Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

So you agree: that what we call a fact exists only within a system and framework of knowledge does not mean that any system and framework of knowledge can produce facts - and that not all claims made in any system and framework of knowledge will be facts. Each claim in any context has to be assessed against the evidence.

Now, you claim that morality is a system and framework of knowledge like any other - like, say, the chemistry system and framework of knowledge. And you claim that therefore there are moral facts just as there are chemistry facts - though moral facts aren't of the same high-class quality as a chemistry fact, such as: water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen.

For example, you claim that 'it's morally wrong to prevent someone breathing until they die' is a moral fact of the same kind as 'water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen', though it's not a fact of the same degree or quality as the chemical fact.

Have I got this right?

Yes in term of justification empirically and philosophically within its specific Framework and System.

So, the question of the moral facts' degree of veracity is whether they can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the Moral Framework and System.

Okay. But I'm still not clear. Do you think any system and framework of knowledge (SFK) can produce facts? Or do you think some can't?

We agree that what we call a fact, in any system and framework of knowledge (SFK), depends on evidence and sound argument: the weaker the evidence, the weaker the fact.

Back to theology. You call theology an SFK which, like any SFK, can produce facts. Can you offer a theological fact of any strength - even a very weak one - that counts as a theological fact? I ask because, in my view, theology - talk about gods - doesn't produce any facts whatsoever, but only unjustified claims - so that it's wrong to call theology an SFK. What do you think?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you agree: that what we call a fact exists only within a system and framework of knowledge does not mean that any system and framework of knowledge can produce facts - and that not all claims made in any system and framework of knowledge will be facts. Each claim in any context has to be assessed against the evidence.

Now, you claim that morality is a system and framework of knowledge like any other - like, say, the chemistry system and framework of knowledge. And you claim that therefore there are moral facts just as there are chemistry facts - though moral facts aren't of the same high-class quality as a chemistry fact, such as: water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen.

For example, you claim that 'it's morally wrong to prevent someone breathing until they die' is a moral fact of the same kind as 'water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen', though it's not a fact of the same degree or quality as the chemical fact.

Have I got this right?

Yes in term of justification empirically and philosophically within its specific Framework and System.

So, the question of the moral facts' degree of veracity is whether they can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the Moral Framework and System.

Okay. But I'm still not clear. Do you think any system and framework of knowledge (SFK) can produce facts? Or do you think some can't?

We agree that what we call a fact, in any system and framework of knowledge (SFK), depends on evidence and sound argument: the weaker the evidence, the weaker the fact.

Back to theology. You call theology an SFK which, like any SFK, can produce facts. Can you offer a theological fact of any strength - even a very weak one - that counts as a theological fact? I ask because, in my view, theology - talk about gods - doesn't produce any facts whatsoever, but only unjustified claims - so that it's wrong to call theology an SFK. What do you think?

That I assign theology as an SFK is on the basis of a continuum.
The continuum of veracity is from 99.99/100 to 0.000000.....01/100.

The theists claim that God exists as real is a 'justified' fact that God listened and answers their prayers.
If this is to be a fact, it will have 0.000000..001/100 degree of veracity as a concession, to me it is an impossibility to be real.
All objects and mental manifestations related to theology are facts as long as they are justified.
Example, it is a fact and true there the book [object] called the holy bible and other holy texts with its specific religious content. That the content are true or not is a different question.

The theological structures, organizations, hierachical titles [pope, bishops, etc.], etc. are also facts generated from the theological SFK.

[Peter Holmes]

Yes in term of justification empirically and philosophically within its specific Framework and System.

So, the question of the moral facts' degree of veracity is whether they can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the Moral Framework and System.

Okay. But I'm still not clear. Do you think any system and framework of knowledge (SFK) can produce facts? Or do you think some can't?

We agree that what we call a fact, in any system and framework of knowledge (SFK), depends on evidence and sound argument: the weaker the evidence, the weaker the fact.

Back to theology. You call theology an SFK which, like any SFK, can produce facts. Can you offer a theological fact of any strength - even a very weak one - that counts as a theological fact? I ask because, in my view, theology - talk about gods - doesn't produce any facts whatsoever, but only unjustified claims - so that it's wrong to call theology an SFK. What do you think?

That I assign theology as an SFK is on the basis of a continuum.
The continuum of veracity is from 99.99/100 to 0.000000.....01/100.

The theists claim that God exists as real is a 'justified' fact that God listened and answers their prayers.
If this is to be a fact, it will have 0.000000..001/100 degree of veracity as a concession, to me it is an impossibility to be real.
All objects and mental manifestations related to theology are facts as long as they are justified.
Example, it is a fact and true there the book [object] called the holy bible and other holy texts with its specific religious content. That the content are true or not is a different question.

The theological structures, organizations, hierachical titles [pope, bishops, etc.], etc. are also facts generated from the theological SFK.

That there are religious texts is not a theological fact. Nor is the fact that many people believe in gods. Do you know of any theological facts - true factual assertions about gods - within the theology SFK?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Okay. But I'm still not clear. Do you think any system and framework of knowledge (SFK) can produce facts? Or do you think some can't?

We agree that what we call a fact, in any system and framework of knowledge (SFK), depends on evidence and sound argument: the weaker the evidence, the weaker the fact.

Back to theology. You call theology an SFK which, like any SFK, can produce facts. Can you offer a theological fact of any strength - even a very weak one - that counts as a theological fact? I ask because, in my view, theology - talk about gods - doesn't produce any facts whatsoever, but only unjustified claims - so that it's wrong to call theology an SFK. What do you think?

That I assign theology as an SFK is on the basis of a continuum.
The continuum of veracity is from 99.99/100 to 0.000000.....01/100.

The theists claim that God exists as real is a 'justified' fact that God listened and answers their prayers.
If this is to be a fact, it will have 0.000000..001/100 degree of veracity as a concession, to me it is an impossibility to be real.
All objects and mental manifestations related to theology are facts as long as they are justified.
Example, it is a fact and true there the book [object] called the holy bible and other holy texts with its specific religious content. That the content are true or not is a different question.

The theological structures, organizations, hierachical titles [pope, bishops, etc.], etc. are also facts generated from the theological SFK.

That there are religious texts is not a theological fact. Nor is the fact that many people believe in gods. Do you know of any theological facts - true factual assertions about gods - within the theology SFK?

Note the argument from John Searle which I posted;

• How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824

where he differentiated brute facts from constitutional facts.
His term 'constitutional' is the same as my specific Framework of System and Knowledge
which produce its specific constitutional fact.

The existence of religious texts are facts.
They are constitutional facts generated from the theological constitution.

"Christians exist" is a true fact but it is conditioned within the Christianity constitution.
The Pope exists, and so is the rest of the hierarchy of religious personnel with their respective title.
"Theists exist" is a also a justified true fact but that is conditioned upon the theological Framework and System.
It is a fact theists believe in a God [easily justified], but whether God is a fact or not is a different set of factual issue that needs justification.

Suggest you read the J Searle's argument above.
You have to if you are serious into philosophy since Searle is a reputable philosopher.

Whatever statements that are related to theology and justified within the theological constitution, they are constitutional facts, i.e. theological facts in this case.

As you had agreed earlier, specific FSK produce their respective facts of different degrees of veracity which must be subjected to verification and justification.
Therefore the theological FSK produce theological facts but whatever the facts they must be justified to be true or false.

[Peter Holmes]

That I assign theology as an SFK is on the basis of a continuum.
The continuum of veracity is from 99.99/100 to 0.000000.....01/100.

The theists claim that God exists as real is a 'justified' fact that God listened and answers their prayers.
If this is to be a fact, it will have 0.000000..001/100 degree of veracity as a concession, to me it is an impossibility to be real.
All objects and mental manifestations related to theology are facts as long as they are justified.
Example, it is a fact and true there the book [object] called the holy bible and other holy texts with its specific religious content. That the content are true or not is a different question.

The theological structures, organizations, hierachical titles [pope, bishops, etc.], etc. are also facts generated from the theological SFK.

That there are religious texts is not a theological fact. Nor is the fact that many people believe in gods. Do you know of any theological facts - true factual assertions about gods - within the theology SFK?

Note the argument from John Searle which I posted;

• How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824

where he differentiated brute facts from constitutional facts.
His term 'constitutional' is the same as my specific Framework of System and Knowledge
which produce its specific constitutional fact.

The existence of religious texts are facts.
They are constitutional facts generated from the theological constitution.

"Christians exist" is a true fact but it is conditioned within the Christianity constitution.
The Pope exists, and so is the rest of the hierarchy of religious personnel with their respective title.
"Theists exist" is a also a justified true fact but that is conditioned upon the theological Framework and System.
It is a fact theists believe in a God [easily justified], but whether God is a fact or not is a different set of factual issue that needs justification.

Suggest you read the J Searle's argument above.
You have to if you are serious into philosophy since Searle is a reputable philosopher.

Whatever statements that are related to theology and justified within the theological constitution, they are constitutional facts, i.e. theological facts in this case.

As you had agreed earlier, specific FSK produce their respective facts of different degrees of veracity which must be subjected to verification and justification.
Therefore the theological FSK produce theological facts but whatever the facts they must be justified to be true or false.

1 No, you misunderstand Searle's argument. The constitutional facts he's talking about are not your SFK facts. If I have time, I'll explain why his argument is fallacious anyway.

2 The facts about the existence of religious texts, Christians, the Pope and theists are NOT theological facts - because they aren't true factual assertions about gods. Are there any true factual assertions about gods? If not - as I think - then theology is not an SFK at all - or not one that produces facts.

3 Your probability range is for the truth of factual assertions. But not all assertions are factual in the first place. For example, what is the probability that Bach's music is sublime, or that slavery is morally wrong? Can you see why these are incoherent questions? It's for precisely that reason that aesthetics and morality aren't and can't be objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That there are religious texts is not a theological fact. Nor is the fact that many people believe in gods. Do you know of any theological facts - true factual assertions about gods - within the theology SFK?

Note the argument from John Searle which I posted;

• How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824

where he differentiated brute facts from constitutional facts.
His term 'constitutional' is the same as my specific Framework of System and Knowledge
which produce its specific constitutional fact.

The existence of religious texts are facts.
They are constitutional facts generated from the theological constitution.

"Christians exist" is a true fact but it is conditioned within the Christianity constitution.
The Pope exists, and so is the rest of the hierarchy of religious personnel with their respective title.
"Theists exist" is a also a justified true fact but that is conditioned upon the theological Framework and System.
It is a fact theists believe in a God [easily justified], but whether God is a fact or not is a different set of factual issue that needs justification.

Suggest you read the J Searle's argument above.
You have to if you are serious into philosophy since Searle is a reputable philosopher.

Whatever statements that are related to theology and justified within the theological constitution, they are constitutional facts, i.e. theological facts in this case.

As you had agreed earlier, specific FSK produce their respective facts of different degrees of veracity which must be subjected to verification and justification.
Therefore the theological FSK produce theological facts but whatever the facts they must be justified to be true or false.

1 No, you misunderstand Searle's argument. The constitutional facts he's talking about are not your SFK facts. If I have time, I'll explain why his argument is fallacious anyway.

Noted.

2 The facts about the existence of religious texts, Christians, the Pope and theists are NOT theological facts - because they aren't true factual assertions about gods. Are there any true factual assertions about gods? If not - as I think - then theology is not an SFK at all - or not one that produces facts.

Based on my 'God is Impossible to Real' argument, whatever theists claim of God cannot be factual.
Why is the existence of Christians is not a fact?

Note these are facts listing the number of the different religious people in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... opulations

3 Your probability range is for the truth of factual assertions. But not all assertions are factual in the first place. For example, what is the probability that Bach's music is sublime, or that slavery is morally wrong? Can you see why these are incoherent questions? It's for precisely that reason that aesthetics and morality aren't and can't be objective.

Nope, it is not about 'probability' but degree of veracity.
Note I had stated you are stuck in the LPs paradigm of 'what is fact' thus you will always have problem with the issue of 'fact'.

Note this example re aesthetic of beauty.
That Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019 is a fact as conditioned upon the FSK of the Miss World Organization.
How is that this aspect of aesthetic is objectified?
The degree of veracity in this case is compared to the veracity of the Scientific FSK as the standard.

That 'slavery is not permissible' is a moral fact justified from the moral FSK.

If there is a statement, Bach's music is sublime, it has to be deliberated with its Musical FSK which has to be defined.
Where 'sublime' is defined, then this fact can be established by said the popularity of it in terms of paid downloads or disc sold in the past, or number of people listening to it within the defined conditions.

Take art for example, that fact of the aesthetic is how it is priceless [still a value] or how much people are willing to pay for the painting.

[Peter Holmes]

Note this example re aesthetic of beauty.
That Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019 is a fact as conditioned upon the FSK of the Miss World Organization.
How is that this aspect of aesthetic is objectified?
The degree of veracity in this case is compared to the veracity of the Scientific FSK as the standard.

This is where your SFK theory collapses. The Miss World Organisation isn't a system and framework of knowledge. What an absurd idea. And that she was Miss World 2019 isn't an aesthetic assertions at all, because it says nothing about beauty. 'Tunzi is beautiful' is an aesthetic assertion.

That 'slavery is not permissible' is a moral fact justified from the moral FSK.

This 'morality SFK' is your own invention, and it begs the question as to whether morality is an SFK in the first place.
And the claim is 'slavery is morally wrong'. Permissability is ambiguous in this context.

If there is a statement, Bach's music is sublime, it has to be deliberated with its Musical FSK which has to be defined.
Where 'sublime' is defined, then this fact can be established by said the popularity of it in terms of paid downloads or disc sold in the past, or number of people listening to it within the defined conditions.

Take art for example, that fact of the aesthetic is how it is priceless [still a value] or how much people are willing to pay for the painting.

This is patent nonsense. If aesthetic assertions are factual - if there are aesthetic facts - popularity is irrelevant. And any definition and gradation of sublimity, or artistic value - can only be subjective. If we subjectively define x as beauty or beautiful, to say y is beautiful against that standard is circular. There's nothing objective about it.

Btw - a thought on Searle's argument. We can make promises that we ought not to keep. So making promises doesn't entail keeping them. And to say only some promises ought to be kept is to introduce special pleading and subjectivity, which defeats the argument. It can't be a fact that we ought to do something - that can only be a matter of judgement, and therefore subjective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note this example re aesthetic of beauty.
That Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019 is a fact as conditioned upon the FSK of the Miss World Organization.
How is that this aspect of aesthetic is objectified?
The degree of veracity in this case is compared to the veracity of the Scientific FSK as the standard.

This is where your SFK theory collapses. The Miss World Organisation isn't a system and framework of knowledge. What an absurd idea. And that she was Miss World 2019 isn't an aesthetic assertions at all, because it says nothing about beauty. 'Tunzi is beautiful' is an aesthetic assertion.

Again you are too dogmatic with your views.
It is true the Scientific FSK is more obvious with generating knowledge but note I discussed the other FSK in terms of a continuum. Thus not absurd in this sense.
The Miss Universe contest was originally about the beauty of the contestants but currently mixed up with other criteria like intelligence, communication, etc.

• Aesthetics, or esthetics (/ɛsˈθɛtɪks, iːs-, æs-/), is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of beauty and taste, as well as the philosophy of art (its own area of philosophy that comes out of aesthetics). It examines subjective and sensori-emotional values, or sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.

That 'slavery is not permissible' is a moral fact justified from the moral FSK.

This 'morality SFK' is your own invention, and it begs the question as to whether morality is an SFK in the first place.
And the claim is 'slavery is morally wrong'. Permissability is ambiguous in this context.

If there is a statement, Bach's music is sublime, it has to be deliberated with its Musical FSK which has to be defined.
Where 'sublime' is defined, then this fact can be established by said the popularity of it in terms of paid downloads or disc sold in the past, or number of people listening to it within the defined conditions.

Take art for example, that fact of the aesthetic is how it is priceless [still a value] or how much people are willing to pay for the painting.

This is patent nonsense. If aesthetic assertions are factual - if there are aesthetic facts - popularity is irrelevant. And any definition and gradation of sublimity, or artistic value - can only be subjective. If we subjectively define x as beauty or beautiful, to say y is beautiful against that standard is circular. There's nothing objective about it.

Then how can you deny,
That Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019 is a fact .
Prove to me it is not a fact as in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
not your definition of "fact".

Btw - a thought on Searle's argument. We can make promises that we ought not to keep. So making promises doesn't entail keeping them. And to say only some promises ought to be kept is to introduce special pleading and subjectivity, which defeats the argument. It can't be a fact that we ought to do something - that can only be a matter of judgement, and therefore subjective.

A promise of ought-not to keep, is a promise of ought ought-not to keep.
Theoretically, still entails an original ought that precedes the later 'ought-not'.

In any case, such a promise would not be acceptable by the other party.

If A make a promise [P1] to B to do X.
It would be ridiculous for B to accept's A's new promise [P2] not to keep the original promise.
Note a promise implied a consensus between to two parties.

If one make a unilateral promise, that would be personal and subjective.

[Peter Holmes]

Note this example re aesthetic of beauty.
That Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019 is a fact as conditioned upon the FSK of the Miss World Organization.
How is that this aspect of aesthetic is objectified?
The degree of veracity in this case is compared to the veracity of the Scientific FSK as the standard.

This is where your SFK theory collapses. The Miss World Organisation isn't a system and framework of knowledge. What an absurd idea. And that she was Miss World 2019 isn't an aesthetic assertions at all, because it says nothing about beauty. 'Tunzi is beautiful' is an aesthetic assertion.

Again you are too dogmatic with your views.
It is true the Scientific FSK is more obvious with generating knowledge but note I discussed the other FSK in terms of a continuum. Thus not absurd in this sense.
The Miss Universe contest was originally about the beauty of the contestants but currently mixed up with other criteria like intelligence, communication, etc.

• Aesthetics, or esthetics (/ɛsˈθɛtɪks, iːs-, æs-/), is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of beauty and taste, as well as the philosophy of art (its own area of philosophy that comes out of aesthetics). It examines subjective and sensori-emotional values, or sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.

That 'slavery is not permissible' is a moral fact justified from the moral FSK.

This 'morality SFK' is your own invention, and it begs the question as to whether morality is an SFK in the first place.
And the claim is 'slavery is morally wrong'. Permissability is ambiguous in this context.

If there is a statement, Bach's music is sublime, it has to be deliberated with its Musical FSK which has to be defined.
Where 'sublime' is defined, then this fact can be established by said the popularity of it in terms of paid downloads or disc sold in the past, or number of people listening to it within the defined conditions.

Take art for example, that fact of the aesthetic is how it is priceless [still a value] or how much people are willing to pay for the painting.

This is patent nonsense. If aesthetic assertions are factual - if there are aesthetic facts - popularity is irrelevant. And any definition and gradation of sublimity, or artistic value - can only be subjective. If we subjectively define x as beauty or beautiful, to say y is beautiful against that standard is circular. There's nothing objective about it.

Then how can you deny,
That Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019 is a fact .
Prove to me it is not a fact as in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
not your definition of "fact".

Btw - a thought on Searle's argument. We can make promises that we ought not to keep. So making promises doesn't entail keeping them. And to say only some promises ought to be kept is to introduce special pleading and subjectivity, which defeats the argument. It can't be a fact that we ought to do something - that can only be a matter of judgement, and therefore subjective.

A promise of ought-not to keep, is a promise of ought ought-not to keep.
Theoretically, still entails an original ought that precedes the later 'ought-not'.

In any case, such a promise would not be acceptable by the other party.

If A make a promise [P1] to B to do X.
It would be ridiculous for B to accept's A's new promise [P2] not to keep the original promise.
Note a promise implied a consensus between to two parties.

If one make a unilateral promise, that would be personal and subjective.

You misunderstand the point of my example: making a wicked promise can't entail the keeping of that promise. And if so, the making of a promise doesn't entail keeping it. Otherwise, special pleading - only good promises entail moral obligation - kicks in.

If I promise to kill you, does that mean my killing you is entailed by my promise? Is that a moral fact? Is my not killing you morally wrong?

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is where your SFK theory collapses. The Miss World Organisation isn't a system and framework of knowledge. What an absurd idea. And that she was Miss World 2019 isn't an aesthetic assertions at all, because it says nothing about beauty. 'Tunzi is beautiful' is an aesthetic assertion.

Again you are too dogmatic with your views.
It is true the Scientific FSK is more obvious with generating knowledge but note I discussed the other FSK in terms of a continuum. Thus not absurd in this sense.
The Miss Universe contest was originally about the beauty of the contestants but currently mixed up with other criteria like intelligence, communication, etc.

• Aesthetics, or esthetics (/ɛsˈθɛtɪks, iːs-, æs-/), is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of beauty and taste, as well as the philosophy of art (its own area of philosophy that comes out of aesthetics). It examines subjective and sensori-emotional values, or sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.

This 'morality SFK' is your own invention, and it begs the question as to whether morality is an SFK in the first place.
And the claim is 'slavery is morally wrong'. Permissability is ambiguous in this context.
This is patent nonsense. If aesthetic assertions are factual - if there are aesthetic facts - popularity is irrelevant. And any definition and gradation of sublimity, or artistic value - can only be subjective. If we subjectively define x as beauty or beautiful, to say y is beautiful against that standard is circular. There's nothing objective about it.

Then how can you deny,
That Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019 is a fact .
Prove to me it is not a fact as in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
not your definition of "fact".

Btw - a thought on Searle's argument. We can make promises that we ought not to keep. So making promises doesn't entail keeping them. And to say only some promises ought to be kept is to introduce special pleading and subjectivity, which defeats the argument. It can't be a fact that we ought to do something - that can only be a matter of judgement, and therefore subjective.

A promise of ought-not to keep, is a promise of ought ought-not to keep.
Theoretically, still entails an original ought that precedes the later 'ought-not'.

In any case, such a promise would not be acceptable by the other party.

If A make a promise [P1] to B to do X.
It would be ridiculous for B to accept's A's new promise [P2] not to keep the original promise.
Note a promise implied a consensus between to two parties.

If one make a unilateral promise, that would be personal and subjective.

You misunderstand the point of my example: making a wicked promise can't entail the keeping of that promise. And if so, the making of a promise doesn't entail keeping it. Otherwise, special pleading - only good promises entail moral obligation - kicks in.

If I promise to kill you, does that mean my killing you is entailed by my promise? Is that a moral fact? Is my not killing you morally wrong?

You missed my points re facts and institutional/constitutional facts.

Note the following meanings between "resolution" and "promise".
https://wikidiff.com/resolution/promise

• Resolution:
  -A strong will, determination.
  -The state of being resolute.
  -A statement of intent, a vow
  
  Promise
  -An oath or affirmation; a vow.
  -A transaction between two persons whereby the first person undertakes in the future to render some service or gift to the second person or devotes something valuable now and here to his use.

The general principle is 'ALL basic SFK and conceptual framework produce their respective facts.

In the case of the 'promise' constitutional framework in the moral perspective, it is generally with reference to a transaction between two persons.
Within this constitutional framework and the moral F/S the moral fact is;
'no humans shall break the promise they made to another [who has not rejected the promise'].

Thus when you made a promise to yourself, it is more likely a resolution. If you insist it is still a promise, note my point the bottom [.. B].

However, a person can make a promise to another to kill another human.
In this case there are two issues, i.e.

• 1. Moral fact of 'having to keep one's promise.'
  2. The moral fact of 'no killing of another human'.

Within the Moral Framework and System, there is a consideration of weightage given to various moral facts.
The moral fact of 2. 'no killing of another human' carry a greater moral weight than the moral fact of 1. 'having to keep one's promise.'
Therefore moral fact 2 ought to override moral fact 1.

If the person keep his promise [moral fact he is morally right*] but go ahead to kill another human [he is morally wrong']. In this case, what is morally wrong has to be resolved by humanity and the individual.

[..B] If you insist the promise is applicable to unilateral promises made by an individual, then the same explanation apply.

In the above cases, there is still a non-compliance of moral fact in breaking of a promise, i.e. 1, thus generating a moral variance.

The solution for humanity to resolve such a moral variance in such evil people is to manage the impulse to kill [suppressed] and making such a promise to kill. This will entail establishing fool proof self-development programs for future generations [too late for the present and next generations].

* Note Hume's point, i.e. one will still respect [in principle] "the enemy who want to kill you" for the way the enemy held up his moral principles.

[Peter Holmes]

Again you are too dogmatic with your views.
It is true the Scientific FSK is more obvious with generating knowledge but note I discussed the other FSK in terms of a continuum. Thus not absurd in this sense.
The Miss Universe contest was originally about the beauty of the contestants but currently mixed up with other criteria like intelligence, communication, etc.

• Aesthetics, or esthetics (/ɛsˈθɛtɪks, iːs-, æs-/), is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of beauty and taste, as well as the philosophy of art (its own area of philosophy that comes out of aesthetics). It examines subjective and sensori-emotional values, or sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.

Then how can you deny,
That Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019 is a fact .
Prove to me it is not a fact as in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
not your definition of "fact".


A promise of ought-not to keep, is a promise of ought ought-not to keep.
Theoretically, still entails an original ought that precedes the later 'ought-not'.

In any case, such a promise would not be acceptable by the other party.

If A make a promise [P1] to B to do X.
It would be ridiculous for B to accept's A's new promise [P2] not to keep the original promise.
Note a promise implied a consensus between to two parties.

If one make a unilateral promise, that would be personal and subjective.

You misunderstand the point of my example: making a wicked promise can't entail the keeping of that promise. And if so, the making of a promise doesn't entail keeping it. Otherwise, special pleading - only good promises entail moral obligation - kicks in.

If I promise to kill you, does that mean my killing you is entailed by my promise? Is that a moral fact? Is my not killing you morally wrong?

You missed my points re facts and institutional/constitutional facts.

Note the following meanings between "resolution" and "promise".
https://wikidiff.com/resolution/promise

• Resolution:
  -A strong will, determination.
  -The state of being resolute.
  -A statement of intent, a vow
  
  Promise
  -An oath or affirmation; a vow.
  -A transaction between two persons whereby the first person undertakes in the future to render some service or gift to the second person or devotes something valuable now and here to his use.

The general principle is 'ALL basic SFK and conceptual framework produce their respective facts.

In the case of the 'promise' constitutional framework in the moral perspective, it is generally with reference to a transaction between two persons.
Within this constitutional framework and the moral F/S the moral fact is;
'no humans shall break the promise they made to another [who has not rejected the promise'].

Thus when you made a promise to yourself, it is more likely a resolution. If you insist it is still a promise, note my point the bottom [.. B].

However, a person can make a promise to another to kill another human.
In this case there are two issues, i.e.

• 1. Moral fact of 'having to keep one's promise.'
  2. The moral fact of 'no killing of another human'.

Within the Moral Framework and System, there is a consideration of weightage given to various moral facts.
The moral fact of 2. 'no killing of another human' carry a greater moral weight than the moral fact of 1. 'having to keep one's promise.'
Therefore moral fact 2 ought to override moral fact 1.

If the person keep his promise [moral fact he is morally right*] but go ahead to kill another human [he is morally wrong']. In this case, what is morally wrong has to be resolved by humanity and the individual.

[..B] If you insist the promise is applicable to unilateral promises made by an individual, then the same explanation apply.

In the above cases, there is still a non-compliance of moral fact in breaking of a promise, i.e. 1, thus generating a moral variance.

The solution for humanity to resolve such a moral variance in such evil people is to manage the impulse to kill [suppressed] and making such a promise to kill. This will entail establishing fool proof self-development programs for future generations [too late for the present and next generations].

* Note Hume's point, i.e. one will still respect [in principle] "the enemy who want to kill you" for the way the enemy held up his moral principles.

Here's the claim: we make promises; therefore we ought to keep them. The first statement is a fact - a true factual assertion. But it doesn't logically entail the second statement, which expresses a value-judgement. And that's why negating the second statement doesn't produce a contradiction.

And your claim that one supposed moral fact - I promised to kill you, so I ought to kill you - should be overidden by another supposed moral fact - people shouldn't be killed - can only ever be a matter of judgement, which is subjective.

Oh, and 'Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019' is not an aesthetic assertion of any kind, so it can't be an aesthetic fact. But 'Zozibini Tunzi is beautiful' is an aesthetic assertion, which expresses an aesthetic judgement, and is therefore subjective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's the claim: we make promises; therefore we ought to keep them. The first statement is a fact - a true factual assertion. But it doesn't logically entail the second statement, which expresses a value-judgement. And that's why negating the second statement doesn't produce a contradiction.

As Searle had argued,
In the case of the constitution of the act of promising, there is by default a prescriptive element constituted in the first statement.

See:

• How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824
  
  Brute Facts versus Constitutional Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29864

And your claim that one supposed moral fact - I promised to kill you, so I ought to kill you - should be overidden by another supposed moral fact - people shouldn't be killed - can only ever be a matter of judgement, which is subjective.

I have already argued,
'no human ought to kill another'
is a moral fact generated from within a Moral Framework and Knowledge, thus it is objective

• What is a Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
  
  There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Oh, and 'Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019' is not an aesthetic assertion of any kind, so it can't be an aesthetic fact. But 'Zozibini Tunzi is beautiful' is an aesthetic assertion, which expresses an aesthetic judgement, and is therefore subjective.

• aesthetic= concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/aesthetic
  
  Miss Universe is an annual international beauty pageant that is run by the United States-based Miss Universe Organization.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe

Thus [S1] 'Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019' is an aesthetic assertion and factual - see below.
You dispute the above?

• Fact:
  A fact is an occurrence in the real world.
  The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability — that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

The above statement [S1] is an occurrence [state-of-affairs] in the real world and can be verified to experience. Since it is generated from within the Framework and System of the Miss Universe organization and its constitution, it is a constitutional fact of beauty/aesthetic conditioned upon that specific framework, thus objective.

The Miss Universe contest is televised all over the world and has millions of views and the fact is read by perhaps billions, but no one is refuting that fact that is in accordance to the rules, thus an reinforcement of objectivity [as qualified].

How come you are so ignorant of the above?
Do you dispute them?

Note I have provided all the relevant justifications.
On the other hand you are merely making noises without detailed justifications.

Your justification of what-is-fact is traceable to its root from the ideology of the logical positivists of bastardized philosophy.

[Peter Holmes]

Here's the claim: we make promises; therefore we ought to keep them. The first statement is a fact - a true factual assertion. But it doesn't logically entail the second statement, which expresses a value-judgement. And that's why negating the second statement doesn't produce a contradiction.

As Searle had argued,
In the case of the constitution of the act of promising, there is by default a prescriptive element constituted in the first statement.

See:

• How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824
  
  Brute Facts versus Constitutional Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29864

And your claim that one supposed moral fact - I promised to kill you, so I ought to kill you - should be overidden by another supposed moral fact - people shouldn't be killed - can only ever be a matter of judgement, which is subjective.

I have already argued,
'no human ought to kill another'
is a moral fact generated from within a Moral Framework and Knowledge, thus it is objective

• What is a Fact?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
  
  There are Moral Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Oh, and 'Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019' is not an aesthetic assertion of any kind, so it can't be an aesthetic fact. But 'Zozibini Tunzi is beautiful' is an aesthetic assertion, which expresses an aesthetic judgement, and is therefore subjective.

• aesthetic= concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/aesthetic
  
  Miss Universe is an annual international beauty pageant that is run by the United States-based Miss Universe Organization.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe

Thus [S1] 'Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019' is an aesthetic assertion and factual - see below.
You dispute the above?

• Fact:
  A fact is an occurrence in the real world.
  The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability — that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

The above statement [S1] is an occurrence [state-of-affairs] in the real world and can be verified to experience. Since it is generated from within the Framework and System of the Miss Universe organization and its constitution, it is a constitutional fact of beauty/aesthetic conditioned upon that specific framework, thus objective.

The Miss Universe contest is televised all over the world and has millions of views and the fact is read by perhaps billions, but no one is refuting that fact that is in accordance to the rules, thus an reinforcement of objectivity [as qualified].

How come you are so ignorant of the above?
Do you dispute them?

Note I have provided all the relevant justifications.
On the other hand you are merely making noises without detailed justifications.

Your justification of what-is-fact is traceable to its root from the ideology of the logical positivists of bastardized philosophy.

Is 'the Miss Universe contest began in 1926' an aesthetic fact? Does it make an aesthetic claim? Does it say anything about the nature of beauty?

Is 'moral attitudes towards slavery have changed over the centuries' a moral assertion of any kind? Does it say slavery is morally right or wrong?

You need to recognise what constitutes a specifically aesthetic assertion - one that says something about something's beauty or ugliness - or a moral assertion - one that says something is morally right or wrong. Have a think about it.

Tell you what - rather than repeating your rigmarole - which must bore you as much as it does the rest of us - let's concentrate on this one point.

I agree that 'Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa is Miss Universe 2019' is an historical fact - a true factual assertion. But I disagree that it is an aesthetic assertion: an assertion about beauty or ugliness. It doesn't say something like 'this is beautiful', which is what an aesthetic assertion does.

And since it's not an aesthetic assertion, it can't be an aesthetic fact. (I assume you follow that argument, even if you disagree.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is 'the Miss Universe contest began in 1926' an aesthetic fact? Does it make an aesthetic claim? Does it say anything about the nature of beauty?

There is no such thing as absolute beauty nor is there anything that is absolutely absolute, not even with any kind of facts.
The common saying is 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder,'
but beauty [and anything of aesthetic] can nevertheless be objectified when qualified within conditions.

Point is 'whatever the conditional fact' it must always carry with it its qualifications and conditions.
There is no fact that is can be totally unconditional, i.e. a fact-in-itself or a free-standing-fact.
I have requested you to prove to me a "fact" where it is unconditional-by-itself but you have not and you will not be able to do so no matter how hard you try.

As such, that "X is Miss Universe Year YYYY" is an aesthetic claim and is a fact, but must carry with it its specific qualification and conditions.

Is 'moral attitudes towards slavery have changed over the centuries' a moral assertion of any kind? Does it say slavery is morally right or wrong?

The attitudes towards slavery by slave owners and non-slave may have changed, but the resistance to being a slave by slaves have not changed until it is so evident at present.

It is a generic principle of human nature, no human would voluntary to be owned and has his freedom restrained.
This is so evident from the most basic animals to human beings that no living entities would volunteer to be restrained.

I have claimed this principle is testable, i.e. asking every 'normal' human on Earth.

You need to recognise what constitutes a specifically aesthetic assertion - one that says something about something's beauty or ugliness - or a moral assertion - one that says something is morally right or wrong. Have a think about it.

I have repeated many times, wonder why you cannot get it.

A statement that state something is morally right or wrong that is qualified/conditioned upon a Moral Framework and System is a moral fact, not a brute fact but a constitutional fact.

Somehow your mind is stuck with one term 'fact' 'fact' 'fact' fact, ..... but unable to put the term 'fact' into its respective perspective, i.e. brute or constitutional, qualified to its respective FSK, etc. I believe there is something wrong with your cognitive abilities.
Have a think about what your mind is doing to you?

Are you familiar with the 500 pound gorilla selective attention test where the person is unable to see the gorilla right in front on him.
see this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

Imagine you are asked to watch a short video (above) in which six people-three in white shirts and three in black shirts-pass basketballs around. While you watch, you must keep a silent count of the number of passes made by the people in white shirts. At some point, a gorilla strolls into the middle of the action, faces the camera and thumps its chest, and then leaves, spending nine seconds on screen. Would you see the gorilla?

Almost everyone has the intuition that the answer is "yes, of course I would." How could something so obvious go completely unnoticed? But when we did this experiment at Harvard University several years ago, we found that half of the people who watched the video and counted the passes missed the gorilla. It was as though the gorilla was invisible.

This experiment reveals two things: that we are missing a lot of what goes on around us, and that we have no idea that we are missing so much. To our surprise, it has become one of the best-known experiments in psychology. It is described in most introductory textbooks and is featured in more than a dozen science museums.

It has been used by everyone from preachers and teachers to corporate trainers and terrorist hunters, not to mention characters on the TV show C.S.I., to help explain what we see and what we don't see. And it got us thinking that many other intuitive beliefs that we have about our own minds might be just as wrong. We wrote The Invisible Gorilla to explore the limits of human intuition and what they mean for ourselves and our world. We hope you read it, and if you do, we would love to hear what you think.
http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gori ... iment.html

[Peter Holmes]

Is 'the Miss Universe contest began in 1926' an aesthetic fact? Does it make an aesthetic claim? Does it say anything about the nature of beauty?

There is no such thing as absolute beauty nor is there anything that is absolutely absolute, not even with any kind of facts.
The common saying is 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder,'
but beauty [and anything of aesthetic] can nevertheless be objectified when qualified within conditions.

Point is 'whatever the conditional fact' it must always carry with it its qualifications and conditions.
There is no fact that is can be totally unconditional, i.e. a fact-in-itself or a free-standing-fact.
I have requested you to prove to me a "fact" where it is unconditional-by-itself but you have not and you will not be able to do so no matter how hard you try.

As such, that "X is Miss Universe Year YYYY" is an aesthetic claim and is a fact, but must carry with it its specific qualification and conditions.

Is 'moral attitudes towards slavery have changed over the centuries' a moral assertion of any kind? Does it say slavery is morally right or wrong?

The attitudes towards slavery by slave owners and non-slave may have changed, but the resistance to being a slave by slaves have not changed until it is so evident at present.

It is a generic principle of human nature, no human would voluntary to be owned and has his freedom restrained.
This is so evident from the most basic animals to human beings that no living entities would volunteer to be restrained.

I have claimed this principle is testable, i.e. asking every 'normal' human on Earth.

You need to recognise what constitutes a specifically aesthetic assertion - one that says something about something's beauty or ugliness - or a moral assertion - one that says something is morally right or wrong. Have a think about it.

I have repeated many times, wonder why you cannot get it.

A statement that state something is morally right or wrong that is qualified/conditioned upon a Moral Framework and System is a moral fact, not a brute fact but a constitutional fact.

Somehow your mind is stuck with one term 'fact' 'fact' 'fact' fact, ..... but unable to put the term 'fact' into its respective perspective, i.e. brute or constitutional, qualified to its respective FSK, etc. I believe there is something wrong with your cognitive abilities.
Have a think about what your mind is doing to you?

Are you familiar with the 500 pound gorilla selective attention test where the person is unable to see the gorilla right in front on him.
see this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

Imagine you are asked to watch a short video (above) in which six people-three in white shirts and three in black shirts-pass basketballs around. While you watch, you must keep a silent count of the number of passes made by the people in white shirts. At some point, a gorilla strolls into the middle of the action, faces the camera and thumps its chest, and then leaves, spending nine seconds on screen. Would you see the gorilla?

Almost everyone has the intuition that the answer is "yes, of course I would." How could something so obvious go completely unnoticed? But when we did this experiment at Harvard University several years ago, we found that half of the people who watched the video and counted the passes missed the gorilla. It was as though the gorilla was invisible.

This experiment reveals two things: that we are missing a lot of what goes on around us, and that we have no idea that we are missing so much. To our surprise, it has become one of the best-known experiments in psychology. It is described in most introductory textbooks and is featured in more than a dozen science museums.

It has been used by everyone from preachers and teachers to corporate trainers and terrorist hunters, not to mention characters on the TV show C.S.I., to help explain what we see and what we don't see. And it got us thinking that many other intuitive beliefs that we have about our own minds might be just as wrong. We wrote The Invisible Gorilla to explore the limits of human intuition and what they mean for ourselves and our world. We hope you read it, and if you do, we would love to hear what you think.
http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gori ... iment.html

The distinction between so-called brute and constitutional facts is spurious. Since, as you monotonously and needlessly drone (because I agree) - all factual assertions - like all linguistic expressions - are 'conditioned' - dependent on their context - there can be no such thing as a brute or unconditioned fact - true factual assertion. In other words, your own argument here demolishes Searle's claim.

To repeat and focus: in what way is 'X is Miss Universe 2019' an aesthetic assertion? What aesthetic claim does it make? Try really, really, really hard to think about and answer that question. Please.

Or try this example.

1 Factual assertion: that terd came out of something's bottom.
2 Coprophiliac aesthetic assertion: that terd is beautiful.

Do you see the functional difference between those two assertions?