Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:35 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:24 pm
Yes, Peter...and it's very morally bad of me not to grasp the fact that there are no moral facts...which means it's not bad at all.

If you insist.

I don't. You do. I wasn't the one who called his own claim "The end."

But, to the point: your premise - if there are no moral facts, then there can be no moral judgements - is false.

Good thing that was never my premise, then. I did not say that. I would say that if there are no moral facts, then there are no moral factual judgments...and you obviously agree with that. Except that you make moral factual judgments, like the ones above.

The conclusion has to be that Peter doesn't actually believe his own claim. He can't seem to act on it, but insists on making moral factual claims, like that "deluding yourself" is bad.

If I judge a painting to be beautiful, that isn't an aesthetic factual judgement. It's just an aesthetic judgement - not a factual claim.

And pari passu, a moral judgement isn't a moral factual judgement. It's just a moral judgement. Your insistence that a moral judgement has to be factual is precisely the consequence of your question-begging premise.

But - let's not bother with this yet again.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:53 pm If I judge a painting to be beautiful, that isn't an aesthetic factual judgement. It's just an aesthetic judgement - not a factual claim.

Right. But you've said nothing more than "Pete likes this." You haven't said, "Paintings are immoral/wrong/undesirable for others/unrealistic/non-functional." In short, you haven't used a value-laden term.

But a moral judgment does imply moral censure or praise. So to say, "Deluding yourself is wrong/undesirable/bad/improper" is to pass a moral judgment, to pass it so to speak for others, and to do so as if it were a universal and objective claim...in other words, a fact.

So you are not keeping consistent with your own claim that there are, and can be, no moral facts. Igitur, there is no possibility you can censure me for thinking otherwise, beyond saying, "Peter doesn't like belief in moral facts."

And that much, we knew.

But you can't make anyone care, or provide reasons they should, without entering upon a moral judgment you use as if objective....but you say it can't be.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:39 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:53 pm If I judge a painting to be beautiful, that isn't an aesthetic factual judgement. It's just an aesthetic judgement - not a factual claim.

Right. But you've said nothing more than "Pete likes this." You haven't said, "Paintings are immoral/wrong/undesirable for others/unrealistic/non-functional." In short, you haven't used a value-laden term.

Of course 'beautiful' is a value-laden term, expressing aesthetic praise, just as 'ugly' expresses aesthetic condemnation.

But a moral judgment does imply moral censure or praise. So to say, "Deluding yourself is wrong/undesirable/bad/improper" is to pass a moral judgment, to pass it so to speak for others, and to do so as if it were a universal and objective claim...in other words, a fact.

This analysis is incorrect. The claims 'this is ugly' and 'this is (morally) wrong' are identical functionally (though not semantically) as expressions of value-judgement. The distinction you're making doesn't exist.

So you are not keeping consistent with your own claim that there are, and can be, no moral facts. Igitur, there is no possibility you can censure me for thinking otherwise, beyond saying, "Peter doesn't like belief in moral facts."

What? I'm not censuring you for thinking there are moral facts. (And who'd care if I were?) I'm merely saying there are, and can be, no moral facts - just as there are, and can be, no aesthetic facts - for exactly the same reason. I'm being strictly consistent.

And that much, we knew.

But you can't make anyone care, or provide reasons they should, without entering upon a moral judgment you use as if objective....but you say it can't be.

No, no, and again, no. And 'making someone care' has got nothing to do with this argument. This isn't about persuading anyone else to share my aesthetic or moral judgements: I think this is beautiful / morally wrong. It's about the nature and function of aesthetic and moral assertions, which aren't factual and so aren't and can't be objective.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:39 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:53 pm If I judge a painting to be beautiful, that isn't an aesthetic factual judgement. It's just an aesthetic judgement - not a factual claim.

Right. But you've said nothing more than "Pete likes this." You haven't said, "Paintings are immoral/wrong/undesirable for others/unrealistic/non-functional." In short, you haven't used a value-laden term.

Of course 'beautiful' is a value-laden term, expressing aesthetic praise, just as 'ugly' expresses aesthetic condemnation.

But only for yourself. I presume you don't call people who find, say, the Mona Lisa, weird "bad people." I presume you don't say they shouldn't find her weird. If you like her, then bully for you; but it has zero implications for anyone else.

Not so are moral terms. And you can see this, because you're earnest to argue with people about it, whereas you would never expend energy refuting a merely aesthetic, personal preference.

But a moral judgment does imply moral censure or praise. So to say, "Deluding yourself is wrong/undesirable/bad/improper" is to pass a moral judgment, to pass it so to speak for others, and to do so as if it were a universal and objective claim...in other words, a fact.

This analysis is incorrect. The claims 'this is ugly' and 'this is (morally) wrong' are identical functionally...

...Is not one I ever made, and is clearly wrong, as above.

This isn't about persuading anyone else to share my aesthetic or moral judgements

Oh? So you didn't mean to censure people for "deluding themselves"? And you don't think it's "bad" if people believe in moral absolutes?

I guess you can retract.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:02 am You are destroying your own philosophical integrity with the above, i.e.
no justifications at all but merely by shouting from the top of a roof.

If you think the statement is incorrect, then you can challenge it by furnishing a single example which we can discuss.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:40 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:55 am There are no moral facts.

The end.

Is that statement a "fact"?

And do you intend it to have any "moral" implications, such as, "It's bad to believe there are moral facts," or "You ought not to believe in moral facts"?

In that case, you've just claimed a moral fact. So if you're right, you're wrong.

But if your claim has no moral import, then you're not saying we should not believe in moral facts. So the statement itself becomes rather vacuous.

Which would you prefer attribute to you: self-contradiction or vacuity?

Changing goal posts is too obvious.
Not all facts could be described as "moral". IN fact there are none of that type does not mean there are no facts at all.
Example
FACT: There are not moral facts.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:23 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:39 pm
Right. But you've said nothing more than "Pete likes this." You haven't said, "Paintings are immoral/wrong/undesirable for others/unrealistic/non-functional." In short, you haven't used a value-laden term.

Of course 'beautiful' is a value-laden term, expressing aesthetic praise, just as 'ugly' expresses aesthetic condemnation.

But only for yourself. I presume you don't call people who find, say, the Mona Lisa, weird "bad people." I presume you don't say they shouldn't find her weird. If you like her, then bully for you; but it has zero implications for anyone else.

Not so are moral terms. And you can see this, because you're earnest to argue with people about it, whereas you would never expend energy refuting a merely aesthetic, personal preference.

Exactly so are moral terms - they express only our own opinions. And my moral opinions have as few implications for other people as do my aesthetic opinions. And I haven't expended energy refuting any moral personal preference. We've been arguing about the nature and function of any and all moral assertions. Up to your usual misdirection tricks?

I didn't and don't censure people for being deluded. Read what I said more carefully. You seem determined to attack a straw man. Do you feel morally attacked?

Oh, and, btw - you can sort us all out by producing one example of a moral assertion that is a fact, and showing why it is a fact. Along with the other objectivist faithful here, you've failed so far. But still - faith is the evidence of things not seen.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:55 am There are no moral facts.

The end.

Everything that philosophy and religion attempts to describe as, "morality," in fact is nonsense. Certainly there is nothing factual about it.

What about values? Are there any objective values? Not moral or ethical, but practical real-life objective values.

Conversely, anything which is a fact cannot be included in any moral framework or referenced to any morality.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:18 pm Not all facts could be described as "moral".

Who said all facts were moral facts? As I recall, it wasn't Peter or me...

I wonder where you get your funny ideas.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:19 pm Exactly so are moral terms - they express only our own opinions. And my moral opinions have as few implications for other people as do my aesthetic opinions.

That being so, you have no condemnation for racism, dishonesty, violence, rape, pedophilia, wife abuse, fascism, genocide...and so on, because as you say, it's only "your opinion," no more substantial or necessary for others than your aesthetic view of the Mona Lisa. Are you happy to be okay with letting other people practice such things? If they find them aesthetically or personally pleasing, that's just okee dokee with you?

I didn't and don't censure people for being deluded.

Or wicked, apparently.

But you don't mind people believing in objective morality, then? I wonder why you're arguing.

Oh, and, btw - you can sort us all out by producing one example of a moral assertion that is a fact

I could give you many. But you'll just deny they're facts. And until Judgment Day, there may not be means to settle the question decisively yet. But one thing for sure: one of us is right, and one of us is wrong.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:16 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:02 am You are destroying your own philosophical integrity with the above, i.e.
no justifications at all but merely by shouting from the top of a roof.

If you think the statement is incorrect, then you can challenge it by furnishing a single example which we can discuss.

What challenge can I countered to such a response;

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:55 am There are no moral facts.
The end.

I have already challenged and countered the issues raised by Peter's and others in various specific OPs, e.g.

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

What could make morality objective? 2
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29390

and many others.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:05 am Conversely, anything which is a fact cannot be included in any moral framework or referenced to any morality.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:16 pm Everything that philosophy and religion attempts to describe as, "morality," in fact is nonsense. Certainly there is nothing factual about it.
What about values? Are there any objective values? Not moral or ethical, but practical real-life objective values.

The above thinking is too achaic.
Both of you should update your knowledge on the history of how the above "_'fact' has nothing to do with 'morality'_" originated and you will the stupidity therefrom.

Meantime,

Here is my argument, there are moral facts,
thus 'morality is objective' as a response to this thread,
Is morality objective or subjective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24531

The Argument;

• P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
  P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
  C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.

What is a fact?

A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
For example,
"This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and
"Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

From the above, one will note,
i. the specific Framework and System of Knowledge [F/S] produces its specific related facts.
ii. Facts are objective, i.e. - i.e. independent of individuals' opinion and belief

So,

• P1 All facts are objective [ii]
  P2 The Morality F/S produces moral facts [C3]
  C2 Therefore Morality is Objective.

The claim from the above is the justified true moral judgments [moral facts] produced from the moral F/S are factual.

Do you have any serious counter to the above or will merely make noises only.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:39 am

Oh, and, btw - you can sort us all out by producing one example of a moral assertion that is a fact

I could give you many. But you'll just deny they're facts. And until Judgment Day, there may not be means to settle the question decisively yet. But one thing for sure: one of us is right, and one of us is wrong.

Moral facts must be justified empirically and philosophically within the Moral Framework and System.
The ultimate claim of God's existence is impossible to be justified justified empirically and philosophically.
Therefore it is impossible for anything to do with God to produce moral facts.

Religions like politics are independent of morality proper which is driven by an inherent genetically moral function within the brain/mind of all humans.

However it is possible for certain doctrinal elements from the Theological Framework to be associated [not equivalent but an incidental] with moral facts but that is inevitable since morality-proper is inherent in all humans and holy texts are written and compiled by humans.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:39 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:19 pm Exactly so are moral terms - they express only our own opinions. And my moral opinions have as few implications for other people as do my aesthetic opinions.

That being so, you have no condemnation for racism, dishonesty, violence, rape, pedophilia, wife abuse, fascism, genocide...and so on, because as you say, it's only "your opinion," no more substantial or necessary for others than your aesthetic view of the Mona Lisa. Are you happy to be okay with letting other people practice such things? If they find them aesthetically or personally pleasing, that's just okee dokee with you?

No, I morally condemn all those things, examples of most of which occur in the Bible, performed, commanded or endorsed by the devil that you worship. I think they're morally wrong, as you well know. You seem fixated with the stupid idea that I shouldn't or can't consistently morally condemn them, because I don't think there are moral facts.

Here's me talking: 'There are no moral facts, and I think these things are morally wrong.'

Now, why is that a logical contradiction? Try to tease out the unacknowledged assumption that leads you to believe it is.

I didn't and don't censure people for being deluded.

Or wicked, apparently.

Don't be a dick. We have enough dicks here.

But you don't mind people believing in objective morality, then? I wonder why you're arguing.

Oh, and, btw - you can sort us all out by producing one example of a moral assertion that is a fact

I could give you many. But you'll just deny they're facts. And until Judgment Day, there may not be means to settle the question decisively yet. But one thing for sure: one of us is right, and one of us is wrong.

Liar. You tap dance and flirt, show a flash of ankle - but in the upshot, you produce one supposedly killer example, such as 'incest is wrong', which anyone can easily show isn't a fact of any kind. Then you scurry away under your rock for a while.

Don't be so childish: 'you'll just deny they're facts'. Ffs. Demonstrate that they are facts, and my denial will be in vain. That's how evidence and logic work. Or, as ever, don't even try; flatter and soothe yourself that it's only that nasty Peter who's stopping you showing the world that there are moral facts that come from your invented god. That's what theists usually do when they lose the argument - that and mumble threats of eternal punishment for unbelievers. Pathetic.