All Moral State-of-affairs are Facts

[Harbal]

What's the difference? Isn't the law our approximate codification of morality?

What if the law's morality doesn't coincide with my morality?

[Skepdick]

What if the law's morality doesn't coincide with my morality?

What if my interpretation of your question doesn't coincide with your intended meaning?

[Harbal]

Ignoring it doesn't work for you?

I obviously did ignore it, because I don't even know what it was.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

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.

But I sometimes struggle with my conscience before I set myself to any boring task that has no 'moral' dimension whatsoever.

I did not state conscience, impulse controls and various inhibitory functions are confined to moral issues only.
Struggling with gluttony, sexual lust/addiction, gambling and many other addictions are not moral issues.
This is why we need a Moral & Ethics Framework and System to keep to topic and practical relevance.

Indeed we do.We need a moral framework so we can collaborate with each other and with the rest of the given environment. Whether the collaboration is called 'moral' or 'immoral' or 'amoral' is a matter for particular moral frameworks to define. Moral frameworks are usually called laws.

Moreover, an important ethic is personal virtue should be maintained.. The reason for its importance is an individual who lacks personal virtue is no good at collaborating with man or beast.

[Harbal]

What if my interpretation of your question doesn't coincide with your intended meaning?

It would probably lead to us getting embroiled in a pointless and unproductive exchange.

[Skepdick]

It would probably lead to us getting embroiled in a pointless and unproductive exchange.

It might even lead us to arrive at different answers to meaningful yes/no questions.

Is this exchange pointless and unproductive?

[Harbal]

It might even lead us to arrive at different answers to meaningful yes/no questions.

Is the wrongness of murder a fact?

My question was an attempt at establishing What VA is actually asserting. Had he answered the question in such a way as to make his position clear, I don't know what would have followed.

[Skepdick]

My question was an attempt at establishing What VA is actually asserting. Had he answered the question in such a way as to make his position clear, I don't know what would have followed.

He is asserting "yes" to the meaningful question "Are there moral facts?"

And he is constructing a framework containing the necessary conceptions/semantics of the various terms to arrive at the desired moral conclusion.

He is doing Philosophy.

[Harbal]

He is asserting "yes" to the meaningful question "Are there moral facts?"

And he is constructing the mental models necessary to arrive at the conclusion.

But what does he mean by "moral facts"?

A moral precept may be called a fact in as much as it exists, but its content doesn't represent a fact. Morality is merely arbitrary sentiment, personal opinion. It is not an entity that exists independently outside of human minds. I am trying to ascertain whether he thinks it is.

[Skepdick]

But what does he mean by "moral facts"?

For the sake of starting somewhere, can we not assume that he means EXACTLY the same thing you might mean if you were to pose the question:

"Do moral facts exist?"

And I do assume that you think that is a well-formed question.

A moral precept may be called a fact in as much as it exists, but its content doesn't represent a fact. Morality is merely arbitrary sentiment, personal opinion. It is not an entity that exists independently outside of human minds. I am trying to ascertain whether he thinks it is.

It doesn't matter where it exists if it exists, does it?

If it's ontological. Everything that exists doesn't represent facts. Everything that exists IS facts.

[Harbal]

For the sake of starting somewhere, can we not assume that he means EXACTLY the same thing you might mean if you were to pose the question:

"Do moral facts exist?"

And I do assume that you think that is a well-formed question.

I would not pose that question, because I have no idea what a moral fact is supposed to be. I am trying to find out what he means by "moral fact".

I am surprised that you accept that term, in view of how pedantic you were about my wording.

[Skepdick]

I would not pose that question, because I have no idea what a moral fact is supposed to be. I am trying to find out what he means by "moral fact".

OK, then lets simplify.

Does morality exist?

Would you pose that question, and how would you answer it?

I am surprised that you accept that term, in view of how pedantic you were about my wording.

I am not at all pedantic about wording. I am pedantic about double semantic standards.

[Harbal]

I would not pose that question, because I have no idea what a moral fact is supposed to be. I am trying to find out what he means by "moral fact".

OK, then lets simplify.

Does morality exist?

Is that a meaningful question in your mindset, and what is your answer?

Yes, as an abstract human concept, I would say that morality exists.

[Skepdick]

Yes, as an abstract human concept, I would say that morality exists.

Great!

Morality is an objective fact of existence.

The difficulty is "merely" representing/defining it in language.

[Harbal]

I am not at all pedantic about wording. I am pedantic about double semantic standards.

Double standards in as much as your applying them to me, but not to VA, you mean?