For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Yeah, that's how confirmation bias works. You are ignoring the totality of the evidence.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 6:25 pm That's what I was referring to. I didn't mean your total post count.
How is that in any way coherent?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 6:26 pm So one way to falsify that for someone would be to acquire evidence that a particular person seems to have no capacity for observing and remembering anything that happens.
You are SO ignorant and dogmatic that you refuses to see the truth.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:55 amThis is fundamentally wrong. The fact that a law exists does not mean that 'legal oughtness' exists - that we ought to obey the law. We don't use the word 'ought' in that way. We can always choose to obey or disobey a law - even if disobedience incurs punishment - so the claim that we ought to obey it expresses an opinion.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:16 amNote I am referring to legal facts from within a legal Framework System and Knowledge.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:20 pm
Insofar as individuals have that opinion and take those actions. Again, this is in no way verifiable aside from verifying that the people in question have those opinions and take those actions.
"Insofar as individuals have that opinion and take those actions." that is irrelevant to the legal FSK.
When the laws are enacted, the legal oughtness are verifiable as authoritative and effective in the official papers in the legislative department.
These are legal facts within the legal FSK and are independent of individuals' opinion and belief.
Where the law states and enforces the legal-fact that "no citizen ought to kill humans" [with legal exceptions] and if they do they will be punished with serious imprisonment or death.
Some individuals may have their opinions and disagree with the laws [that has nothing to do with the legal FSK], but the legal oughtness is a legal fact and will take effect if they kill humans.
As such the legal fact within the legal FSK is objective, thus independent of individuals opinion and beliefs.
'We ought to obey the law' can never be a factual assertion with a truth-value independent from opinion.
And the same goes for the claim that we ought to follow our neural 'programming' - if such there is - to behave in certain ways.
The claim that, just as legal facts exist, so do moral facts - that there's a 'moral FSK' just as there's a 'legal FSK' - is false.
Hey, note Wittgenstein's "meaning of a word is in its use" which must be verified and justified to its utilities.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 10:50 amIf it's not about right and wrong it's not morality at all. Morality-garbage is what you are peddling. You are the purveyor of pseduo-morality.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:10 amThe use of 'wrong' is not appropriate for morality-proper.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 8:39 am
What's misleading about calling a factual error wrong, mistaken, false and incorrect? Why would it be reduced to merely "not in alignment" with a verified fact?
This is what you and your predecessor Prof do all the time. You fail to analyse the phenomenon in question using the tools you desire because those tools are inapproriate to the task. So you simply substitute the phonemenon for whatever your tool can do instead.
Note Searle's "institutional facts"Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:55 pmAt best, all you could be referring to here is the fact that the word "ought"--that is, sets of marks in that shape, an "o" shape, followed by a "u" shape, etc. occur on pieces of paper and so on.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:16 am When the laws are enacted, the legal oughtness are verifiable as authoritative and effective in the official papers in the legislative department.
These are legal facts within the legal FSK and are independent of individuals' opinion and belief.
Where the law states and enforces the legal-fact that "no citizen ought to kill humans" [with legal exceptions] and if they do they will be punished with serious imprisonment or death.
Some individuals may have their opinions and disagree with the laws [that has nothing to do with the legal FSK], but the legal oughtness is a legal fact and will take effect if they kill humans.
As such the legal fact within the legal FSK is objective, thus independent of individuals opinion and beliefs.
But that in no way amounts to a normative. There is no meaning attached to it, there is nothing prescribing anything to anyone, etc. in those shapes on paper in themselves. They're just marks on a particular sort of material.
People can THINK a normative, and they can take particular ACTIONS such as imprisoning someone who commits murder, but then we're not talking about something independent of individuals' opinions and beliefs.
And the fact that Joe and Frank and Betty and Sue and so on think "You ought/ought not do x," and then Joe and Frank and Betty and Sue and so on taking action to imprison someone if they don't/do perform x, in no way amounts to a verifiable normative that Pete ought to do x. All we can verify is that Joe and Frank and Betty and Sue feel and thus said that "You ought/ought not do x" and then take the subsequent actions they do. That's in no way independent of their opinions or beliefs.
I can only repeat what I wrote - so that you can ignore it again.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:28 amYou are SO ignorant and dogmatic that you refuses to see the truth.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:55 amThis is fundamentally wrong. The fact that a law exists does not mean that 'legal oughtness' exists - that we ought to obey the law. We don't use the word 'ought' in that way. We can always choose to obey or disobey a law - even if disobedience incurs punishment - so the claim that we ought to obey it expresses an opinion.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:16 am
Note I am referring to legal facts from within a legal Framework System and Knowledge.
"Insofar as individuals have that opinion and take those actions." that is irrelevant to the legal FSK.
When the laws are enacted, the legal oughtness are verifiable as authoritative and effective in the official papers in the legislative department.
These are legal facts within the legal FSK and are independent of individuals' opinion and belief.
Where the law states and enforces the legal-fact that "no citizen ought to kill humans" [with legal exceptions] and if they do they will be punished with serious imprisonment or death.
Some individuals may have their opinions and disagree with the laws [that has nothing to do with the legal FSK], but the legal oughtness is a legal fact and will take effect if they kill humans.
As such the legal fact within the legal FSK is objective, thus independent of individuals opinion and beliefs.
'We ought to obey the law' can never be a factual assertion with a truth-value independent from opinion.
And the same goes for the claim that we ought to follow our neural 'programming' - if such there is - to behave in certain ways.
The claim that, just as legal facts exist, so do moral facts - that there's a 'moral FSK' just as there's a 'legal FSK' - is false.
Leaving aside the moral FSK temporarily, how come you are so ignorant of the so obvious existence of a specific legal framework and system of reality [FSR] and knowledge [FSK].
The specific legal FSK of a country is grounded on its constitution and supported by the political FSK via its legislatures, police, courts and legal fraternity.
I have to say you are stupid in deny a specific legal FSK exists.
That the laws of any country exist is a legal fact within the legal FSK, note only within the legal FSK.
Once the laws are passed there is an inherent and intrinsic 'oughtness' within them that obligated all citizens to comply with the law.
In the case of the legal FSK, it is more than 'oughtness' rather the strong modal verb applies, i.e. MUST obey the law or else.
In this case, the legal machineries and forces are engaged in generating the 'MUST' [oughtness] as a fact, i.e. an active state [of affairs] within the community.
People can of course choose to comply or not comply, that is their opinion, but such opinions to do extirpate the factual existence of the laws legislated, enforced and in force.
Surely what is legislated as a legal fact can be verified to various evidences of its confirmation as an active law of the country.
The existence of the legal fact within the legal FSK can be tested,
say you refused to obey the law of your country or other countries, i.e.
'no citizens or other humans can kill citizens'
and then you kill the citizens of a country,
that country will surely persecute you by imprisonment or death depending on the legal facts of the law.
It would then also be a legal fact within a legal FSK, i.e. "Peter Holmes is a convicted murderer in country X."
One thing you cannot realize and is dogmatically denying is the existence of a Framework and System of Reality [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK] is grounding its specific fact.
To you a 'fact' is a fact because it is a fact as worded.
You really need to stop saying "we" here. You don't speak for anybody but yourself.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:20 am The fact that a law exists does not mean that 'legal oughtness' exists - that we ought to obey the law. We don't use the word 'ought' in that way.
Everyone. Find anyone who knows neither of us, tell them you have this theory that morality doesn't really include any right or wrong. They will politely inform you that this cannot be so because morality is exactly about right and wrong.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:43 amHey, note Wittgenstein's "meaning of a word is in its use" which must be verified and justified to its utilities.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 10:50 amIf it's not about right and wrong it's not morality at all. Morality-garbage is what you are peddling. You are the purveyor of pseduo-morality.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:10 am
The use of 'wrong' is not appropriate for morality-proper.
This is what you and your predecessor Prof do all the time. You fail to analyse the phenomenon in question using the tools you desire because those tools are inapproriate to the task. So you simply substitute the phonemenon for whatever your tool can do instead.
WHO ARE YOU to insist "it is not morality at all?"
So what are the implications of wrongness in a world without oughts?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 12:12 pm Everyone. Find anyone who knows neither of us, tell them you have this theory that morality doesn't really include any right or wrong. They will politely inform you that this cannot be so because morality is exactly about right and wrong.
The absurdity of going about Wittgenstein for that nonsense is amazing. Morality exists as a language game about rightness and wrongness, who are you to tell everyone that to act imorally means deviation from a pattern, not wrongness.
You might note that he also said that concepts are not right or wrong, just useful or not. So telling the whole world that their concepts of morality, being that part of our language that discusses rightness and wrongness, is faulty and should be about something else entirely, won't get you anywhere.
Does anyone think 'this is red' is a factual assertion with truth-value which is independent from opinion?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 12:56 pm Does anyone think 'we ought to obey the law' is a factual assertion with a truth-value which is independent from opinion?
What feature of reality (what fact) could make this assertion true, the absence of which would make it false?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 12:56 pm If so, what feature of reality (what fact) could make that assertion true, the absence of which would make it false?
Given the way we English speakers use the word 'wrong' - given the rule we learned - the factual assertion 'murder is wrong', in context, is true or false independent from opinion - though there can be marginal cases, such as the 'border' between murder and self-defence.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 4:16 pm Given the way we English speakers use the word 'red' - given the rule we learned - the factual assertion 'this patch of colour is red', in context, is true or false independent from opinion - though there can be marginal cases, such as at the 'border' between red and orange.
The implications aren't Earth shattering.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 3:25 pmSo what are the implications of wrongness in a world without oughts?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 12:12 pm Everyone. Find anyone who knows neither of us, tell them you have this theory that morality doesn't really include any right or wrong. They will politely inform you that this cannot be so because morality is exactly about right and wrong.
The absurdity of going about Wittgenstein for that nonsense is amazing. Morality exists as a language game about rightness and wrongness, who are you to tell everyone that to act imorally means deviation from a pattern, not wrongness.
You might note that he also said that concepts are not right or wrong, just useful or not. So telling the whole world that their concepts of morality, being that part of our language that discusses rightness and wrongness, is faulty and should be about something else entirely, won't get you anywhere.
It's Earth-shattering in as much as you think that "IF one disagrees with another's way of holding ice cream one OUGHT to persuade them to do otherwise"FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:52 pm The implications aren't Earth shattering.
It just means that if you want somebody to stop doing a bad thing such as holding their ice cream with the forbidden-food-hand, you need to use tools of persuasion to bring them round to your point of view rather than being able to whip out a goodnessometer to measure their wrongness. You already know this.