Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 6:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 5:34 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:53 am
Yes, because the argument is specious.
1 Logical form (ponens, tollens, etc), and logic in general, is about consistency, and has nothing to do with the truth-value of premises. So an argument consisting of nothing but moral assertions can easily be valid. For example: 1 If x is morally wrong, then y is morally wrong. 2 X is morally wrong. 3 Therefore, y is morally wrong. The claim that moral realism uniquely allows this is false, because moral non-realism allows it too. Truth-value is the issue here, and logical consistency doesn't confer truth-value on premises.
Logical form is a basic necessity and I agree logic do not guarantee certainty or even assurance of truth.
The point here is that moral facts deniers like you have been condemning that moral realists are irrational in accepting ought from is.
So in this case the moral realist defense is moral realism claims are logical even overcoming the is-ought problem with special premises with elements of speech acts and other intermediate premises.
Along with other moral realists, you haven't demonstrated how an is can entail an ought. The special premises you insert merely claim an entailment, which begs the question. So validity isn't the problem.
To fall back on the is-ought problem demonstrate your bankruptcy in terms of the knowledge in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
Hume is-ought problem is purely a language and logical issue which you yourself admit logic do not assure certainty nor truth.
It is the same with Hume No Effect From Cause problem of induction, but in reality and truth, scientists don't give a damn about it and yet produce the most productive knowledge for humanity to progress.
The is-ought problem is a trivial issue to the Morality and Ethics.
I have demonstrated how the is-ought can be resolved taking by including relevant features without distorting the logical processes, note these threads I have raised so far, but you do not have any convincing counters to them;
There are more to the above and I will be presenting them - including those from the basis of rationality of reason [re
Alan Gewirth] without relying on an empirical elements at all.
Btw, sound upon denying moral facts exist, the onus is on YOU to prove your own stance in Morality and Ethics. There is no way out for you because a moral-fact-denial view is not possible since you'll be faced with a solid barrier, i.e.
The Frege-Geach Problem Destroyed NonCognitivism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30150
What is worst is you are merely making noises and relying on farts from others of your gang who are moral ignoramuses.
2 A thing either does or doesn't exist, and that has nothing to do with language, and therefore nothing to do with logic in the first place. Moral realism is the claim that there is a moral reality consisting of moral things. And the burden of proof is with moral realists, unmet so far, to my knowledge.
Hey, you are the one who is claiming 'what is fact' by relying on logic and language. How can you be so ignorant of what you are doing?
If you clear away the cobwebs of your language, what is fact to you has to be the facts of Science as the most credible fact.
And there's not one scientific fact (true factual assertion) that entails a moral conclusion. And you've just said that moral realism is logical - a linguistic matter. Where's the actual, physical, empirical, scientific evidence for a moral reality consisting of moral things? You have none - hence the pathetic retreat back to language.
I had already demonstrated whatever is fact is derived from its specific FSK.
The Moral FSK rely on scientific facts and others to generate its moral facts.
It is the same with the legal FSK which relied on scientific facts and knowledge plus other empirical facts to generate legal facts.
On the other hand, I had been claiming logic and language are necessary but what is most critical is whatever is claimed as true must be justified empirically and philosophically which should be similar to scientific knowledge.
Agreed. I refer to my previous remark.
Note the common knowledge and biological knowledge, 'all human ought to breathe else they die' is relied upon to generate moral facts within the Moral FSK.
I have already justified the moral fact, e.g. 'no human ought to kill another' with empirical based arguments and philosophical arguments a "1000" times in this forum.
But you are so ignorant, dogmatic and enslaved by confirmation bias, you just avoid and ignore the rationality of my arguments.
No, you haven't justified it. You've just repeated the claim, and I and others have repeatedly explained why it's false.
Don't bring in the fallacy of ad populum. In addition the handful who agreed with you are moral ignoramuses.
One clue to the claim 'no human ought to kill another' is that it is enacted a criminal act in all sovereign nation with exceptions.
However within a moral FSK which is not political there are no exception to 'no killing another human'. This moral fact is relied upon as a Guide only.
I have also supported this moral fact with its relevant neural algorithm.
With the taxonomy of Morality and Ethics, this is Moral_Realism-Naturalism.
You have not provided any solid counter to the above.
This is ridiculous. What about war and extreme self-defence? Whither your supposed moral fact then? You can qualify and prevaricate as much as you like, but the fact is there are situations in which it's arguably not only morally justifiable but even morally required to kill another human. And that shows there's no moral fact of the matter. There are just (often conflicting) moral judgements.
You and Sculptor had been bringing up the above exceptions "a-1000" times but I have already countered them.
The moral fact 'no human ought to kill another' within the human DNA and represented by a neural algorithm of ought-not-to.
That human make exceptions [war, self-defense, etc.] to the above do not eliminate that inherent fact within their brain.
While the moral fact of ought-not to kill another human will not change that easily, humanity can align with this ought by eliminating wars, violence threat [so nothing to defend from] and other issue that threaten premature death from killing.
So, you really have no example of a moral fact. 'No human ought to kill another human' obviously isn't a fact - but that's your gold standard. Way to go.
As explained above 'No human ought to kill another human' is a moral fact.
I had argued your basis of what is fact is merely linguistic and not even sufficient to represent what is fact epistemologically and ontologically.
In addition, whatever justified statements and judgments generated from a Moral FSK are moral facts.
What is so pathetic is you are making [moral] claims arrogantly without sufficient knowledge of what Morality and Ethics encompass effectively.