ALL moral statements are opinions??

[Veritas Aequitas]

You always say the same thing.
The point is simple enough.
Whatever moral statement you make, they are all based on a premise that is a value laden opinion.

I understand the fact-value dichotomy but it is only contradictory if made in the same perspective.

Note I had argued, moral statements arose and are derived from a continuum of,

1. Moral opinions
2. Moral beliefs
3. Moral knowledge/facts/truths.

The above correspond to the degree of justifications and degree of veracity.

Moral facts are justified from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [albeit not exactly] just as scientific facts are justified from a Framework and System of Morality.
Science deal with natural facts but morality deal with moral facts.

"Murder is wrong" is a tautology. Since murder is DEFINED as unlawful killing. Then the assumption is based on a position which holds that the law is good. That is an opinion.

"Murder is wrong" is not an opinion.

Murder is Good is also an opinion.
And it would depend on who is murdering and who is the murderer.
If I murder Hitler, murder is good.
If you can't understand that then you are truly fucking stupid.

You are the stupid one who is ignorant of what is morality-proper.

Within morality proper and a Framework of Morality and Ethics, the most important criteria is to establish objective moral facts to act as generic moral standards to guide ALL human beings on a universal basis.

If murder is good then it is good for all humans.
If is good for all humans, then the human species could logically be extinct.
Murder is never good is any sense as far as morality is concern.
Therefore 'murder is morally wrong' as an objective fact that is independent of individuals' opinion and beliefs.

However is there is any circumstances where Hitler must be killed or murdered for the greater good, it is not within the ambit of morality but rather it is within the ambit of the political, legal framework. psychology and in a sense of Ethics [not morality].

From the perspective of morality, "Murder is absolutely wrong."
To meet this objective, the solution is to prevent any conditions for murder from happening in the first place.

"Murder is wrong" within the legal perspective is a legal fact as justified within a Legal Framework and System via intersubjective consensus after extensive research, debates and justifications via specific legislature system.

Murder is illegal is a fact. Murder is wrong is an opinion.

You are committing a fallacy of equivocation.
You are conflating a legal fact with a moral fact.

Murder is illegal is a legal fact. Murder is wrong is a moral fact [as justified].

Morality is an intra-species issue.
In general, it is not morally wrong to eat animals for they are not within the same species as the human species.

THAT ALSO IS AN OPINION that some disagree with.

It is not an opinion.
There are lots of biological evidence to support the above.
Note I mentioned the 'selfish genes' within the intra-species context.

One of this ground is based on the general* principles of the selfish genes.
(* discounting exceptions).

If people choose not to eat animals, it is due to their specific reasons which has nothing to do with morality per-se, e.g. personal psychological state, religion, health, culture, traditions, fads, various circumstantial situations, etc.

You you personally prefer to protect humans but exclude animals. That is your right. It is your right to express an OPINION.
However there is no objective fact that insists that animals and humans have to be treated differently.

There are cases where murder is the right thing to do, and therefore murder is good in those cases. There are many other cases where breaking the law is the right thing to do.

Note Buddhist morality [which I am inclined to] where one must extend compassion to all living things in general but where constraints arise, the priority of human actions is intra species.

As stated above, there are lots of biological evidence to support the above.
Note I mentioned the 'selfish genes' within the intra-species context.

Within morality there are various degrees of obligations, i.e.
moral obligation to self,
moral obligation to others
moral obligation to the species
then
moral obligation to others than own species.

As such all humans has a moral obligation to non-humans but to insist to be dogmatic to the extreme of the ideology of veganism is stupidity.

In extreme cases, a human will even have to eat his dead kins but that is not morality per se, but rather ethics and it is objective moral facts that ground to bring human behavior back to normality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

• 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

Oh look here are four assertions.
They are platitudes.
They are banal.
They are aspirations.
They are opinions.

It does not matter how many times you repeat them.
What they are not are objective; neither are they facts.

Your problem is your inability to shift paradigms from the linguistic and natural facts paradigm to the moral paradigm.

[Sculptor]

I understand the fact-value dichotomy but it is only contradictory if made in the same perspective.

Note I had argued, moral statements arose and are derived from a continuum of,


The above correspond to the degree of justifications and degree of veracity.

Moral facts are justified from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [albeit not exactly] just as scientific facts are justified from a Framework and System of Morality.
Science deal with natural facts but morality deal with moral facts.


"Murder is wrong" is not an opinion.

Murder is Good is also an opinion.
And it would depend on who is murdering and who is the murderer.
If I murder Hitler, murder is good.
If you can't understand that then you are truly fucking stupid.

You are the stupid one who is ignorant of what is morality-proper.

Within morality proper and a Framework of Morality and Ethics, the most important criteria is to establish objective moral facts to act as generic moral standards to guide ALL human beings on a universal basis.

If murder is good then it is good for all humans.
If is good for all humans, then the human species could logically be extinct.
Murder is never good is any sense as far as morality is concern.
Therefore 'murder is morally wrong' as an objective fact that is independent of individuals' opinion and beliefs.

However is there is any circumstances where Hitler must be killed or murdered for the greater good, it is not within the ambit of morality but rather it is within the ambit of the political, legal framework. psychology and in a sense of Ethics [not morality].

From the perspective of morality, "Murder is absolutely wrong."
To meet this objective, the solution is to prevent any conditions for murder from happening in the first place.

"Murder is wrong" within the legal perspective is a legal fact as justified within a Legal Framework and System via intersubjective consensus after extensive research, debates and justifications via specific legislature system.

Murder is illegal is a fact. Murder is wrong is an opinion.

You are committing a fallacy of equivocation.
You are conflating a legal fact with a moral fact.

Murder is illegal is a legal fact. Murder is wrong is a moral fact [as justified].

Morality is an intra-species issue.
In general, it is not morally wrong to eat animals for they are not within the same species as the human species.

THAT ALSO IS AN OPINION that some disagree with.

It is not an opinion.
There are lots of biological evidence to support the above.
Note I mentioned the 'selfish genes' within the intra-species context.

One of this ground is based on the general* principles of the selfish genes.
(* discounting exceptions).

If people choose not to eat animals, it is due to their specific reasons which has nothing to do with morality per-se, e.g. personal psychological state, religion, health, culture, traditions, fads, various circumstantial situations, etc.

You you personally prefer to protect humans but exclude animals. That is your right. It is your right to express an OPINION.
However there is no objective fact that insists that animals and humans have to be treated differently.

There are cases where murder is the right thing to do, and therefore murder is good in those cases. There are many other cases where breaking the law is the right thing to do.

Note Buddhist morality [which I am inclined to] where one must extend compassion to all living things in general but where constraints arise, the priority of human actions is intra species.

As stated above, there are lots of biological evidence to support the above.
Note I mentioned the 'selfish genes' within the intra-species context.

Within morality there are various degrees of obligations, i.e.
moral obligation to self,
moral obligation to others
moral obligation to the species
then
moral obligation to others than own species.

opinion, opinion, opinion.
Then more opinion.

As such all humans has a moral obligation to non-humans but to insist to be dogmatic to the extreme of the ideology of veganism is stupidity.

violent opinion.

In extreme cases, a human will even have to eat his dead kins but that is not morality per se, but rather ethics and it is objective moral facts that ground to bring human behavior back to normality.

OOOOOH. "Proper!" Moral fascist. don't touch that, don't drink that, don't snort that, don't suck this, put that down, don't go near them, keep your hands off, shut up, sit down, behave!! Women are for Men to use. But holes are only for shitting. Don't insert that! and most of all STOP HAVING A GOOD TIME.

Get off your high horse and tell me if you think killing Hitler would have been a good idea, say in 1942! Tell me that was bad!
I dare you!

[Sculptor]

• 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

Oh look here are four assertions.
They are platitudes.
They are banal.
They are aspirations.
They are opinions.

It does not matter how many times you repeat them.
What they are not are objective; neither are they facts.

Your problem is your inability to shift paradigms from the linguistic and natural facts paradigm to the moral paradigm.

Your problem is your basic grasp of simple English words such as paradigm, opinion, objective, subjective, moral, and assertion.

[Skepdick]

Your problem is your basic grasp of simple English words such as paradigm, opinion, objective, subjective, moral, and assertion.

Your problem is that you don't even know what a "problem" is...

[Veritas Aequitas]

You you personally prefer to protect humans but exclude animals. That is your right. It is your right to express an OPINION.
However there is no objective fact that insists that animals and humans have to be treated differently.

OOOOOH. "Proper!" Moral fascist. don't touch that, don't drink that, don't snort that, don't suck this, put that down, don't go near them, keep your hands off, shut up, sit down, behave!! Women are for Men to use. But holes are only for shitting. Don't insert that! and most of all STOP HAVING A GOOD TIME.

Get off your high horse and tell me if you think killing Hitler would have been a good idea, say in 1942! Tell me that was bad!
I dare you!

As I had stated, you are very ignorant of what is morality-proper.
Don't be too arrogant when you are so ignorant.
It is also very stupid to force a YES or NO only position, especially in this case which is so open and in a philosophy forum

Within the Framework of Morality and Ethics;
'Killing another human is morally wrong' period! no exception is allowed.
However I have asserted this moral standard of ideal is to be used as a GUIDE only.

The moral purpose is to strive towards the ideal.
But given the current psychological state of the average human, it is likely the actual moral competence will not meet the ideal standard.
Therefore there will be killing and murdering of human in various circumstances. This generate a moral variance.

The responsibility of each person and humanity is thus to close the moral variance to as close as possible to the ideal standard.

It is not a question of whether it is a 'good idea' in general.
But the reality in 1942 was, war was already politically declared on Germany by the Allies, thus within this legal and war framework, one of the objective would be to kill Hitler. If I am a general of any of the Allies, then it is my duty to subdue Hitler and his army and if necessary kill Hitler.

Personally, if I am in 1942, I would not choose the 'killing of Hitler' option.
How do you know the killing of Hitler would end the war, his generals could have carried on as guided by the Main Kempf .
There could be so many options and strategies to end the war.

Whatever the actions are to be taken with Hitler,
the moral maxim based on moral facts is;
'Killing another human is morally wrong' period! no exception is allowed.

To strive toward the above moral standard, humanity need to be driven to prevent wars and killings in the future by relying the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology now and that in the future.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oh look here are four assertions.
They are platitudes.
They are banal.
They are aspirations.
They are opinions.

It does not matter how many times you repeat them.
What they are not are objective; neither are they facts.

Your problem is your inability to shift paradigms from the linguistic and natural facts paradigm to the moral paradigm.

Your problem is your basic grasp of simple English words such as paradigm, opinion, objective, subjective, moral, and assertion.

Show proofs to support your assertions.

What you failed is understanding philosophy-proper 101 and etymology. In addition your thinking is VERY shallow and narrow.

Point you are being dogmatic within the paradigm of Philosophical Realism (PR) and/or Analytic Philosophy which is unrealistic. PR is in contrast to Philosophical Anti-Realism.

• Paradigm: a set of theories that explain the way a particular subject is understood at a particular time:
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... h/paradigm

[Sculptor]

You you personally prefer to protect humans but exclude animals. That is your right. It is your right to express an OPINION.
However there is no objective fact that insists that animals and humans have to be treated differently.

OOOOOH. "Proper!" Moral fascist. don't touch that, don't drink that, don't snort that, don't suck this, put that down, don't go near them, keep your hands off, shut up, sit down, behave!! Women are for Men to use. But holes are only for shitting. Don't insert that! and most of all STOP HAVING A GOOD TIME.

Get off your high horse and tell me if you think killing Hitler would have been a good idea, say in 1942! Tell me that was bad!
I dare you!

As I had stated, you are very ignorant of what is morality-proper.

Spoken like a true moral fascist.

Don't be too arrogant when you are so ignorant.

DO you want mayo with that salad?

It is also very stupid to force a YES or NO only position, especially in this case which is so open and in a philosophy forum.

It's more stupid to avoid a simple question.
"Tell me if you think killing Hitler would have been a good idea, say in 1942! Tell me that was bad! " Is NOT a yes/no question.

Within the Framework of Morality and Ethics;
'Killing another human is morally wrong' period! no exception is allowed.
However I have asserted this moral standard of ideal is to be used as a GUIDE only.

You have contradicted yourself.
It's either exceptional or a guide - you can't do both. And the reason you can't answer is that this particular exception undermines your "obejctivity".

The moral purpose is to strive towards the ideal.

Aspirations are subjective. Culturally subjective, personally subjective, historically subjective. Not objection.

But given the current psychological state of the average human, it is likely the actual moral competence will not meet the ideal standard.
Therefore there will be killing and murdering of human in various circumstances. This generate a moral variance.

This is why morality is subjective. You can attempt to make a set of rules, but you cannot expect people to follow your rules since you are a subject and make rules to suit your own bias. You've already anathematised vegetarians and vegans. Their views obviously don't count.

The responsibility of each person and humanity is thus to close the moral variance to as close as possible to the ideal standard.

No the only pure and try objective moral rule is to hunt out and kill people who suggest such things as; "The responsibility of each person and humanity is thus to close the moral variance to as close as possible to the ideal standard."
Because they seek to dominate others to their will and so have forfeit their lives.

It is not a question of whether it is a 'good idea' in general.

HELLO!!!!! {knocks veritas on the head - and gets a hollow sound}
If you want objective morality you will need it to be a good idea for all time, in all places.

But the reality in 1942 was, war was already politically declared on Germany by the Allies, thus within this legal and war framework, one of the objective would be to kill Hitler. If I am a general of any of the Allies, then it is my duty to subdue Hitler and his army and if necessary kill Hitler.

So murder is okay?
Hitler lived under the legal jurisdiction of the German state. Are you saying that this legal jurisdiction had no meaning?
If so then exterminating the Jews was not illegal.

Personally, if I am in 1942, I would not choose the 'killing of Hitler' option.
How do you know the killing of Hitler would end the war, his generals could have carried on as guided by the Main Kempf .
There could be so many options and strategies to end the war.

Killing Hitler would have shortened the war, no doubt. Some German officers tried it themselves, far from being guided by Mein Kampt, most had never read it.

Whatever the actions are to be taken with Hitler,
the moral maxim based on moral facts is;
'Killing another human is morally wrong' period! no exception is allowed.

That's a shame!! D-Day is off, The Battle of Kursk is off. Everyone just go home!

To strive toward the above moral standard, humanity need to be driven to prevent wars and killings in the future by relying the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology now and that in the future.

Thanks for that OPINION.

[Sculptor]

Your problem is your inability to shift paradigms from the linguistic and natural facts paradigm to the moral paradigm.

Your problem is your basic grasp of simple English words such as paradigm, opinion, objective, subjective, moral, and assertion.

Show proofs to support your assertions.

I have lots of evidence for this. Up to 3790 items of evidence.
search.php?author_id=7896&sr=posts

[Veritas Aequitas]

But given the current psychological state of the average human, it is likely the actual moral competence will not meet the ideal standard.
Therefore there will be killing and murdering of human in various circumstances. This generate a moral variance.

This is why morality is subjective. You can attempt to make a set of rules, but you cannot expect people to follow your rules since you are a subject and make rules to suit your own bias. You've already anathematised vegetarians and vegans. Their views obviously don't count.

Problem is you are too arrogant while driven by ignorance of what is morality.
The point is you are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

Morality is not about making, enforcing and following rules set externally.
Enforcing and forcing rules on humans is politics, theism, dictatorship and the likes.

Morality is driven by an inherent function of morality from within oneself where the universal moral facts/standards functions spontaneously aligns with one's actions.
As such within morality, there is the need to establish the generic moral facts via justification within a Framework and System of Morality.

Because there are stages of progress, the individuals will be assisted by justified true moral beliefs/facts which are generic, as GUIDEs to ensure they are in alignment with what is universal and generic to humans.

Morality thus deal with objective moral facts, but they are fundamentally subjective i.e. intersubjective and has to involve subjects.

Morality is Subjective??
Anthropologically it is noted different groups apparently has different "moral standards" arising from their specific circumstances, thus relative or 'subjective' on a group basis.
This is not morality-proper but pseudo morality because those 'moral standards' were handed down [with elements of enforcement] via traditions based on primitive thinking of specific groups, thus 'relative' or 'subjective'.

What is morality-proper is the drive to determine [with justifications] the generic moral facts within humanity and establishing methods to steer individuals to align with these generic moral facts. Such can only be effective in the future [not now] with the right approach.
This is like how Science establish scientific knowledge from empirical evidences, e.g. the abstraction, testing and confirmation of the theories of gravity from observations.

YOU are ignorant of what is morality-proper.
Suggest you research more on this topic of what is morality to clear the constipated old-fart dogmatic ideas of morality from your system.

[Sculptor]

YOU are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

Just because you say something is moral does not mean it is.
Other people have different and better ideas.

[Veritas Aequitas]

YOU are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

Just because you say something is moral does not mean it is.
Other people have different and better ideas.

Agree, it is like just saying something is 'gravity' does not mean it is.
'Gravity' as we know is a scientific fact which is justified within the Framework and System of Science.

Just like 'gravity' what is 'morality-proper' must be soundly justified.

When I said you are ignorant of what is morality-proper I am confident of what I am talking about.

Since you claimed you are an old fart who was already reading Hume's Treatise and Enquiry while I was suckling,
by now, I had refreshed on Hume and whatever I know of Morality and had read more than 100 article [including books] on what is Morality and Ethics. I believe I have scoured all that is need to understand what is Morality and Ethics in general. Let me know if you think I could miss your favorite hidden bits on Morality.

According to Socrates, Morality is reduced to 'how to live efficiently and optimally' as a human being, [Bernard Williams] which cover,

• 1. What can I believe and know? - epistemology, Science, etc.
  2. What should I do? - Morality and Ethics.
  to live efficiently and optimally as a human being.

As with most knowledge with their Pure and Applied aspects,

• i. Morality is the Pure part on Principles and theories, while
  ii. Ethics deals with the Applied aspects of human actions and conduct.

Morality-proper as such is geared towards establishing moral grounds and principles that are necessary to guide human action toward living efficiently.

What is Morality-proper is inherent within human nature via evolution, note this clue;

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

The Moral Life of Babies
Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
The earliest signs are the glimmerings of empathy and compassion—pain at the pain of others, which you can see pretty soon after birth.

Meanwhile, re Morality, all you are stuck with is;

• 1. No ought from is
  2. Fact is never evaluative, thus cannot be value.
  3. Morality is utilitarianism [?].

The above thinking is too narrow, shallow and archaic.

[Sculptor]

YOU are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

Just because you say something is moral does not mean it is.
Other people have different and better ideas.

Agree, it is like just saying something is 'gravity' does not mean it is.
'Gravity' as we know is a scientific fact which is justified within the Framework and System of Science.

Just like 'gravity' what is 'morality-proper' must be soundly justified.

Shit falling towards a large mass is a law of nature.
All you have is shit coming out of your mouth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just because you say something is moral does not mean it is.
Other people have different and better ideas.

Agree, it is like just saying something is 'gravity' does not mean it is.
'Gravity' as we know is a scientific fact which is justified within the Framework and System of Science.

Just like 'gravity' what is 'morality-proper' must be soundly justified.

Shit falling towards a large mass is a law of nature.
All you have is shit coming out of your mouth.

As usual, run out of rational arguments and counters, so resort to ad hominen.

[Sculptor]

Agree, it is like just saying something is 'gravity' does not mean it is.
'Gravity' as we know is a scientific fact which is justified within the Framework and System of Science.

Just like 'gravity' what is 'morality-proper' must be soundly justified.

Shit falling towards a large mass is a law of nature.
All you have is shit coming out of your mouth.

As usual, run out of rational arguments and counters, so resort to ad hominen.

Obviously you don't have literal shit coming out of your mouth. But essentially my argument is correct; you have used a false analogy.