There are Moral Facts

[Atla]

I have always equated Moral Facts as Moral Principles.

I feel generous today VA, so I'll help you out. Let's look at synonyms of 'principle' in a few online dictionaries. Please let us know if you find anything missing, so we can contact the inattentive editors.

precept, rule, standard, tenet
moral, norm, value
hypothesis, proposition, theory, thesis
axiom, truism, verity
belief, canon, doctrine, dogma, gospel, law
basis, foundation, ground
conclusion, deduction, inference
affirmation, assertion, avouchment, declaration
dictum, ipse dixit
assumption, given, hypothetical, if, postulate, premise (also premiss), presumption, presupposition, supposition

assumption, basis, convention, doctrine, ethic, foundation, fundamental, precept, proposition, regulation, rule, truth, axiom, canon, criterion, dictum, dogma, form, formula, ground, maxim, origin, postulate, prescript, source, theorem, usage, verity, golden rule, principium, , , belief , rule , standard , attitude , code , notion , criterion , ethic , doctrine , canon , creed , maxim , dogma , tenet , dictum , credo , axiom,

Note sure of your point.

My point is, moral facts are reflected as principles, law, maxims, rules within the Moral Framework and System and they must be justified empirically and philosophically.

The point-proper is that in English-proper, as used in philosophy-proper, facts-proper and principles-proper are two different things-proper.

If you still don't get it: 'fact' and 'principle' mean different things.

[Atla]

There are nice things within the human psyche. Tribalism, dominance, racism, one-upmanship, rape, rage, bloodlust, narcissism, the desire to consume etc. Let's establish these as moral-principle-fact-propers too I guess.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The point-proper is that in English-proper, as used in philosophy-proper, facts-proper and principles-proper are two different things-proper.

If you still don't get it: 'fact' and 'principle' mean different things.

Are you sure your English is English-proper?

Note I stated this in another thread,

• Principle:
  A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/principle

• Fact
  A thing that is known or proved to be true.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/fact

As above how can you justify your,

• "If you still don't get it: 'fact' and 'principle' mean different things"

which merely amplify your own ignorance-proper.

I believe you are thinking of 'principal' for the word 'principle'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are nice things within the human psyche. Tribalism, dominance, racism, one-upmanship, rape, rage, bloodlust, narcissism, the desire to consume etc. Let's establish these as moral-principle-fact-propers too I guess.

You are totally ignorant of what morality is about.
Your moral compass has gone haywire.
If I am not mistaken I thought you were autistic and from the above has elements of psychopathy and thus cannot differentiate what is good from what is evil.

Generally, morality is:

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[
Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

In most contexts, the concept of good denotes the conduct that should be preferred when posed with a choice between possible actions.
Good is generally considered to be the opposite of evil, and is of interest in the study of morality, ethics, religion and philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good

[Atla]

The point-proper is that in English-proper, as used in philosophy-proper, facts-proper and principles-proper are two different things-proper.

If you still don't get it: 'fact' and 'principle' mean different things.

Are you sure your English is English-proper?

Note I stated this in another thread,

• Principle:
  A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/principle

• Fact
  A thing that is known or proved to be true.
  https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/fact

As above how can you justify your,

• "If you still don't get it: 'fact' and 'principle' mean different things"

which merely amplify your own ignorance-proper.

I believe you are thinking of 'principal' for the word 'principle'.

You don't get it do you.
You are so unfathomably up your own ass and perfectly closed to any outside input, that even if all the dictionaries don't mention fact and principle as synonyms, and everyone tells you that they mean different things, you will still automatically think that you are the one using English-proper and the other 8 billion people aren't.

And you even can't tell the difference between propositions and proofs. Seriously, what the hell?

[Atla]

There are nice things within the human psyche. Tribalism, dominance, racism, one-upmanship, rape, rage, bloodlust, narcissism, the desire to consume etc. Let's establish these as moral-principle-fact-propers too I guess.

You are totally ignorant of what morality is about.
Your moral compass has gone haywire.
If I am not mistaken I thought you were autistic and from the above has elements of psychopathy and thus cannot differentiate what is good from what is evil.

Generally, morality is:

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[
Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

In most contexts, the concept of good denotes the conduct that should be preferred when posed with a choice between possible actions.
Good is generally considered to be the opposite of evil, and is of interest in the study of morality, ethics, religion and philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good

DNA-wise, killing and raping can be perfectly proper decisions, since it's in our DNA to propagate our own genes and our own tribe, to the detriment of outsiders. It's part of natural human genetics shaped by evolution, this is your argument not mine.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are nice things within the human psyche. Tribalism, dominance, racism, one-upmanship, rape, rage, bloodlust, narcissism, the desire to consume etc. Let's establish these as moral-principle-fact-propers too I guess.

You are totally ignorant of what morality is about.
Your moral compass has gone haywire.
If I am not mistaken I thought you were autistic and from the above has elements of psychopathy and thus cannot differentiate what is good from what is evil.

Generally, morality is:

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[
Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

In most contexts, the concept of good denotes the conduct that should be preferred when posed with a choice between possible actions.
Good is generally considered to be the opposite of evil, and is of interest in the study of morality, ethics, religion and philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good

DNA-wise, killing and raping can be perfectly proper decisions, since it's in our DNA to propagate our own genes and our own tribe, to the detriment of outsiders. It's part of natural human genetics shaped by evolution, this is your argument not mine.

As I had stated above, you are very ignorant and oblivious to what is morality is about despite my explanation.

When did I ever state specifically killing and raping are proper behavior?
Note the moral maxim I proposed,
"No human ought to kill another human" period!
It is the same imperative ought for raping and other evil acts.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are totally ignorant of what morality is about.
Your moral compass has gone haywire.
If I am not mistaken I thought you were autistic and from the above has elements of psychopathy and thus cannot differentiate what is good from what is evil.

Generally, morality is:

DNA-wise, killing and raping can be perfectly proper decisions, since it's in our DNA to propagate our own genes and our own tribe, to the detriment of outsiders. It's part of natural human genetics shaped by evolution, this is your argument not mine.

As I had stated above, you are very ignorant and oblivious to what is morality is about despite my explanation.

When did I ever state specifically killing and raping are proper behavior?
Note the moral maxim I proposed,
"No human ought to kill another human" period!
It is the same imperative ought for raping and other evil acts.

This is exactly what I told you yesterday was going to happen to your DNA based moral theory. If you make facts of DNA into "Facts of Morality" then you are certain to have moral facts that you cannot possibly agree with. See below for a small reminder.

And that is your complete failure all wrapped up with a little bow on top.

You have never been doing morality at all, you have been offering your fake plastic substitute.

That is why I qualify mine as morality-proper.

I know, and that is why I describe "morality-proper" as a complete lie. It is barely realted to actual morality at all.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29755
" this is replacing morality with something smaller, meaner, and cheaper to produce. These are Genuine American Cheese theories: nasty, fake plasticky stuff that must have its relationship to the real thing constantly asserted for fear nobody would notice there was one otherwise."

What is morality-proper is an inherent drive within all humans, albeit not very active in the majority but active only in minority. However, from the current trend, the inherent morality is being more active within the brain/mind of the majority.
[...]
Me, I am attempting to approach morality-proper with justified grounding in alignment with what morality is naturally supposed to be within human genetics and psyche.

Dude, there's a massive and obvious problem with that. "morality-proper" has no grounding for anything being right or wrong. You can't have "murder is wrong because DNA says so", or "evolution says don't do rape". If you try to make a moral fact argument out of what you are putting together here it is going to get comletely wrecked.

You are not very smart, so I will make this as simple as I can for you. You are stealing an argument from the intelligent design crowd, but not positing an intelligent designer to put only nice moral things into DNA. Instead you are leaving that to natural selection, which is a morally neutral process that only selects for behaviours that lead to propogation of genes, including rape.

[Skepdick]

You are not very smart, so I will make this as simple as I can for you. You are stealing an argument from the intelligent design crowd, but not positing an intelligent designer to put only nice moral things into DNA. Instead you are leaving that to natural selection, which is a morally neutral process that only selects for behaviours that lead to propogation of genes, including rape.

You are dumber than he is.

Notice how rape used to be a viable strategy for "spreading my DNA"
Notice how rape is a far less viable strategy in 2020. Because nature now has these things called "contraceptives" and "abortion".

Rape no longer guarantees offspring.

When you keep excluding human choices from nature's selection mechanisms, when you keep ignoring downward causation you are going to keep arriving at the conclusions you keep arriving at.

[Sculptor]

DNA-wise, killing and raping can be perfectly proper decisions, since it's in our DNA to propagate our own genes and our own tribe, to the detriment of outsiders. It's part of natural human genetics shaped by evolution, this is your argument not mine.

As I had stated above, you are very ignorant and oblivious to what is morality is about despite my explanation.

When did I ever state specifically killing and raping are proper behavior?
Note the moral maxim I proposed,
"No human ought to kill another human" period!
It is the same imperative ought for raping and other evil acts.

This is exactly what I told you yesterday was going to happen to your DNA based moral theory. If you make facts of DNA into "Facts of Morality" then you are certain to have moral facts that you cannot possibly agree with. See below for a small reminder.

That is why I qualify mine as morality-proper.

I know, and that is why I describe "morality-proper" as a complete lie. It is barely realted to actual morality at all.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29755
" this is replacing morality with something smaller, meaner, and cheaper to produce. These are Genuine American Cheese theories: nasty, fake plasticky stuff that must have its relationship to the real thing constantly asserted for fear nobody would notice there was one otherwise."

What is morality-proper is an inherent drive within all humans, albeit not very active in the majority but active only in minority. However, from the current trend, the inherent morality is being more active within the brain/mind of the majority.
[...]
Me, I am attempting to approach morality-proper with justified grounding in alignment with what morality is naturally supposed to be within human genetics and psyche.

Dude, there's a massive and obvious problem with that. "morality-proper" has no grounding for anything being right or wrong. You can't have "murder is wrong because DNA says so", or "evolution says don't do rape". If you try to make a moral fact argument out of what you are putting together here it is going to get comletely wrecked.

You are not very smart, so I will make this as simple as I can for you. You are stealing an argument from the intelligent design crowd, but not positing an intelligent designer to put only nice moral things into DNA. Instead you are leaving that to natural selection, which is a morally neutral process that only selects for behaviours that lead to propogation of genes, including rape.

I find it shocking after 160 after Darwin, with all the enhancements to his theory that such gross ignorance still exists on the simply model of natural selection.
A genetic propensity to spread seeds by any means, is so obviously a key selective trait. If that involves rape then, as with all other things, "evolution does not care". It runs on the ability to have viable progeny, and nothing else.

[Sculptor]

You are not very smart, so I will make this as simple as I can for you. You are stealing an argument from the intelligent design crowd, but not positing an intelligent designer to put only nice moral things into DNA. Instead you are leaving that to natural selection, which is a morally neutral process that only selects for behaviours that lead to propogation of genes, including rape.

You are dumber than he is.

Notice how rape used to be a viable strategy for "spreading my DNA"
Notice how rape is a far less viable strategy in 2020. Because nature now has these things called "contraceptives" and "abortion".

Rape no longer guarantees offspring.

When you keep excluding human choices from nature's selection mechanisms, when you keep ignoring downward causation you are going to keep arriving at the conclusions you keep arriving at.

And, as crazy as bat shit "dick" brain runs in to make a fool of himself yet again.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are not very smart, so I will make this as simple as I can for you. You are stealing an argument from the intelligent design crowd, but not positing an intelligent designer to put only nice moral things into DNA. Instead you are leaving that to natural selection, which is a morally neutral process that only selects for behaviours that lead to propogation of genes, including rape.

You are dumber than he is.

Notice how rape used to be a viable strategy for "spreading my DNA"
Notice how rape is a far less viable strategy in 2020. Because nature now has these things called "contraceptives" and "abortion".

Rape no longer guarantees offspring.

When you keep excluding human choices from nature's selection mechanisms, when you keep ignoring downward causation you are going to keep arriving at the conclusions you keep arriving at.

Your tedious shark jumping ramblings make no difference, Natural selection is a morally neutral process.

[Skepdick]

When you keep excluding human choices from nature's selection mechanisms, when you keep ignoring downward causation you are going to keep arriving at the conclusions you keep arriving at.

Your tedious shark jumping ramblings make no difference, Natural selection is a morally neutral process.

Q.E.D!!!!! Special pleading.

If Natural selection is morally neutral, and humans are one of the many mechanisms for natural selection then NONE of the selections humans perform are of moral nature.

So, I'll spell out the logical implications for you: you do not make any moral choices. The word "morality" is as meaningless as the word "God".

Your dualist metaphysic and utter lack of self-awareness is the source of all of your bullshit.

[FlashDangerpants]

When you keep excluding human choices from nature's selection mechanisms, when you keep ignoring downward causation you are going to keep arriving at the conclusions you keep arriving at.

Your tedious shark jumping ramblings make no difference, Natural selection is a morally neutral process.

Q.E.D!!!!! Special pleading.

If Natural selection is morally neutral, and humans are one of the many mechanisms for natural selection then NONE of the selections humans perform are of moral nature.

So, I'll spell out the logical implications for you: you do not make any moral choices. The word "morality" is as meaningless as the word "God".

Your dualist metaphysic and utter lack of self-awareness is the source of all of your bullshit.

So you are a nihilist after all that?

[Skepdick]

So you are a nihilist after all that?

So you really can't tell the difference between you and me, eh?

"Natural selection is a morally neutral process." is your utterance, not mine.
I am just giving you the implication of the above belief.

Are you suddenly feeling an urge to reject the conclusion of "sound AND valid philosophical arguments" ? Why?