But is there a really-real-feature of reality?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:35 pmWithin the chemical 'system and framework of knowledge', what we call water is what we call a compound of what we call oxygen and what we call hydrogen. And that is an empirically verifiable fact, because it's a feature of reality. The reality comes first, then our knowledge of that reality, then our way of describing it. To say the fact exists because of the chemical FSK is to get things back to front.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:36 amIgnorant as usual.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:56 pm
Maybe. But is damaging your health morally wrong? And if so, why?
I think you're citing a fact and assuming it entails - or even just induces - a moral conclusion. It doesn't and can't.
Whatever is a moral conclusion, fact or truth, it has to be justified [empirically and philosophically] within a moral framework and system.
Obviously within a Moral FSK, we need an effective definition for what is 'Morality'.
Generally [there are more specific ones] morality is defined as;
to the above, I extend it to ... "which has an impact [of various degrees] on the well-being of the individual, groups and species."
- Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
We cannot generalize here, but where sado-machochism qualified to specific acts are proven to be damaging to one's health and well-being with the possibility of fatality/death, then those specific acts are morally wrong as qualified to the Moral FSK.
However we need to note the degree of moral-wrongness of sado-machochism, say in contrast to premeditated murder.
Note also, justified true moral facts from within a Moral Framework and System are not to be enforced on any individual externally but merely to be taken as a GUIDE and standard for personal moral development.
The supposedly feature of reality of water [verifiable] is a compound of empirically verifiable oxygen and hydrogen which are not sufficiently real.
But what is the really-real-feature of oxygen and hydrogen are merely a bunch of empirically verifiable [indirectly not by actual senses] electrons swirling around a nucleus with its protons which again are not sufficiently real.
What is really-real of the electrons, nucleus and protons are sub-atomic particles.
But this most really-real-features of reality is ultimately subjective and cannot be totally independent of human factors, i.e. note the Wave-Collapse Function which is dependent on the observers.
Whatever finer particles there are are ultimately subjective, albeit intersubjective, i.e. cannot be totally independent of human factors.
As such there is no way you can infer nor conclude 'reality comes first'.
If you insist there is something that is most and really real that is independent of human factors, you are only speculating something metaphysical and illusory.
This is what I meant there is no reality-in-itself, thing-in-itself and fact-in-itself.
Thus in terms of reality, you have reached a point where words, linguistic, epistemology, etc. failed, thus Wittgenstein's
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Tractatus 7)
You literally have to "shut-up" in any consideration of the really real.
We can only evolutionarily realize and speak of a reality that emerges out of a specific FSK in compliment with human conditions.
Whatever is of moral reality emerges spontaneously in complimentarily with the human conditions. It is like the egg-chicken and similar dilemmas, there is no question of which comes first.Similarly, to say there are moral facts because of a supposed moral FSK is to get things back to front. A supposed moral reality has to come first, then our knowledge of that supposed reality, then supposedly our way of describing it. The only way to establish a moral FSK is to demonstrate the empirically verifiable existence of a moral reality, consisting of moral things - moral rightness and wrongness or 'properness' and 'improperness'.
You get messed up when you focus too much on moral wrongness or rightness.
What is moral fact [reality] is the moral ought-to or ought-not-to as the objective moral standard.
This is a real moral state that all humans are "programmed" with via evolution.
When one's related judgment deviates from the moral standard, then there is the question of moral wrongness or moral rightness if it is aligns with the moral standard.
Thus when one make a judgment to kill [premeditated, spontaneous, in thoughts, etc.] that would be termed a moral wrongness.
What??But instead of doing that, you merely repeat endlessly that there are empirically verified moral facts within a moral FSK. Instead of demonstrating it, as we can in chemistry, that water is H2O - that that's a feature of reality - you just repeat your religious dogma that there are moral facts. Faith without evidence.
Note the "1000" of times I have provided the necessary empirically and philosophically verified true moral facts [conditional feature of reality]. I have dealt with the examples of 'all humans ought-not to kill another" and 'no human ought to enslave another as a chattel'.
Better than cool this is an excellent ethic. Unfortunately society in UK and USA is divided into those who are treated as resources and those who rule them. Bring back democracy and open government.