All Moral State-of-affairs are Facts

[Harbal]

• 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.

So are you merely saying that if I think of a unicorn, it is a fact that I am thinking of a unicorn?

Or if I think it is wrong for a human being to kill another human being, it is a fact that I think it is wrong for a human being to kill another human being?

[FlashDangerpants]

• 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.

So are you merely saying that if I think of a unicorn, it is a fact that I am thinking of a unicorn?

Or if I think it is wrong for a human being to kill another human being, it is a fact that I think it is wrong for a human being to kill another human being?

And that's before some rude bastard raises the question of recalcitrant emotions... mental states which the holder knows to be irrational and therefore believes are untrue.

[Harbal]

And that's before some rude bastard raises the question of recalcitrant emotions... mental states which the holder knows to be irrational and therefore believes are untrue.

Well I'm still struggling to work out what it is that is laying claim to be fact.

[Skepdick]

And that's before some rude bastard raises the question of recalcitrant emotions... mental states which the holder knows to be irrational and therefore believes are untrue.

And right after some dick points out that you are equivocating (un)true to mean both "emotions which (don't) exist" and "emotions which (don't) correspond with the state of affairs".

You sure seem to be singling contempt for irrational/untrue emotions relative to rational/true ones. Almost as if - you have an innate preference/value system.

[Sculptor]

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.

You are just so dull witted.

[Sculptor]

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.

Opinion.

It is not likely you understand this point because you are so ignorant of such.

False opinion

The same moral fact exists in all human brains, thus moral facts exist.

False opinion

Those who had killed other humans is because their inhibitory force of 'ought-not to kill another human' is weakened or defective.

Or natural.

[FlashDangerpants]

And that's before some rude bastard raises the question of recalcitrant emotions... mental states which the holder knows to be irrational and therefore believes are untrue.

Well I'm still struggling to work out what it is that is laying claim to be fact.

So is Vegetable Abrasive. He's currently casting around for a way to derive the is of that from an ought.

While you were away he tried to cover this stuff in some depth, it was excellent shit. He ended up arguing that Miss World competitions are an objective measurement of beauty. He thinks they are audited to comply with science and everything.

[Skepdick]

You are just so dull witted.

I can only imagine how much it pisses you off to be outwitted by somebody as dull as me.

It probably pisses you off almost as much as having agreed (through recognition) that this is Abraham Lincoln even though nobody ever defined "Abraham Lincoln".

abl.png

[Skepdick]

Opinion.

It is not likely you understand this point because you are so ignorant of such.

False opinion

The same moral fact exists in all human brains, thus moral facts exist.

False opinion

Those who had killed other humans is because their inhibitory force of 'ought-not to kill another human' is weakened or defective.

Or natural.

And that is how you disguise dismissiveness as philosophy.

10/10, but wouldn't recommend.

[Sculptor]

You are just so dull witted.

I can only imagine how much it pisses you off to be outwitted by somebody as dull as me.

It probably pisses you off almost as much as having agreed (through recognition) that this is Abraham Lincoln even though nobody ever defined "Abraham Lincoln".

abl.png

Stop being an idiot.
There are two reasons you are wrong.
1. We were talking about definitions. A picture of AL does not DEFINE him.
and
2. A picture of AL is not the same as AL.

Now run along and stop making a fool of yourself.

[Sculptor]

Opinion.

It is not likely you understand this point because you are so ignorant of such.

False opinion

The same moral fact exists in all human brains, thus moral facts exist.

False opinion

Those who had killed other humans is because their inhibitory force of 'ought-not to kill another human' is weakened or defective.

Or natural.

And that is how you disguise dismissiveness as philosophy.

10/10, but wouldn't recommend.

Your recommendations count for nothing.

[Skepdick]

Stop being an idiot.

Good advice. Do you ever intend on putting it to practice?

1. We were talking about definitions. A picture of AL does not DEFINE him.

Uhuh, so what does define "Abraham Lincoln"?

2. A picture of AL is not the same as AL.

So how did you recognize AL?

Now run along and stop making a fool of yourself.

Good advice. Do you ever intend on putting it to practice?

[Sculptor]

Stop being an idiot.

Good advice. Do you ever intend on putting it to practice?

1. We were talking about definitions. A picture of AL does not DEFINE him.

Uhuh, so what does define "Abraham Lincoln"?

2. A picture of AL is not the same as AL.

So how did you recognize AL?

Now run along and stop making a fool of yourself.

Good advice. Do you ever intend on putting it to practice?

PLONK!

[Veritas Aequitas]

• 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.

So are you merely saying that if I think of a unicorn, it is a fact that I am thinking of a unicorn?

That is correct.

Or if I think it is wrong for a human being to kill another human being, it is a fact that I think it is wrong for a human being to kill another human being?

Yes, that is correct BUT the mental state of thinking of whatever is a fact of the thinking faculty but it is not a moral fact of the moral faculty in the brain.

You are conflating out of ignorance. Note the difference in this analogy between

• 1. -the mental state of thinking you are angry -the thinking faculty - a fact of thinking
  and
  2. -the actual mental state of being angry - the activation emotion - a fact of emotion.

The above two separate mental activities are represented by different set of activities of neurons in different parts/faculties of the the brain.

The fact is there is a moral faculty in the brain which is represented by a neural algorithm that involved neurons activated from different parts of the brain.
Within this moral faculty there is a major "sub-routine" of 'ought-not to kill another human' IF the "kill" program is activated for some reasons. This is a mental state of being in control of oneself in not killing another human being. This is the moral fact that has a physical referent.

The above active mental state of inhibition in killing another human is the moral fact. Such a mental state of inhibition to kill another human is in your brain, that is why you do not simply go out to kill another human or perhaps even when you are offended by another person.

Thinking about such a state of killing is not a moral fact but a fact of thinking.
For example if some BLM protestor killed one of your near relative and you have identified the murderer, it is likely you may have thoughts of revenge and driven to kill the murderer, but that thinking is not a moral fact.
If is only when your 'ought-not to kill another human' inhibitors kicked in and you don't go on to kill the murderer that is the issue of the inherent moral fact in your brain.

Get it?

[Harbal]

• 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.

So are you merely saying that if I think of a unicorn, it is a fact that I am thinking of a unicorn?

That is correct.

Or if I think it is wrong for a human being to kill another human being, it is a fact that I think it is wrong for a human being to kill another human being?

Yes, that is correct BUT the mental state of thinking of whatever is a fact of the thinking faculty but it is not a moral fact of the moral faculty in the brain.

You are conflating out of ignorance. Note the difference in this analogy between

• 1. -the mental state of thinking you are angry -the thinking faculty - a fact of thinking
  and
  2. -the actual mental state of being angry - the activation emotion - a fact of emotion.

The above two separate mental activities are represented by different set of activities of neurons in different parts/faculties of the the brain.

The fact is there is a moral faculty in the brain which is represented by a neural algorithm that involved neurons activated from different parts of the brain.
Within this moral faculty there is a major "sub-routine" of 'ought-not to kill another human' IF the "kill" program is activated for some reasons. This is a mental state of being in control of oneself in not killing another human being. This is the moral fact that has a physical referent.

The above active mental state of inhibition in killing another human is the moral fact. Such a mental state of inhibition to kill another human is in your brain, that is why you do not simply go out to kill another human or perhaps even when you are offended by another person.

Thinking about such a state of killing is not a moral fact but a fact of thinking.
For example if some BLM protestor killed one of your near relative and you have identified the murderer, it is likely you may have thoughts of revenge and driven to kill the murderer, but that thinking is not a moral fact.
If is only when your 'ought-not to kill another human' inhibitors kicked in and you don't go on to kill the murderer that is the issue of the inherent moral fact in your brain.

Get it?

I think the reason why your thread has created controversy is your choice of terminology; specifically your designation "moral fact". It gives the impression that morality is a property of the fact, rather than merely the subject of it. A fact can be concerned with morality, but cannot possess the quality of being moral.

I don't even see the need for the word "moral" in the thread title. You could have just said: "All states-of-affair are facts", which, of course, would have included moral ones.