Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 5:48 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 10:20 am This argument is only meaningful if you can show an example of how *changing a natural fact* corresponds to some parallel change in a moral fact (or vice versa, not sure which order is the right one here). Without that, using the word "supervene" is just word candy.

When someone says 'mental states supervene on brain states', whether that's true or false, that statement only has meaning because the person saying it can imagine how *changing one* can affect a change in the other (for example, pumping adrenaline into my nervous system would change my mental state accordingly).

If you can't think of corresponding changes, you're using the wrong word.

So, since your example given was stealing, what change in a Natural Fact (or facts) would result in Stealing being moral?

Supervene does not imply 'changing a natural fact into a moral fact'.

The example given:
"Imagine a layer cake, where the frosting (moral properties) rests on the cake layers (natural and social scientific properties). The frosting wouldn't exist without the cake, but the specific flavor of the frosting (e.g., chocolate, vanilla) can still influence our overall experience of the cake."

There is no change to the basic layer cake.
However the topping of frosting [moral properties] made the whole cake as a specific 'frosting cake' and not other types of cake.

The natural fact of stealing is the physical and mental act [all the necessary activities] one person taking the assets owned by another person.

if you want to go on about 'morality' and 'stealing', and/or the, supposed, 'taking of the assets owned by another person', then you will have to 'morally prove' that the so-called 'assets' were 'morally obtained' and not 'just obtained' because a bit of paper with ink on it says that 'it' 'was obtained'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 5:48 am Within a moral framework and system, the defined moral principles supervened on the above whole act of stealing is constituted as immoral.

Another attempt to use some particular words, in the hope that they will somehow back up and support one's 'currently' held onto belief.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 5:48 am As such, that stealing is immoral must always be qualified to a specific human based moral framework and system [supposedly credible and objective relative to the gold standard].

But, so-called 'stealing' is not necessarily 'immoral', at all.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 7:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 5:56 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 11:13 am
Agreed. That's a good test. And I think a claim of 'supervenience' often disguises a failure to show a connection

But beside that, the cited argument for moral realism/objectivism, as usual, merely offers an explanation for why we have moral values and codes - rules such as 'X is morally wrong' - but can never show that X is morally wrong. The explanation can be perfectly rational - which is why 'moral non-cognitivism' is such an offensive label - but there's no possible logical entailment to a moral conclusion.

It is immature to insist upon direct connection on such matters with reference to reality.
Your 'what is fact' which you claimed to be real is an illusion; when someone presents a fact that do not match your definition, you charge them with falsehood, no connectivity, e.g. the case of moral facts.

A feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion, is not an illusion. And it's precisely what you invoke when you assert the existence of moral facts - supervenient or not.

I have argued why
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Your 'what is fact' which you insist is real and exists beyond the empirical evidence by humans, i.e. regardless of whether there are humans or not, is an illusion.
When you see a table, you insist the empirical evidences are not tightly interacted with the 'actual' that exists absolutely independent of the human conditions.
This is exactly the thing-existing-by-itself or thing-in-itself that Kant demonstrated is not real and illusory.

I have stated, evolutionary wise, I do perceive an external table out there existing independent of my human conditions, but I do NOT claim the existence of that table with absoluteness.
As the skeptics had pointed out, the latter [your] claim of absoluteness in not tenable.

You are like an ostrich in not being aware of the whole load of criticisms against the claims of an absolute mind-independence reality that exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.

Why is the act of taking something from another is considered a crime of stealing?

It is because the principles and enacted laws of the of the human-based legal FSERC is supervened on a particular act [someone taking another's property without consent].
Such example of supervenience is common everywhere.
And that is applicable to moral matters as explained above.

Morality is not merely about moral judgments which is secondary.
What is primary and critical are the inherent moral functions supervened upon natural facts [physical neurons connectivity and actions] that drive natural spontaneous moral acts without deliberate judgments.

You need to read up,
David Brink's Moral Realism and the Foundation of Ethics
before you can make any credible counters on his claim of 'Moral Facts Supervene on Natural Facts'.

In philosophy (as usual), the so-called problem of supervenience is a can of worms. Here's one definition.

'In philosophy, supervenience refers to a relation between sets of properties or sets of facts. X is said to supervene on Y if and only if some difference in Y is necessary for any difference in X to be possible.'

The existence and nature of properties, and identity, are assumed or given - until, that is, other philosophers furkle and 'discover' that they're also 'problematic'. And the delusion that entailment is anything other than a feature of a language game - that logic deals with anything outside language - informs the whole wriggling mess.

Perhaps the fact that A = B 'supervenes upon' some fact of reality outside language.

There will be philosophers who will make noises for noise sake.
Not sure what is your criticism of supervenience about?

What is critical is whether the reliance of supervenience of moral facts over natural facts are translatable to positive results of moral progress.
It is not that supervenience is the only concept but to facilitate moral progress driven only by moral realism, we rely on a whole load of multi-disciplinary that cohere together to produce measure positive results re morality.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 7:10 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 6:21 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 6:11 am

That's not related to anything I said. You don't understand the language here well enough to even have this conversation. Facepalm. I didn't say anything about changing a natural fact INTO a moral fact. You have no idea what the words you use mean. No surprise.

You stated,

"what change in a Natural Fact (or facts) would result in Stealing being moral"
which mean change a Natural Fact into what? thus in context to a moral fact or resulting in a moral conclusion.

Don't blame others when your own communication is so bad.

No, lmao, you really don't understand the language of this.

This isn't about changing natural facts INTO moral facts, this is about making changes to natural facts that result in changes to moral facts.

If you do not believe you can make a change to a natural fact that results in a change to a moral fact, then you do not believe "Moral Facts Supervene on Natural Facts". It's that simple, and if you don't understand that, you shouldn't use the word 'supervene'. It's just word candy that you don't understand.

The earlier example re layer cake and frosting was based on their relation, I was fixated on the 'layer cake' not on 'natural facts in general'.

From the subsequent points raised,
if you are to change the layer cake [natural facts] to a doughnut then obviously the moral resultants would be different.
If the frosting [moral facts] is changed, the moral resultants would also change.

I don't see there is anything wrong in the intended principles.
If the variables involved in the supervenience changes drastically, obviously the moral resultants will change.

You are just being petty, if I had misinterpreted your intention, there is no need to be that arrogant, just explain your intention more clearly.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:05 am If the variables involved in the supervenience changes drastically, obviously the moral resultants will change.

Then why don't you show how changing natural facts will result in a change of moral facts?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 8:51 am
There will be philosophers who will make noises for noise sake.
Not sure what is your criticism of supervenience about?

Look up supervenience and try to understand it. In my opinion, it's a poncy way of claiming that, if X is the case, then Y is the case. For example: 'mental facts supervene upon physical facts'. And, in your claim: 'moral facts supervene upon non-moral facts'. How or why this is the case, and what 'fact' means here, is unexplained - as in your argument from human neurology to morality.

What is critical is whether the reliance of supervenience of moral facts over natural facts are translatable to positive results of moral progress.

Nope. You've just been dazzled by another shiny thing that seems to support your moral theory.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:21 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:05 am If the variables involved in the supervenience changes drastically, obviously the moral resultants will change.

Then why don't you show how changing natural facts will result in a change of moral facts?

Pete presented him with something like that years ago and it made VA very angry. VA has a bizarre teleological thesis that DNA contains instructions for empathy, and that this imposes a moral design via some "oughtness" for human meat robots to observe. Pete countered way back when that if DNA contained instructions to murder and eat other humans, then by VA's own reasoning cannibalistic murder would be morally desirable.

At the time this was an argument to absurdity. All VA has to do here is go back in time and bite that particular bullet. Then he has his supervenience relationship where the moral property tracks the physical one. Not that it would do him much good given the absurdity he would be embracing.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 12:22 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:21 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:05 am If the variables involved in the supervenience changes drastically, obviously the moral resultants will change.

Then why don't you show how changing natural facts will result in a change of moral facts?

Pete presented him with something like that years ago and it made VA very angry. VA has a bizarre teleological thesis that DNA contains instructions for empathy, and that this imposes a moral design via some "oughtness" for human meat robots to observe. Pete countered way back when that if DNA contained instructions to murder and eat other humans, then by VA's own reasoning cannibalistic murder would be morally desirable.

At the time this was an argument to absurdity. All VA has to do here is go back in time and bite that particular bullet. Then he has his supervenience relationship where the moral property tracks the physical one. Not that it would do him much good given the absurdity he would be embracing.

Yep. But then VA is like: ah, but murdering and eating people is bad for the team, so it's no good for moral progress. And round and round we go.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:21 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:05 am If the variables involved in the supervenience changes drastically, obviously the moral resultants will change.

Then why don't you show how changing natural facts will result in a change of moral facts?

FDP mentioned this:

VA has a bizarre teleological thesis that DNA contains instructions for empathy, and that this imposes a moral design via some "oughtness" for human meat robots to observe.

Putting aside the frivolous comments, yes the principle of supervenience of moral facts over natural facts is applicable to the above.
I'll take that as example to show changing natural facts will change moral facts.

1. All humans are 'programmed' as encoded in their DNA with the 'oughtness to kill'. Without this evolutionary adaptation, humans would not be able to kill living things for food to survive up to the present stage.

2. However, at all out 'oughtness to kill' without limit, humans could direct this 'oughtness to kill' to humans where theoretically could lead to the extinction of the human species.
As such, evolutionary wise, all humans are subsequently 'programmed' within the DNA, the algorithm of 'oughtnot_ness to kill humans'. This is an inhibiting and modulating algorithm.
But this latter 'oughtnot_ness to kill' program that exists as real is not very active or is dormant in the majority of humans or damaged as in the case of malignant psychopaths.
This is the reason why there are so many humans killing humans at present because the 'oughtness to kill' is highly activated in many.
The Empathy function is encoded in the DNA and expressed via Mirror Neurons within the related neuronal set as part of the 'oughtnot_ness to kill humans' function.

3. 'What is fact' is that which is contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS also FSERC].

4. The above 1 & 2 are biological facts, thus natural facts from the science-biology FS.

5. Whatever resultant facts from a moral FS are moral facts which together with the biological facts are part and parcel thus confined within the human brain.
Within the human-based moral FS, the "oughtness to kill" and oughtnot-ness to kill humans are moral facts as supervened on the natural biological facts.
The killing of humans by humans and the related empathy are an essential elements within the subject of morality, i.e. within the human-based moral FS.

6. Logically, if the DNA or expressed neural system supporting oughtnot-ness to kill humans and empathy are damaged, i.e. changed from what is considered normal, surely it will result in the changes to the moral facts as in 5 above.

7. This is why the recognition of the supervenience of the above moral facts over its natural biological facts as in Moral Realism is critical in driving moral progress.
When the full mechanisms of the biological facts are understood with precision CHANGES can be made to them to increase their activity and efficiency to facilitate moral progress.

8. The supervenience effect and changes in the natural facts to impact changes in the moral facts can be potentially evident in the moral progress, say reduction the number of humans killed by human at present, say 475,000 at present to 200,000 in 2050, to 10,000 in 2100 to 1000 in 2125 in a reducing trend toward the future.

9. With Moral Relativism, Moral Skepticism, Moral Nihilism, it is come what may, there is no deliberate attempt to facilitate moral progress at all.

10. Because Moral Realism recognize there are moral facts that supervened on natural biological facts, in principle, changing the natural facts positively can effect positive moral progress.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 11:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 8:51 am
There will be philosophers who will make noises for noise sake.
Not sure what is your criticism of supervenience about?

Look up supervenience and try to understand it. In my opinion, it's a poncy way of claiming that, if X is the case, then Y is the case. For example: 'mental facts supervene upon physical facts'. And, in your claim: 'moral facts supervene upon non-moral facts'. How or why this is the case, and what 'fact' means here, is unexplained - as in your argument from human neurology to morality.

What is critical is whether the reliance of supervenience of moral facts over natural facts are translatable to positive results of moral progress.

Nope. You've just been dazzled by another shiny thing that seems to support your moral theory.

What is fact is contingent upon a specific human based framework and system [FS, FSERC].
There are no fact-by-itself or fact-in-itself existing absolutely independent of the human conditions, it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not'.

A human being is a natural fact [FSERC-ed]
The following are also a natural fact:
-the human head
-the human brain in the head
-the part of the brain
-the neurons in the brain
-the specific algorithm
-the processes of the brain function
-whatever activities in the brain

You cannot claim the above facts are absolutely independent of the human conditions like you claim 'there is a table existing absolutely independent of the human conditions, it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not'.

Your criticisms of 'supervenience' is grounded upon an illusion,
i.e. there are things that exist absolutely independent of the human conditions, they exist regardless of whether there are humans or not'.
Your basis of independence from human conditions will not work with moral facts supervene upon natural facts because what are moral facts [FSERC] are confined within the human brain and the human self.

The moral facts I claimed are not like Plato's universals floating out there independent of the human self and human conditions.

Within the topic and reality of morality, there are the elements of 'humans killing of humans' and the "no killing of humans by humans".
The fact all these [facts - as defined] are confined to the brains of humans.
They are moral facts, i.e. resultants of a human-based moral framework and system [FS also FSERC].

Analogy:

Human Sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually.[1][2]
This involves biological, psychological, physical, erotic, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors.[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexuality

Within 'sexuality' there are sexual facts within the categories of psychological, physical, erotic, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors.
Example, it is sexual fact that X could not control his horniness that he ended raping Miss Y and so was convicted and jailed.
Accordingly, these sexual facts supervened upon the natural biological facts within the sexual elements in the brain and body.

The above analogy is applicable to morality [obviously human] where the same principles of supervenience apply, i.e. the moral facts supervened upon the natural biological facts within the moral elements which are mostly in the brain's neurons, algorithms set, processes and activities.

The 'oughtness to kill' and 'oughtnotness to kill humans' are moral elements as moral facts within the human-based moral FS which supervene on its natural biological fact.

The above facts and the supervenience can be hypothesized and tested.

As such, there are moral facts thus morality is objective [so far qualified to the examples given above].

What is critical is whether the reliance of supervenience of moral facts over natural facts are translatable to positive results of moral progress.

Nope. You've just been dazzled by another shiny thing that seems to support your moral theory.

Nope? without justifications??
This does not bode well for your intellectual integrity.

Btw, I still have tons of other arguments from different disciplines [up my sleeve] to support my moral theory.

So far you are merely relying on the traditional classical arguments which are losing their bite at present, to counter my argument that Morality is Objective and Moral Empirical Realism prevails.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 4:14 am

So a change in DNA could change moral facts, fabulous. Don't know why it took you so long to get here, probably because you didn't realise that something like that had to be true for supervenience to be meaningful - probably because you don't know what supervenience means. If you did, you would have just said that in your first reply.

Anyway, this seems like moral relativism to me. Morality is relative to whatever values our DNA gives us. If some person, some individual, has mutated DNA, the "moral realism" of yours that applies to him is potentially different from everyone else's morality.

For a second I thought he actually got supervenience as a one way causal relationship between dissimilar types of property. But then he did his procrustean thing and smooshed it all up into that KFC-Bucket thing with everything else.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 7:17 am For a second I thought he actually got supervenience as a one way causal relationship between dissimilar types of property. But then he did his procrustean thing and smooshed it all up into that KFC-Bucket thing with everything else.

There's a 0 percent chance he went into this thread knowing what supervenience actually means. His dumbass cake frosting analogy proves that. Supervenience is absolutely nothing like frosting on a cake, he thinks supervenience is just something you sprinkle on top.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 7:10 am
So a change in DNA could change moral facts, fabulous. Don't know why it took you so long to get here, probably because you didn't realise that something like that had to be true for supervenience to be meaningful - probably because you don't know what supervenience means. If you did, you would have just said that in your first reply.

Anyway, this seems like moral relativism to me. Morality is relative to whatever values our DNA gives us. If some person, some individual, has mutated DNA, the "moral realism" of yours that applies to him is potentially different from everyone else's morality.

'...a change in DNA could change moral facts...'

I see your aim here. But I have to demur. Since there are no moral facts, there can be no supervenience (whatever that means) of moral facts upon natural facts. In other words, this concession gives the whole point away - though your conclusion about moral relativism is well taken.

A change in DNA - or any natural fact - has no moral entailment whatsoever. Human programming with ought-not-to-kill-humans doesn't mean humans killing humans is morally wrong, any more than human programming with ought-to-kill-humans would mean humans killing humans is morally right.

In other words, moral conclusions must come from outside any factual premises or argument. That's what VA just can't understand.

I think VA's argument goes like this:

1 Facts are human constructs (in KFC buckets).
This is false and anthropocentric. And a false premise kills an argument. So the rest is useless. But anyway -

2 Humans can construct moral facts (in a moral KFC bucket).

3 A moral fact can supervene upon a natural fact (in a natural/moral KFC bucket).

C Therefore, there can be moral facts.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 8:35 am I think VA's argument goes like this:

1 Facts are human constructs (in KFC buckets).
This is false and anthropocentric. And a false premise kills an argument. So the rest is useless. But anyway -

2 Humans can construct moral facts (in a moral KFC bucket).

3 A moral fact can supervene upon a natural fact (in a natural/moral KFC bucket).

C Therefore, there can be moral facts.

Your P1 is too crude bordering on strawmaning.

I have explained:

P1 What is fact [truth, reality, knowledge, objectivity] is contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS].

So,
Scientific facts, truths, reality, knowledge, objectivity are contingent upon a human-based scientific framework and system [FS] which is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

If you reject my P1 as false, then you are claiming scientific truths, e.g. Water is H20 contingent upon the science-chemistry FS [or FSERC] is false.

Can you counter this?