Your self-delusion is impenetrable. Your claim that 'morality is specific to the human species' is blatantly and irrefutably a matter of opinion - not a fact. The scope of our moral concerns is not some fixed feature of reality. I'm beyond amazed, yet again.
Oh, and where's that example of a moral fact? Still waiting.
After 'a thousand times' showing you the evidence,
I am not going to waste time.
You can find it in the various threads and in your two thread re 'Is Morality Objective'.
Nope. You've failed every time so far. And I and others have shown you very clearly why you've failed. So.
Please produce a moral assertion that you think is a fact. And I'll show you why it isn't. Or produce an argument with a factual premise that entails a moral conclusion. And I'll show you why it doesn't.
Problem you don't have the capacity to grasp what is presented.
Here is the Searle's argument again.
Note Searle's argument is only one of the counter to demonstrate the moral ought logically.
As for a moral assertion that is a moral fact, I have also justified that countless times but you are obviously blind [intellectually dishonest] to them.
Note this thread;
Btw, do you agree your stance is that of NonCognitivism and its sub, Expressivism? NonCognitivism & Expressivism viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30047
which deny there are moral facts and moral statements are not propositions and has no true or false elements.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:57 am
After 'a thousand times' showing you the evidence,
I am not going to waste time.
You can find it in the various threads and in your two thread re 'Is Morality Objective'.
Nope. You've failed every time so far. And I and others have shown you very clearly why you've failed. So.
Please produce a moral assertion that you think is a fact. And I'll show you why it isn't. Or produce an argument with a factual premise that entails a moral conclusion. And I'll show you why it doesn't.
Problem you don't have the capacity to grasp what is presented.
Here is the Searle's argument again.
Note Searle's argument is only one of the counter to demonstrate the moral ought logically.
As for a moral assertion that is a moral fact, I have also justified that countless times but you are obviously blind [intellectually dishonest] to them.
Note this thread;
Btw, do you agree your stance is that of NonCognitivism and its sub, Expressivism? NonCognitivism & Expressivism viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30047
which deny there are moral facts and moral statements are not propositions and has no true or false elements.
1 Like all abstract things, propositions are misleading metaphysical fictions. There are only assertions - typically linguistic expressions, which are real. So moral assertions are real linguistic expressions. And they express value-judgements about certain features of reality, such as slavery, abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on.
2 Moral cognitivists claim that the moral rightness or wrongness of such features of reality can be known and understood. But, along with moral realists and objectivists, they've failed to demonstrate the existence of such things. So the claim that such things can be known and understood doesn't even make it to the starting post. The horse is dead. The race is forfeit in advance. Moral cognitivism is iraational.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:01 am
1 Like all abstract things, propositions are misleading metaphysical fictions. There are only assertions - typically linguistic expressions, which are real. So moral assertions are real linguistic expressions. And they express value-judgements about certain features of reality, such as slavery, abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on
Where and what are these "value-judgments" being expressed? If they don't exist (as you insist), then what is it that you are expressing?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:01 am
The horse is dead. The race is forfeit in advance. Moral cognitivism is iraational.
Peter Holmes believes it is a fact that he doesn't want to be murdered.
Peter Holmes believes it is not a fact that he ought not be murdered.
If that's what rationalists believe, then I don't want to be rational.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:01 am
1 Like all abstract things, propositions are misleading metaphysical fictions. There are only assertions - typically linguistic expressions, which are real. So moral assertions are real linguistic expressions. And they express value-judgements about certain features of reality, such as slavery, abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on
Where and what are these "value-judgments" being expressed? If they don't exist (as you insist), then what is it that you are expressing?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:01 am
The horse is dead. The race is forfeit in advance. Moral cognitivism is iraational.
Peter Holmes believes it is a fact that he doesn't want to be murdered.
Peter Holmes believes it is not a fact that he ought not be murdered.
If that's what rationalists believe, then I don't want to be rational.
Let's relegate the word 'fact' from absolute meaning to social meaning. So the meaning of 'fact' is its social use which varies from one social situation to another, and while the social situations have sort of family resemblance, there is no defining characteristic of the word's usage.(See Wittgenstein's social theory of language .)
In the context of social theory of language
Peter Holmes believes it is a fact that he doesn't want to be murdered.
Peter Holmes believes it is not a fact that he ought not be murdered.
these propositions don't contradict each other. The first proposition recalls the Boo-Hurrah theory of ethics.The second proposition is sceptical of the Boo-Hurrah theory of ethics.In both cases 'fact' is something that exists in nature and it's even conceivable Peter's utterances are part of recorded history.
Peter Holmes believes it is a fact that he doesn't want to be murdered.
Peter Holmes believes it is not a fact that he ought not be murdered.
these propositions don't contradict each other. The first proposition recalls the Boo-Hurrah theory of ethics.The second proposition is sceptical of the Boo-Hurrah theory of ethics.In both cases 'fact' is something that exists in nature and it's even conceivable Peter's utterances are part of recorded history.
What exists in nature is Peter's violent, physical objection to any attempts to murder him. The reaction to the action. The reflex.
Peter Holmes believes it is a fact that he doesn't want to be murdered.
Peter Holmes believes it is not a fact that he ought not be murdered.
these propositions don't contradict each other. The first proposition recalls the Boo-Hurrah theory of ethics.The second proposition is sceptical of the Boo-Hurrah theory of ethics.In both cases 'fact' is something that exists in nature and it's even conceivable Peter's utterances are part of recorded history.
What exists in nature is Peter's violent, physical objection to any attempts to murder him. The reaction to the action. The reflex.
I especially liked (vii) It is not possible that (P and not P)
(viii) (It is not possible that not P) entails (it is necessary that P)
From these latter two premises, one cannot validly infer the conclusion:
(ix) P entails it is necessary that P
That's why I think a belief in hard determinism is faith and hope.I mean it is a matter of faith that P entails it is necessary that P. I especially like hard determinism as a faith stance as it is the best stance to justify and rationalise forgiveness and mercy. Not, I can add, forgiveness and mercy due to soft heartedness, but forgiveness and mercy based on the principle that the more a person knows of causes and possible causes, and the more acute the person's reasoning, the better the moral judgement.For instance causes of the specific criminal act should be a prime consideration when a criminal is brought to justice, and so punishment should be not retribution but removing the causes of the crime.
So slavery is wrong is true by virtue of up to date historical knowledge, plus modern capacity for empathy which is based on the success of the human sciences.
Also, I don't believe Aristotle's theory of forms which posits that each species is absolutely identifiable by its own exclusive form.
these propositions don't contradict each other. The first proposition recalls the Boo-Hurrah theory of ethics.The second proposition is sceptical of the Boo-Hurrah theory of ethics.In both cases 'fact' is something that exists in nature and it's even conceivable Peter's utterances are part of recorded history.
What exists in nature is Peter's violent, physical objection to any attempts to murder him. The reaction to the action. The reflex.
I especially liked (vii) It is not possible that (P and not P)
(viii) (It is not possible that not P) entails (it is necessary that P)
From these latter two premises, one cannot validly infer the conclusion:
(ix) P entails it is necessary that P
That's why I think a belief in hard determinism is faith and hope.I mean it is a matter of faith that P entails it is necessary that P. I especially like hard determinism as a faith stance as it is the best stance to justify and rationalise forgiveness and mercy. Not, I can add, forgiveness and mercy due to soft heartedness, but forgiveness and mercy based on the principle that the more a person knows of causes and possible causes, and the more acute the person's reasoning, the better the moral judgement.For instance causes of the specific criminal act should be a prime consideration when a criminal is brought to justice, and so punishment should be not retribution but removing the causes of the crime.
So slavery is wrong is true by virtue of up to date historical knowledge, plus modern capacity for empathy which is based on the success of the human sciences.
Also, I don't believe Aristotle's theory of forms which posits that each species is absolutely identifiable by its own exclusive form.
That's interesting. But I think it demonstrates the problem with talk about propositions. A logic of any kind deals with language - what can be said consistently, without contradiction - not reality. Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences. And any use of language has to use one kind of logic or another.
But the first premise you cite states the non-contradiction rule. And reality is not linguistic, so there are no contradictions ('speakings-against) in reality. To think there are is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are.
I don't know how you get from belief in hard determinism to 'so slavery is morally wrong is true'. That seems a leap to me. I can't see the stepping stones.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:09 am
What exists in nature is Peter's violent, physical objection to any attempts to murder him. The reaction to the action. The reflex.
I especially liked (vii) It is not possible that (P and not P)
(viii) (It is not possible that not P) entails (it is necessary that P)
From these latter two premises, one cannot validly infer the conclusion:
(ix) P entails it is necessary that P
That's why I think a belief in hard determinism is faith and hope.I mean it is a matter of faith that P entails it is necessary that P. I especially like hard determinism as a faith stance as it is the best stance to justify and rationalise forgiveness and mercy. Not, I can add, forgiveness and mercy due to soft heartedness, but forgiveness and mercy based on the principle that the more a person knows of causes and possible causes, and the more acute the person's reasoning, the better the moral judgement.For instance causes of the specific criminal act should be a prime consideration when a criminal is brought to justice, and so punishment should be not retribution but removing the causes of the crime.
So slavery is wrong is true by virtue of up to date historical knowledge, plus modern capacity for empathy which is based on the success of the human sciences.
Also, I don't believe Aristotle's theory of forms which posits that each species is absolutely identifiable by its own exclusive form.
That's interesting. But I think it demonstrates the problem with talk about propositions. A logic of any kind deals with language - what can be said consistently, without contradiction - not reality. Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences. And any use of language has to use one kind of logic or another.
But the first premise you cite states the non-contradiction rule. And reality is not linguistic, so there are no contradictions ('speakings-against) in reality. To think there are is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are.
I don't know how you get from belief in hard determinism to 'so slavery is morally wrong is true'. That seems a leap to me. I can't see the stepping stones.
"Ouch that hurt!" is a use of language that uses neither inductive nor formal logic.
Stepping Stones.
Hard determinism (arrow) every event is a caused event (arrow) slavery was caused (arrow).
The more one knows about causes of slavery, and the more one knows how other people feel, the better is the judgement.
Modern judgement is more knowledgeable because we are better at history and empathy than when slavery was endemic.(arrow) modern people generally say slavery is wrong (arrow) modern people are more right about this than those people who endorsed historical slavery.
Note: Right and wrong are relative to the reason that is brought to the table and are never absolutely right or wrong.
I especially liked (vii) It is not possible that (P and not P)
(viii) (It is not possible that not P) entails (it is necessary that P)
From these latter two premises, one cannot validly infer the conclusion:
(ix) P entails it is necessary that P
That's why I think a belief in hard determinism is faith and hope.I mean it is a matter of faith that P entails it is necessary that P. I especially like hard determinism as a faith stance as it is the best stance to justify and rationalise forgiveness and mercy. Not, I can add, forgiveness and mercy due to soft heartedness, but forgiveness and mercy based on the principle that the more a person knows of causes and possible causes, and the more acute the person's reasoning, the better the moral judgement.For instance causes of the specific criminal act should be a prime consideration when a criminal is brought to justice, and so punishment should be not retribution but removing the causes of the crime.
So slavery is wrong is true by virtue of up to date historical knowledge, plus modern capacity for empathy which is based on the success of the human sciences.
Also, I don't believe Aristotle's theory of forms which posits that each species is absolutely identifiable by its own exclusive form.
That's interesting. But I think it demonstrates the problem with talk about propositions. A logic of any kind deals with language - what can be said consistently, without contradiction - not reality. Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences. And any use of language has to use one kind of logic or another.
But the first premise you cite states the non-contradiction rule. And reality is not linguistic, so there are no contradictions ('speakings-against) in reality. To think there are is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are.
I don't know how you get from belief in hard determinism to 'so slavery is morally wrong is true'. That seems a leap to me. I can't see the stepping stones.
"Ouch that hurt!" is a use of language that uses neither inductive nor formal logic.
Stepping Stones.
Hard determinism (arrow) every event is a caused event (arrow) slavery was caused (arrow).
The more one knows about causes of slavery, and the more one knows how other people feel, the better is the judgement.
Modern judgement is more knowledgeable because we are better at history and empathy than when slavery was endemic.(arrow) modern people generally say slavery is wrong (arrow) modern people are more right about this than those people who endorsed historical slavery.
Note: Right and wrong are relative to the reason that is brought to the table and are never absolutely right or wrong.
Okay, thanks. I think I see what you mean. I understand the argument that what we call moral improvement comes from greater knowledge and empathy. I just don't think that makes 'slavery is morally wrong' a fact. All it means is that more of us now think slavery is morally wrong. It's still - and can only be - a value-judgement, whatever reasons there are for making it.
I was puzzled by your reference to physical determinism - every event is fully causally determined by the preceding physical state-of-affairs, plus physical regularities. And since that includes brain-states and A/B decision making, determinism is usually deployed to counter the idea of moral agency and therefore responsibility for moral choices. I think that resonates with your view about understanding vs blame - and I'm with you on that.
That's interesting. But I think it demonstrates the problem with talk about propositions. A logic of any kind deals with language - what can be said consistently, without contradiction - not reality. Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences. And any use of language has to use one kind of logic or another.
But the first premise you cite states the non-contradiction rule. And reality is not linguistic, so there are no contradictions ('speakings-against) in reality. To think there are is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are.
I don't know how you get from belief in hard determinism to 'so slavery is morally wrong is true'. That seems a leap to me. I can't see the stepping stones.
"Ouch that hurt!" is a use of language that uses neither inductive nor formal logic.
Stepping Stones.
Hard determinism (arrow) every event is a caused event (arrow) slavery was caused (arrow).
The more one knows about causes of slavery, and the more one knows how other people feel, the better is the judgement.
Modern judgement is more knowledgeable because we are better at history and empathy than when slavery was endemic.(arrow) modern people generally say slavery is wrong (arrow) modern people are more right about this than those people who endorsed historical slavery.
Note: Right and wrong are relative to the reason that is brought to the table and are never absolutely right or wrong.
Okay, thanks. I think I see what you mean. I understand the argument that what we call moral improvement comes from greater knowledge and empathy. I just don't think that makes 'slavery is morally wrong' a fact. All it means is that more of us now think slavery is morally wrong. It's still - and can only be - a value-judgement, whatever reasons there are for making it.
I was puzzled by your reference to physical determinism - every event is fully causally determined by the preceding physical state-of-affairs, plus physical regularities. And since that includes brain-states and A/B decision making, determinism is usually deployed to counter the idea of moral agency and therefore responsibility for moral choices. I think that resonates with your view about understanding vs blame - and I'm with you on that.
Slavery is morally wrong , and a dropped apple falls, and Paris is lovely in the spring are facts. However all moral and physical 'facts' are nothing but working hypotheses, whether they are received wisdom or whether they are eccentric opinions. Briefly, we know nothing.
Yes, we are on the same boat regarding determinism and its ethical corollary.
Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:22 pm
Slavery is morally wrong ...
What exactly does the word, "moral," mean? Everyone says this is morally right, morally wrong, etc. etc. instead of just this right or this wrong. What's the difference between plain old right and wrong and, "moral," right and wrong.
[I asked this question here, and still have no answer.] I also asked Peter Holmes this question on another thread.
Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:22 pm
Slavery is morally wrong ...
What exactly does the word, "moral," mean? Everyone says this is morally right, morally wrong, etc. etc. instead of just this right or this wrong. What's the difference between plain old right and wrong and, "moral," right and wrong.
[I asked this question here, and still have no answer.] I also asked Peter Holmes this question on another thread.
I think I was trying to differentiate between aesthetically wrong, historiographically wrong, and morally wrong. I ended by claiming all sorts of propositions are hypotheses, and as such may not endure.
Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:22 pm
Slavery is morally wrong ...
What exactly does the word, "moral," mean? Everyone says this is morally right, morally wrong, etc. etc. instead of just this right or this wrong. What's the difference between plain old right and wrong and, "moral," right and wrong.
[I asked this question here, and still have no answer.] I also asked Peter Holmes this question on another thread.
I think I was trying to differentiate between aesthetically wrong, historiographically wrong, and morally wrong. I ended by claiming all sorts of propositions are hypotheses, and as such may not endure.
Yes, I see that. It's the clearest answer I've received so far. I'll comment more there. Thank you.
"Ouch that hurt!" is a use of language that uses neither inductive nor formal logic.
Stepping Stones.
Hard determinism (arrow) every event is a caused event (arrow) slavery was caused (arrow).
The more one knows about causes of slavery, and the more one knows how other people feel, the better is the judgement.
Modern judgement is more knowledgeable because we are better at history and empathy than when slavery was endemic.(arrow) modern people generally say slavery is wrong (arrow) modern people are more right about this than those people who endorsed historical slavery.
Note: Right and wrong are relative to the reason that is brought to the table and are never absolutely right or wrong.
Okay, thanks. I think I see what you mean. I understand the argument that what we call moral improvement comes from greater knowledge and empathy. I just don't think that makes 'slavery is morally wrong' a fact. All it means is that more of us now think slavery is morally wrong. It's still - and can only be - a value-judgement, whatever reasons there are for making it.
I was puzzled by your reference to physical determinism - every event is fully causally determined by the preceding physical state-of-affairs, plus physical regularities. And since that includes brain-states and A/B decision making, determinism is usually deployed to counter the idea of moral agency and therefore responsibility for moral choices. I think that resonates with your view about understanding vs blame - and I'm with you on that.
Slavery is morally wrong , and a dropped apple falls, and Paris is lovely in the spring are facts. However all moral and physical 'facts' are nothing but working hypotheses, whether they are received wisdom or whether they are eccentric opinions. Briefly, we know nothing.
Yes, we are on the same boat regarding determinism and its ethical corollary.
Okay. As you know, I think the function of 'a dropped apple falls' is completely different from the function of 'slavery is morally wrong' and 'Paris is lovely in the spring' - and that to call them all facts is a fundamental mistake.
We can demonstrate that a dropped apple falls. But we can't do the same for the other two. And denying the value-judgements is perfectly rational, which demonstrates that they aren't facts.
