Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 2:35 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 5:05 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:34 pm Our life is not indifferent since there are likes and dislikes.
The moral facts are related to likes and dislikes.
Therefore, moral facts exist.
Therefore, moral realism is true.

Your argument is very slipshod. You should at least defined what is 'Morality' and 'fact' first before you proceed.

• Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
  
  A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
  Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

The implication for the above re fact is, all facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK, in the above case, it is the scientific FSK.
Once the fact emerges from a specific FSK it is independent of individual[s] mind but not the collective mind.
As such, moral facts emerge and are conditioned upon a specific moral FSK, thus independent of the individual[s]' mind.

Your 'likes and dislikes' do not qualify as moral facts [as defined above] because 'likes' and 'dislikes' in this case are conditioned [very subjective] upon individual[s] sentiments, i.e. not independent.

Thus your argument is not valid.

The fact that likes and dislikes are different among individuals does not invalidate my argument.

What I mean is that a fact cannot exist without any mind.

If by first mind you mean God, the creator of everything, then I have to say that there is no God.

I have an argument against God.

There are only minds and qualia.

Minds cannot be created or destroyed.

Are you talking about another thread? If yes, which one?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:16 am Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 4:04 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 2:35 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 5:05 am
Your argument is very slipshod. You should at least defined what is 'Morality' and 'fact' first before you proceed.

• Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
  
  A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
  Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

The implication for the above re fact is, all facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK, in the above case, it is the scientific FSK.
Once the fact emerges from a specific FSK it is independent of individual[s] mind but not the collective mind.
As such, moral facts emerge and are conditioned upon a specific moral FSK, thus independent of the individual[s]' mind.

Your 'likes and dislikes' do not qualify as moral facts [as defined above] because 'likes' and 'dislikes' in this case are conditioned [very subjective] upon individual[s] sentiments, i.e. not independent.

Thus your argument is not valid.

The fact that likes and dislikes are different among individuals does not invalidate my argument.

It does, even if you can relate them to morality, they can only be related to Moral Subjectivism and not Moral Realism.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 5:01 pm

What I mean is that a fact cannot exist without any mind.

Well, true statements can't be made without a statement-maker (a person, a mind), sure, but the truth or reality the fact references exists independent of mind. Fire burns is the fact, it requires a fact-stater; fire, doin' its thing and burning, is the reality fire burns refers to and fire doin' its thing happens whether or not you or me or anyone is aware of it.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 5:01 pm

If by first mind you mean God, the creator of everything, then I have to say that there is no God.

Yes, I mean God; that's cool...I don't think God cares if you believe in him.

I have an argument against God.

Good deal.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 5:01 pm

There are only minds and qualia.

I disagree. There's the world, and all the things and people in it, and the world, and all those things and people exist independent of me and you and each other. That's not to say there are aren't dependencies (the seed, for example, needs soil, sunlight and water to grow and mature) but there are no *ontological dependencies (the rotting log deep in the forest no man [no mind] has ever laid eyes on, exists).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 5:01 pm

Minds cannot be created or destroyed.

As for minds bein' created or destroyed: I just don't know.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 5:01 pm As for qualia: I never could wrap my head around what that is, so I can't comment.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 5:01 pm *well, there's one ontological dependency: that of Reality on the Maker of Reality...but, as I reckon it, He built Reality to self-sustain...it does not seem to me He's flittin' around or thru Reality tinkerin' endlessly with the workings.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 5:08 pm It's all getting a bit silly.
MORAL REALISM, is not the sort of thing that can be either "true" or "false".
It simply does not make sense. It's not even meaningful enough to be wrong.
It's like saying "Chalk" is true or "cheese" is false.
It's just idiotic.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 5:14 pm

Are you talking about another thread? If yes, which one?

No, no specific thread. Though, as to my thinkin' on why slavery (and murder, and rape, and robbery) is wrong, this...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 5:16 am Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

...is as good an opener as any I've come up wth.

I think we understand each other well.

You are not interested to see my argument?

Everything can be explained in terms of minds and qualia.

Of course, you cannot find anyone who wishes to do something or accept something that is against his/her nature.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 9:14 pm

I think we understand each other well.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 9:14 pm

You are not interested to see my argument?

Oh, sure: fire away.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 9:14 pm

Everything can be explained in terms of minds and qualia.

And qualia is, as you say, the subject of experience. So, here's a question: I buy a nice, red apple at the grocery. Does that apple exist only when I'm payin' attention to it, or is it real all the time, whether I pay attention to it or not?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 9:14 pm

Of course, you cannot find anyone who wishes to do something or accept something that is against his/her nature.

Exactly. It's man's (moral) nature to be free, to be his own, hence slavery, murder, rape, robbery are wrong.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 7:39 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 5:08 pm It's all getting a bit silly.
MORAL REALISM, is not the sort of thing that can be either "true" or "false".
It simply does not make sense. It's not even meaningful enough to be wrong.
It's like saying "Chalk" is true or "cheese" is false.
It's just idiotic.

How about "Moral realism is the correct moral view"?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 10:29 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 7:39 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 5:08 pm It's all getting a bit silly.
MORAL REALISM, is not the sort of thing that can be either "true" or "false".
It simply does not make sense. It's not even meaningful enough to be wrong.
It's like saying "Chalk" is true or "cheese" is false.
It's just idiotic.

How about "Moral realism is the correct moral view"?

You'd have to define "moral realism", and "correct".

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 10:29 pm What you have here is something of a tautology since the whole thrust of moral realism is the notion that one standard of morality called "moral realism" is correct.
The problem comes when you start to state what it is.

And the statement is utterly refuted is moral relativism ever came up with tow incompatible moral statements which it cannot avoid since it is blatantly obvious that morality is relative to historical, cultural and societal differences.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 10:29 pm Why not state what it is and give an example??

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 10:57 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 10:29 pm
And the statement is utterly refuted is moral relativism ever came up with tow incompatible moral statements which it cannot avoid since it is blatantly obvious that morality is relative to historical, cultural and societal differences.

Well, of course, there are historical, cultural, and social differences but that does not mean that what people historically, culturally, and socially accepted were/are morally right.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 10:29 pm Why not state what it is and give an example??

You like certain things and dislike others. This is a fact.

I am arguing that moral realism facts can be obtained from this fact (like or dislike). For example, people don't like to be slave, therefore, slavery is wrong. As simple as that.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 10:57 pm You like certain things and dislike others. This is a fact. I am arguing that moral realism facts can be obtained from this fact (like or dislike). For example, people don't like to be slave, therefore, slavery is wrong. As simple as that.