorporated as a moral objective [goal] among other critical moral objectives.
You insist the above cannot be a fact based on your constipated definition of 'what is fact'.
I had also defined what is fact and there are many types of facts, where moral facts are one type of fact;
- A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.
For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star." is a cosmological fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
Note the use of "moral fact" in the following;
In my case, as an
empirical moral realist, what is moral fact is derived from a Framework of Morality and is justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
But there's no logical entailment from 'Humans must breathe' to 'No human ought to prevent another human from breathing'.
All you do is claim there is a deductive entailment, but you never demonstrate it. So you haven't shown why the consequent is a fact.
Have a very deep. long think about it. And then, let's concentrate on this specific issue.
No logical Entailment??
As I have said you are stuck in a very tall narrow silo on 'what is morality'.
You don't have a holistic and comprehensive understanding of 'what is morality'.
In philosophy, there are two central fundamentals, i.e.
- 1. What can I know? - epistemology, so that I can know,
2. What I can do or cannot do - Morality & Ethics.
Both the above require logic and critical thinking.
You are merely focusing on epistemology but you lack a holistic and comprehensive understanding of
what is morality.
As human beings with a very much stronger intelligence and rational mind, we need an effective
Framework of Knowledge to ground the objective knowledge.
- note: what you deemed as objective [matters of fact] from an "objective reality" out there independent of human conception, is at the fundamental level of 'substance', illusory and an impossibility.
You have not proved and supported this speculation of yours.
As such, we need an effective
Framework of Knowledge for Morality & Ethics.
You are ignorant of such a requirement thus resulting in all your baseless and groundless counters to my propositions.
Note I stated above;
- I have already demonstrated,
"No human ought to prevent another human from breathing"
as a moral fact derived from a Framework of Morality and is justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.
Note "
Framework of Morality" is the most critical element and ground for my arguments re Morality.
I have already been drumming into you my points with various examples of how we have been using [objective] facts from one or more
Framework[s] to facilitate a "judgment" in another Framework of Knowledge.
I have given an example of how the Legal Framework relied on Scientific facts from the Scientific Framework and other facts [other Frameworks] to arrive at legal judgments [within a legal Framework] that qualify as objective legal facts.
Surely there is
Entailment between the different Frameworks as long as the original is factual and what follows is logical and rational.
It is also very logical to flow in this case from 'what I know' [epistemology - JTB] to 'what I can do' [moral oughts as
moral fact], note it is moral facts not your constipated dogmatic 'fact.'
Do you dispute with this?
You cannot dispute this fact!
Along the similar principles, the Moral Framework also rely of Scientific facts and other facts to arrive at moral judgments that qualify to be termed moral facts.
This is how I arrive at the moral fact from a
Moral Framework with its specific characteristics,
- Moral fact: "No human ought to prevent another human from breathing", from a
Logical fact: "All humans must breathe" from an
Empirical Fact: ALL living humans breathe.
human = alive
Or the other way round;
- From,
Empirical Fact: ALL living humans breathe - Science,
using a Moral Framework and logic,
Logical fact: "All humans must breathe" to,
Moral fact: "No human ought to prevent another human from breathing"
Because the moral fact above is a judgment from a Framework of Morality which is collective, it is objective, i.e. independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs.
What are your counters to the above.
