Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 7:13 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:52 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:27 pm Moral propositions refer to how the subjects wants people to behave. Should behave. Have a duty to behave.

Aesthetic propositions refer to how the subject feels about beauty.

Technical propositions refer to practical efficiency.

I like that answer very much, but am most interested in your answer to the question of the meaning, "moral." I think your answer is spot on and exactly what most people mean implicitly by moral but often without explicitly saying so. What moral means to most people is that which one has some duty or obligation to do or not do.

But one still have a philosophical 'duty' ask why one is obligated or has 'some' duty to do X or not to do X. Why?
Because God said so? or ???

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:03 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 7:21 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 6:22 am I'm not sure what's puzzling you. The difference between the moral use of right and wrong and other uses is perfectly clear.

If you're asking how and why human moral values and discourse emerged from our primate origin, that's what social evolutionists and anthropologists study and theorise about. Many species - not just primates - display proto-moral behaviour, involving in-group fairness and empathy, for example.

It could be you're challenging metaphysical delusions in moral discourse - and if so I'm with you there.

You are kicking your own ass right there.

Whatever moral values, i.e. ought[s] that social evolutionists and anthropologists study and theorize about, are inferred from their observation of empirical evidence, i.e. "is".
There you have it, i.e. where moral ought[s] are derived from "is".

But I have argued, what social evolutionists and anthropologists conclude re Morality is bastardized-morality inferred from conventions, habits, constant conjunctions, culture, experience, etc. and not morality-proper.

There lots of arguments [re its potential evils] against moral relativism that you are not aware of.

OMG, when will the penny drop for you?

The fact that people behave in a certain way, that they have moral values and make moral judgements, expressing them using moral assertions, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THOSE MORAL ASSERTIONS ARE FACTS. This is so basic that your misunderstanding is incomprehensible.

• viewtopic.php?p=466652#p466652
  I think there is a confusion here.
  I have NOT said, moral assertions and judgments by individuals and small groups are moral facts per se.

And stop saying moral subjectivism means moral relativism. That's false. And if it were true, it would be a fallacious argument from undesirable consequences anyway. Drop it.

The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:01 am Peter, no assertions of any sort refer to facts- as-truths. All assertions refer to facts-as-working hypotheses.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:37 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:01 am Peter, no assertions of any sort refer to facts- as-truths. All assertions refer to facts-as-working hypotheses.

Belinda, your terminology is confused.

If a fact is a state-of-affairs that is or was the case, the expression 'facts-as-truths' is incoherent, because (outside language) s state-of-affairs - a feature of reality - has no truth-value. Outside language, reality is not linguistic.

If, instead, a fact is a description of a state-of-affairs that is or was the case, then what we mean when we say such a description is true is what constitutes what we call truth.

So if I've just been for a walk, then the factual assertion 'I've just been for a walk' is true. It's what we call a fact. Why on earth do you want to call that assertion 'a working hypothesis'?

There are situations in which our factual assertions are indeed working hypotheses. But to say they always are is ridiculous. It comes from the metaphysical delusion about what we call truth and knowledge that spawned post-structuralism, such as Derrida's deconstructionism, and the 'post-truthism' that became fashionable in the academy a few decades ago. It was and is a huge mistake.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 7:13 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:52 am
I like that answer very much, but am most interested in your answer to the question of the meaning, "moral." I think your answer is spot on and exactly what most people mean implicitly by moral but often without explicitly saying so. What moral means to most people is that which one has some duty or obligation to do or not do.

But one still have a philosophical 'duty' ask why one is obligated or has 'some' duty to do X or not to do X. Why?
Because God said so? or ???

Many people don't think about any such duty. For those who do think there is such a duty, men have a duty to themselves, and to each other as civilised people, and for those who believe in God a duty to God, to imply or explain one's reasons for asserting whatever is being asserted

Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true,
but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;

1. to himself -utmost primary
2. to other humans -primarily
3. to his environment
4. to the Universe

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:48 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:37 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:01 am Peter, no assertions of any sort refer to facts- as-truths. All assertions refer to facts-as-working hypotheses.

Belinda, your terminology is confused.

If a fact is a state-of-affairs that is or was the case, the expression 'facts-as-truths' is incoherent, because (outside language) s state-of-affairs - a feature of reality - has no truth-value. Outside language, reality is not linguistic.

If, instead, a fact is a description of a state-of-affairs that is or was the case, then what we mean when we say such a description is true is what constitutes what we call truth.

So if I've just been for a walk, then the factual assertion 'I've just been for a walk' is true. It's what we call a fact. Why on earth do you want to call that assertion 'a working hypothesis'?

There are situations in which our factual assertions are indeed working hypotheses. But to say they always are is ridiculous. It comes from the metaphysical delusion about what we call truth and knowledge that spawned post-structuralism, such as Derrida's deconstructionism, and the 'post-truthism' that became fashionable in the academy a few decades ago. It was and is a huge mistake.

Sorry, may I try again.
If you have just been for a walk and assert you have just been for a walk there is a social reason for your asserting it. The implicit part of your assertion can vary enormously according to the social relationship between us.

You are my patient and you have disobeyed your doctor's instructions.

You are my husband who constantly urges me to take more outdoor exercise.

You are deluded and what you believe happened did not happen.

You are once again going to talk about how time does not exist and that walk happened six months ago.

You want me to think you were not meeting that woman in a cafe.

I usually use my wheelchair.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:49 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 7:13 am
But one still have a philosophical 'duty' ask why one is obligated or has 'some' duty to do X or not to do X. Why?
Because God said so? or ???

Many people don't think about any such duty. For those who do think there is such a duty, men have a duty to themselves, and to each other as civilised people, and for those who believe in God a duty to God, to imply or explain one's reasons for asserting whatever is being asserted

Note this from Russell;

Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true,
but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;

I think the above is a very important essence of philosophy, i.e. to ask 'why' and keep asking 'why'.

Thus we have to ask about 'duty'.
It is true the individual has a moral duty/obligation;

1. to himself -utmost primary
2. to other humans -primarily
3. to his environment
4. to the Universe

But why? why? why?
If we bother to explore the WHYs [.. I believe that is also one critical duty we ought to undertake] there are answers to the WHYs and thereupon raise further endless WHYs while at the same time maintaining one's sanity in the face of infinite regression.

but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:48 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:37 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:01 am Peter, no assertions of any sort refer to facts- as-truths. All assertions refer to facts-as-working hypotheses.

Belinda, your terminology is confused.

If a fact is a state-of-affairs that is or was the case, the expression 'facts-as-truths' is incoherent, because (outside language) s state-of-affairs - a feature of reality - has no truth-value. Outside language, reality is not linguistic.

If, instead, a fact is a description of a state-of-affairs that is or was the case, then what we mean when we say such a description is true is what constitutes what we call truth.

So if I've just been for a walk, then the factual assertion 'I've just been for a walk' is true. It's what we call a fact. Why on earth do you want to call that assertion 'a working hypothesis'?

There are situations in which our factual assertions are indeed working hypotheses. But to say they always are is ridiculous. It comes from the metaphysical delusion about what we call truth and knowledge that spawned post-structuralism, such as Derrida's deconstructionism, and the 'post-truthism' that became fashionable in the academy a few decades ago. It was and is a huge mistake.

Sorry, may I try again.
If you have just been for a walk and assert you have just been for a walk there is a social reason for your asserting it. The implicit part of your assertion can vary enormously according to the social relationship between us.

You are my patient and you have disobeyed your doctor's instructions.

You are my husband who constantly urges me to take more outdoor exercise.

You are deluded and what you believe happened did not happen.

You are once again going to talk about how time does not exist and that walk happened six months ago.

You want me to think you were not meeting that woman in a cafe.

You usually use your wheelchair.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:49 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 7:13 am
But one still have a philosophical 'duty' ask why one is obligated or has 'some' duty to do X or not to do X. Why?
Because God said so? or ???

Many people don't think about any such duty. For those who do think there is such a duty, men have a duty to themselves, and to each other as civilised people, and for those who believe in God a duty to God, to imply or explain one's reasons for asserting whatever is being asserted

Note this from Russell;

Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true,
but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;

I think the above is a very important essence of philosophy, i.e. to ask 'why' and keep asking 'why'.

Thus we have to ask about 'duty'.
It is true the individual has a moral duty/obligation;

1. to himself -utmost primary
2. to other humans -primarily
3. to his environment
4. to the Universe

But why? why? why?
If we bother to explore the WHYs [.. I believe that is also one critical duty we ought to undertake] there are answers to the WHYs and thereupon raise further endless WHYs while at the same time maintaining one's sanity in the face of infinite regression.

but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:59 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:48 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:37 am
Belinda, your terminology is confused.

If a fact is a state-of-affairs that is or was the case, the expression 'facts-as-truths' is incoherent, because (outside language) s state-of-affairs - a feature of reality - has no truth-value. Outside language, reality is not linguistic.

If, instead, a fact is a description of a state-of-affairs that is or was the case, then what we mean when we say such a description is true is what constitutes what we call truth.

So if I've just been for a walk, then the factual assertion 'I've just been for a walk' is true. It's what we call a fact. Why on earth do you want to call that assertion 'a working hypothesis'?

There are situations in which our factual assertions are indeed working hypotheses. But to say they always are is ridiculous. It comes from the metaphysical delusion about what we call truth and knowledge that spawned post-structuralism, such as Derrida's deconstructionism, and the 'post-truthism' that became fashionable in the academy a few decades ago. It was and is a huge mistake.

Sorry, may I try again.
If you have just been for a walk and assert you have just been for a walk there is a social reason for your asserting it. The implicit part of your assertion can vary enormously according to the social relationship between us.

You are my patient and you have disobeyed your doctor's instructions.

You are my husband who constantly urges me to take more outdoor exercise.

You are deluded and what you believe happened did not happen.

You are once again going to talk about how time does not exist and that walk happened six months ago.

You want me to think you were not meeting that woman in a cafe.

You usually use your wheelchair.

Agreed. There's always a social context for any use of language. But that doesn't mean 'I've just been for a walk' is merely a working hypothesis. If I really have just been for a walk, then the factual assertion is true - it's a fact - regardless of the context and interpretive implications.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:09 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:59 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:48 am
Sorry, may I try again.
If you have just been for a walk and assert you have just been for a walk there is a social reason for your asserting it. The implicit part of your assertion can vary enormously according to the social relationship between us.

You are my patient and you have disobeyed your doctor's instructions.

You are my husband who constantly urges me to take more outdoor exercise.

You are deluded and what you believe happened did not happen.

You are once again going to talk about how time does not exist and that walk happened six months ago.

You want me to think you were not meeting that woman in a cafe.

You usually use your wheelchair.

Agreed. There's always a social context for any use of language. But that doesn't mean 'I've just been for a walk' is merely a working hypothesis. If I really have just been for a walk, then the factual assertion is true - it's a fact - regardless of the context and interpretive implications.

But there is no such event as a fact that floats around unattached to other events. Peter has just been for a walk in a place: Peter is/is not telling a lie: Peter is always going for walks and this remark is small talk: implies the path by the canal is opened again, so the police must have finished their investigation. There is no 'fact' , no truth, no assertion that is not relatively the case.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:14 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:09 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:59 am

Agreed. There's always a social context for any use of language. But that doesn't mean 'I've just been for a walk' is merely a working hypothesis. If I really have just been for a walk, then the factual assertion is true - it's a fact - regardless of the context and interpretive implications.

But there is no such event as a fact that floats around unattached to other events. Peter has just been for a walk in a place: Peter is/is not telling a lie: Peter is always going for walks and this remark is small talk: implies the path by the canal is opened again, so the police must have finished their investigation. There is no 'fact' , no truth, no assertion that is not relatively the case.

So what? Each of those associated assertions could be facts as well. That every fact is contextual doesn't mean there are no facts. What a strange thing to say.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:27 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:14 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:09 am
But there is no such event as a fact that floats around unattached to other events. Peter has just been for a walk in a place: Peter is/is not telling a lie: Peter is always going for walks and this remark is small talk: implies the path by the canal is opened again, so the police must have finished their investigation. There is no 'fact' , no truth, no assertion that is not relatively the case.

So what? Each of those associated assertions could be facts as well. That every fact is contextual doesn't mean there are no facts. What a strange thing to say.

If all 'facts' are contextual what we have is one great 'Fact' i.e. existence itself. Existence itself is the only entity that is cause of itself therefore we can't explain it by implicit or explicit reference to causation.
However each and every separate and specific so called ' fact' of nature can in theory be explained by reference to its causation.Each implicit or explicit reference to causation is hypothetical, and empirical.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:29 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:27 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:14 am
So what? Each of those associated assertions could be facts as well. That every fact is contextual doesn't mean there are no facts. What a strange thing to say.

If all 'facts' are contextual what we have is one great 'Fact' i.e. existence itself. Existence itself is the only entity that is cause of itself therefore we can't explain it by implicit or explicit reference to causation.
However each and every separate and specific so called ' fact' of nature can in theory be explained by reference to its causation.Each implicit or explicit reference to causation is hypothetical, and empirical.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:01 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:29 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 11:27 am

If all 'facts' are contextual what we have is one great 'Fact' i.e. existence itself. Existence itself is the only entity that is cause of itself therefore we can't explain it by implicit or explicit reference to causation.
However each and every separate and specific so called ' fact' of nature can in theory be explained by reference to its causation.Each implicit or explicit reference to causation is hypothetical, and empirical.

I don't understand why causation comes into this. But certainly, a physical causal explanation - because of the problem of induction - has to be provisional. But that doesn't mean it must be false. All it means is that we can't be sure it's true - an epistemological matter. But then, the expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution or transferred epithet.