Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 9:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 5:45 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 1:09 pm
No, wrong again. 'The sky here today is blue' and 'Trump is the 45th POTUS' are factual assertions with truth-value, because they claim something about reality that may not be the case - and they can be verified or falsified. And for these reasons, they have the same function.
But 'abortion is morally wrong' isn't that kind of assertion. There's nothing in reality that can verify or falsify that assertion, which is precisely why people can rationally agree or disagree with it. Your FSK theory is irrelevant here, because you haven't demonstrated that morality constitutes a framework and system of knowledge in the first place. Just saying that it is gets you nowhere.
I am setting aside 'abortion is morally wrong' due to its complexity that need extensive arguments to arrive at a moral conclusion.
I have presented the moral fact of
'no human ought to kill another human'
as a justified true moral beliefs from a specific Moral Framework and System.
I have already done that a "1000" times over the various threads.
Generally why the above is rational and objective is inductively thus objectively,
as supported by the inductive fact,
No "normal" person would want to be killed voluntarily.
Start with asking yourself that question for a personal conviction.
Morality & Ethics is one of the major group of subject of Philosophy besides logic, metaphysics, epistemology.
Each has its own Framework and System of knowledge and its various sub-FSK.
Surely what is Morality and Ethics cannot be Science, economics, politics, anthropology and other specific FSK.
Therefore Morality and Ethics has its own FSK and sub-FSKs.
1 Your appeal to induction (and, by implication, probabilism) is just more flummery. Until you demonstrate that a moral assertion, such as 'slavery is morally wrong', makes a factual claim with a truth-value, the argument that a moral conclusion is inductively likely to be true is incoherent. Wtf could the probability be that slavery is morally wrong? How the fuck could that be calculated? Bayesian analysis?
I had refer to the moral fact
No "normal" person would want to be killed voluntarily.
What is the probability of the above
proposition could be true or wrong?
I am confident the answer for the above proposition is it is 100% true for all "normal" people.
Any person who voluntarily agree to be killed would be a psychiatric case.
It is the same with
No "normal" person would want to be enslaved voluntarily.
What is the probability of the above proposition could be true or wrong?
2 You seem to have a category misconception with branches of philosophy. Epistemology is theory of knowledge, which therefore covers beliefs and knowledge-claim of all kinds. Your claim that morality and ethics is a discipline alongside and co-equal with epistemology is just false.
Where did I claim Morality and Ethics is co-equal with Epistemology.
How come you are so dumb with what is philosophy?
There are no good reasons to compare the 'strength' between Morality and Epistemology.
Morality & Ethics & Epistemology with their respective sub Framework and System are independent branches of Philosophy whilst overlapping in certain areas.
Read this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... philosophy
3 'No human ought to kill another human' is NOT a moral fact, because it's not a fact of any kind. It expresses a moral judgement, belief or opinion. And for that reason it's rational to hold a different opinion, such as: 'Sometimes it's morally justifiable for a human to kill another human'. If these were factual assertions, they'd be contradictory - so both couldn't be true. It's because they're not factual - not true or false - that they're not logically contradictory.
Note '
Judgment' = the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
You are conflating personal moral judgements with moral judgments of a collective.
When Einstein came up with his judgments related to the Theory of Special Relativity, they were not accepted as Scientific facts until the scientific community [within the Scientific Framework] made the same judgment on the Theory of Special Relativity.
Btw, Einstein theories relied upon other sources of knowledge, i.e. Mathematics and logic besides empirical evidences.
It is the same with moral facts which also depend on other sources of knowledge, i.e. science, mathematics and logic which is processed within a moral system and knowledge.
I agree with you that if I personally make the moral judgment 'No human ought to kill another human' that would be a personal judgment of my personal beliefs.
Other than individuals, moral judgments via small groups, tribes, cultures are also beliefs and opinions.
Moral judgments are only facts when they are justified empirically and philosophically from within a specific moral system and framework.
I have done the justification "1000" times.
Note again the "1001" times.
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777