Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:48 pm
And I don't understand what it is that you don't understand.

What do you generally mean by "fact"? Moral or otherwise.

So I'll repeat, please give me an example of a moral fact of the type whose existence is apparently being called into question. An example of a fact that VA's "Moral-facts-deniers" are denying.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:03 pm So I'll repeat, please give me an example of a moral fact of the type whose existence is apparently being called into question. An example of a fact that VA's "Moral-facts-deniers" are denying.

Murder is wrong.

If you are denying the wrongness of murder then you are it.

You can interpret "wrongness" narrowly so as to mean individual sentiment towards the act of murder (lip service)
You can interpret "wrongness" broadly as the collective social and historical attitude of humans towards murder.

The latter interpretation of "wrongness" describes the existence of cultural norms, laws, justice apparatuses, punishment or other forms of consequences for people who commit murder.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:12 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:03 pm So I'll repeat, please give me an example of a moral fact of the type whose existence is apparently being called into question. An example of a fact that VA's "Moral-facts-deniers" are denying.

Murder is wrong.

If you are denying the wrongness of murder then you are it.

You can interpret "wrongness" narrowly so as to mean individual sentiment towards the act of murder (lip service)
You can interpret "wrongness" broadly as the collective social and historical attitude of humans towards murder.

The latter interpretation of "wrongness" describes the existence of cultural norms, laws, justice apparatuses, punishment or other forms of consequences for people who commit murder.

"Murder is wrong" is not a fact, it is an opinion. But, even if I were to concede that it is a fact, that would also make "murder is acceptable" a fact.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:18 pm "Murder is wrong" is not a fact, it is an opinion.

How did you decide that?

Is a factual "wrongness" preferable to opinion-based "wrongness" or are you just wrangling over categorization?

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:18 pm But, even if I were to concede that it is a fact, that would also make "murder is acceptable" a fact.

Narrowly - yes.
Broadly - no.

No legal framework tolerates murder.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:30 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:18 pm "Murder is wrong" is not a fact, it is an opinion.

How did you decide that?

Well one test would be, is it provable? I don't think it is.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:30 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:18 pm But, even if I were to concede that it is a fact, that would also make "murder is acceptable" a fact.

Narrowly - yes.
Broadly - no.

If the majority thought murder acceptable, in what way would it not broadly be a fact?

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:35 pm Well one test would be, is it provable? I don't think it is.

It depends on what you mean by "provability".

My empirical test is the fact that murder has been declining for 5000 years. If "wrongness" was just an inconsequential opinion - that wouldn't happen.

Unless, of course opinions have a causal effect on reality - in which case they are empirically and scientifically testable and every bit as factual as gravity.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:35 pm If the majority thought murder acceptable, in what way would it not broadly be a fact?

If the majority thought the sky is green, would that not broadly be a fact?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:39 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:35 pm Well one test would be, is it provable? I don't think it is.

It depends on what you mean by "provability".

You could prove that most people think it is wrong by doing a survey, but that isn't really proving that it is wrong. You could prove that most people think one foot consists of twelve inches, and you could also prove that a foot does consist of twelve inches by measuring it. So how would you say we could measure the wrongness of murder.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:39 pm
If the majority thought the sky is green, would that not be a fact?

We could measure the wavelength of the light coming from the sky to ascertain the fact, the matter of what an individual wants to call the light of that particular wavelength is, I would say, a matter of choice.

Murder is only wrong when you no longer enjoy it.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:16 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:09 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 8:54 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:



But I sometimes struggle with my conscience before I set myself to any boring task that has no 'moral' dimension whatsoever.

I did not state conscience, impulse controls and various inhibitory functions are confined to moral issues only.
Struggling with gluttony, sexual lust/addiction, gambling and many other addictions are not moral issues.
This is why we need a Moral & Ethics Framework and System to keep to topic and practical relevance.

Indeed we do.We need a moral framework so we can collaborate with each other and with the rest of the given environment. Whether the collaboration is called 'moral' or 'immoral' or 'amoral' is a matter for particular moral frameworks to define. Moral frameworks are usually called laws.

The term 'laws' is very loose. To be specific, moral laws are not political legislature laws within a political framework.
Moral laws are natural laws that are inherent within the individuals which each has to realize and align with.

Moreover, an important ethic is personal virtue should be maintained.. The reason for its importance is an individual who lacks personal virtue is no good at collaborating with man or beast.

Morality & Ethics is about doing "good" [as defined morally] but for certain [not all] acts of doing good can be double-edged to be evil if it out of control and abused.
What is most critical with Morality and Ethics is to inhibit the impulse to do evil whenever those supposedly 'good' acts are out of or getting beyond one control control.
The term 'virtue' [Aristotle, etc.] is mainly on those acts that are generally good without any potential elements therein, e.g. Aristotle's

• Courage – bravery.
  Temperance – moderation.
  Liberality – spending.
  Magnificence – charisma, style.
  Magnanimity – generosity.
  Ambition – pride.
  Patience – temper, calm.
  Friendliness – social IQ.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:53 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:39 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:35 pm Well one test would be, is it provable? I don't think it is.

It depends on what you mean by "provability".

You could prove that most people think it is wrong by doing a survey, but that isn't really proving that it is wrong. You could prove that most people think one foot consists of twelve inches, and you could also prove that a foot does consist of twelve inches by measuring it. So how would you say we could measure the wrongness of murder.

The use of the term 'wrongness' is too vague at this point.

A Moral fact is a state-of-affairs, i.e. occurrence in reality that is generated from within a Moral Framework and System.
You need to cognize and grasp what this Framework and System means to get the point clearly.

The moral fact is a neural inhibitory force - a mental state of affairs - existing within the individual's brain that generate the state of ought-not_ness;
"I as a human being ought not to kill another human"
The above mental state or condition of an inhibitory potential force is represent by an algorithm of a set of related neurons from different parts of the brain.
The above moral fact is an inherent property of human nature.

Generally the above neural inhibitory force - a mental state-of-affairs is simply a fact and can also be a scientific fact but it is a moral fact because it is specifically related to morality. Morality is about doing good and controlling the evil impulse within oneself.

Just as ALL human beings has an inherent mechanism to breathe which is imperative that a human being ought to breathe,
ALL human beings are also endowed with a moral faculty that is represented by an algorithm of related neurons.
It is because the moral faculty is not as imperative as the breathing instinct and mechanism that the majority of people are ignorant of it, BUT it is nevertheless existing as real physically albeit not as active.

The statement 'murder is wrong' when made by a person is definitely an opinion and it is still an opinion/belief if made by a large group [even in billions] of people.

But that
"I as a human being ought not to kill another human"
thus
"All humans ought-not to kill another human"
is a moral fact when justified to its referent within the brain and supported by other philosophical justifications and within the Moral Framework and System.
This Justified True Moral Fact is independent of any individual's opinion or beliefs.

Your problem of not being able to see 'the 500 pound gorilla' in this case is due to the fact that you are stuck and being very dogmatic in the Analytic Mode. In this case, 'the 500 pound gorilla' is inside your head and the head of other people, it not outside you like that 'cat on the mat'.

I have an outstanding thread 'The Collapse of the Analytic MetaEthics' based on ideas from Darwall which I will post later.
Philosophical Ethics: An Historical And Contemporary Introduction (Dimensions of Philosophy)

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:38 am

Your problem of not being able to see 'the 500 pound gorilla' in this case is due to the fact that you are stuck and being very dogmatic in the Analytic Mode. In this case, 'the 500 pound gorilla' is inside your head and the head of other people, it not outside you like that 'cat on the mat'.

It's not my problem, you seem to be the one with a bee in your bonnet. I think the problem is partly your faulty terminology, and partly a failure to understand what the people you call "moral fact deniers" are actually denying.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 6:21 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:38 am

Your problem of not being able to see 'the 500 pound gorilla' in this case is due to the fact that you are stuck and being very dogmatic in the Analytic Mode. In this case, 'the 500 pound gorilla' is inside your head and the head of other people, it not outside you like that 'cat on the mat'.

It's not my problem, you seem to be the one with a bee in your bonnet. I think the problem is partly your faulty terminology, and partly a failure to understand what the people you call "moral fact deniers" are actually denying.

Note this thread re moral-facts-deniers,
The Moral-Facts-Deniers' Claims are False & Toothless
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30330

The Moral-Facts-Deniers claim Moral Sentences/Judgments;

• 1.. Are not facts
  1i. Are not state-of-affairs
  1ii Cannot be Propositions
  2.. Cannot be True nor False
  3.. Not truth apt
  4.. Express only Emotions
  4i. Are opinions and individuals' beliefs
  5.. Not objectively true
  6.. Prescriptive not descriptive
  7.. Non-Declarative Speech Acts
  8.. Meaningless
  9.. Moral knowledge is impossible
  10. Express desires, dis/approval
  11. Do not predicate properties of subjects
  12. Not reducible to non-moral properties
  13. Invalid due to Hume's is-ought distinction
  14. Invalid due to the fact-value distinction

The above are typical of what is labelled within Non-Cognitivism Claims whose believers are termed non-cognitivists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism

In addition,
15. Commit the Naturalistic Fallacy - re Moore.

I still don't understand why you call them moral facts. Wouldn't "facts relating to morality" or "facts about morality" be more accurate, and less misleading. It's almost as if you want to be misunderstood in order to get people to challenge you, and you in return get to shout "moral fact deniers" at them. It all seems rather pointless.

Might have something to do with the concept of objectivity being a rather Western one. Facts are objective, they universally apply; moral principles (usually more or less based on the natural human moral sense) are subjective, they don't universally apply.

The idea/ideal of objectivity probably comes from the scientific process, it thoroughly shaped Western thinking for a long time.

So non-Western thinkers like VA may only percieve varying degrees and forms of subjectivity, and may see the ideal of objectivity as effing insane, but they are simply misunderstanding it.
Likewise, Western thinkers may see it as effing insane (at least I do) that we don't devide things into subjective and objective. Using this division is a lot more advantageous overall.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:20 am Likewise, Western thinkers may see it as effing insane (at least I do) that we don't devide things into subjective and objective. Using this division is a lot more advantageous overall.

So lets gets started right away!

Would you say "advantageousness" is subjective or objective?