Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2023 5:22 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2023 5:00 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2023 4:42 pm
Oh, please don't wriggle. It's embarrassing. Aren't you embarrassed?
Nothing embarassing yet. And, of course, I could have no objective grounds for embarassment, if morality is subjective.
Produce one moral fact, and show why it's a fact and not the expression of a moral opinion.
It's wrong to murder. And it will be wrong to murder, no matter what anybody believes about that.
Man, that was easy.
But I suspect that's not all you wanted me to do. However, if you want me to do more, you'll have to tell me what "showing" would look like, to you. On what grounds would I convince you that murder is objectively wrong -- if I were to do such a thing?
You haven't shown why murder is morally wrong. You've just stated that it is.
All you literally asked me to do is, "Produce one moral fact." I did. But as I predicted, you wanted more; so I asked what a "showing" of objective morality would look like, for you. And you haven't answered.
Am I then to assume there are simply no conditions, no tests, no demonstrations that you would accept as evidence for objective morality? It's all I can conclude, unless you can suggest one. But if that's the case, you shouldn't be surprised there are no such demonstrations in your experience. You ruled them all out before the conversation began, it would seem.
As for opinions and facts, the point under debate is whether or not moral precepts are facts or mere opinions. I'm not simply going to agree with you that unless I can somehow "demonstrate" to you -- and by no test you can suggest, it seems -- that moral precepts are facts that that means they are automatically opinions. That's a
non-sequitur. Because you and I are limited beings, we might well be ignorant of the facts of some matters; but if so, that does not mean a fact stops being a fact. So if moral facts exist, they exist regardless of whether P. Holmes knows or acknowledges that they do; all that varies is P. Holmes's status relative to those facts, not the facts themselves.
An "opinion," by definition, is only a viewpoint that
could be factual, but
isn't necessarily. We have "opinions" that turn out to be accurate, and "opinions" that turn out to be false or errant. We humans need "opinions" because we are, in fact, so often wrong about what we think to be true. But a Being that knew everything, and indeed had created everything that is, would have no "opinions"; we could only say that He knew the facts, the very facts we lack.
However, whatever God's "opinions" about morality is, you can be quite sure He's absolutely right. That's by definition of being God, obviously. So what we must say about God (assuming He exists, which I know you reject), is that He has no "opinions" in the human sense of that term. He has knowledge.
Now, you can be shown why 'water is H2O' asserts a fact - a feature of reality that is the case - and not an opinion.
Actually, H20 is justs a human convention. That we designate the entity we call "hydrogen" by "H" is purely convenient. But in fact, we know that "H" particles are made up of smaller entities; and why we ever stopped at "H" was due to our limited knowledge of those smaller particles, such as neutrons, electrons, protons, quarks, etc.
So it's really a kind of "opinion" that water is H2O. It's a scientific convention characteristic of a certain period of our limited knowledge, and now a convenience of labelling things when we want to deal with them at the atomic level, but don't want to be bothering with the subatomic level.
So - what could you show me/us to demonstrate that murder/unlawful killing is morally wrong?
That, you will have to tell me. Because what would "demonstrate" it to your satisfaction is entirely out of my control. The answer, it seems, might plausibly be "nothing." But that won't settle the question, because the problem is in the unpersuadability of the asker, not in the lack of a suitable "demonstration."
As you say,
Well I don't know what 'showing that X is morally wrong' could possibly involve - because I don't think that's a factual assertion with a truth-value.
So, there it is. You have stated your determination not to be persuaded, which is rooted in your already-taken-for-granted theory that no such thing can exist. Now, if you had a plausible test, and if I was unable to meet that test, then you might have a proper objection. But if there is no test you will accept as plausible, then again, the problem's not on the one asked, but on the asker.
Your skepticism, Pete, seems to be 100% suppositional. It seems to be nothing more than an absolute commitment to deny the possibility of any falsification of your theory; because if it were otherwise, would you not know what "demonstration" objective morality had allegedly "failed" for you?
