Moral Facts Supervene on Natural Facts

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sure. We have the research over here in the lab and the conclusions in journals. And then we have a world with moral systems.
But the research in the lab on the structures in the brains and their effect on behavior doesn't justify any moral system.
It can give us information about why some people consider X moral. But it is not a justification, except for that these things exist. Then we have the cherry picking of one part of brain structures and patterns.

Does the tons of research on human nature since science began justify any nutrition system, health system, medical system, psychological system, etc.
The point here is for each of the above system to exists and works, they must be enabled [constructed] in some human ways, i.e. frame the system within a human-based specific Framework.
The specific Framework and System [FSERC] has its specific Constitution, principles, processes, assumptions, and so on.

Scientific research findings are inputted into the medical FSERC to general medical facts and justify medical actions and obligations.
If there is a tumor in the brain, medically, it ought to be removed.

So, scientific research findings are inputted into the moral FSERC to generate moral facts, i.e. to ensure the well being and flourishing of humanity, the moral potential, the natural inherent "oughtnot ness to kill humans" must be made active to increase its competencies.
This is only a standard, there should not be any enforcement coercion on any individual.
When the inherent moral potential [moral quotient] is cultivated and developed in each individual, then the individual[s] will be spontaneously moral [no need for threats from laws and hellfire].

1) note that this has nothing to do with mentaI states supervening on brain states justifying any particuIar moraI system. Here you are descrbing a consequentiaIist moraI system. We decide what well being and flourishing are. And in fact this is a completely different meta-ethical system from the one your are supporting in the supervening threads and elsewhere.

This OP is not specifically about mental states.
As I stated else, this is about moral competencies as moral facts supervened upon natural facts.

2) This begs the question. Whatever vaIues you decide mean that we are thriving are stiII up for grabs. ShouId achieving greatness be prioritized over safety. ShouId setting up conditions so that taIented peopIe thrive be prioritized over societies that try to get everyone doing weII?

off topic.

3) you write about activating the oughtnot ness to kill humans, but that means suppressing other urges that are just as human. You are bringing a vaIue to the situation that you beIieve in. (and you are cIearIy judging from your vaIues brain states that peopIe have now. So, a your justifications in other threads that brain states confer vaIidity on certain moraIs are undermined. Because you are saying they do not confer vaIidity except on your preferred brain states (with mirror neurons in the center). PeopIe due to their brain states, have a wide range of vaIues about what brain states shouId be made more active. You are bringing in vaIues from some as yet unnamed source, justified in some unnamed way. FIourishing and weII being are vaIue Iaden terms.

It is a universal expectation, no individual [except the mentally sick] want to be killed.
There is no question of individual mental states and value.

4) The moment we open the door for controIIing emotions (through meditation and breathing techniques) or enhancing one part of the brain over another, we are changing what humans wiII consider thriving.

What is this about?
It is supervenience when say meditation changes the mechanisms of the brain [natural fact] that can promote the "inhibition the impulse to kill" [moral fact].

On the one hand you use human nature (brain states and structures) to justify what is an objective moraI fact.
On the other hand you consider human nature subpar now and shouId be changed.
One of those has to give.

?? crazy thinking.
Human nature is so complex and cover very extensive aspects.
The moral competency within human nature [sited somewhere in the brain] is subpar and we need to use our higher cognitive and intelligent competencies [prefrontal cortex] to expedite its competency.

Bears and squids and worms have structures in their brains that Iead to behaviors that heIp them thrive. Made of the same tissues. We don't find oughnesses to X in their brains. We find drives or patterns or neuronaI firing or patterns in behavior that have functioned weII for them in the past. HeII rats have mirror neurons. There is nothing on these that is an ought. That's projected by any humans who 'see' this there.

Here is how oughtness and oughtnot_ness can be applied anywhere where there is a sense of criticalness from the human perspective, especially to maintain the status quo or ensure positive results.
Non-humans do not deliberate on such matter.

Whatever is fact [reality, etc.] must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system. [FSERC].
Thus a moral fact is contingent upon a human-based moral FSERC.
The concept of oughtness and oughtnot_ness are critical concepts within the moral FSERC.

Point is morality is only deliberated by humans and never in non-humans.

Nevertheless,
Every breathing non-human has an implied oughtness to breathe and take in nutrients else they die.
It is valid to apply the concept of oughtness and oughtnot_ness from the perspective of humans to animals or even plant, i.e. all green plants ought to be exposed to sunlight or light.

[FlashDangerpants]

Whatever is fact [reality, etc.] must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system. [FSERC].
Thus a moral fact is contingent upon a human-based moral FSERC.
The concept of oughtness and oughtnot_ness are critical concepts within the moral FSERC.

Sad that he still hasn't worked out how to construct a basic syllogism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For VA. Logic 101: deductive validity.

An inference (argument) is deductively valid if, in any situation in which the premises are true, the conclusion is true. To put it another way: if the premises are taken to be true, then it would be irrational to deny the truth of the conclusion.

Now, here's one of your arguments from elsewhere.

'Whatever is fact [reality, etc.] must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system. [FSERC].
Thus a moral fact is contingent upon a human-based moral FSERC.
The concept of oughtness and oughtnotness are critical concepts within the moral FSERC.'

The problem here is to extract a premise or premises which can entail a valid conclusion. Here is one suggestion:

P1 If what humans call facts depend on human frameworks and systems, then what humans call moral facts depends on a human framework and system.
P2 What humans call facts depend on human frameworks and systems.
C Therefore, what humans call moral facts depends on a human framework and system.

Now, (I think) this is deductively valid. And notice the exact repetition in the conclusion of phrases in the premises. If it's to be valid, the conclusion can't introduce anything not present in the premises.

But I don't think C above is the conclusion you want. As a moral objectivist, you want the conclusion: therefore, there are moral facts. So your task is to formulate a valid syllogism with that conclusion. Perhaps as follows:

P1 If humans construct facts, then humans construct moral facts.
P2 Humans construct facts.
C Therefore, humans construct moral facts.

But that's still not right, because you want the conclusion to be: therefore, there are moral facts.

So, over to you. Have a go at formulating the valid syllogism you want. The trick is to make the conclusion identical to the P1 consequent - the 'then' bit.

We can deal with the soundness of the argument later, because without validity to start with, we have nothing.

My above was not intended to be a proper syllogism; there is no 'therefore' in the last statement.
You need to take it in the context of the whole discussion.

The original: viewtopic.php?p=721906#p721906
Whatever is fact [reality, etc.] must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system. [FSERC].
Thus a moral fact is contingent upon a human-based moral FSERC.
The concept of oughtness and oughtnot_ness are critical concepts within the moral FSERC.

If intended to be syllogistic, it would be
P1. Whatever is fact [reality, etc.] must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system. [FSERC].
-For example, a scientific fact is contingent upon a scientific FSERC.
-A moral fact is contingent upon a human-based moral FSERC.
-it based on a collective-of-subjects, thus objectives
P2. The concept of oughtness and oughtnot_ness are critical concepts within the moral FSERC resulting as moral facts [1].
- e.g. the oughtnot_ness not to kill humans re science-biological facts.
C1. Therefore there are objective moral facts contingent upon a moral FSERC.

You cannot refute the above syllogism.

Your objection is you will not agree to facts that are contingent to a human-based FSERC.
But I have countered your what is fact is grounded in all illusion from philosophical realism.
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

If you accept P1, you may object moral facts are not credible and objective as scientific facts.
I have explained, the majority of the inputs of the moral FSERC are from the scientific FSERC [the gold standard].

So, there are FSERC-ed objective moral facts and therefrom morality is objective.

[Iwannaplato]

Whatever is fact [reality, etc.] must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system. [FSERC].
Thus a moral fact is contingent upon a human-based moral FSERC.
The concept of oughtness and oughtnot_ness are critical concepts within the moral FSERC.

Sad that he still hasn't worked out how to construct a basic syllogism.

At least he got honest in this version
a human-based moral FSERC.
Not 'the', but 'a'.....

One of the many.

[Peter Holmes]

He's trying to get from his premise: facts depend on humans - to his conclusion: therefore, there are moral facts, without assuming the existence of moral facts in his premise(s).

I can see no way to do it. But hey, can anyone help him out?

[Veritas Aequitas]

He's trying to get from his premise: facts depend on humans - to his conclusion: therefore, there are moral facts, without assuming the existence of moral facts in his premise(s).

I can see no way to do it. But hey, can anyone help him out?

Responded in this post:

If intended to be syllogistic, it would be
P1. Whatever is fact [reality, etc.] must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system. [FSERC].
-For example, a scientific fact is contingent upon a scientific FSERC.
-A moral fact is contingent upon a human-based moral FSERC.
-it based on a collective-of-subjects, thus objectives
P2. The concept of oughtness and oughtnot_ness are critical concepts within the moral FSERC resulting as moral facts [1].
- e.g. the oughtnot_ness not to kill humans re science-biological facts.
C1. Therefore there are objective moral facts contingent upon a moral FSERC.

You cannot refute the above syllogism.

This isn't a syllogism. I'm afraid you have no idea how to construct one, even though I've explained it above.

Your P1 is, to simplify: Facts depend on human frameworks and systems. (Leave aside whether that's true or not - it's your starting point.)

And you're trying to reach the conclusion that there are moral facts.

But then, in your P1, you say that moral facts depend on a human framework and system. So you're using your conclusion in your premise. And that's called begging the question.

In effect, here's your argument, using a basic syllogistic form. You could try to learn from it.

P1 If facts depend on human frameworks and systems, then moral facts depend on a human framework and system.
P2 Facts depend on human frameworks and systems.
C Therefore, moral facts depend on a human framework and system.

Can you see how simple the structure is? It goes like this: if A, then B; A; therefore, B.

But notice, this argument doesn't demonstrate the existence of moral facts. It assumes they exist in P1. So it isn't an argument for the existence of moral facts.

The points in italics are merely examples not be part of the syllogism.


I have deleted the confusing elements, here is the syllogism again;

P1. Whatever is fact [reality, etc.] must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system. [FSERC].
P2. The concept of oughtnot_ness* are facts contingent upon the human-based moral FSERC [1].
- e.g. the oughtnot_ness not to kill humans re science-biological facts.
C1. Therefore there are moral facts contingent upon a moral FSERC.

Btw, I use the term 'contingent' not 'dependent' the difference is critical in my case.

Notes:
P1 example, scientific facts are contingent upon the human-based scientific FSERC.
Human-based means it is based on a collective-of-subjects, so the resultants from that is objective. It is not based on an individual's opinion, beliefs not judgment.

[Peter Holmes]

I have deleted the confusing elements, here is the syllogism again;

P1. Whatever is fact [reality, etc.] must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system. [FSERC].
P2. The concept of oughtnot_ness* are facts contingent upon the human-based moral FSERC [1].
- e.g. the oughtnot_ness not to kill humans re science-biological facts.
C1. Therefore there are moral facts contingent upon a moral FSERC.

Btw, I use the term 'contingent' not 'dependent' the difference is critical in my case.

1 Please explain the difference between contingency and dependency in this context.

2 This is still not a valid syllogism, though I think you're trying to get there - which is bringing the fallacy closer to the surface. To simplify, I think this is your P1:

P1 A fact is contingent upon a human framework and system.

What you need to do now is leave out exemplification, such as reference to (to simplify) oughtness. You're using oughtness as an example of a fact which is contingent upon a human framework and system. But when you make that your P2, the syllogism breaks down.

I strongly suggest you try the basic if...then... structure, to establish validity.

And I think your missing premise is something like this: Any human framework and system can produce facts - as follows.

P1 If any human framework and system can produce facts, then a human moral framework and system can produce moral facts.
P2 Any human framework and system can produce facts.
C Therefore, a human moral framework and system can produce moral facts.

Again, leave aside soundness. This is a valid syllogism. And notice the simplicity and repetition. It comes from making P2 your main premise - and therefore the P1 antecedent (the if but) - so that P1 consequent (the then bit) is your necessary conclusion. That's where this kind of deductive validity comes from.

Have another go.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have deleted the confusing elements, here is the syllogism again;

P1. Whatever is fact [reality, etc.] must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system. [FSERC].
P2. The concept of oughtnot_ness* are facts contingent upon the human-based moral FSERC [1].
- e.g. the oughtnot_ness not to kill humans re science-biological facts.
C1. Therefore there are moral facts contingent upon a moral FSERC.

Btw, I use the term 'contingent' not 'dependent' the difference is critical in my case.

1 Please explain the difference between contingency and dependency in this context.

2 This is still not a valid syllogism, though I think you're trying to get there - which is bringing the fallacy closer to the surface. To simplify, I think this is your P1:

P1 A fact is contingent upon a human framework and system.

What you need to do now is leave out exemplification, such as reference to (to simplify) oughtness. You're using oughtness as an example of a fact which is contingent upon a human framework and system. But when you make that your P2, the syllogism breaks down.

I strongly suggest you try the basic if...then... structure, to establish validity.

And I think your missing premise is something like this: Any human framework and system can produce facts - as follows.

• P1 If any human framework and system can produce facts, then a human moral framework and system can produce moral facts.
  P2 Any human framework and system can produce facts.
  C Therefore, a human moral framework and system can produce moral facts.

Again, leave aside soundness. This is a valid syllogism. And notice the simplicity and repetition. It comes from making P2 your main premise - and therefore the P1 antecedent (the if but) - so that P1 consequent (the then bit) is your necessary conclusion. That's where this kind of deductive validity comes from.

Have another go.

OK, I can accept your proposal, note the FSERC.
I don't quite like the term 'produce' [as if it is a factory] but prefer terms like 'enable' and 'facilitate', 'ground' 'constitute' and others in relation to my original 'contingent'. I'll go with 'ground'.

• P1 If any human framework and system [FSERC] can ground facts, then a human moral framework and system [FSERC] can ground moral facts.
  
  P2 Any human framework and system [FSERC] can ground facts.
  
  C Therefore, a human moral framework and system [FSERC] can ground FSERC-ed moral facts.

I will add the following;
1. It is a FSERC, a human framework and system of emergence and realization of reality [FSER] which is subsequently perceived, known and described [FSC].
Your charge has always been on the descriptive but my FSERC include this FSER i.e. the emergence and realization of reality before it is described.

2. A FSERC is grounded upon a collective-of-subjects thus its resultant are objective. It is not dependent on one subject's opinion, beliefs and judgments.

3. The scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

4. The Moral FSERC has a high degree of credibility and objectivity which is very near to that of the scientific FSERC.

5. There are objective FSERC-ed moral facts, so therefrom Morality is objective.

[FlashDangerpants]

He's trying to get from his premise: facts depend on humans - to his conclusion: therefore, there are moral facts, without assuming the existence of moral facts in his premise(s).

I can see no way to do it. But hey, can anyone help him out?

Yes. He's got himself confused about entailment and cannot decide whether its optional or not. He treats that P1 as ALL and ONLY facts are the product of these KFC-Buckets. That all and only part is what has the logical force required to convert via a P2 that says somthing like THIS KFC-Bucket produces something .... to arrive at the product of all KFC-Buckets must be facts, therefore the somthing that this bucket produces are facts. The inference he wants to support cannot derive from the weak premises he is able to furnish.

Without it you get
KFC-Buckets produce some facts, but some produce other things.
The Flat Earth KFC-Bucket produces something.
Therefore the Flat Earth KFC-Bucket produces something.

With it you get
KFC-Buckets produce nothing but cold hard facts
The Flat Earth KFC-Bucket produces something.
Therefore the Flat Earth KFC-Bucket cold hard facts

Common sense tells us that these KFC-Buckets don't create fact ex nihilo, that what makes science propositions factual and flat earth propositions fanciful is that we can compare what they offer to some real world state and see that some are supported by observation and others are not. To make VA's desired syllogism effective, he must do two completely stupid things...

• He must officially denounce the role of observation in the establishment of fact.

• He must officially abandon bivalence and simply accept that the Flat Earth theory is true if there is a KFC-Bucket that says so, and also that it is true even at the exact moment that the KFC-Bucket of science correctly and truthfully says it is false.

There's a cost, VA needs to learn how to pay it like a man.

[FlashDangerpants]

Whatever is fact [reality, etc.] must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system. [FSERC].
Thus a moral fact is contingent upon a human-based moral FSERC.
The concept of oughtness and oughtnot_ness are critical concepts within the moral FSERC.

Sad that he still hasn't worked out how to construct a basic syllogism.

At least he got honest in this version
a human-based moral FSERC.
Not 'the', but 'a'.....

One of the many.

The odd thing is that I've seen him claim that he's beyond trad-logic and no longer needs an excluded middle. Never seen him argue that way though.

[Will Bouwman]

Whatever is fact [reality, etc.] must be contingent upon a human-based framework and system. [FSERC].
Thus a moral fact is contingent upon a human-based moral FSERC.
The concept of oughtness and oughtnot_ness are critical concepts within the moral FSERC.

Sad that he still hasn't worked out how to construct a basic syllogism.

At least he got honest in this version
a human-based moral FSERC.
Not 'the', but 'a'.....

One of the many.

Innit?

[Iwannaplato]

Sad that he still hasn't worked out how to construct a basic syllogism.

At least he got honest in this version
a human-based moral FSERC.
Not 'the', but 'a'.....

One of the many.

Innit?

The interesting thing is he used to refer to it as The moral FSERC. I pointed out the problem, suggested that it was 'a' moral FSERC, his, and this did nothing. But now he refers to it as 'a moral FSERC' but without seeming to understand what this grammatical acknowledgement entails.

[Will Bouwman]

The interesting thing is he used to refer to it as The moral FSERC. I pointed out the problem, suggested that it was 'a' moral FSERC, his, and this did nothing. But now he refers to it as 'a moral FSERC' but without seeming to understand what this grammatical acknowledgement entails.

One down. Few more that need a light to go on. Don't expect any thanks when they do.

[Atla]

Don't celebrate just yet.. one of VA's many problems was exactly that he insisted that 'a' just means 'one'.

[Iwannaplato]

Don't celebrate just yet.. one of VA's many problems was exactly that he insisted that 'a' just means 'one'.

One of many, yes. And yes, he hasn't changed/justified anything new in the argument despite the shift to the indefinite.
I wasn't celebrating, just shaking my head in wonder.