All Moral State-of-affairs are Facts

[Sculptor]

You are talking utter bollocks as per usual.
Since you can only point to linguistic definitions.
FFS
Not that this is RELEVANT.

According to our resident retard this is a "linguistic definition" of Abraham Lincoln.

abl.png

According to the same resident retard this is a "linguistic definition" of POTUS.
potus.png

And this is a linguistic definition of an assassination

Do you even know how to breathe without assistance?

MORON.
That is not Abraham Lincoln. That is a picture of him.

The other image is a picture of a man called Trump. It is not Trump and it is not a definition of POTAS.

You never missed an opportunity to make a complete arse of yourself.

Now tell me why your idiotic diversion is even relevant to the discussion.
I can't wait to have another laugh

[Harbal]

So you think the recognition of moral facts are leading us to absolutely nowhere?
Think again.

I would like to think that some of our moral principles will lead us somewhere better than we are now, but why you insist on calling them "facts" puzzles me.

[Atla]

So you think the recognition of moral facts are leading us to absolutely nowhere?
Think again.

I would like to think that some of our moral principles will lead us somewhere better than we are now, but why you insist on calling them "facts" puzzles me.

He thinks facts and principles are the same thing. It's a mistery, we couldn't solve it so far.

I tried showing him synonyms for both words, from multiple dictionaries. Expecting him to conclude that I don't know what proper English is, and neither do the editors of the dictionaries. Which is exactly what happened.

[Skepdick]

You are talking utter bollocks as per usual.
Since you can only point to linguistic definitions.
FFS
Not that this is RELEVANT.

According to our resident retard this is a "linguistic definition" of Abraham Lincoln.

abl.png

According to the same resident retard this is a "linguistic definition" of POTUS.
potus.png

And this is a linguistic definition of an assassination

Do you even know how to breathe without assistance?

MORON.
That is not Abraham Lincoln. That is a picture of him.

The other image is a picture of a man called Trump. It is not Trump and it is not a definition of POTAS.

You never missed an opportunity to make a complete arse of yourself.

Now tell me why your idiotic diversion is even relevant to the discussion.
I can't wait to have another laugh

Philosophy at its best!

it is relevant because you recognized Abraham Lincoln without having a definition for him. You agree that it is indeed Lincoln in the photo,

Ostensively! Q.E.D!

Fucking idiot.

[Harbal]

So you think the recognition of moral facts are leading us to absolutely nowhere?
Think again.

I would like to think that some of our moral principles will lead us somewhere better than we are now, but why you insist on calling them "facts" puzzles me.

He thinks facts and principles are the same thing. It's a mistery, we couldn't solve it so far.

I tried showing him synonyms for both words, from multiple dictionaries. Expecting him to conclude that I don't know what proper English is, and neither do the editors of the dictionaries. Which is exactly what happened.

I just wish I could work out exactly what it is that he is trying to prove, before I disagree with him.

[FlashDangerpants]

I would like to think that some of our moral principles will lead us somewhere better than we are now, but why you insist on calling them "facts" puzzles me.

He thinks facts and principles are the same thing. It's a mistery, we couldn't solve it so far.

I tried showing him synonyms for both words, from multiple dictionaries. Expecting him to conclude that I don't know what proper English is, and neither do the editors of the dictionaries. Which is exactly what happened.

I just wish I could work out exactly what it is that he is trying to prove, before I disagree with him.

Good news! I think I can help you there. This is all just preamble to his vendetta agaist Islam. Everything he does is centred on that singular obsession.

If you ask him nicely he will boast about how many years he spent (8 hours a day no less) pasting all the passages of the Koran into a spreadsheet so that he could classify them all according to thousands of categories.

[KLewchuk]

No.
He's saying none of that at all.
He's pointing out a problem that exists with people that think in absolutes.
A problem I need to say that your foolish, and sadly predictable response is an example of.

As for your conclusion. Philosophy tends to use references to "sense" where matters impinge directly on matters of primary evidence from the senses. The whole point about "facts" is that your objection does not apply for that reason.
It's like objecting to criticisms of dogs by saying they are no fruit.

Got it, if today you say that Washington DC exists and I say it does not... we are both correct because there are no such things as facts. The paradox in that article is clear; the question is how people deal with such conceptual paradoxes. See Sokal for one view.

Responding with an idiotic straw man is not going to help your position

Perhaps not for you. Others might say, hmmm. He has a point. So there must be "some" facts. Then, what is a fact and what is not a fact?

[Veritas Aequitas]

But they are mental states, so by your argument they are already verified facts. So why are they in need of verification when they are already fact? Likewise, all religious experience is mental states, and all religious experience is also verified fact.

Why are you filtering for falsehood AFTER proving fact status up front?

It is the same with scientific facts.
Why do we need to verify and justify all scientific facts?

Once they are facts they are already verified. That's what fact means, it's also what verify means really.

The above is why you are so pedantic and dogmatic.
Re Principle of Charity, what is meant by the above is all scientific hypotheses need to be verified and justify before they are qualified to be scientific facts, truth or knowledge.
It is the same with specific moral claims which need to be verified and justify before they are qualified to be scientific facts, truth or knowledge

If the resultant claim of a believer is 'God exists' what is factual is the believer has such mental activities and state of believing. Whether there is a real God or not is a separate issue.

I told you months ago that what you claimed as moral fact was only a fact that a person holds some particular opinion. Has it taken you this long to work out that this obvious statement was true?

Erm... I suppose I actually probably do need to put into explicit terms that the above invalidates your next ought-from-is argument before you even start.

You are off the wrong track.

I have already stated what are moral facts can be justified to be true via the Moral Framework and System.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But no one accepts your silly FSK, because it is so subjective.

Here again,

• A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
  For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
  "The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact.

According to definitions upon which we all agree.

Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are both historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.

Depends on how they are articulated.
But same answer as above.

The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.[/list]

Surely a linguistic fact and other types of specific facts cannot have the same degree of veracity as a scientific fact.
Thus those specific facts are dependent on the specific FSK.

The Scientific FSK that produces scientific facts is subjective?
How can you counter this?

Btw, what is objectivity is a culmination of subjects' activities, thus inter-subjectivity.

So much, so meaningless.
None of your moral framework applies to this, since any and all moral injunctions require statements of opinion.

Nope! what I claimed as moral facts are not mere statement of opinions.
They are verifiable and justifiable to some mental states which are represented by a referent of an algorithm in the brain.

From the moral perspective;
Despite your ability to kill, it is a moral fact you are not going to kill another human at present because there is an inhibitory force of 'ought-not to kill another human' within your brain. It is not likely you understand this point because you are so ignorant of such.

The same moral fact exists in all human brains, thus moral facts exist.
Those who had killed other humans is because their inhibitory force of 'ought-not to kill another human' is weakened or defective.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is the same with scientific facts.
Why do we need to verify and justify all scientific facts?

Once they are facts they are already verified. That's what fact means, it's also what verify means really.

The above is why you are so pedantic and dogmatic.
Re Principle of Charity, what is meant by the above is all scientific hypotheses need to be verified and justify before they are qualified to be scientific facts, truth or knowledge.
It is the same with specific moral claims which need to be verified and justify before they are qualified to be scientific facts, truth or knowledge

There is no relevant use here for principle of charity. There is a simple fact, that is true by definition, that if something is a fact it is already verified. If under subsequent examination the verification proves invalid, the fact status is thereby withdrawn and the now unverified information is no longer fact. That is how the concept works. In the real world, if you want to show something is not a fact, you often would start by attacking the means of verification for this very reason. This is how everybody who is competent to weild the concept "fact" in conversation understands these terms to work, and thus it is an unbreakable restraint on how you get to use that concept. Unless you can persuade society to update the meaning of "fact" or of "verification" to suit your purposes of course.

So no, if this stuff is moral fact already because it has a status as a mental state and being mental states make things moral fact, then you cannot verify it at all with your framework. What happens to rejected moral facts? They are still mental states, your framework cannot remove that status, so according to your argument it cannot remove the fact status either. So what comes into your framework is not a mess of ideas to be sorted into fact and error, it is already fact and that's a fact.

So in order to have the sort of facts you want to have, you are in a position where you cannot escape commiting yourself to the idea that many (most?) facts are untrue, mistaken, and false. The things you presently decry as false, are still facts now, so you have to live with all of them, even the ones you previously thought you could reject as false.

If the resultant claim of a believer is 'God exists' what is factual is the believer has such mental activities and state of believing. Whether there is a real God or not is a separate issue.

I told you months ago that what you claimed as moral fact was only a fact that a person holds some particular opinion. Has it taken you this long to work out that this obvious statement was true?

Erm... I suppose I actually probably do need to put into explicit terms that the above invalidates your next ought-from-is argument before you even start.

You are off the wrong track.

I have already stated what are moral facts can be justified to be true via the Moral Framework and System.

You've just repeated your mistake a lot of times. It was wrong every time you stated it. What I told you was correct then, and it still is. You can only have for your fact the already obvious statement that person X holds opinion Y.

But if you were smart enough to follow advice, you wouldn't have put yourself into such a clumsy trap as this in the first place.

[Skepdick]

There is no relevant use here for principle of charity. There is a simple fact, that is true by definition, that if something is a fact it is already verified.

Verified by whom and how?

If under subsequent examination the verification proves invalid

OK, so lets talk validation.

How would I go about validating/invalidating the factuality of "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" ?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You've just repeated your mistake a lot of times. It was wrong every time you stated it. What I told you was correct then, and it still is. You can only have for your fact the already obvious statement that person X holds opinion Y.

But if you were smart enough to follow advice, you wouldn't have put yourself into such a clumsy trap as this in the first place.

Your above is a silly complain.

The main point was your stupidity in coming up with following stupid counter;
viewtopic.php?p=470314#p470314

• P1 All mental states are facts
  P2 All IMAGINARY ANIMALS are mental states
  C1 All IMAGINARY ANIMALS are facts, i.e. UNICORN facts.

From the above, UNICORNS exist.

You so desperate that it made you stupid.
Your P2 is false.

Here is the correction,

• P1 All mental states are facts
  P2 All IMAGINATIONs of ANIMALS are mental states
  C1 All IMAGINATIONs of ANIMALS are facts, i.e. UNICORN facts.

It is the neural activities of imagination that is a fact, not things imagined.
The state of imagination can be verified and tested empirically and philosophically.

It is the same with the moral states which must be verified empirically and philosophically to be accepted as moral facts within a moral framework and system.

[FlashDangerpants]

There is no relevant use here for principle of charity. There is a simple fact, that is true by definition, that if something is a fact it is already verified.

Verified by whom and how?

The point of being true by definition is to be a priori. Verification is posteriori.

Vestibule's argument is that moral mental states are a priori moral fact as well. So if he wants to follow that up with some denial that "fact" includes verification, he destroys his own argument in the attempt. Obviously this is as far as I will bother discussing the matter with you.

If under subsequent examination the verification proves invalid

OK, so lets talk validation.

How would I go about validating/invalidating the factuality of "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" ?

I don't care. The general concept of there being frameworks of knowledge is uncontentious as far as I can see, and those frameworks are responsible for applying the filters for their relevant subject matter. What is under discussion seems to be whether there can be a similar framework at all for morality and ethics. You can get a fact that geographers have one shared consensus on the matter under whatever definitional terms they happen to use (de facto jurisdiction perhaps), and a fact that international legal institutions hold a differing view until certain arguments have been tried before the relvant courts and judgments issued (there's nothing at all contradictory about de facto jurisdiction over some territory also being illegal occupation and seizure).

The real world conception of fact and error handles this sort of stuff on a daily basis. We are all well aware of contested fact claims, partial validation and so on. But what we don't have is contingent-truth-by-definition. That is inconceivable. For a truth that was true by definition to be withdrawn or replaced, the definition is what we look at. This is evident in those terrible threads in the Gender Phil sub, the ones where Henry had to cope with the notion of a defintion changing and he didn't really take to it.

If the definition of man and woman can be altered to take new needs and practices into account (something which obviously can happen because our definitions do change as we can plainly see) then it is possible that you can bring about the change you want to see in the way we think about and thus use the concept of fact. Until then, you may wish it suited your goals better, but it is what it is.

[Skepdick]

Vestibule's argument is that moral mental states are a priori moral fact as well.

They are.

Are you thirsty/hungry a priori or a posteriori verification of said mental state?
Do you object to murder a priori or a posteriori verification?

So if he wants to follow that up with some denial that "fact" includes verification, he destroys his own argument in the attempt.

Your attempt to set him up for failure has blown up in your face rather spectacularly.

Obviously this is as far as I will bother discussing the matter with you.

Obviously. I'll let go off your scrotum now.

If under subsequent examination the verification proves invalid

OK, so lets talk validation.

How would I go about validating/invalidating the factuality of "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" ?

I don't care.

I care. That's why I am asking.

If you insist that facts are verified - I want to know how.

You don't like the example? OK, lets pick a less contentious one. How would I verify the factuality of your birthday?

I'll lower the bar even further by removing myself from the equation. How would YOU verify the factuality of your own birthday?

The general concept of there being frameworks of knowledge is uncontentious as far as I can see, and those frameworks are responsible for applying the filters for their relevant subject matter.

And yet you are contending that facts necessitate verification all while you can't tell me how to verify even trivial ones.

If the definition of man and woman can be altered to take new needs and practices into account (something which obviously can happen because our definitions do change as we can plainly see) then it is possible that you can bring about the change you want to see in the way we think about and thus use the concept of fact. Until then, you may wish it suited your goals better, but it is what it is.

OK, so give me your definition/conception of "fact".

[FlashDangerpants]

You've just repeated your mistake a lot of times. It was wrong every time you stated it. What I told you was correct then, and it still is. You can only have for your fact the already obvious statement that person X holds opinion Y.

But if you were smart enough to follow advice, you wouldn't have put yourself into such a clumsy trap as this in the first place.

Your above is a silly complain.

The main point was your stupidity in coming up with following stupid counter;
viewtopic.php?p=470314#p470314

• P1 All mental states are facts
  P2 All IMAGINARY ANIMALS are mental states
  C1 All IMAGINARY ANIMALS are facts, i.e. UNICORN facts.

From the above, UNICORNS exist.

You so desperate that it made you stupid.
Your P2 is false.

Here is the correction,

• P1 All mental states are facts
  P2 All IMAGINATIONs of ANIMALS are mental states
  C1 All IMAGINATIONs of ANIMALS are facts, i.e. UNICORN facts.

Of course my P2 was shit. I was copying your P2.
If you copy shit , what you get is a copy of shit.

your corrected P2 is this:
P2 All moral states are mental states concerning or about morality

It is the neural activities of imagination that is a fact, not things imagined.

And it's the neural activities of having moral beliefs that is the fact in your case, not the morals that the subject is having opinions about.
Did you not see that this has been my point even though I told you many times for months on end? any argument you make against this applies equally to the imaginary animals.

The state of imagination can be verified and tested empirically and philosophically.

The contents of the imagining can only tested if they are of a testable sort. Being of a testable sort though, by definition, menas they are not facts until they are tested, so this is not going to help you at all.

If I imagine that I will enjoy a sandwich with cheese and peanut butter, and coffe granules in it, then I can make such a sandwhich and test the imagining. If I have an imagininig about what happens after the universe ends, there's some practical issues involved in carrying out a test. If I had an imagining that I would enjoy the sandwich, but then I tried the sandwich and it was disgusting, it was never a fact that I enjoy sandwiches with coffee granules in them.

It is the same with the moral states which must be verified empirically and philosophically to be accepted as moral facts within a moral framework and system.

Look at the title of your OP
All Moral State-of-affairs are Facts
You are asserting they are fact by definition. That's an a priori fact claim, there is no scope for a posteriori removal of a priori fact. You would have to remove the status of mental state to remove the a priori fact status you have granted to all mental states.