ALL moral statements are opinions??

[Veritas Aequitas]

ALL moral statements are opinions.
That is an objective fact.

I claimed the following moral statements are objective moral facts as justified from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics;

• 1. No human ought to kill another human.
  2. No human ought to stop another human from breathing till death.
  3. No human ought to rape another human.
  4. No human ought to commit any evil* act upon another human.
  * as defined appropriately

It is therefore morally wrong for any one to act against the above objective moral facts.

For anyone who insist the above objective moral statement [moral facts] are merely opinions, means they deny the above are objective in the moral sense.
Because the above to them are merely opinions and not objective morally, therefore, it is not morally wrong to commit any of the above evil.

Thus their views can be interpreted as;
For them it is not morally wrong to murder them, rape their wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.

Their only recourse is legal [not if living in an isolated island], personal vengeance or cry, but they has no holistic moral solutions to deal with the acts of evil for the sake of humanity.

ps. the above idea is extended from Skepdick's.

Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am surprised by Sculptor's and Peter Holmes' ignorance and inabilities in differentiating between opinion, moral opinion and moral fact.

• viewtopic.php?p=457396#p457396
  An opinion - in this case, a value-judgement - can be based on facts and knowledge - but it remains an opinion. You don't seem to grasp the fact that a justification is just a reason for believing or claiming something. A moral opinion justified by facts and sound argument doesn't therefore become a fact.

• viewtopic.php?p=457387#p457387
  Whatever facts and arguments we deploy to justify a moral opinion, it remains an opinion - by definition.
  And others can deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify different a moral opinion.

They are ignorant and dogmatically stuck to the view, facts can be proven, opinions cannot be proven. This is because they are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

• Opinion = a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/opinion

It is true people have and made opinions under various moral situations. But moral opinions are "opinions", i.e. not necessary based on fact or knowledge.

However moral facts are a different 'kettle of fish' from moral opinions.
Moral facts are facts justified and derived from within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Once they are justified as such, these moral facts are independent of the individuals' moral opinions and moral beliefs, thus qualified as 'objective.'

Thus to insist 'ALL moral statements are opinions' is ignorance and stupidity.

• Note the example of Science and scientific facts.
  A scientific hypothesis can begin as an opinion [via abduction] or conjecture.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
  This conjecture is then continuously polished within the Scientific Framework and System which eventually upon peer review and intersubjective consensus is accepted as a scientific fact/truth/knowledge, theory, law, etc.

Now, if the Scientific Framework and System can churn out scientific facts from what is merely conjectures and opinions from the beginning,
why can't the Moral Framework and System do the same with churning out moral facts from moral opinions or otherwise along the same process as the Scientific Framework?

[Sculptor]

ALL moral statements are opinions.
That is an objective fact.

I claimed the following moral statements are objective moral facts as justified from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics;

• 1. No human ought to kill another human.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

2. No human ought to stop another human from breathing till death.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

3. No human ought to rape another human.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

4. No human ought to commit any evil* act upon another human.
* as defined appropriately

As defined by opinion.

[/list]

It is therefore morally wrong for any one to act against the above objective moral facts.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

For anyone who insist the above objective moral statement [moral facts] are merely opinions, means they deny the above are objective in the moral sense.
Because the above to them are merely opinions and not objective morally, therefore, it is not morally wrong to commit any of the above evil.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

Thus their views can be interpreted as;
For them it is not morally wrong to murder them, rape their wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.

Their only recourse is legal [not if living in an isolated island], personal vengeance or cry, but they has no holistic moral solutions to deal with the acts of evil for the sake of humanity.

ps. the above idea is extended from Skepdick's.

Views?

[Skepdick]

ALL moral statements are opinions.
That is an objective fact.

I claimed the following moral statements are objective moral facts as justified from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics;

• 1. No human ought to kill another human.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

2. No human ought to stop another human from breathing till death.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

3. No human ought to rape another human.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

4. No human ought to commit any evil* act upon another human.
* as defined appropriately

As defined by opinion.

[/list]

It is therefore morally wrong for any one to act against the above objective moral facts.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

For anyone who insist the above objective moral statement [moral facts] are merely opinions, means they deny the above are objective in the moral sense.
Because the above to them are merely opinions and not objective morally, therefore, it is not morally wrong to commit any of the above evil.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

Thus their views can be interpreted as;
For them it is not morally wrong to murder them, rape their wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.

Their only recourse is legal [not if living in an isolated island], personal vengeance or cry, but they has no holistic moral solutions to deal with the acts of evil for the sake of humanity.

ps. the above idea is extended from Skepdick's.

Views?

All rules have exceptions. You would've added more to the discussion if you took a photo of your morning shit.

[Skepdick]

ALL moral statements are opinions.
That is an objective fact.

I claimed the following moral statements are objective moral facts as justified from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics;

• 1. No human ought to kill another human.
  2. No human ought to stop another human from breathing till death.
  3. No human ought to rape another human.
  4. No human ought to commit any evil* act upon another human.
  * as defined appropriately

It is therefore morally wrong for any one to act against the above objective moral facts.

For anyone who insist the above objective moral statement [moral facts] are merely opinions, means they deny the above are objective in the moral sense.
Because the above to them are merely opinions and not objective morally, therefore, it is not morally wrong to commit any of the above evil.

Thus their views can be interpreted as;
For them it is not morally wrong to murder them, rape their wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.

Their only recourse is legal [not if living in an isolated island], personal vengeance or cry, but they has no holistic moral solutions to deal with the acts of evil for the sake of humanity.

ps. the above idea is extended from Skepdick's.

Views?

You are trivialising my point significantly and missing out on the nuance.

Sculptor is using the phrase "all X are opinions" as an instrument of dismissal. Naturally, he can say whatever he wants to say, but in the end he undermines his own position.

I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I am trying to practice the principle of charity.

I am trying to believe that all of his opinions (even if they are "just" opinions) are based on SOME sort of reasoning, evidence or rationale.
Surely, he used SOME sort of thinking process to arrive at his opinions - even if it's just his own instinct for self-preservation; or his disgust for heinous acts. He arrived as his opinion via thinking even if he can't explain the exact thought process.

I am trying to be charitable, but if he wants us to think that he pulls all of his opinions out of his ass... well - I can accept that too.

Of course, I do have the nagging feeling that he really does pull most of his ideas out of his ass. But I am not supposed to say it.
Too late...

[Veritas Aequitas]

ALL moral statements are opinions.
That is an objective fact.

I claimed the following moral statements are objective moral facts as justified from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics;

• 1. No human ought to kill another human.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

2. No human ought to stop another human from breathing till death.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

3. No human ought to rape another human.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

4. No human ought to commit any evil* act upon another human.
* as defined appropriately

As defined by opinion.

[/list]

It is therefore morally wrong for any one to act against the above objective moral facts.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

For anyone who insist the above objective moral statement [moral facts] are merely opinions, means they deny the above are objective in the moral sense.
Because the above to them are merely opinions and not objective morally, therefore, it is not morally wrong to commit any of the above evil.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

Thus their views can be interpreted as;
For them it is not morally wrong to murder them, rape their wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.

Their only recourse is legal [not if living in an isolated island], personal vengeance or cry, but they has no holistic moral solutions to deal with the acts of evil for the sake of humanity.

ps. the above idea is extended from Skepdick's.

Views?

So you are affirming it is not morally wrong,
for anyone to murder, rape your wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on them?

2. No human ought to stop another human from breathing till death.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

It is not my opinion but a moral fact justified from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Any normal person will agree with the above ought.
Any person who do not agree with the above would be recognized as a mental case by any professional psychiatrist grounded upon the DSM-V.

[Veritas Aequitas]

ALL moral statements are opinions.
That is an objective fact.

I claimed the following moral statements are objective moral facts as justified from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics;

• 1. No human ought to kill another human.
  2. No human ought to stop another human from breathing till death.
  3. No human ought to rape another human.
  4. No human ought to commit any evil* act upon another human.
  * as defined appropriately

It is therefore morally wrong for any one to act against the above objective moral facts.

For anyone who insist the above objective moral statement [moral facts] are merely opinions, means they deny the above are objective in the moral sense.
Because the above to them are merely opinions and not objective morally, therefore, it is not morally wrong to commit any of the above evil.

Thus their views can be interpreted as;
For them it is not morally wrong to murder them, rape their wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.

Their only recourse is legal [not if living in an isolated island], personal vengeance or cry, but they has no holistic moral solutions to deal with the acts of evil for the sake of humanity.

ps. the above idea is extended from Skepdick's.

Views?

You are trivialising my point significantly and missing out on the nuance.

Sculptor is using the phrase "all X are opinions" as an instrument of dismissal. Naturally, he can say whatever he wants to say, but in the end he undermines his own position.

I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I am trying to practice the principle of charity.

I am trying to believe that all of his opinions (even if they are "just" opinions) are based on SOME sort of reasoning, evidence or rationale.
Surely, he used SOME sort of thinking process to arrive at his opinions - even if it's just his own instinct for self-preservation; or his disgust for heinous acts. He arrived as his opinion via thinking even if he can't explain the exact thought process.

I am trying to be charitable, but if he wants us to think that he pulls all of his opinions out of his ass... well - I can accept that too.

Of course, I do have the nagging feeling that he really does pull most of his ideas out of his ass. But I am not supposed to say it.
Too late...

Note I have provided the general definition of 'opinion',

• Opinion = a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/opinion

When he claimed what I asserted as 'moral fact' are merely 'opinion' he is implying they are not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
But he is wrong, what I asserted as moral facts are justified with empirical evidences within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

What is 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.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

The above are facts as justified and derived from their respective Framework of Knowledge.

Moral facts as I had presented are justified and derived from the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Since they are based on other facts and knowledge, they cannot be opinions [as defined above] rather they are moral facts.

Therefore for Sculptor to insist "ALL Moral Statements are opinions" is very unlearned and stupid.

[Skepdick]

Note I have provided the general definition of 'opinion',

• Opinion = a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/opinion

When he claimed what I asserted as 'moral fact' are merely 'opinion' he is implying they are not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
But he is wrong, what I asserted as moral facts are justified with empirical evidences within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

What is Fact?

Within the Framework/System of my own making (because - constructivism) all of my "opinions" are factual.

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.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

The above are facts as justified and derived from their respective Framework of Knowledge.

Moral facts as I had presented are justified and derived from the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Since they are based on other facts and knowledge, they cannot be opinions [as defined above] rather they are moral facts.

Therefore for Sculptor to insist "ALL Moral Statements are opinions" is very unlearned and stupid.

This is moot.

A fact synthesised in one framework is an opinion when evaluated in another.

Different reference frames lead to different conclusions.

[Sculptor]

I claimed the following moral statements are objective moral facts as justified from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics;

• 1. No human ought to kill another human.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

2. No human ought to stop another human from breathing till death.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

3. No human ought to rape another human.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

4. No human ought to commit any evil* act upon another human.
* as defined appropriately

As defined by opinion.

[/list]

It is therefore morally wrong for any one to act against the above objective moral facts.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

For anyone who insist the above objective moral statement [moral facts] are merely opinions, means they deny the above are objective in the moral sense.
Because the above to them are merely opinions and not objective morally, therefore, it is not morally wrong to commit any of the above evil.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

Thus their views can be interpreted as;
For them it is not morally wrong to murder them, rape their wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.

Their only recourse is legal [not if living in an isolated island], personal vengeance or cry, but they has no holistic moral solutions to deal with the acts of evil for the sake of humanity.

ps. the above idea is extended from Skepdick's.

Views?

So you are affirming it is not morally wrong,
for anyone to murder, rape your wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on them?

The level of your comprehension is staggeringly low.
In fact it is shocking low and stupid.
It is my OPINION that all examples of rape I can imagine are WRONG.
Clearly there are many examples throughout history and across culture where rape was NOT considered wrong.
Shall I say that again in words that a two year old could understand?
You are a laugh a minute. You keep on giving

[/color]

2. No human ought to stop another human from breathing till death.

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

It is not my opinion but a moral fact justified from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Any normal person will agree with the above ought.
Any person who do not agree with the above would be recognized as a mental case by any professional psychiatrist grounded upon the DSM-V.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note I have provided the general definition of 'opinion',

• Opinion = a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/opinion

When he claimed what I asserted as 'moral fact' are merely 'opinion' he is implying they are not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
But he is wrong, what I asserted as moral facts are justified with empirical evidences within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

What is Fact?

Within the Framework/System of my own making (because - constructivism) all of my "opinions" are factual.

If your Framework/System conclude 'Santa Claus is a real man from the North Pole' surely that cannot be factual.

Whatever is claimed to be factual, it should be compare to the Scientific Framework/system with its features as the base standard.

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.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

The above are facts as justified and derived from their respective Framework of Knowledge.

Moral facts as I had presented are justified and derived from the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Since they are based on other facts and knowledge, they cannot be opinions [as defined above] rather they are moral facts.

Therefore for Sculptor to insist "ALL Moral Statements are opinions" is very unlearned and stupid.

This is moot.

A fact synthesised in one framework is an opinion when evaluated in another.

Different reference frames lead to different conclusions.

Nah,
surely the claim God exists from the Theological Framework and System cannot be accepted as fact.

As mentioned, the degree of veracity and confidence level of a conclusion from a Framework/System will depend on how it is compared to the Scientific Framework and System as a standard.

A fact synthesised in one framework need not be necessary an opinion when evaluated in another.
Note scientific facts are accepted with high confidence in a legal Framework/system.
Perhaps a 'fact' claimed from an unaccredited set up may be an opinion to another.

Some fundamentalist theist will insist all scientific knowledge are merely opinions while what is in their holy texts are facts. [will you agree to their claims?] But their claims cannot be justified by our base standard, i.e. the Scientific Framework/system.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.As defined by opinion.Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

So you are affirming it is not morally wrong,
for anyone to murder, rape your wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on them?

The level of your comprehension is staggeringly low.
In fact it is shocking low and stupid.
It is my OPINION that all examples of rape I can imagine are WRONG.
Clearly there are many examples throughout history and across culture where rape was NOT considered wrong.
Shall I say that again in words that a two year old could understand?
You are a laugh a minute. You keep on giving

Your opinion, for which many exceptions exist.

It is not my opinion but a moral fact justified from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Any normal person will agree with the above ought.
Any person who do not agree with the above would be recognized as a mental case by any professional psychiatrist grounded upon the DSM-V.

You are the one who is ignorant and stupid re what is morality proper. I dare say that because the fact is by now I have read > 100 articles [incl books] re morality to grasp what is morality proper to note your views on morality are archaic.

Rape is more complex to justify, I'll put it aside.

Let's take "murder",
I take it for you,
it is your OPINION that all examples of murder you can imagine are WRONG.
Show me examples throughout history and across culture where murder [not killing] was NOT considered wrong.
At present, it is very evident in whatever is enacted re murder, the OPINIONs by ALL is, murder is wrong.
If there is consensus by all, that would be a fact, i.e. in this case a legal fact - not a natural fact.

Note if you view it your way, Scientific facts are also derived from 'OPINIONs' [from abductive reasoning] and justified progressively till there is consensus, i.e. intersubjective consensus as scientific facts.
You will note probably millions of opinions had been processed through the Scientific Framework and System and millions opinions were rejected except for those that pass the tests and are accepted a fact. Even then some of these so called 'accepted facts' were later rejected upon new evidences that show otherwise.

So within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics,
based on a complex set of justifications [I'll skip the details] of empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning,
the conclusion is "murder is morally wrong" as a moral fact - note not a natural fact but a qualified moral fact.
As such, the final conclusion 'murder is morally wrong' is a moral fact.

[Skepdick]

The level of your comprehension is staggeringly low.
In fact it is shocking low and stupid.
It is my OPINION that all examples of rape I can imagine are WRONG.
Clearly there are many examples throughout history and across culture where rape was NOT considered wrong.

Do you even understand the ceteris paribus principle?

Everything in GREEN is uttered from your perspective.
Everything in RED is uttered from your misunderstanding of other people's perspectives.

You are switching "frameworks"/perspectives - you are violating the ceteris paribus principle!

Rape is wrong. But maybe it isn't.
Murder is wrong. But maybe it isn't.

Can you even make up your fucking mind?

Stretch your imagination a little and try to think of an example where rape or murder would not be wrong.

[FlashDangerpants]

Sculptor is using the phrase "all X are opinions" as an instrument of dismissal. Naturally, he can say whatever he wants to say, but in the end he undermines his own position.

I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I am trying to practice the principle of charity.

I am trying to believe that all of his opinions (even if they are "just" opinions) are based on SOME sort of reasoning, evidence or rationale.
Surely, he used SOME sort of thinking process to arrive at his opinions - even if it's just his own instinct for self-preservation; or his disgust for heinous acts. He arrived as his opinion via thinking even if he can't explain the exact thought process.

I am trying to be charitable, but if he wants us to think that he pulls all of his opinions out of his ass... well - I can accept that too.

Opinion doesn't entail a complete lack of process, you can of course just pull an opinion entirely out of your butt, however there is usually some sort of basis for them, and internal consistency with your own beliefs and other opinions is usually assumed even though it seldom holds up under questioning.

Fact and opinion as commonly differentiated (excluding whatever computer science you are about to unleash and I am about to ignore) by the sort of justification that can support their claims as well as the degree to which contradiction is problematic.

Being born into a society and inheriting a huge number of shared beliefs is part of being a human. The opinions you form throughout your life overwhelmingly relate to this background - even if you are the most original man who ever lived this remains true. The innate portion of all that is very limited, it seems that people and many animals have a basic quantitiave sense of equitability that would make a desire for fairness seem sort of biological. Likewise you can find biological causation in why people value cooperative behaviour. So there is something arguably factual underlying our ability to percieve a realm of ethics at all.

But just as there is biology involved in us having linguistic capabilities that does little to establish what things we must describe with them, so the contents of our ethical world seem to be up to us to manufacture, which helps explain why we keep refining it.

I tend to avoid the atomistic implications of 'opinion' when discussing this, but only because most people seem to have the patently absurd notion that their entire set of opinions is somehow all their own work, or that it is easy to just drop all your opinions from day to day and just have some different set - the sort of thing that is remarkable when it actually happens to somebody irl as it typically means they have suffered a stroke, brain tumour or serious head wound and is sometimes how they find out about it.

So rather than describe morality as """"MERE"""" opinion, I would typically label it a sort of fashion. Over time, relatively short times in the grand scheme of things, we are frequently persuaded as a group that things which were entirely wrong are now totally ok (women having opinions about stuff, men sucking dick etc), while other activities move in the other direction.

The general direction of these things is that we extend our concern to new groups over time. So the earliest human societies had direct concern for their family and their group as 'us' plus whatever rules of commerce or war may be agreed with neighbouring groups of outsiders. Ever since then the process has involved new groups of previously others becoming 'us'. That's an extreme truncation, but true-ish.

Moral language however has no built in concepts for things to 'become' right or wrong over time, everything is right or is wrong. so today slavery is wrong, and thus today slavery was always wrong and always will be. As we no longer have this group of others called slaves to whom we owe little while to us they owe all their work and their sexual organs, hopefully that one won't make a comeback.

If there is a nuclear war or fascists win more elections, or some other cataclysim, maybe a new society will emerge with slavery restored as an instituion. It is not meaningful for us to say that slavery will thus become right. It is unlikely that among that future society of the enslaved that they would from their perspective ever say that slavery is right either, but among the slaveholders, assuming they follow the human tendency not to believe oneself to be evil, those guys would say slavery 'is' right because <insert whatever fashionable opinion of the day is used to justify this belief>.

[Skepdick]

Opinion doesn't entail a complete lack of process, you can of course just pull an opinion entirely out of your butt, however there is usually some sort of basis for them, and internal consistency with your own beliefs and other opinions is usually assumed even though it seldom holds up under questioning.

Fact and opinion as commonly differentiated (excluding whatever computer science you are about to unleash and I am about to ignore) by the sort of justification that can support their claims as well as the degree to which contradiction is problematic.

That's a great narrative (that I am about to ignore) because There is no basis and you can't justify your justifications

The way I navigate around this mess is coherentism - I bootstrap myself by my bootstraps, which is recursive (ergo, computational) - but you don't want to hear that.

Still, I have no fucking way of understanding the world or anything about it without language (and Quantum Logic is the logic of linguistics).

Still, the foundation that I am happy to acknowledge/accept though is human needs. Which is the "Why?" question.

[FlashDangerpants]

Obviously we will diverge at the usual points of our irreconcilable differences. Perhaps we can refrain from stealing Aquafresh's thread this time.