Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 1:39 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:15 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:09 pm
Agreed. It is just my opinion. And, in my opinion, Cheney and Rumsfeld were wicked.

And as for masochists, I think it morally wrong to torture them, even if they want to be tortured. And that's also just my opinion.

If a masocist wants to be tortured then that is perfectly fine.
If a person wants to be eaten then that too is fine.
The thing about what other people want is that its generally fuck all to do with you unless they want to harm you.
So you might be adviced to mind your business unless someone comes along and starts telling you what you can an cannot do.

You seem confused. Having an opinion as to the moral rightness or wrongness of an action is one thing. Telling people what they can and cannot do is another, quite different thing, about which I've said nothing at all.

We disagree as to the morality of torturing a masochist. And there's no moral fact of the matter that can settle our disagreement - which is what this discussion is about.

But there IS a 'moral fact', which can and DOES settle your disagreement here.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:39 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 1:39 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:15 pm

If a masocist wants to be tortured then that is perfectly fine.
If a person wants to be eaten then that too is fine.
The thing about what other people want is that its generally fuck all to do with you unless they want to harm you.
So you might be adviced to mind your business unless someone comes along and starts telling you what you can an cannot do.

You seem confused. Having an opinion as to the moral rightness or wrongness of an action is one thing. Telling people what they can and cannot do is another, quite different thing, about which I've said nothing at all.

We disagree as to the morality of torturing a masochist. And there's no moral fact of the matter that can settle our disagreement - which is what this discussion is about.

But there IS a 'moral fact', which can and DOES settle your disagreement here.

Okay, what is that moral fact? And please show why you think it's not an opinion.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 4:04 am what's your take on ripping off a self-owning masochist's finger nails?

Sane folks don't enjoy pain, the masochist therefore is not sane. It's immoral (in a real way) to abuse the insane (just as it's immoral [in a real way] to abuse the sane). In other words: it doesn't matter if Joes wants it, abusin' him is wrong.

I agree. This is the one moral fact; that each is responsible not harming the other.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:15 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:39 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 1:39 am
You seem confused. Having an opinion as to the moral rightness or wrongness of an action is one thing. Telling people what they can and cannot do is another, quite different thing, about which I've said nothing at all.

We disagree as to the morality of torturing a masochist. And there's no moral fact of the matter that can settle our disagreement - which is what this discussion is about.

But there IS a 'moral fact', which can and DOES settle your disagreement here.

Okay, what is that moral fact?

What that moral fact is, is 'that' what EVERY one could agree with and accept. Like, for example, Do not abuse ANY thing

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:15 am And please show why you think it's not an opinion.

But I could NOT possibly show you 'that', which you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY is IMPOSSIBLE to exist, correct?

If yes, then I will not even bother 'trying to'.

But if no, then how do you suggest one could show you that 'thing', which you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY is IMPOSSIBLE to exist?

Also, I NEVER said thee 'moral fact' was NOT 'an opinion'. WHY do you ASSUME that a 'moral fact' does NOT have to be 'an opinion'?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:32 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:15 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:39 am

But there IS a 'moral fact', which can and DOES settle your disagreement here.

Okay, what is that moral fact?

What that moral fact is, is 'that' what EVERY one could agree with and accept. Like, for example, Do not abuse ANY thing

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:15 am And please show why you think it's not an opinion.

But I could NOT possibly show you 'that', which you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY is IMPOSSIBLE to exist, correct?

If yes, then I will not even bother 'trying to'.

But if no, then how do you suggest one could show you that 'thing', which you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY is IMPOSSIBLE to exist?

Also, I NEVER said thee 'moral fact' was NOT 'an opinion'. WHY do you ASSUME that a 'moral fact' does NOT have to be 'an opinion'?

Thanks. Here are some reactions.

1 'Do not abuse any thing' is an imperative (a command); but a factual assertion must be a declarative (a statement: this is the case). So 'do not abuse any thing' can't be a moral fact. In this case, the supposed fact is: it's morally wrong to abuse any thing'.

2 The whole point of facts is that whether anyone agrees with or accepts them is irrelevant. They're just true, because they describe a state of affairs that is or was the case - so people's opinions are irrelevant. So your criterion for what makes a fact is incorrect.

3 Following from that, whether or not I believe the existence of moral facts is impossible is irrelevant. If they exist, they exist - and what I or anyone believes doesn't matter.

4 The distinction between facts and opinions is critical. For example, I may be of the opinion that water is H2O - but who cares? Water is H2O - and that's a fact. But 'it's morally wrong to abuse any thing' isn't a fact. It expresses an opinion, even if everyone holds that opinion. (And the point about masochists shows that.)

Would it be right to cut a self-owning person who asks you to, because of the relief it gives them?

A surgeon, cuttin' out a cancer, will cause a certain amount of pain to his patient; the patient, wantin' to be rid of the cancer, accepts he'll have some sufferin' to endure. The transaction between the two isn't abuse, isn't about the nutjobbery (and it is nutjobbery) of masochism, isn't about pain.


Could it be right to prevent sane, self-owning persons from harming themselves?

Sane folks don't hurt themselves with the intent of causin' pain. A marathoner will train long miles and in the process experience pain. This is inuring, not self-injuring.

An insane person, if he's goin' to town on himself with pliers and a blowtorch, yeah, you ought to stop him. At the very least, you ought not participate in his self-injury, even if he wants you to.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 10:22 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 4:04 am what's your take on ripping off a self-owning masochist's finger nails?

Sane folks don't enjoy pain, the masochist therefore is not sane. It's immoral (in a real way) to abuse the insane (just as it's immoral [in a real way] to abuse the sane). In other words: it doesn't matter if Joes wants it, abusin' him is wrong.

I agree. This is the one moral fact; that each is responsible not harming the other.

Why is that, B? What undergirds that moral fact?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:09 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 10:22 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 4:04 am what's your take on ripping off a self-owning masochist's finger nails?

Sane folks don't enjoy pain, the masochist therefore is not sane. It's immoral (in a real way) to abuse the insane (just as it's immoral [in a real way] to abuse the sane). In other words: it doesn't matter if Joes wants it, abusin' him is wrong.

I agree. This is the one moral fact; that each is responsible not harming the other.

Why is that, B? What undergirds that moral fact?

Men have the intelligence to know what is harmful per se. Each man knows there are other men and animals and all. So far I guess you would agree, Henry.

The crunch line is that knowledge of the two above facts give men a lot of power over others and animals and all, and with power comes responsibility.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:27 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:27 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 10:23 am
Rubbish. Put your thinking hat on. I have nothing against masochists. I just think that torturing anyone, even if they want to be tortured, is morally wrong. For example, if someone wants me to pull their fingernails out, I'd think it morally wrong to do so - unless there were a sound reason to do so, in which case it wouldn't be what I call torture.

Now, you disagree with my moral opinion. You'd pull out those fingernails. You have your reasons, and I have mine. I suggest we leave it there.

You are just being ridiculous.
Some people like to take it up the anus. I imagine you think that is morally wrong too.
SOme people enjoy the game of torture. Others, like you, love to sit on what they think is their moral high horse and point the finger at those they disapprove of. I say fuck you.
If a person wants to get pleasure with pain, and another loves to provide the pain, then they are free do do so. I'd recommend they have a safe word, but as far as I am concerned it has fuck all to do with you or anyone else.

Your moral opinion is worth less than infected pus.

It would be immoral for Peter Holmes to insult his own soul by himself doing what he in his soul finds to be evil, morally repugnant, or disgusting. The same principle applies to anyone whose soul is not brutalised or deadened.

What is universally evil, immoral, and repugnant is to brutalise or deaden others' souls.

Mr Holmes is perfectly at liberty of following his own course of morality just so long as he does not hurt another person.
But he has no right to tell other people what they can and cannot do. Not has he the right to pretend that his ghastly moral rules are either objective or universal.
Because in vilifying the acts of others he is brutalising and deadening the souls of others.

Sculptor , I am happy you agree that What is universally evil, immoral, and repugnant is to brutalise or deaden others' souls.

I don't evaluate any of Peter Holmes moral tenets because I believe that morality is a human creation.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:57 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:32 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:15 am
Okay, what is that moral fact?

What that moral fact is, is 'that' what EVERY one could agree with and accept. Like, for example, Do not abuse ANY thing

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:15 am And please show why you think it's not an opinion.

But I could NOT possibly show you 'that', which you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY is IMPOSSIBLE to exist, correct?

If yes, then I will not even bother 'trying to'.

But if no, then how do you suggest one could show you that 'thing', which you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY is IMPOSSIBLE to exist?

Also, I NEVER said thee 'moral fact' was NOT 'an opinion'. WHY do you ASSUME that a 'moral fact' does NOT have to be 'an opinion'?

Thanks. Here are some reactions.

When you say, "some reactions", here are you referring more or less to just 'your opinions' only?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:57 pm 1 'Do not abuse any thing' is an imperative (a command);

True. What people tell "themselves" can be seen as an imperative, or a command to do some thing.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:57 pm but a factual assertion must be a declarative (a statement: this is the case).

'Do not abuse any thing' is a statement. Just like the words, 'Abusing any thing is wrong', is a statement as well as a declarative, which is obviously the case. This is because by definition the word 'abuse', literally, means misuse or not using properly or damaging, [as intended or for its purpose].

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:57 pm So 'do not abuse any thing' can't be a moral fact.

Okay.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:57 pm In this case, the supposed fact is: it's morally wrong to abuse any thing'.

How precise one wants to be is up to them. But, what can be seen here is a great example of how thee ACTUAL Truth of things can 'come to light' through Truly peaceful, Honest, and OPEN discussions.

So, where we are at is that the words, 'To abuse any thing is morally wrong', is SUPPOSEDLY a 'moral fact', correct?

If this is correct, to you, then do you have ANY reason/s WHY or HOW the statement/declarative, 'It is morally wrong to abuse any thing', could NOT be a 'moral fact'?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:57 pm 2 The whole point of facts is that whether anyone agrees with or accepts them is irrelevant.

This is said, and is (somewhat) true from a particular perspective. However, it can not refuted that the ONLY way 'facts' are discovered, uncovered, learned, and/or understood is by human beings, and by and through their agreement and acceptance of 'things'.

Without human beings and their agreements 'facts' do not 'come to light' and thus are NEVER known.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:57 pm They're just true, because they describe a state of affairs that is or was the case - so people's opinions are irrelevant.

How EXACTLY could a 'state of affairs', or 'was the case', EVER 'come to light' and BE KNOWN, if it was NOT for people's, so called, "opinions"?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:57 pm So your criterion for what makes a fact is incorrect.

Is it NOT?

If you want to claim that my criterion for what makes a 'fact' is incorrect, then what are you basing this claim on, EXACTLY?

Also, let us SEE you SHOW what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE 'criterion' IS for what makes a 'fact', a fact, or what makes up a 'fact'.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:57 pm 3 Following from that, whether or not I believe the existence of moral facts is impossible is irrelevant.

NO it is NOT.

As can be PROVED irrefutably True, while one is BELIEVING some thing, they are NOT OPEN to ANY contrary thing, and so it is IMPOSSIBLE to SHOW them otherwise. So, the FACT that while you BELIEVE that it is an IMPOSSIBILITY for 'moral facts' to exist it is IMPOSSIBLE to SHOW you otherwise.

And this is EXTREMELY RELEVANT as it was YOU who asked the question, "What is that moral fact?"

Now that I have PROVIDED and SHOWN what that 'moral fact' is, you will either:

1. See it. Or,

2. NOT see it, and continue on 'trying to' prove that you BELIEVE is ALREADY true.

If you do the latter, then this can be CLEARLY SEEN in, and by, the ACTUAL words you use.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:57 pm If they exist, they exist - and what I or anyone believes doesn't matter.

VERY, VERY True.

So, whether you BELIEVE that moral facts exist or not, the FACT that 'it is morally wrong to abuse things' is a 'moral fact', which you can NOT refute, NOR dispute successfully.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:57 pm 4 The distinction between facts and opinions is critical.

EXCEPT that BECAUSE EVERY 'fact' arises, or arrives, through thought, which it could then be argued that ALL thoughts are just 'opinions', and if ANY one BELIEVES that 'opinions' are NOT facts, then you could then argue that there are NO moral facts, or NO facts AT ALL, because they are "just opinions".

Which, let us NOT FORGET, is just "your opinion", which could NOT be a 'fact', with "your logic" here, correct?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:57 pm For example, I may be of the opinion that water is H2O - but who cares? Water is H2O - and that's a fact.

This is about one of the worst ATTEMPTS at "justifying" and "rationalizing" ("arguing" for) one's OWN ALREADY obtained and well maintained BELIEFS.

Just because you do not care about "another's" opinion, this does NOT change the fact that a fact is a fact. Therefore, I may be of the opinion that 'it is morally wrong to abuse any thing', which you may NOT care about, (and which we do NOT care if you care of NOT, BECAUSE) 'it is morally wrong to abuse things' - and that is A FACT.

What makes 'water H20'?

If you are UNAWARE, what makes 'water' H20 is that human beings came up with these three symbols, for the three 'things', which makes up 'water', and human beings AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED these 'things', and these symbols for what is AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED as 'water'.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:57 pm But 'it's morally wrong to abuse any thing' isn't a fact.

Of what 'opinion/s' of YOURS do you use that; 'It is morally wrong to abuse things', is NOT a 'moral fact'.

in other words, HOW could it be possibly morally right to abuse things?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:57 pm It expresses an opinion, even if everyone holds that opinion.

Is there absolutely ANY thought expressed, in your opinion, which could NOT be 'an opinion'?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:57 pm (And the point about masochists shows that.)

I have NEVER discussed ANY thing about human beings who are labelled "masochists", but if you would like to go down that path, then I am more than ready AND willing to.

But BEFORE that, I would prefer you addressed the points AND questions I made and posed above, FIRST.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:21 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:27 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:27 pm

You are just being ridiculous.
Some people like to take it up the anus. I imagine you think that is morally wrong too.
SOme people enjoy the game of torture. Others, like you, love to sit on what they think is their moral high horse and point the finger at those they disapprove of. I say fuck you.
If a person wants to get pleasure with pain, and another loves to provide the pain, then they are free do do so. I'd recommend they have a safe word, but as far as I am concerned it has fuck all to do with you or anyone else.

Your moral opinion is worth less than infected pus.

It would be immoral for Peter Holmes to insult his own soul by himself doing what he in his soul finds to be evil, morally repugnant, or disgusting. The same principle applies to anyone whose soul is not brutalised or deadened.

What is universally evil, immoral, and repugnant is to brutalise or deaden others' souls.

Mr Holmes is perfectly at liberty of following his own course of morality just so long as he does not hurt another person.

NOR thing.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:21 pm But he has no right to tell other people what they can and cannot do.

LOL The CONTRADICTION here is very funny.

Who or what gave you the 'right' here to tell "peter holmes" that "he has no right tell other people what they can and cannot do"?

Or, are you going to "minimize", "justify", or "rationalize" this in someway by claiming that you are not telling "him", directly, what "he" can and cannot do, but instead you are just telling 'us' what "he" cannot do?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:21 pm Not has he the right to pretend that his ghastly moral rules are either objective or universal.
Because in vilifying the acts of others he is brutalising and deadening the souls of others.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:09 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 10:22 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 4:04 am what's your take on ripping off a self-owning masochist's finger nails?

Sane folks don't enjoy pain, the masochist therefore is not sane. It's immoral (in a real way) to abuse the insane (just as it's immoral [in a real way] to abuse the sane). In other words: it doesn't matter if Joes wants it, abusin' him is wrong.

I agree. This is the one moral fact; that each is responsible not harming the other.

Why is that, B? What undergirds that moral fact?

The FACT that NO one, originally, wants to be harmed, nor damaged.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 4:49 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:09 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 10:22 am

I agree. This is the one moral fact; that each is responsible not harming the other.

Why is that, B? What undergirds that moral fact?

*Men have the intelligence to know what is harmful per se. **Each man knows there are other men and animals and all. So far I guess you would agree, Henry.

The crunch line is that knowledge of the two above facts give men a lot of power over others and animals and all, and with power comes responsibility.

*intelligence, rationality, reason is not enough to suss out what's harmful. Reasoning, all by its lonesome, can lead to atrocity.

**And the purely rational man has no cause to view other men as anything other than resources to exploit.

No, intelligence isn't enough. There must also be conscience.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:21 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:27 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:27 pm

You are just being ridiculous.
Some people like to take it up the anus. I imagine you think that is morally wrong too.
SOme people enjoy the game of torture. Others, like you, love to sit on what they think is their moral high horse and point the finger at those they disapprove of. I say fuck you.
If a person wants to get pleasure with pain, and another loves to provide the pain, then they are free do do so. I'd recommend they have a safe word, but as far as I am concerned it has fuck all to do with you or anyone else.

Your moral opinion is worth less than infected pus.

It would be immoral for Peter Holmes to insult his own soul by himself doing what he in his soul finds to be evil, morally repugnant, or disgusting. The same principle applies to anyone whose soul is not brutalised or deadened.

What is universally evil, immoral, and repugnant is to brutalise or deaden others' souls.

Mr Holmes is perfectly at liberty of following his own course of morality just so long as he does not hurt another person.
*But he has no right to tell other people what they can and cannot do. Not has he the right to pretend that his ghastly moral rules are either objective or universal.
Because in vilifying the acts of others he is brutalising and deadening the souls of others.

*Pete is a moral subjectivist (a moral anti-realist). He thinks morality is just opinion.

It's high-larious you think he's moral realist.