Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
The principle of moral supervenience states that moral predicates (e.g., permissible, obligatory, forbidden, etc.), and hence moral facts attributing these predicates to various particular actions or action-types, supervene, or are defined by and depend, upon non-moral facts.
The moral facts are hence said to be supervenient facts, and the non-moral facts the supervenience base of the former.
The principle is sometimes qualified to say that moral facts supervene upon natural facts, i.e., observable, empirical facts within space-time, but a broader conception could allow the supervenience base to include any non-moral facts, including (if there are any) non-natural facts (e.g., divine commands, Platonic truths). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_supervenience
Note [to the moral-facts-deniers] the mentioned of 'moral facts'.
I don't agree that non-natural facts (e.g., divine commands, Platonic truths) exist.
The principle of moral supervenience states that moral predicates (e.g., permissible, obligatory, forbidden, etc.), and hence moral facts attributing these predicates to various particular actions or action-types, supervene, or are defined by and depend, upon non-moral facts.
The moral facts are hence said to be supervenient facts, and the non-moral facts the supervenience base of the former.
The principle is sometimes qualified to say that moral facts supervene upon natural facts, i.e., observable, empirical facts within space-time, but a broader conception could allow the supervenience base to include any non-moral facts, including (if there are any) non-natural facts (e.g., divine commands, Platonic truths). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_supervenience
Note [to the moral-facts-deniers] the mentioned of 'moral facts'.
I don't agree that non-natural facts (e.g., divine commands, Platonic truths) exist.
Discuss??
1 Calling putative moral facts 'supervenient' does nothing to establish that they exist, nor how they supposedly depend upon natural facts. So this is a question-begging claim.
The principle of moral supervenience states that moral predicates (e.g., permissible, obligatory, forbidden, etc.), and hence moral facts attributing these predicates to various particular actions or action-types, supervene, or are defined by and depend, upon non-moral facts.
The moral facts are hence said to be supervenient facts, and the non-moral facts the supervenience base of the former.
The principle is sometimes qualified to say that moral facts supervene upon natural facts, i.e., observable, empirical facts within space-time, but a broader conception could allow the supervenience base to include any non-moral facts, including (if there are any) non-natural facts (e.g., divine commands, Platonic truths). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_supervenience
Note [to the moral-facts-deniers] the mentioned of 'moral facts'.
I don't agree that non-natural facts (e.g., divine commands, Platonic truths) exist.
Discuss??
Belief in a supernatural order of being is a matter of faith, or as the case may be a matter of religious observance.
However, on the pragmatic level,belief in a supernatural order of being can lead to power plays by men who pretend to be privy to the word of God.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:01 am
The principle of moral supervenience states that moral predicates (e.g., permissible, obligatory, forbidden, etc.), and hence moral facts
The principle of moral supervenience states that moral predicates (e.g., permissible, obligatory, forbidden, etc.), and hence moral facts attributing these predicates to various particular actions or action-types, supervene, or are defined by and depend, upon non-moral facts.
The moral facts are hence said to be supervenient facts, and the non-moral facts the supervenience base of the former.
The principle is sometimes qualified to say that moral facts supervene upon natural facts, i.e., observable, empirical facts within space-time, but a broader conception could allow the supervenience base to include any non-moral facts, including (if there are any) non-natural facts (e.g., divine commands, Platonic truths). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_supervenience
Note [to the moral-facts-deniers] the mentioned of 'moral facts'.
I don't agree that non-natural facts (e.g., divine commands, Platonic truths) exist.
Discuss??
1 Calling putative moral facts 'supervenient' does nothing to establish that they exist, nor how they supposedly depend upon natural facts. So this is a question-begging claim.
2 A command isn't a fact, by definition.
As usual you are shooting from the hips willy-nilly which merely exposed your ignorance, shallowness and narrowness.
I stated in the OP 'Discuss' which meant you have to take into account the various perspectives of various philosophers arguments for and against the issue then present your views thereafter.
I have read of many views on "moral supervenience" from different perspectives and most of the philosophers are very cautious not to fall into the question-begging trap or fallacy.
Until you've researched into the topic of moral supervenience in details and is able to produce sound counters to the various views, you'll have to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of moral facts hovering over you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:01 am
The principle of moral supervenience states that moral predicates (e.g., permissible, obligatory, forbidden, etc.), and hence moral facts
You're at it again.
At what again??
Look, I am trying to promote serious discussions on the topics of Ethical Theory.
Note [to the moral-facts-deniers] the mentioned of 'moral facts'.
I don't agree that non-natural facts (e.g., divine commands, Platonic truths) exist.
Discuss??
1 Calling putative moral facts 'supervenient' does nothing to establish that they exist, nor how they supposedly depend upon natural facts. So this is a question-begging claim.
2 A command isn't a fact, by definition.
As usual you are shooting from the hips willy-nilly which merely exposed your ignorance, shallowness and narrowness.
I stated in the OP 'Discuss' which meant you have to take into account the various perspectives of various philosophers arguments for and against the issue then present your views thereafter.
I have read of many views on "moral supervenience" from different perspectives and most of the philosophers are very cautious not to fall into the question-begging trap or fallacy.
Until you've researched into the topic of moral supervenience in details and is able to produce sound counters to the various views, you'll have to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of moral facts hovering over you.
Provide one example of a supposed moral fact, and show how it's 'supervenient upon' an actual, natural fact. Or are we supposed to just take your word for it that such things exist?
Hint: if your example is 'people must breathe or they die - therefore it's morally wrong to prevent people from breathing' - don't bother. Been there and binned the t-shirt.
The principle of moral supervenience states that moral predicates (e.g., permissible, obligatory, forbidden, etc.), and hence moral facts attributing these predicates to various particular actions or action-types, supervene, or are defined by and depend, upon non-moral facts.
The moral facts are hence said to be supervenient facts, and the non-moral facts the supervenience base of the former.
The principle is sometimes qualified to say that moral facts supervene upon natural facts, i.e., observable, empirical facts within space-time, but a broader conception could allow the supervenience base to include any non-moral facts, including (if there are any) non-natural facts (e.g., divine commands, Platonic truths). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_supervenience
Note [to the moral-facts-deniers] the mentioned of 'moral facts'.
I don't agree that non-natural facts (e.g., divine commands, Platonic truths) exist.
Discuss??
My view is that you, yourself do not understand the relationship between moral, natural, non-natural facts. Supervenience, and what is moral supervenience.
I think a simple example from you would suffice to dispel my notion.
I think you should take heed that one of the first things it states is that "moral facts" are dependant. You shall need to include this in your example.
Provide one example of a supposed moral fact, and show how it's 'supervenient upon' an actual, natural fact. Or are we supposed to just take your word for it that such things exist?
Hint: if your example is 'people must breathe or they die - therefore it's morally wrong to prevent people from breathing' - don't bother. Been there and binned the t-shirt.
I have one example of a supposed moral fact, but you may have "been there already and binned that t-shirt as well".
To me, in order to keep living and existing human beings, and other animals, must breathe clean enough air, or they will die. Therefore, it would be morally wrong for 'us', human beings, to over pollute the air that 'we', human beings, and other animals, NEED in order to keep surviving.
Or do I have this wrong and this is not a 'moral fact'?
The principle of moral supervenience states that moral predicates (e.g., permissible, obligatory, forbidden, etc.), and hence moral facts attributing these predicates to various particular actions or action-types, supervene, or are defined by and depend, upon non-moral facts.
The moral facts are hence said to be supervenient facts, and the non-moral facts the supervenience base of the former.
The principle is sometimes qualified to say that moral facts supervene upon natural facts, i.e., observable, empirical facts within space-time, but a broader conception could allow the supervenience base to include any non-moral facts, including (if there are any) non-natural facts (e.g., divine commands, Platonic truths). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_supervenience
Note [to the moral-facts-deniers] the mentioned of 'moral facts'.
I don't agree that non-natural facts (e.g., divine commands, Platonic truths) exist.
Discuss??
My view is that you, yourself do not understand the relationship between moral, natural, non-natural facts. Supervenience, and what is moral supervenience.
I think a simple example from you would suffice to dispel my notion.
I think you should take heed that one of the first things it states is that "moral facts" are dependant. You shall need to include this in your example.
I agree to the concept in general but I did not claim to be an expert on moral supervenience yet. I am still researching into the topic.
Provide one example of a supposed moral fact, and show how it's 'supervenient upon' an actual, natural fact. Or are we supposed to just take your word for it that such things exist?
Hint: if your example is 'people must breathe or they die - therefore it's morally wrong to prevent people from breathing' - don't bother. Been there and binned the t-shirt.
I have one example of a supposed moral fact, but you may have "been there already and binned that t-shirt as well".
To me, in order to keep living and existing human beings, and other animals, must breathe clean enough air, or they will die. Therefore, it would be morally wrong for 'us', human beings, to over pollute the air that 'we', human beings, and other animals, NEED in order to keep surviving.
Or do I have this wrong and this is not a 'moral fact'?
One example is the moral principle,
"torturing babies for pleasure is morally wrong"
and this moral principle supervenes on
non-moral facts arising from being human being.
Obviously there are loads of moral principles [moral facts] which supervene on non-moral facts.
Instead of dealing with each moral principles or moral facts, most of the arguments provided by the various philosophers do not track to the empirical facts of the supervenient-base.
However they argued in general as a principle that ethics is an impossibility without the principle of moral supervenience [as defined] as a moral necessity.
You have to read them up, it is not easy to grasp.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Note [to the moral-facts-deniers] the mentioned of 'moral facts'.
I don't agree that non-natural facts (e.g., divine commands, Platonic truths) exist.
Discuss??
My view is that you, yourself do not understand the relationship between moral, natural, non-natural facts. Supervenience, and what is moral supervenience.
I think a simple example from you would suffice to dispel my notion.
I think you should take heed that one of the first things it states is that "moral facts" are dependant. You shall need to include this in your example.
I agree to the concept in general but I did not claim to be an expert on moral supervenience yet. I am still researching into the topic.
So you do not know yet how this applies to anything?
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:21 am
My view is that you, yourself do not understand the relationship between moral, natural, non-natural facts. Supervenience, and what is moral supervenience.
I think a simple example from you would suffice to dispel my notion.
I think you should take heed that one of the first things it states is that "moral facts" are dependant. You shall need to include this in your example.
I agree to the concept in general but I did not claim to be an expert on moral supervenience yet. I am still researching into the topic.
So you do not know yet how this applies to anything?
I know the concept in general.
Note my OP stated 'Discuss' and I did not assert any certain claims to Moral Supervenience.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:11 am
Provide one example of a supposed moral fact, and show how it's 'supervenient upon' an actual, natural fact. Or are we supposed to just take your word for it that such things exist?
Hint: if your example is 'people must breathe or they die - therefore it's morally wrong to prevent people from breathing' - don't bother. Been there and binned the t-shirt.
I have one example of a supposed moral fact, but you may have "been there already and binned that t-shirt as well".
To me, in order to keep living and existing human beings, and other animals, must breathe clean enough air, or they will die. Therefore, it would be morally wrong for 'us', human beings, to over pollute the air that 'we', human beings, and other animals, NEED in order to keep surviving.
Or do I have this wrong and this is not a 'moral fact'?
One example is the moral principle,
"torturing babies for pleasure is morally wrong"
What makes this a principle?
and this moral principle supervenes on
non-moral facts arising from being human being.
So supervene is some for of verb. what does it actually mean?
Obviously there are loads of moral principles [moral facts] which supervene on non-moral facts.
If there are moral facts, and moral principles, then why are you choosing to conflate them here?
Instead of dealing with each moral principles or moral facts, most of the arguments provided by the various philosophers do not track to the empirical facts of the supervenient-base.
However they argued in general as a principle that ethics is an impossibility without the principle of moral supervenience as defined.
You have to read them up, it is not easy to grasp.
You'll definitely have to express what supervene means. Otherwise no one, not even you, shall understand what is going on.
You might want to think about how supervention actually works, who or what is doing the supervening.
