There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

[Veritas Aequitas]

the point is whatever is 'fact' is always conditioned upon its specific Framework and System of Reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].
No fact can standalone without being qualified [implied or explicitly] to its specific FSK.
This mean all facts must be verified and justified within its respective FSK.

Which is simply an endorsement of argumentum ad populums and/or arguments from authority.

Are you referring the above to scientific facts from the scientific FSK?

You don't seem to get the point,
"all facts must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within its respective FSK" [applying the highest possible degree of rigor],
then there is the question of the credibility of the FSK, i.e. the scientific FSK's credibility being the standard bearer.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You have a problem there, PH may very well hold some antique view of what makes for a fact, but his view has a significant advantage over yours in that it covers crucial aspects of the fact-distinction language game which are absent in your, let's call that "definition".

Pete's version of what is a fact includes a method of resolving disputes by looking at evidence, which is essential to that language game. Yours doesn't, you just have a disposable FSK that can be ditched for a more convenient one any time. Sure you have an is-ought argument to make your FSK the source of truth, but as we already discussed, that argument explicitly depends upon the FSK, rendering it worthlessly circular.

Pete's version of what is fact is conditioned to merely to words and definitions primarily.

If Pete's version is primarily focused on evidence, that would be a scientific fact.
The issue with Pete's version is about its ideological arrogance inherited from the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers that any view NOT in line with whatever the deem is true is meaningless and nonsense.
Note Ayer's view, whatever is morality is by default meaningless and nonsense, period!

Note in contrast to Rorty's to keep the conversation open.

I have replied to you in another post [will have to find it] what I claimed is not circular.

You angrily deny that you have any need to show why Henry is factually mistaken when he asserts it is morally correct to kill criminals, but Henry just has his own FSK and he has as much right to it as you have to yours.

Angry?? you are one who is emotional at most times, that is why you are on my ignore list.
My foundation is Buddhism-proper which enable practices to develop equanimity is all circumstances no matter how disturbing it is. It would be very stupid to get angry over the above sort of things.

It would appear Henry's version is his own FSK but his views are compatible to the Moral Intuitionism FSK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_intuitionism

Is it a fact that Henry is wrong when he says that it is morally appropriate to kill lots of people or is it not?

When your "FSK" gives you the fact that nobody should ever prevent anyone from breathing, and his "FSK" gives him a contradictory fact, is one of these mutually exclusive fact claims definitively incorrect?

First we refer to a moral FSK, then we have to be specific with each and every moral fact as moral standard [as a guide] only. In this case we will need a taxonomy of moral facts.

So far I have ONLY agreed with Henry on his views re Chattel Slavery and nothing else.
He was not aware until I informed him and his view re slavery can be categorized and deliberated within the moral intuitionism FSK.

How could you provide a satisfactory answer that doesn't derive is from ought, and if your is from ought argument depends on the "FSK" that it is supposed to defend, how is that not a circular dependency?

Are you insisting scientific facts are circular??

• 1. The justified 'ought_ness' is a moral fact verified and justified empirically and philosophically from the [my defined] moral FSK.
  
  2. Scientific facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically from the scientific FSK.
  
  3. Moral facts has the same principles as scientific facts. [1 & 2]
  
  4. Scientific facts are not circular. [generally accepted]
  
  5. Therefore moral facts are not circular.

Note scientific facts as most are merely polished conjectures but despite that has contributed the most utility to the progress of humanity.
Along this vein, moral facts [dependent on scientific facts] are also merely polished conjectures.

You can't compare any of that bullshit to the methods of science. The scientific "FSK" resolves competing factual claims by inspecting what Pete is quite justified in referring to under any reasonable set of linguistic norms as matters of fact.

Why not?
The moral FSK has the most of the features of the scientific FSK like;

• The nine main characteristics of science are as follows:
  https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/scie ... ined/35060
  1. Objectivity
  2. Verifiability
  3. Ethical Neutrality
  4. Systematic Exploration
  5. Reliability
  6. Precision
  7. Accuracy
  8. Abstractness
  9. Predictability.
  viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

In addition, the major inputs into the moral FSK are from scientific facts.

Peter's version of 'matters of fact' is that of the classical analytic philosophy and I provide counters to it in the OP.

Your thing requires an oblique argument against the very notion of objectivity to exist.
Your claims of verifiability aren't working out very well.
Ethical neutrality means nothing much.
Systematic Explorations could describe almost any activity including the picking of one's nose.
It's redundant to offer both precision and accuracy anyway. But you offer little of either.

I am not expecting the [my defined] moral FSK to be 100% the same as the scientific FSK but it is close to 90%.
I am not claiming 100% perfect precision but it is definitely not based on blind approximations. Mostly it will be based on induction which by default is not deductive nor 100% precise.

The moral facts are testable and repeatable.
I have explained how the moral fact, i.e.
"no human ought to kill humans"
is testable and verifiable.

I just recalled ... Searle would agree such a moral fact is an institutional fact.

If you refer to Rorty, all my above is based on revolutionary edification and driven by conversation on abnormal inquiries.

[FlashDangerpants]

Pete's version of what is fact is conditioned to merely to words and definitions primarily.

If Pete's version is primarily focused on evidence, that would be a scientific fact.
The issue with Pete's version is about its ideological arrogance inherited from the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers that any view NOT in line with whatever the deem is true is meaningless and nonsense.
Note Ayer's view, whatever is morality is by default meaningless and nonsense, period!

Note in contrast to Rorty's to keep the conversation open.

I have replied to you in another post [will have to find it] what I claimed is not circular.


Angry?? you are one who is emotional at most times, that is why you are on my ignore list.
My foundation is Buddhism-proper which enable practices to develop equanimity is all circumstances no matter how disturbing it is. It would be very stupid to get angry over the above sort of things.

It would appear Henry's version is his own FSK but his views are compatible to the Moral Intuitionism FSK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_intuitionism

Is it a fact that Henry is wrong when he says that it is morally appropriate to kill lots of people or is it not?

When your "FSK" gives you the fact that nobody should ever prevent anyone from breathing, and his "FSK" gives him a contradictory fact, is one of these mutually exclusive fact claims definitively incorrect?

First we refer to a moral FSK, then we have to be specific with each and every moral fact as moral standard [as a guide] only. In this case we will need a taxonomy of moral facts.

So far I have ONLY agreed with Henry on his views re Chattel Slavery and nothing else.
He was not aware until I informed him and his view re slavery can be categorized and deliberated within the moral intuitionism FSK.

How could you provide a satisfactory answer that doesn't derive is from ought, and if your is from ought argument depends on the "FSK" that it is supposed to defend, how is that not a circular dependency?

Are you insisting scientific facts are circular??

• 1. The justified 'ought_ness' is a moral fact verified and justified empirically and philosophically from the [my defined] moral FSK.
  
  2. Scientific facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically from the scientific FSK.
  
  3. Moral facts has the same principles as scientific facts. [1 & 2]
  
  4. Scientific facts are not circular. [generally accepted]
  
  5. Therefore moral facts are not circular.

So that there is the circular dependency of your "FSK" which relies on an is/ought argument that relies on the "FSK".
Science facts are derived from ises not oughts, so they are simply not relevant here.

Why are you hiding from the question of whether Henry's fact claims are wrong when they deny yours?

Note scientific facts as most are merely polished conjectures but despite that has contributed the most utility to the progress of humanity.
Along this vein, moral facts [dependent on scientific facts] are also merely polished conjectures.

Why not?
The moral FSK has the most of the features of the scientific FSK like;

• The nine main characteristics of science are as follows:
  https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/scie ... ined/35060
  1. Objectivity
  2. Verifiability
  3. Ethical Neutrality
  4. Systematic Exploration
  5. Reliability
  6. Precision
  7. Accuracy
  8. Abstractness
  9. Predictability.
  viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

In addition, the major inputs into the moral FSK are from scientific facts.

Peter's version of 'matters of fact' is that of the classical analytic philosophy and I provide counters to it in the OP.

Your thing requires an oblique argument against the very notion of objectivity to exist.
Your claims of verifiability aren't working out very well.
Ethical neutrality means nothing much.
Systematic Explorations could describe almost any activity including the picking of one's nose.
It's redundant to offer both precision and accuracy anyway. But you offer little of either.

I am not expecting the [my defined] moral FSK to be 100% the same as the scientific FSK but it is close to 90%.
I am not claiming 100% perfect precision but it is definitely not based on blind approximations. Mostly it will be based on induction which by default is not deductive nor 100% precise.

The moral facts are testable and repeatable.
I have explained how the moral fact, i.e.
"no human ought to kill humans"
is testable and verifiable.

I just recalled ... Searle would agree such a moral fact is an institutional fact.

If you refer to Rorty, all my above is based on revolutionary edification and driven by conversation on abnormal inquiries.

It has nothing in common with science. Your claims of induction require that is/ought argument, and as that is absolutely and obviously a circular dependency you will definitely fail. Plus, anyone who wants to use an alternative "FSK" that does allow for kiling people can just choose that one instead and then it is a fact that some humans ought to kill some other humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is it a fact that Henry is wrong when he says that it is morally appropriate to kill lots of people or is it not?

When your "FSK" gives you the fact that nobody should ever prevent anyone from breathing, and his "FSK" gives him a contradictory fact, is one of these mutually exclusive fact claims definitively incorrect?

First we refer to a moral FSK, then we have to be specific with each and every moral fact as moral standard [as a guide] only. In this case we will need a taxonomy of moral facts.

So far I have ONLY agreed with Henry on his views re Chattel Slavery and nothing else.
He was not aware until I informed him and his view re slavery can be categorized and deliberated within the moral intuitionism FSK.

How could you provide a satisfactory answer that doesn't derive is from ought, and if your is from ought argument depends on the "FSK" that it is supposed to defend, how is that not a circular dependency?

Are you insisting scientific facts are circular??

• 1. The justified 'ought_ness' is a moral fact verified and justified empirically and philosophically from the [my defined] moral FSK.
  
  2. Scientific facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically from the scientific FSK.
  
  3. Moral facts has the same principles as scientific facts. [1 & 2]
  
  4. Scientific facts are not circular. [generally accepted]
  
  5. Therefore moral facts are not circular.

So that there is the circular dependency of your "FSK" which relies on an is/ought argument that relies on the "FSK".
Science facts are derived from ises not oughts, so they are simply not relevant here.

Yes, scientific facts are derived from 'is-es'.
Where did I imply moral facts are derived from oughts.

I have explained the moral ought as moral facts are derived from "is-es" processed via the moral FSK mechanisms.

Why are you hiding from the question of whether Henry's fact claims are wrong when they deny yours?

How come you don't understand, even Physicists [other scientists] who may agree with each other on some theories within the same Physics Framework but will disagree on other theories.
For example all physicists would agree with Einstein Theory of Special Relativity but they don't agree with his major views on Quantum Mechanics and Einstein's view on QM was rejected from the QM Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Re Henry's intuition on slavery, it so happened matches what is verified and justified within the moral FSK but not his intuition re human killing of humans which is against the justified moral fact 'no humans ought to kill humans.

I am not expecting the [my defined] moral FSK to be 100% the same as the scientific FSK but it is close to 90%.
I am not claiming 100% perfect precision but it is definitely not based on blind approximations. Mostly it will be based on induction which by default is not deductive nor 100% precise.

The moral facts are testable and repeatable.
I have explained how the moral fact, i.e.
"no human ought to kill humans"
is testable and verifiable.

I just recalled ... Searle would agree such a moral fact is an institutional fact.

If you refer to Rorty, all my above is based on revolutionary edification and driven by conversation on abnormal inquiries.

It has nothing in common with science. Your claims of induction require that is/ought argument, and as that is absolutely and obviously a circular dependency you will definitely fail. Plus, anyone who wants to use an alternative "FSK" that does allow for kiling people can just choose that one instead and then it is a fact that some humans ought to kill some other humans.

I stated my moral FSK is similar in features to the scientific FSK.

I don't see how one can argue from a moral FSK to a moral fact with the maxim,
'human ought to kill humans' to be used as a moral standard and guide.

Btw, what is a moral fact must be universal to all human beings.
thus it is,
"all humans ought to kill humans"
which enable the possibility of the extinction of the human race.
Where is the required wisdom [philosophy] necessary in this case?

It will be more loose to use
"some humans ought to kill some other humans"
as a moral standard and guide.
In any case the above cannot be verified and justified empirically as a moral fact within a credible moral FSK and within the definition of what is morality-proper.
This which also enable the possibility of the extinction of the human race.
Where is the required wisdom [philosophy] necessary in this case?

[FlashDangerpants]

First we refer to a moral FSK, then we have to be specific with each and every moral fact as moral standard [as a guide] only. In this case we will need a taxonomy of moral facts.

So far I have ONLY agreed with Henry on his views re Chattel Slavery and nothing else.
He was not aware until I informed him and his view re slavery can be categorized and deliberated within the moral intuitionism FSK.


Are you insisting scientific facts are circular??

• 1. The justified 'ought_ness' is a moral fact verified and justified empirically and philosophically from the [my defined] moral FSK.
  
  2. Scientific facts are verified and justified empirically and philosophically from the scientific FSK.
  
  3. Moral facts has the same principles as scientific facts. [1 & 2]
  
  4. Scientific facts are not circular. [generally accepted]
  
  5. Therefore moral facts are not circular.

So that there is the circular dependency of your "FSK" which relies on an is/ought argument that relies on the "FSK".
Science facts are derived from ises not oughts, so they are simply not relevant here.

Yes, scientific facts are derived from 'is-es'.
Where did I imply moral facts are derived from oughts.

I have explained the moral ought as moral facts are derived from "is-es" processed via the moral FSK mechanisms.

That is circular.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So that there is the circular dependency of your "FSK" which relies on an is/ought argument that relies on the "FSK".
Science facts are derived from ises not oughts, so they are simply not relevant here.

Yes, scientific facts are derived from 'is-es'.
Where did I imply moral facts are derived from oughts.

I have explained the moral ought as moral facts are derived from "is-es" processed via the moral FSK mechanisms.

That is circular.

Accordingly if you insist scientific facts are circular that is your opinion.
I believe you are seeing a circle from the top when actually it is an progressive spiral.

Ultimately my concern is how the moral facts within the moral FSK to be used as moral standards and guides are to contribute to the progress of humanity just as scientific facts are doing.

Even if you insist it is circular, Since I am reading Rorty, note,

Nelson Goodman has said of inductive and deductive inference that we discover its rules by discovering what inferences we habitually accept;3 so it is with epistemology generally.

• 3.. Nelson Goodman's pragmatist attitude toward logic is nicely summed up in a passage which, once again, calls the "hermeneutic circle" to mind: "This looks flagrantly circular.. . . But this circle is a virtuous one ..... A rule is amended if it yields an inference we are unwilling to accept; an inference is rejected if it violates a rule we are unwilling to amend." (Fact, Fiction and Forecast [Cambridge. Mass.• 1 955]. p. 67 ·)

pg 321 Mirror of Nature.

[FlashDangerpants]

Yes, scientific facts are derived from 'is-es'.
Where did I imply moral facts are derived from oughts.

I have explained the moral ought as moral facts are derived from "is-es" processed via the moral FSK mechanisms.

That is circular.

Accordingly if you insist scientific facts are circular that is your opinion.
I believe you are seeing a circle from the top when actually it is an progressive spiral.

Scientific facts aren't circular, they are the result of observation.

Moral ought as "fact" requires the is/ought thing or else it is mere opinion. In your case this relies on the "FSK" to verify that oughts are ises bit, but the "FSK" relies on the is/ought thing to become something more than mere opinion... which relies on the FSK for its oughts are ises premise, which relies on the is/ough argument to not be just a matter of opinion. See how this goes round and round?

It's not a virtuous circle to have a an opinion (the FSK) that becomes fact (the is/ought bit) only if you share the opinion in advance. That is a vicious circle.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is circular.

Accordingly if you insist scientific facts are circular that is your opinion.
I believe you are seeing a circle from the top when actually it is an progressive spiral.

Scientific facts aren't circular, they are the result of observation.

Moral ought as "fact" requires the is/ought thing or else it is mere opinion. In your case this relies on the "FSK" to verify that oughts are ises bit, but the "FSK" relies on the is/ought thing to become something more than mere opinion... which relies on the FSK for its oughts are ises premise, which relies on the is/ough argument to not be just a matter of opinion. See how this goes round and round?

It's not a virtuous circle to have a an opinion (the FSK) that becomes fact (the is/ought bit) only if you share the opinion in advance. That is a vicious circle.

There are no opinions involved.

You seem to forget I had argued what is oughtness [moral fact] is corresponded to its physical referent, i.e. the neural forces and tensions that generate the 'oughtness' within the brain and body of a human person.

As such I am relying firstly the scientific FSK to infer the oughtness is from 'is".
It is from this scientific fact of oughtness that is input into moral FSK to generate it as a moral fact within a moral FSK.

Note how scientific facts [DNA, dead body, bloody evidences, etc.] are input with other facts into the legal FSK to generate legal facts, i.e. it is a legal fact X was convicted of murdering Y.

[FlashDangerpants]

Accordingly if you insist scientific facts are circular that is your opinion.
I believe you are seeing a circle from the top when actually it is an progressive spiral.

Scientific facts aren't circular, they are the result of observation.

Moral ought as "fact" requires the is/ought thing or else it is mere opinion. In your case this relies on the "FSK" to verify that oughts are ises bit, but the "FSK" relies on the is/ought thing to become something more than mere opinion... which relies on the FSK for its oughts are ises premise, which relies on the is/ough argument to not be just a matter of opinion. See how this goes round and round?

It's not a virtuous circle to have a an opinion (the FSK) that becomes fact (the is/ought bit) only if you share the opinion in advance. That is a vicious circle.

There are no opinions involved.

You seem to forget I had argued what is oughtness [moral fact] is corresponded to its physical referent, i.e. the neural forces and tensions that generate the 'oughtness' within the brain and body of a human person.

As such I am relying firstly the scientific FSK to infer the oughtness is from 'is".
It is from this scientific fact of oughtness that is input into moral FSK to generate it as a moral fact within a moral FSK.

Note how scientific facts [DNA, dead body, bloody evidences, etc.] are input with other facts into the legal FSK to generate legal facts, i.e. it is a legal fact X was convicted of murdering Y.

So it is a scientific fact that Henry is wrong then? And you have a 'matter of fact' to inspect that shows it to be so?
And you basically agree with Pete about what a fact is then.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Scientific facts aren't circular, they are the result of observation.

Moral ought as "fact" requires the is/ought thing or else it is mere opinion. In your case this relies on the "FSK" to verify that oughts are ises bit, but the "FSK" relies on the is/ought thing to become something more than mere opinion... which relies on the FSK for its oughts are ises premise, which relies on the is/ough argument to not be just a matter of opinion. See how this goes round and round?

It's not a virtuous circle to have a an opinion (the FSK) that becomes fact (the is/ought bit) only if you share the opinion in advance. That is a vicious circle.

There are no opinions involved.

You seem to forget I had argued what is oughtness [moral fact] is corresponded to its physical referent, i.e. the neural forces and tensions that generate the 'oughtness' within the brain and body of a human person.

As such I am relying firstly the scientific FSK to infer the oughtness is from 'is".
It is from this scientific fact of oughtness that is input into moral FSK to generate it as a moral fact within a moral FSK.

Note how scientific facts [DNA, dead body, bloody evidences, etc.] are input with other facts into the legal FSK to generate legal facts, i.e. it is a legal fact X was convicted of murdering Y.

So it is a scientific fact that Henry is wrong then? And you have a 'matter of fact' to inspect that shows it to be so?
And you basically agree with Pete about what a fact is then.

Re human killing humans, Henry's view is not in alignment [I don't prefer the misleading term 'wrong'] within the scientific-to-moral fact basis.

Yes, that matter of fact [moral] can be verified and justified empirically and philosophical within the scientific then the moral FSK. In addition it is testable and results are repeatable.

If we move to the level of verification and justification then we could have a basis of agreement within the scientific FSK but Peter would deny any moral facts within the moral FSK.

Note Pete's tradition is from and influenced by the logical positivists [LPs] and classical analytic philosophers [CAP] where any mentioned of 'morality' or 'moral facts' is a taboo from their ideological mode and be condemned as meaningless and nonsense, period!

As Rorty has stated and condemned, the then LPs and the now CAPs claimed to have privilege access superior knowledge of reality.

[FlashDangerpants]

Re human killing humans, Henry's view is not in alignment [I don't prefer the misleading term 'wrong'] within the scientific-to-moral fact basis.

What's misleading about calling a factual error wrong, mistaken, false and incorrect? Why would it be reduced to merely "not in alignment" with a verified fact?

[Skepdick]

What's misleading about calling a factual error wrong, mistaken, false and incorrect? Why would it be reduced to merely "not in alignment" with a verified fact?

Well, well well! What have we here?

What's misleading is the cherry-picking.

It's a verified fact that some humans kill other humans.
It's also a verified fact that some humans don't kill other humans.

What do you mean by "factual error" and "wrong"?

[Terrapin Station]

Within laws enacted by an authority [the legal FSK], all members are obligated i.e. ought to comply with the laws or else they will be punished accordingly.

Insofar as individuals have that opinion and take those actions. Again, this is in no way verifiable aside from verifying that the people in question have those opinions and take those actions.

[Skepdick]

This is in no way verifiable aside from verifying that the people in question have those opinions and take those actions.

So aside from the ways in which it's verifiable, it's not verifiable.

Lol.

[Terrapin Station]

This is in no way verifiable aside from verifying that the people in question have those opinions and take those actions.

So aside from the ways in which it's verifiable, it's not verifiable.

Lol.

If all he's saying is that some people have the opinions that they do, then that's fine. It in no way amounts to any normative obtaining (in the sense that it would be the case that anyone ought to do anything).

Also, the is/ought problem has nothing whatsoever to do with claiming that people don't think things like "I ought to do x"