'Ought' is 'Is'

[FlashDangerpants]

ISIS are continually making moral decisions to act towards the goals of their ideals.
It's a big shitty for people in the West on the shit end of that stick.

But you have to acknowledge that the 5 million dead Vietnamese that the US was responsible for during the Vietnam war was ALSO made through a series of moral choices by the US goverment and the the 58,000 US servicemen that were also killed.
WTF is the difference here?

On the whole I believe they shouldn't have done that stuff (in both cases, more or less all parties concerned). Sadly I am unable to point to something in the cosmos that proves I am correct as a matter of moral fact. But I think most people can be persuaded to share my beliefs if we can just get over ourselves and quit the manichean "I am good because I have the proper moral compass, everyone else is wrong because their foundational beliefs suck donkey dick, and that's total FACT" reasoning.

[Sculptor]

ISIS are continually making moral decisions to act towards the goals of their ideals.
It's a big shitty for people in the West on the shit end of that stick.

But you have to acknowledge that the 5 million dead Vietnamese that the US was responsible for during the Vietnam war was ALSO made through a series of moral choices by the US goverment and the the 58,000 US servicemen that were also killed.
WTF is the difference here?

On the whole I believe they shouldn't have done that stuff (in both cases, more or less all parties concerned). Sadly I am unable to point to something in the cosmos that proves I am correct as a matter of moral fact. But I think most people can be persuaded to share my beliefs if we can just get over ourselves and quit the manichean "I am good because I have the proper moral compass, everyone else is wrong because their foundational beliefs suck donkey dick, and that's total FACT" reasoning.

THE only important thing you have said here is in RED.
Belief is not about objectivity, so why are we wasting air blabbing about it?
Is is not ought, and IS cannot automatically make an OUGHT.
Ought is what you aspire to, not what is the case.

[FlashDangerpants]

ISIS are continually making moral decisions to act towards the goals of their ideals.
It's a big shitty for people in the West on the shit end of that stick.

But you have to acknowledge that the 5 million dead Vietnamese that the US was responsible for during the Vietnam war was ALSO made through a series of moral choices by the US goverment and the the 58,000 US servicemen that were also killed.
WTF is the difference here?

On the whole I believe they shouldn't have done that stuff (in both cases, more or less all parties concerned). Sadly I am unable to point to something in the cosmos that proves I am correct as a matter of moral fact. But I think most people can be persuaded to share my beliefs if we can just get over ourselves and quit the manichean "I am good because I have the proper moral compass, everyone else is wrong because their foundational beliefs suck donkey dick, and that's total FACT" reasoning.

THE only important thing you have said here is in RED.
Belief is not about objectivity, so why are we wasting air blabbing about it?
Is is not ought, and IS cannot automatically make an OUGHT.
Ought is what you aspire to, not what is the case.

You understand that we agree on this, right?

[Sculptor]

On the whole I believe they shouldn't have done that stuff (in both cases, more or less all parties concerned). Sadly I am unable to point to something in the cosmos that proves I am correct as a matter of moral fact. But I think most people can be persuaded to share my beliefs if we can just get over ourselves and quit the manichean "I am good because I have the proper moral compass, everyone else is wrong because their foundational beliefs suck donkey dick, and that's total FACT" reasoning.

THE only important thing you have said here is in RED.
Belief is not about objectivity, so why are we wasting air blabbing about it?
Is is not ought, and IS cannot automatically make an OUGHT.
Ought is what you aspire to, not what is the case.

You understand that we agree on this, right?

Indeed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, wrong again. 'The sky here today is blue' and 'Trump is the 45th POTUS' are factual assertions with truth-value, because they claim something about reality that may not be the case - and they can be verified or falsified. And for these reasons, they have the same function.

But 'abortion is morally wrong' isn't that kind of assertion. There's nothing in reality that can verify or falsify that assertion, which is precisely why people can rationally agree or disagree with it. Your FSK theory is irrelevant here, because you haven't demonstrated that morality constitutes a framework and system of knowledge in the first place. Just saying that it is gets you nowhere.

I am setting aside 'abortion is morally wrong' due to its complexity that need extensive arguments to arrive at a moral conclusion.

I have presented the moral fact of
'no human ought to kill another human'
as a justified true moral beliefs from a specific Moral Framework and System.
I have already done that a "1000" times over the various threads.

Generally why the above is rational and objective is inductively thus objectively,
as supported by the inductive fact,
No "normal" person would want to be killed voluntarily.
Start with asking yourself that question for a personal conviction.

Morality & Ethics is one of the major group of subject of Philosophy besides logic, metaphysics, epistemology.
Each has its own Framework and System of knowledge and its various sub-FSK.
Surely what is Morality and Ethics cannot be Science, economics, politics, anthropology and other specific FSK.
Therefore Morality and Ethics has its own FSK and sub-FSKs.

1 Your appeal to induction (and, by implication, probabilism) is just more flummery. Until you demonstrate that a moral assertion, such as 'slavery is morally wrong', makes a factual claim with a truth-value, the argument that a moral conclusion is inductively likely to be true is incoherent. Wtf could the probability be that slavery is morally wrong? How the fuck could that be calculated? Bayesian analysis?

I had refer to the moral fact
No "normal" person would want to be killed voluntarily.
What is the probability of the above proposition could be true or wrong?
I am confident the answer for the above proposition is it is 100% true for all "normal" people.

Any person who voluntarily agree to be killed would be a psychiatric case.

It is the same with
No "normal" person would want to be enslaved voluntarily.
What is the probability of the above proposition could be true or wrong?

2 You seem to have a category misconception with branches of philosophy. Epistemology is theory of knowledge, which therefore covers beliefs and knowledge-claim of all kinds. Your claim that morality and ethics is a discipline alongside and co-equal with epistemology is just false.

Where did I claim Morality and Ethics is co-equal with Epistemology.

How come you are so dumb with what is philosophy?
There are no good reasons to compare the 'strength' between Morality and Epistemology.
Morality & Ethics & Epistemology with their respective sub Framework and System are independent branches of Philosophy whilst overlapping in certain areas.
Read this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... philosophy

3 'No human ought to kill another human' is NOT a moral fact, because it's not a fact of any kind. It expresses a moral judgement, belief or opinion. And for that reason it's rational to hold a different opinion, such as: 'Sometimes it's morally justifiable for a human to kill another human'. If these were factual assertions, they'd be contradictory - so both couldn't be true. It's because they're not factual - not true or false - that they're not logically contradictory.

Note 'Judgment' = the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
You are conflating personal moral judgements with moral judgments of a collective.

When Einstein came up with his judgments related to the Theory of Special Relativity, they were not accepted as Scientific facts until the scientific community [within the Scientific Framework] made the same judgment on the Theory of Special Relativity.
Btw, Einstein theories relied upon other sources of knowledge, i.e. Mathematics and logic besides empirical evidences.

It is the same with moral facts which also depend on other sources of knowledge, i.e. science, mathematics and logic which is processed within a moral system and knowledge.

I agree with you that if I personally make the moral judgment 'No human ought to kill another human' that would be a personal judgment of my personal beliefs.
Other than individuals, moral judgments via small groups, tribes, cultures are also beliefs and opinions.

Moral judgments are only facts when they are justified empirically and philosophically from within a specific moral system and framework.
I have done the justification "1000" times.

Note again the "1001" times.
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

[Veritas Aequitas]

Flashybreeks wrote:



Look to Wittgenstein for what 'facts' means. 'Facts' is analogous to a woven rope that does not include any one strand along all its length that can define the bit of rope.

What men know is invariably for the time being and dependent on social context. Get used to it.

If you want to bury your head in certainties go study mathematics and logic.

The above is very wise philosophically.

The latter-Wittgenstein in his 'On Certainty' assert there is no certainty of truths [aka facts] without them being hinged on "door-hinges" or laid on "river-beds".
PantFlasher is stuck with the early-Wittgenstein focus on dogmatic linguistics.

You silly bastard, I responded to her post by invoking the Private Language Argument from the Philosophical Investigations.

You are so stupid on W but is insisting to be arrogant.
W's Philosophical Investigations was of the early-Wittgenstein views which he was embarrassed with and he abandoned many of its theories which he don't give a fuck with.

The subsequent views of the later-Wittgenstein on 'what is fact/truth' are in his 'On Certainty'.

As per Wittgenstein, there is a standard concept of a fact which is part of our shared language. It so happens that the standard concept does not allow for mutually exclusive facts, otherwise you get the absurd notion of "your facts, and my facts and all the other alternative facts". This is also compatible with Peter Holmes' point 3 above. It is you and Belinda who have the problem with the big W guy here.

That facts cannot be mutually exclusive are only effective within a specifically defined Framework and System of Knowledge which Wittgenstein related to "door hinges" and "river beds" in his 'On Certainty'.
Thus what is fact is relative and depend on what 'door' they are hinged to.
There are no absolutely and absolute facts which are totally unconditional.

Your knowledge within Philosophy is relatively kindergartenish.

[Peter Holmes]

I am setting aside 'abortion is morally wrong' due to its complexity that need extensive arguments to arrive at a moral conclusion.

I have presented the moral fact of
'no human ought to kill another human'
as a justified true moral beliefs from a specific Moral Framework and System.
I have already done that a "1000" times over the various threads.

Generally why the above is rational and objective is inductively thus objectively,
as supported by the inductive fact,
No "normal" person would want to be killed voluntarily.
Start with asking yourself that question for a personal conviction.

Morality & Ethics is one of the major group of subject of Philosophy besides logic, metaphysics, epistemology.
Each has its own Framework and System of knowledge and its various sub-FSK.
Surely what is Morality and Ethics cannot be Science, economics, politics, anthropology and other specific FSK.
Therefore Morality and Ethics has its own FSK and sub-FSKs.

1 Your appeal to induction (and, by implication, probabilism) is just more flummery. Until you demonstrate that a moral assertion, such as 'slavery is morally wrong', makes a factual claim with a truth-value, the argument that a moral conclusion is inductively likely to be true is incoherent. Wtf could the probability be that slavery is morally wrong? How the fuck could that be calculated? Bayesian analysis?

I had refer to the moral fact
No "normal" person would want to be killed voluntarily.
What is the probability of the above proposition could be true or wrong?
I am confident the answer for the above proposition is it is 100% true for all "normal" people.

Any person who voluntarily agree to be killed would be a psychiatric case.

It is the same with
No "normal" person would want to be enslaved voluntarily.
What is the probability of the above proposition could be true or wrong?

2 You seem to have a category misconception with branches of philosophy. Epistemology is theory of knowledge, which therefore covers beliefs and knowledge-claim of all kinds. Your claim that morality and ethics is a discipline alongside and co-equal with epistemology is just false.

Where did I claim Morality and Ethics is co-equal with Epistemology.

How come you are so dumb with what is philosophy?
There are no good reasons to compare the 'strength' between Morality and Epistemology.
Morality & Ethics & Epistemology with their respective sub Framework and System are independent branches of Philosophy whilst overlapping in certain areas.
Read this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... philosophy

3 'No human ought to kill another human' is NOT a moral fact, because it's not a fact of any kind. It expresses a moral judgement, belief or opinion. And for that reason it's rational to hold a different opinion, such as: 'Sometimes it's morally justifiable for a human to kill another human'. If these were factual assertions, they'd be contradictory - so both couldn't be true. It's because they're not factual - not true or false - that they're not logically contradictory.

Note 'Judgment' = the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
You are conflating personal moral judgements with moral judgments of a collective.

When Einstein came up with his judgments related to the Theory of Special Relativity, they were not accepted as Scientific facts until the scientific community [within the Scientific Framework] made the same judgment on the Theory of Special Relativity.
Btw, Einstein theories relied upon other sources of knowledge, i.e. Mathematics and logic besides empirical evidences.

It is the same with moral facts which also depend on other sources of knowledge, i.e. science, mathematics and logic which is processed within a moral system and knowledge.

I agree with you that if I personally make the moral judgment 'No human ought to kill another human' that would be a personal judgment of my personal beliefs.
Other than individuals, moral judgments via small groups, tribes, cultures are also beliefs and opinions.

Moral judgments are only facts when they are justified empirically and philosophically from within a specific moral system and framework.
I have done the justification "1000" times.

Note again the "1001" times.
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

1 The claim 'no ordinary person would want to be killed voluntarly' is NOT a moral assertion. It's a factual assertion, with a truth-value. Your fundamental mistake has been to assume that it entails a moral assertion: No ordinary person wants to be killed voluntarily: therefore to kill someone voluntarily (?) is morally wrong. You have not demonstrated the entailment.

2 This argument has nothing to do with the personal v the collective. It's to do with the nature and function of assertions. 'Slavery is morally wrong' expresses an opinion which, like any opinion, can be held by one, some, many or all people. The fact that most or all people hold that opinion doesn't make it true, any more than if no one held it, that fact would make it false. It has no truth-value. So your blather about empirical and philosophical justification is irrelevant.

3 But by contrast, 'E = mc2' is a factual assertion with a truth-value. How many people believe it's true has no bearing on its truth-value. If it's true, it wouldn't matter if no-one thinks it is. So your talk about scientific concensus is completely wrong.

[FlashDangerpants]

The above is very wise philosophically.

The latter-Wittgenstein in his 'On Certainty' assert there is no certainty of truths [aka facts] without them being hinged on "door-hinges" or laid on "river-beds".
PantFlasher is stuck with the early-Wittgenstein focus on dogmatic linguistics.

You silly bastard, I responded to her post by invoking the Private Language Argument from the Philosophical Investigations.

You are so stupid on W but is insisting to be arrogant.
W's Philosophical Investigations was of the early-Wittgenstein views which he was embarrassed with and he abandoned many of its theories which he don't give a fuck with.

Shut the fuck up you bullshitting shitwit. The PI wasn't early Wittgenstein, it was published after his fucking death you moron.

If you don't know the difference between the PI and the Tractatus, you need to stop pretending to be a Wittgenstein expert, you idiotic little fraud.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note again the "1001" times.
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

1 The claim 'no ordinary person would want to be killed voluntarly' is NOT a moral assertion. It's a factual assertion, with a truth-value. Your fundamental mistake has been to assume that it entails a moral assertion: No ordinary person wants to be killed voluntarily: therefore to kill someone voluntarily (?) is morally wrong. You have not demonstrated the entailment.

You keep forgetting the moral fact is processed via the specific Moral Framework and System just like scientific facts are processed via the Scientific Framework and System.

Btw, can a scientific fact be a fact-by-itself without its Scientific Framework and System?

2 This argument has nothing to do with the personal v the collective. It's to do with the nature and function of assertions. 'Slavery is morally wrong' expresses an opinion which, like any opinion, can be held by one, some, many or all people. The fact that most or all people hold that opinion doesn't make it true, any more than if no one held it, that fact would make it false. It has no truth-value. So your blather about empirical and philosophical justification is irrelevant.

How come you are so ignorant.
Scientific facts are conditioned upon the collective of Scientists and lay-people who trust the scientists judgments.

3 But by contrast, 'E = mc2' is a factual assertion with a truth-value. How many people believe it's true has no bearing on its truth-value. If it's true, it wouldn't matter if no-one thinks it is. So your talk about scientific concensus is completely wrong.

This is where you are ignorant of reality. Your knowledge database is too shallow, narrow, dogmatic and bigoted.

E=MC2 cannot be absolutely true by itself without being conditioned to the Scientific Community and the collective's trust.
There is no such thing as E=MC2-by-itself. Prove to me there is an absolute E=MC2-by-itself?

For that matter, prove to me there is such thing as thing-in-itself existing unconditionally?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You silly bastard, I responded to her post by invoking the Private Language Argument from the Philosophical Investigations.

You are so stupid on W but is insisting to be arrogant.
W's Philosophical Investigations was of the early-Wittgenstein views which he was embarrassed with and he abandoned many of its theories which he don't give a fuck with.

Shut the fuck up you bullshitting shitwit. The PI wasn't early Wittgenstein, it was published after his fucking death you moron.

If you don't know the difference between the PI and the Tractatus, you need to stop pretending to be a Wittgenstein expert, you idiotic little fraud.

Your vitriols are signs of your philosophical weaknesses, i.e. empty vessels make the most noise.

I know, the PI [1953] was published after his death but the theories therein reflect those of the early-Wittgenstein in contrast to On Certainty [1969] which was also published after his death which reflect the later-Wittgenstein.

[Peter Holmes]

You are so stupid on W but is insisting to be arrogant.
W's Philosophical Investigations was of the early-Wittgenstein views which he was embarrassed with and he abandoned many of its theories which he don't give a fuck with.

Shut the fuck up you bullshitting shitwit. The PI wasn't early Wittgenstein, it was published after his fucking death you moron.

If you don't know the difference between the PI and the Tractatus, you need to stop pretending to be a Wittgenstein expert, you idiotic little fraud.

Your vitriols are signs of your philosophical weaknesses, i.e. empty vessels make the most noise.

I know, the PI [1953] was published after his death but the theories therein reflect those of the early-Wittgenstein in contrast to On Certainty [1969] which was also published after his death which reflect the later-Wittgenstein.

What? PI is the central later-Wittgenstein text. But all of them - including On Certainty - explore and work out the implications of his recognition of the mistake he made in the Tractatus. This is uncontroversial - whatever attempts have been made to trace continuities between the 'two Wittgensteins'.

[Skepdick]

What? PI is the central later-Wittgenstein text. But all of them - including On Certainty - explore and work out the implications of his recognition of the mistake he made in the Tractatus. This is uncontroversial - whatever attempts have been made to trace continuities between the 'two Wittgensteins'.

Lolwut?!? In PI Wittgenstein literally points out that there's no way to account for all the various ways in which people use language without adopting some normative view on language itself.

And "normative" is just another way of saying "implicit ought".

So when you keep insisting that "facts" perform a different function to "oughts", which normative view on language are you assuming?

[FlashDangerpants]

You are so stupid on W but is insisting to be arrogant.
W's Philosophical Investigations was of the early-Wittgenstein views which he was embarrassed with and he abandoned many of its theories which he don't give a fuck with.

Shut the fuck up you bullshitting shitwit. The PI wasn't early Wittgenstein, it was published after his fucking death you moron.

If you don't know the difference between the PI and the Tractatus, you need to stop pretending to be a Wittgenstein expert, you idiotic little fraud.

Your vitriols are signs of your philosophical weaknesses, i.e. empty vessels make the most noise.

I know, the PI [1953] was published after his death but the theories therein reflect those of the early-Wittgenstein in contrast to On Certainty [1969] which was also published after his death which reflect the later-Wittgenstein.

You had the option there to just accept your error, you are a fool for choosing instead to double down with this transparent absurdity. It was obvious to anyone that you were thinking of the Tractatus, you just needed to be honest enough to recognise a simple error and correct it like a sane person would. But that's the choice you made, so let's just make it clear how stupid it was.

Here's a excerpt from the Stanford Encyploedia of Philosophy

It is the later Wittgenstein, mostly recognized in the Philosophical Investigations, who took the more revolutionary step in critiquing all of traditional philosophy including its climax in his own early work.

Here's Wikipedia

His philosophy is often divided into an early period, exemplified by the Tractatus, and a later period, articulated primarily in the Philosophical Investigations.

Here's a link to a video on Youtube for a lecture series at UC Berkely entitled "The Later Wittgenstein (Part 1)", guess which book they're discussing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbd7LwubQCQ

Everybody knows that the PI is, as Peter H has already mentioned, universally understood to be a central text in Wittgenstein's later period. He definitely did not abandon it, (as he did to an extent the book you were actually thinking of), because he didn't live long enough to know it existed.

[Skepdick]

You had the option there to just accept your error, you are a fool for choosing instead to double down with this transparent absurdity. It was obvious to anyone that you were thinking of the Tractatus, you just needed to be honest enough to recognise a simple error and correct it like a sane person would. But that's the choice you made, so let's just make it clear how stupid it was.

Holy shit! You have much pent-up anger to write up all this bullshit against a strawman of your own construction.

Read this bit again.

W's Philosophical Investigations was of the early-Wittgenstein views which he was embarrassed with and he abandoned many of its theories which he don't give a fuck with.

Let me paraphrase it for your testosterone-Philosophicus-dominatrix brain.

The views in PI were of late-Wittgenstein reflecting on, being embarrassed by, and abandoning the theories of early-Wittgenstein (which he no longer gave a fuck about.)

Even simpler: The contents of late-Wittgenstein was a renouncement of early-Wittgenstein.

You could've literally spent less time mis-understanding than you did angry-jaculating your Profound Retort.

[FlashDangerpants]

angry-jaculating

Indeed