There are Moral Facts

[Belinda]

Not sure of your point.

My point is right from the beginning with the emergence of homo-sapiens the principles, laws and facts of morality were already embedded within the psyche of humans.
Note these inherent 'laws' are the natural laws and not the codified laws.

However as human evolved and expanded into different regions of the world, they began to adapt the above basic moral principles and laws to their specific conditions either by adding variations or they have to ignore some of the less critical default moral laws.
E.g. the Inuit Eskimos has to suppress and ignore the inherent 'no suicide moral law' due to the constraints they faced and they have to condone suicide which then over time the acceptance of suicide become a cultural tradition which are codified.

The Inuit Eskimos just do what is natural to them and do not discuss the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Now that we are discussing the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics, we need to understand the existence of two facts, i.e.

• 1. the default/inherent moral laws, principles and facts that are suppressed - e.g. no suicide.
  
  2. the existing codified traditional ethical/moral practices - suicide is accepted conditionally.

What I am saying is you and most people are merely focusing on 2 what is practiced currently but are ignorant of the moral facts as in 1 above.

For humanity to progress effectively into the future, we need to understand fully the natural and inherent moral laws, principles and facts that are suppressed or inhibited for various necessary reasons.

What do you mean by "right from the beginning"? What and when was the beginning?
There are no inherent moral laws, any more than there are inherent ways to build shelters; why would there be?

True, we are mammals , mammals need to protect their young and that is probably inherent, otherwise the species could not thrive. To protect their young, sapiens individuals need to collaborate in getting food, protection, and shelter. Morality originates in need to collaborate, long ago and now.

Note the term I used, i.e. emergence.
My point is right from the beginning with the emergence of homo-sapiens ...
There is no fixed time in this case, but the 'beginning' refer to the phase whence 'archaic humans' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans were recognizable as modern human sapiens.

You stated
"Morality originates in need to collaborate, long ago and now"
Homo sapiens emerged and appeared somewhere around 300,000 years ago.
Thus your 'long ago' is likely referring to around 300,000 years ago.
So the impulse of morality [collaboration] emerged around 300,000 and given the length of time of evolving, this impulse is embedded in the human DNA/RNA thus 'inherent'.

So there is the generic inherent moral fact of 'collaboration' which originated 300,000 years which is embedded in the human DNA/RNA.
This is the inherent moral laws and principles of the impulse of collaboration.
Btw, this is a natural law evolved via human nature, they are not legislature laws made by men deliberately.
Do you agree with this 'inherent' factor?

It is this generic moral fact/law/principle of collaboration that enable humans to generate different ways of collaboration to suit their environment and these are codified as moral/ethical codes within specific groups. Surely the ways human collaborate 300,000 years ago and in between would be different from way we do it at present, but the fundamental/generic principle from 300,000 remained the same.

So can you see there are two aspects to the above, i.e.

• 1. the inherent moral fact/law/principle of the need to collaborate from since 300,000 years ago.
  2. the current adaptive moral precepts/codes of collaboration developed by different groups.

Point 1 above is the inherent moral principle, while point 2 are the different practices.
You are always focusing on 2 and you conflate 2 and 1. My point is the above two factors must be noted at all times and should not be conflated in this discussion.

It is the same with the moral ought re suicide.
There are two perspectives to the moral ought re suicide, there is the inherent moral principle re suicide, and there are the variable options of suicide adopted by different cultures and groups due to various constraints.

In the case of morality, the fundamental will always prevail and there is good justification why humanity need to strive for less suicides rather than be indifferent to it.
For example the depressed are often suicidal, so instead of accepting it humanity will need to strive to resolve the problem of depression and thus there will be no more suicide via depression.
If we get rid of Islam, there will be no more Islamic-based suicide bombers.
Thus re the moral issue of 'no suicide' we should tackle the root causes of suicide rather than be indifferent and accept suicide as a norm.

As for all moral issues we must trace them to the roots to as far back to 300,000 years ago and I would say it is necessary to trace it back to 4 billion years ago when the first one-cell living things emerged.

Regarding

• 1. the default/inherent moral laws, principles and facts that are suppressed - e.g. no suicide.
  
  2. the existing codified traditional ethical/moral practices - suicide is accepted conditionally.

1. I disagree there are inherent moral laws. That mammals collaborate is not the same as inherent moral laws.

2.I agree. Humans are particularly good at inductive reasoning, and have worked out that suicide is sometimes morally good. For instance the suicide of a nubile woman or a fit fighting man is generally bad whereas the suicide of a dying individual is sometimes morally good for the collective concerned and for the individual. However civilisation matters too, and in civilised societies the weak or moribund are protected against any collective pressure to suicide.

The RC church is against assisted dying and apparently can still press some regimes to accede to RC directive. In the UK there are clerics in the House of Lords who against all reason refuse assisted dying.

Suicide is not an inherent moral law. There may be inherent moral laws for some mammals I wouldn't know, but human laws emerge from cultures of belief not from biology.

You claim if we "get rid of Islam" there will be no more suicide bombers.I agree there are violent and dangerous Islamic fundamentalists . I am not a fan of Islam, or of any politicised religion.How would you "get rid of Islam" in view of the fact there are islamic republics that have quite a lot of commercial and military power?

[Peter Holmes]

No, there are no moral facts. There are only moral opinions held by people, some of whom mistake their moral opinions for facts.

If by the word fact we mean 'state-of-affairs', there are no moral states-of-affairs, such as the moral rightness or wrongness of capital punishment, abortion or eating animals. And that's why people can and do rationally hold and justify contrary opinions about those issues.

And it follows that, if instead by the word fact we mean 'true factual assertion about a state-of-affairs', there can be no moral facts, because there are no moral states-of-affairs.

Simples.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. I disagree there are inherent moral laws. That mammals collaborate is not the same as inherent moral laws.

To make it clear, 'laws' in this case refer to facts and principles not man-made legislature laws, traditions or cultural norms.

Do you agree there is a principle of collaboration within the psyche of humans that we have inherited from our ancestors from 300,000 years ago?
The answer is yes from anthropological and evolutionary evidences.
Do you dispute this?
This is a inherent fact of evolutionary psychology, social and anthropology.

It is not so clear that collaboration is an inherent moral fact for most don't think of moral issues.
But when one deliberate it via the Moral Framework and System, collaboration/cooperation has to be an inherent moral fact.
It is morally wrong not-to-collaborate [or selfish] where it is necessary since disunity and disharmony are threats to humanity.

You were the one who brought up the point of collaboration in terms of morality.
Generally collaboration is not a very critical inherent moral fact.

What is more critical is the moral fact involving the 'ought-not to kill another human and oneself'.

2.I agree. Humans are particularly good at inductive reasoning, and have worked out that suicide is sometimes morally good. For instance the suicide of a nubile woman or a fit fighting man is generally bad whereas the suicide of a dying individual is sometimes morally good for the collective concerned and for the individual. However civilisation matters too, and in civilised societies the weak or moribund are protected against any collective pressure to suicide.

The RC church is against assisted dying and apparently can still press some regimes to accede to RC directive. In the UK there are clerics in the House of Lords who against all reason refuse assisted dying.

Suicide is not an inherent moral law. There may be inherent moral laws for some mammals I wouldn't know, but human laws emerge from cultures of belief not from biology.

As highlighted, you seem to conflate laws in this case with man-made laws while I am referring to biological principles or laws [in its loosest sense].
Suicide if you review is more deeply it an inherent moral principles, i.e. no human ought to kill oneself which is a subset of 'no human ought to kill another'.

If the no-suicide inhibition is inherent and embedded right from the start it would be possible the human species could have been easily be extinct if most of the subsequent humans caught the suicide bug.

Later when human explored to various places with limited resources and due to unavoidable reasons they have to condone suicide but this is definitely only after struggling against the fundamental moral impulse or law of 'no suicide'. This is why only the weaker ones were allowed or peer-pressured to commit suicide for the survival of the tribe suffering from limited resources.

Thus from the moral perspective, there are inherent moral laws of inhibition against killing other humans and oneself.

You claim if we "get rid of Islam" there will be no more suicide bombers.I agree there are violent and dangerous Islamic fundamentalists . I am not a fan of Islam, or of any politicised religion.How would you "get rid of Islam" in view of the fact there are islamic republics that have quite a lot of commercial and military power?

The truths will always prevail.

Therefore if we educate all humans of what Islam truly is, i.e. that Islam in intrinsically evil, it is only natural, most people when provided with alternatives will eventually wean themselves from evil laden beliefs. This is so easy, i.e. just read the Quran -the core of Islam - literally and rationally where there are only 114 chapters, 6236 verses and around 77400 words.

The problem is at present the majority are so ignorant, and the Muslims are very aggressive in ensuring the truth of Islam is not revealed by establishing blasphemy laws and the threats of violence/death against those who speak the truth about Islam.
If there is nothing to hide within the ideology of Islam - Muslims will definitely be able to refute all charges against Islam.
On top of that we have ignorant and emotional people defending Islam without any justifications at all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, there are no moral facts. There are only moral opinions held by people, some of whom mistake their moral opinions for facts.

If by the word fact we mean 'state-of-affairs', there are no moral states-of-affairs, such as the moral rightness or wrongness of capital punishment, abortion or eating animals. And that's why people can and do rationally hold and justify contrary opinions about those issues.

And it follows that, if instead by the word fact we mean 'true factual assertion about a state-of-affairs', there can be no moral facts, because there are no moral states-of-affairs.

Simples.

What you are claiming as independent 'state-of-affairs' is based on the ideology of Philosophical Realism which is not ultimately realistic.

I have countered from the Philosophical Anti-Realists position, there are no real absolute 'state-of-affairs' by themselves. Your so called 'state-of-affairs' are Ultimately conditioned by human-constructed FS because they don't have independent Platonic existence.
Thus your 'fact' as 'true factual assertion about a state-of-affairs' are not precisely true but only relatively true as conditioned by humans and the specific Framework and System of Knowledge.

For example, your fact 'The cat is on the mat' is only true when justified empirically and philosophically.

What I claimed as moral fact [e.g. no human ought to kill another] is 'true factual assertion about a moral state of affairs' but like any true fact, this moral fact is also justified empirically and philosophically.
So what is the difference between this moral fact and your typical fact? NONE!!

[Terrapin Station]

Here is my argument, there are moral facts,
thus 'morality is objective' as a response to this thread,

• Is morality objective or subjective?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24531

The Argument;

• P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
  P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
  C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.

What is a fact?

• A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
  For example,
  "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
  "The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact. Further,
  "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and
  "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
  Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

From the above, one will note,
i. the specific Framework and System of Knowledge [F/S] produces its specific related facts.
ii. Facts are objective, i.e. - i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and belief

So,

• P1 All facts are objective [ii]
  P2 The Morality F/S produces moral facts [C3]
  C2 Therefore Morality is Objective.

The claim from the above is the justified true moral judgments [moral facts] produced from the moral F/S are factual.

Views?

"Murder is wrong"
"Beethoven was a great composer"
"Pizza tastes great"
"Paris is a better city to live in than Detroit"

Are not independent of persons' opinions/dispositions.

There are facts such as "Joe feels that murder is wrong," and there are facts such as "Per the norm in Christianity, murder is wrong," but there are no facts such as " Murder is wrong."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is my argument, there are moral facts,
thus 'morality is objective' as a response to this thread,

• Is morality objective or subjective?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24531

The Argument;

• P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
  P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
  C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.

What is a fact?

• A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
  For example,
  "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
  "The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact. Further,
  "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and
  "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
  Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

From the above, one will note,
i. the specific Framework and System of Knowledge [F/S] produces its specific related facts.
ii. Facts are objective, i.e. - i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and belief

So,

• P1 All facts are objective [ii]
  P2 The Morality F/S produces moral facts [C3]
  C2 Therefore Morality is Objective.

The claim from the above is the justified true moral judgments [moral facts] produced from the moral F/S are factual.

Views?

"Murder is wrong"
"Beethoven was a great composer"
"Pizza tastes great"
"Paris is a better city to live in than Detroit"

Are not independent of persons' opinions/dispositions.

There are facts such as "Joe feels that murder is wrong," and there are facts such as "Per the norm in Christianity, murder is wrong," but there are no facts such as " Murder is wrong."

I have justified why there are moral facts over many threads and hundreds of post in this 'Ethical Theory' section.

Your above counter is a strawman, i.e. off-target,
Note the below OP and read my argument therein;

• Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
  Personal judgments and decisions made by individuals [in real life or from thought experiments] related to moral elements are not Morality Per se.
  These are subjective opinions and beliefs of the individual[s] and they are not moral facts.

That "Joe feels that murder is wrong" is not a moral fact, but facts of feeling [psychology] and expressing his feelings [communication].

I have argued in this thread, there are moral facts in relation to the Moral FSK, but you have not countered them directly and effectively.

[Terrapin Station]

Here is my argument, there are moral facts,
thus 'morality is objective' as a response to this thread,

• Is morality objective or subjective?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24531

The Argument;

• P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
  P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
  C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.

What is a fact?

• A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
  For example,
  "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
  "The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact. Further,
  "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and
  "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
  Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

From the above, one will note,
i. the specific Framework and System of Knowledge [F/S] produces its specific related facts.
ii. Facts are objective, i.e. - i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and belief

So,

• P1 All facts are objective [ii]
  P2 The Morality F/S produces moral facts [C3]
  C2 Therefore Morality is Objective.

The claim from the above is the justified true moral judgments [moral facts] produced from the moral F/S are factual.

Views?

"Murder is wrong"
"Beethoven was a great composer"
"Pizza tastes great"
"Paris is a better city to live in than Detroit"

Are not independent of persons' opinions/dispositions.

There are facts such as "Joe feels that murder is wrong," and there are facts such as "Per the norm in Christianity, murder is wrong," but there are no facts such as " Murder is wrong."

I have justified why there are moral facts over many threads and hundreds of post in this 'Ethical Theory' section.

Your above counter is a strawman, i.e.

First off, it's not a strawman, because I'm not presenting it as anyone else's argument. The only thing that I mentioned from your argument is that you characterized facts as being independent of anyone's opinion.

"Murder is wrong" is not independent of persons' opinions.

Do you agree with that?

[henry quirk]

"Murder is wrong" is not independent of persons' opinions.

murder -- killin' a person without just cause -- is always wrong, and it's wrong whether anyone recognizes it's wrong or not

it's wrong cuz it's the ultimate theft: takin' a life that's not yours to take

[Terrapin Station]

"Murder is wrong" is not independent of persons' opinions.

murder -- killin' a person without just cause -- is always wrong, and it's wrong whether anyone recognizes it's wrong or not

it's wrong cuz it's the ultimate theft: takin' a life that's not yours to take

"Theft is wrong" isn't independent of persons' opinions, either.

If "Murder is wrong" is independent of opinions, where do you believe that "murder is wrong" occurs in the world? That is, where does the stance/edict/whatever-we-want-to-call-it occur?

[henry quirk]

"Theft is wrong" isn't independent of persons' opinions, either.

yeah, it is...even if no one recognizes it, even if shifty and shiftin' cultures say otherwise

and the consequence of theft, of murder, is always the same: the erosion of the soul (as real a consequence as gettin' burned by a flame)

and -- no -- you don't agree or accept this

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Murder is wrong"
"Beethoven was a great composer"
"Pizza tastes great"
"Paris is a better city to live in than Detroit"

Are not independent of persons' opinions/dispositions.

There are facts such as "Joe feels that murder is wrong," and there are facts such as "Per the norm in Christianity, murder is wrong," but there are no facts such as " Murder is wrong."

I have justified why there are moral facts over many threads and hundreds of post in this 'Ethical Theory' section.

Your above counter is a strawman, i.e.

First off, it's not a strawman, because I'm not presenting it as anyone else's argument. The only thing that I mentioned from your argument is that you characterized facts as being independent of anyone's opinion.

"Murder is wrong" is not independent of persons' opinions.

Do you agree with that?

When "murder is wrong" is expressed as a personal or group's judgment, that is not independent of the person's or group's opinions respectively.

I do not prefer the statement 'murder is wrong' in relation to morality.
What I concluded is 'no human ought to kill humans' is a justified true moral fact which is verified and justified within a moral FSK as to be used a moral standard and guide.
Such a moral statement is independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs.

This is the same as verified and justified scientific facts which are independent of a group's or individual-scientists' or any other individuals' opinions and beliefs.

[Terrapin Station]

I do not prefer the statement 'murder is wrong' in relation to morality.
What I concluded is 'no human ought to kill humans' is a justified true moral fact which is verified and justified within a moral FSK as to be used a moral standard and guide.
Such a moral statement is independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs.

So how is "no human ought to kill other humans" something that's the case independent of persons' opinions?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I do not prefer the statement 'murder is wrong' in relation to morality.
What I concluded is 'no human ought to kill humans' is a justified true moral fact which is verified and justified within a moral FSK as to be used a moral standard and guide.
Such a moral statement is independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs.

So how is "no human ought to kill other humans" something that's the case independent of persons' opinions?

Note the analogy with scientific facts which are independent of any individual's opinion and beliefs.

• Scientific truths [verifying and justifying facts] started as the individual-scientist's opinion and hypothesis based on his intuitions, imaginations or other sources.
  When the scientist proved the hypothesis to himself, then it his convicted beliefs.
  However all scientific truths must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically with the imperative requirements of the scientific framework and system [FSK] before it is accepted as proven theory.
  When it is a justified and accepted scientific truth, then it is independent of of any person's opinions and beliefs.
  I believe you will agree with the above.

As with the above,
moral elements [no killing, slavery, rape, incest, etc.] are intuited by humans,
when a moral intuition [verifying the moral fact] is verified and justified empirically and philosophically with the imperative requirements of the moral framework and system,
then that moral intuition is a justified true moral fact,
whence such a moral fact is independent of any person's opinion and beliefs.

Note the moral facts [neural inhibitors or stimuli] must be represented by its physical referent, mechanisms, structure and processes. The moral fact is a state of affairs [neural and mental], a feature of reality and that is the case.

Note again, moral decisions and moral judgments [e.g. the individual's view that murder is wrong or immoral] which are feelings are not moral facts per se.

[Belinda]

I do not prefer the statement 'murder is wrong' in relation to morality.
What I concluded is 'no human ought to kill humans' is a justified true moral fact which is verified and justified within a moral FSK as to be used a moral standard and guide.
Such a moral statement is independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs.

So how is "no human ought to kill other humans" something that's the case independent of persons' opinions?

Note the analogy with scientific facts which are independent of any individual's opinion and beliefs.

• Scientific truths [verifying and justifying facts] started as the individual-scientist's opinion and hypothesis based on his intuitions, imaginations or other sources.
  When the scientist proved the hypothesis to himself, then it his convicted beliefs.
  However all scientific truths must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically with the imperative requirements of the scientific framework and system [FSK] before it is accepted as proven theory.
  When it is a justified and accepted scientific truth, then it is independent of of any person's opinions and beliefs.
  I believe you will agree with the above.

As with the above,
moral elements [no killing, slavery, rape, incest, etc.] are intuited by humans,
when a moral intuition [verifying the moral fact] is verified and justified empirically and philosophically with the imperative requirements of the moral framework and system,
then that moral intuition is a justified true moral fact,
whence such a moral fact is independent of any person's opinion and beliefs.

Note the moral facts [neural inhibitors or stimuli] must be represented by its physical referent, mechanisms, structure and processes. The moral fact is a state of affairs [neural and mental], a feature of reality and that is the case.

Note again, moral decisions and moral judgments [e.g. the individual's view that murder is wrong or immoral] which are feelings are not moral facts per se.

Intuitions are learned not inherited.

Individual decisions as to who to kill and who not to kill are rare. Most killing of humans by humans is legitimated by common culture of belief ; wars, witch killings, and capital punishment for instances.

I agree with Veritas Aequitas it is true killing of humans by humans is an important component of any moral system. Systems are dynamically contingent on the group's need to survive; systems are according to perceived need to survive.

Systems are algorithms not inflexible laws. Laws prohibiting murder are rigid because it is the nature of civil law to be rigid : the system that shapes who kills who , how, and when is not rigid human law but an algorithm that functions naturally and dynamically in accordance with perceived need.

Dynamic problems in computational complexity theory are problems stated in terms of the changing input data

(Wikipedia)

[Skepdick]

So how is "no human ought to kill other humans" something that's the case independent of persons' opinions?

It's not independent of persons' (plural) opinions, it's independent of a person's (singular) opinion.

From the perspective of any given person on the planet; other people's "opinions" are consequential facts.

It may be "out opinion" that murder is wrong, but it is a fact that you will get shot in the face if you attempt murder in my presence.