All Moral State-of-affairs are Facts

[Veritas Aequitas]

I still don't understand why you call them moral facts. Wouldn't "facts relating to morality" or "facts about morality" be more accurate, and less misleading.

The term "moral facts" is used in the same sense of 'scientific facts' 'legal facts' 'historical facts' "economic fact" and "whatever facts".
Thus the above are specific facts are related/confined to their specific framework and system of knowledge.
So what is wrong with using the term 'moral facts' which are specific to the moral framework and system.

What the moral-facts-deniers claim is there are no facts and moral statements cannot be facts as far as morality [& ethics] is concern.
They claim whatever is of morality only expresses opinions, beliefs, are emotional, of feelings, and of the others as in the list above.

It's almost as if you want to be misunderstood in order to get people to challenge you, and you in return get to shout "moral fact deniers" at them. It all seems rather pointless.

Those who deny there are moral facts know what moral-facts-denier mean.
It was not me who started this contention, but note these threads raised by Peter Holmes;

Well it seems to me, that you and your moral-fact-deniers are deliberately misunderstanding each other. It all seems rather petty.

It is those who insists morality is not objective and moral facts do not exist are petty or as in this thread;

Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29758

The Philosophy of Morality and Ethics has since moved on into greater depths and width from those who deny there are moral facts and that "Morality is not Objective".

My claims with morality is whatever the claims related morality, they [whatever the label] must be empirically and philosophically justified as Justified True Moral Beliefs.

[Belinda]

Pianos are generally tuned to an A440 pitch standard that was adopted during the early 1900s in response to widely varying standards.[10] Previously the pitch standards had gradually risen from about A415 during the late 1700s and early 1800s to A435 during the late 1800s. Though A440 is generally the standard, some orchestras, particularly in Europe, use a higher pitch standard, such as A442.[11]Wikipedia

Likewise moral states of affairs are so by agreed standards of morality. The Ten Commandments is an agreed standard of morality and arguably the main historic and persistent standard among civilised nations today.

[Harbal]

I guess Skepdick means what is your criterion by which you you judge a question of right and wrong, and how might you ensure that criterion is the same as everyone else's criterion.
I presume there has been an international agreement as to Greenwich mean time, and all clocks are calibrated to fit Greenwich mean time. So your moral criterion needs to be calibrated to fit everyone elses' criterion.
If this is indeed what Skepdick means then his question is a political one like that of implementing Greenwich mean time. It's about how do you get people to agree to observe the law.

I suppose you need a set of standards as the criteria by which you judge right and wrong. That could be standards set down by the law, by your religion, or your own, personal moral code. Religious people have to juggle all three; I am in the happier position of only having to bother with two. Take adultery, for example: Your religion might condemn it outright, and classify it as a grave sin; the law might regard it as undesirable but not illegal; and you might think it is perfectly acceptable. So to use your time analogy, it would be like trying to set your watch to Greenwich, New York, and Honk Kong time simultaneously. And even if you manage to settle on just one frame of reference, morality does not lend itself to precision of measurement in quite the same way that time does.

PS i wonder if all piano tuners calibrate their tuning forks.

As far as I know, tuning forks are not adjustable, they are all the same pitch. Human beings are very adjustable, and come in a wide variety of moral frequencies.

[Harbal]

The term "moral facts" is used in the same sense of 'scientific facts' 'legal facts' 'historical facts' "economic fact" and "whatever facts".
Thus the above are specific facts are related/confined to their specific framework and system of knowledge.
So what is wrong with using the term 'moral facts' which are specific to the moral framework and system.

What specific facts can you think of that would not be better served by having a prefix other than "moral"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The term "moral facts" is used in the same sense of 'scientific facts' 'legal facts' 'historical facts' "economic fact" and "whatever facts".
Thus the above are specific facts are related/confined to their specific framework and system of knowledge.
So what is wrong with using the term 'moral facts' which are specific to the moral framework and system.

What specific facts can you think of that would not be better served by having a prefix other than "moral"?

Morality and Ethics is a basic human necessity.
Morality encompasses whatever human actions that are driven to do good and inhibiting the full range of evil acts, e.g. killing, rapes, terrible violence, and the likes.
All humans are embedded with the fact of a neural algorithm [AM] that inhibit the impulses to commit evil.
Since inhibiting evil is within Morality, this specific fact of the algorithm [AM] is a moral fact.
Thus it is most appropriate and effective to prefix this fact of the neural algorithm [AM] with the term moral [as defined].

[Harbal]

Morality and Ethics is a basic human necessity.
Morality encompasses whatever human actions that are driven to do good and inhibiting the full range of evil acts, e.g. killing, rapes, terrible violence, and the likes.
All humans are embedded with the fact of a neural algorithm [AM] that inhibit the impulses to commit evil.Since inhibiting evil is within Morality, this specific fact of the algorithm [AM] is a moral fact.
Thus it is most appropriate and effective to prefix this fact of the neural algorithm [AM] with the term moral [as defined].

Morality and Ethics is a basic human necessity.

Allowing that they are basic human necessities, that is a fact primarily about human nature. Anthropological fact, perhaps.

Morality encompasses whatever human actions that are driven to do good and inhibiting the full range of evil acts, e.g. killing, rapes, terrible violence, and the likes.

That is not a well defined definition, and made even worse by your use of the very subjective term "evil acts", but I think I know what you mean. Again, if we allow that the statement is true, it is stating a fact about morality. Morality is the subject of the fact, not a property of it.

All humans are embedded with the fact of a neural algorithm [AM] that inhibit the impulses to commit evil.Since inhibiting evil is within Morality, this specific fact of the algorithm [AM] is a moral fact.

Is it possible to embed a fact into a human being? It doesn't sound quite right. Besides, a "neural" algorithm isn't a fact, it's an algorithm. If what you really mean is that, "human beings are embedded with a neural algorithm that controls their sense of morality", is a fact, then again, it is an anthropological fact, or maybe a psychology fact, but not a moral fact. The fact contains a truth about our psychology, not a moral truth.

Thus it is most appropriate and effective to prefix this fact of the neural algorithm [AM] with the term moral [as defined].

But a "neural algorithm" isn't a fact, it's a process, or something like that. I don't doubt that you find it most appropriate and effective to call it a fact and prefix it with "moral", but I don't think you should be allowed to get away with it.

[Skepdick]

As far as I know, tuning forks are not adjustable, they are all the same pitch. Human beings are very adjustable, and come in a wide variety of moral frequencies.

There are no two tuning forks with the same pitch - they are all within some "acceptable range".

Exactly like human morality.

[Harbal]

There are no two tuning forks with the same pitch - they are all within some "acceptable range".

I would ask you for proof of that, if I cared enough.

[Skepdick]

If this is indeed what Skepdick means then his question is a political one like that of implementing Greenwich mean time. It's about how do you get people to agree to observe the law.

It's political akin to the definition of the Kilogram for the longest of time.

The IPK was in safekeeping at the BIPM for a very long time.

Legend has it that when Germany invaded France in both world wars, they left the BIPM alone.

[Skepdick]

Allowing that they are basic human necessities, that is a fact primarily about human nature. Anthropological fact, perhaps.

All facts/knowledge is anthropic/anthropological.

Knowledge is socially constructed.

That is not a well defined definition

This is an aesthetic (moral? subjective?) judgment about definitions.

Is it possible to embed a fact into a human being? It doesn't sound quite right. Besides, a "neural" algorithm isn't a fact, it's an algorithm.

Algorithms are mechanistic - exactly like scientific knowledge.

If scientific laws captured in Mathematics (algorithms) are not facts, then..... what do you mean by "facts"?

If what you really mean is that, "human beings are embedded with a neural algorithm that controls their sense of morality", is a fact, then again, it is an anthropological fact, or maybe a psychology fact, but not a moral fact. The fact contains a truth about our psychology, not a moral truth.

What do YOU mean by "moral truth" and "moral fact" when you use those terms?

What would satisfy YOUR criterion?

But a "neural algorithm" isn't a fact, it's a process, or something like that. I don't doubt that you find it most appropriate and effective to call it a fact and prefix it with "moral", but I don't think you should be allowed to get away with it.

Then you've dismissed all science as non-factual. The description of a process is an algorithm. An algorithm is a linguistic entity.

So if an algorithm isn't sufficient for factuality - what is?

[Harbal]

What do YOU mean by "moral truth" and "moral fact" when you use those terms?

I don't use those terms, they don't mean anything to me.

Then you've dismissed all science as non-factual.

I can only apologise for that, let's hope it isn't irretrievable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality and Ethics is a basic human necessity.
Morality encompasses whatever human actions that are driven to do good and inhibiting the full range of evil acts, e.g. killing, rapes, terrible violence, and the likes.
All humans are embedded with the fact of a neural algorithm [AM] that inhibit the impulses to commit evil.Since inhibiting evil is within Morality, this specific fact of the algorithm [AM] is a moral fact.
Thus it is most appropriate and effective to prefix this fact of the neural algorithm [AM] with the term moral [as defined].

Morality and Ethics is a basic human necessity.

Allowing that they are basic human necessities, that is a fact primarily about human nature. Anthropological fact, perhaps.

Do you know the effective meaning of anthropology.

Anthropology is the scientific study of humans, human behavior and societies in the past and present.[1][2][3]
Social anthropology studies patterns of behaviour and cultural anthropology[1][2][3] studies cultural meaning, including norms and values.
Linguistic anthropology studies how language influences social life.
Biological or physical anthropology[1][2][3] studies the biological development of humans.
Visual anthropology, which is usually considered to be a part of social anthropology,

From the above one can see that whatever is related to morality is not an anthropological fact per se.
There is a subject labelled moral-anthropology, thus whatever the facts therefrom they are the facts of moral-anthropology.

It is not only 'anthropology' but there are lots of other subjects that can be prefixed to the main core of 'Morality & Ethics'.

The facts related to the main core of Morality & Ethics are appropriately moral facts.

Morality encompasses whatever human actions that are driven to do good and inhibiting the full range of evil acts, e.g. killing, rapes, terrible violence, and the likes.

That is not a well defined definition, and made even worse by your use of the very subjective term "evil acts", but I think I know what you mean. Again, if we allow that the statement is true, it is stating a fact about morality. Morality is the subject of the fact, not a property of it.

I have researched very extensively and deeply into the concept of 'evil' so I know what I am talking with the term 'evil' in relation to morality.
Here is one little clue to what is evil: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

I view 'Morality' is the sense as with 'Science'.
Where we have scientific facts, we have moral facts.

All humans are embedded with the fact of a neural algorithm [AM] that inhibit the impulses to commit evil.Since inhibiting evil is within Morality, this specific fact of the algorithm [AM] is a moral fact.

Is it possible to embed a fact into a human being? It doesn't sound quite right. Besides, a "neural" algorithm isn't a fact, it's an algorithm. If what you really mean is that, "human beings are embedded with a neural algorithm that controls their sense of morality", is a fact, then again, it is an anthropological fact, or maybe a psychology fact, but not a moral fact. The fact contains a truth about our psychology, not a moral truth.

In this case, the analogy of morality is a moral sense equivalent to the common 5 senses.
Where we have facts of the senses, we have facts of the moral sense which contribute to the study of moral psychology.

Thus it is most appropriate and effective to prefix this fact of the neural algorithm [AM] with the term moral [as defined].

But a "neural algorithm" isn't a fact, it's a process, or something like that. I don't doubt that you find it most appropriate and effective to call it a fact and prefix it with "moral", but I don't think you should be allowed to get away with it.

What is fact?
I have quoted the following link a '1000' times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

A "neural algorithm" in the brain is a potential in the brain which is a system which its structures, processes, inputs, outputs, feedback-control features.
Such a 'neural algorithm' is a state of affairs in the brain of individuals that can be verified by Science thus it is a scientific facts and is a moral fact within the context of morality.

I believe you are unable to track the "neural algorithm" as a matter of fact because you are so habituated to look outward externally for 'that cat on the mat' as a matter-of-fact; you are unable to see the fact within you and the fact inside the brain of individuals.

[Belinda]

I guess Skepdick means what is your criterion by which you you judge a question of right and wrong, and how might you ensure that criterion is the same as everyone else's criterion.
I presume there has been an international agreement as to Greenwich mean time, and all clocks are calibrated to fit Greenwich mean time. So your moral criterion needs to be calibrated to fit everyone elses' criterion.
If this is indeed what Skepdick means then his question is a political one like that of implementing Greenwich mean time. It's about how do you get people to agree to observe the law.

I suppose you need a set of standards as the criteria by which you judge right and wrong. That could be standards set down by the law, by your religion, or your own, personal moral code. Religious people have to juggle all three; I am in the happier position of only having to bother with two. Take adultery, for example: Your religion might condemn it outright, and classify it as a grave sin; the law might regard it as undesirable but not illegal; and you might think it is perfectly acceptable. So to use your time analogy, it would be like trying to set your watch to Greenwich, New York, and Honk Kong time simultaneously. And even if you manage to settle on just one frame of reference, morality does not lend itself to precision of measurement in quite the same way that time does.

PS i wonder if all piano tuners calibrate their tuning forks.

As far as I know, tuning forks are not adjustable, they are all the same pitch. Human beings are very adjustable, and come in a wide variety of moral frequencies.

But morality is comparable to standard times. Some people can think of adultery with no frisson of wrongdoing on any of the three counts. I bet there are people who think of murder with no interest in its ethical value, for instance the people in the Saudi embassy and their boss who murdered Jamal Kashoggi.

[Skepdick]

I don't use those terms, they don't mean anything to me.

But you do use the term "facts", which (to most people) means "accurate description of the state of affairs".
And you also admit that morality exists e.g morality is part of "the state of affairs".

So if morality is an existent, and facts describe existents, then the confusion is entirely yours.

[Harbal]

Do you know the effective meaning of anthropology.

Apparently not.