Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 3:47 pm ...If you produce a moral fact, and demonstrate that it is a fact...

Here is a fact: The color of this sentence is red.

How do I demonstrate to you that the above is a fact?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 10:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 5:02 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 8:44 pm
You simply continually fail to understand the most basic philosophical reasoning..
A justification is an OPINION.

As I had stated you are trapped in a very tall and tight silo in this case.
Your thinking is kindergartenish and attitude childish.

Note the alternative views;

The Fact/Opinion Distinction
John Corvino argues: When debating ethics and other controversial topics, one frequently hears the claim “That’s just your opinion.”
It is a pernicious claim, devoid of clear meaning, and it should be consigned to the flames – or so I shall argue here.

• Why worry about the fact/opinion distinction?
  One reason is that precise thinking is valuable for its own sake.
  But there’s another, more pragmatic reason.
  Despite its unclear meaning, the claim “That’s just your opinion” has a clear use: It is a conversation-stopper.
  It’s a way of diminishing a claim, reducing it to a mere matter of taste which lies beyond dispute.
  (De gustibus non est disputandum: there’s no disputing taste.)
  Indeed, the “opinion” label is used not only to belittle others’ stances, but also to deflate one’s own.
  In recognising that a personal belief differs sharply from that of other individuals and cultures, one may conclude, “I guess that’s just my opinion – no better than anyone else’s.”
  This conclusion may stem from an admirable humility.
  On the other hand, it can have pernicious effects: it leads to a kind of wishy-washiness, wherein one refrains from standing up for one’s convictions for fear of imposing “mere opinions”.
  Such reticence conflicts with common sense: surely some opinions are more thoughtful, more informed, more coherent, and more important than others.
  
  This diminishment is especially troubling in moral debates.
  Moral debates are practical – they’re debates about what to do – and they concern our values: things that matter to us.
  • Either we send troops to Syria or we don’t.
    Either we allow same-sex couples to marry or we don’t.
    Either we lie to our parents about what happened to the car or we don’t.
  Categorising these issues as “matters of opinion” doesn’t make them any less urgent or vital.
  
  I therefore propose that we abandon the ambiguous fact/opinion distinction, and especially the dismissive retort “That’s just your opinion.”
  We should focus instead on whether people can offer good reasons for the claims they make – reasons that might compel us to share their views.
  
  That’s my opinion, anyway.
  If you think yours is better, don’t merely say so: Say why.

https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/ ... istinction

It's like talking to a brick wall.
Moral justifications are not objective.
There is no escape from it, and it is clear that you have not advanced your absurd claims by one inch.
You are started with the assumption that life is sacred. There is not objective statement able to establish this claim, but buckets of empirical evidence to say that it cannot be so.

Btw, after refreshing on Hume's Treatise and Enquiry, I have by now read more that 40 articles [including part of books] on the topic of 'what is morality'.
From my readings of morality extensively and deeply, it tell me your thinking re Morality & Ethics is too shallow and narrow - i.e. kindergartenish. In fact, you are a very thick brick wall.

As a counter to your above ignorance on 'what is morality' note my response to Peter above.

What is objective is independent from the individuals' opinion and beliefs.
As long as the judgment is collective, it is objective as qualified to a Framework of Knowledge, e.g. the Scientific Framework with its Scientific Method, peer reviews, etc.
Moral judgments as moral facts are objective since they are independent of individuals' opinion and beliefs from a Moral Framework.

Nope I do not start from the assumption that life is sacred.
I started with empirical evidences with scientific justifications from the Scientific Framework, using logical and philosophical reasoning to arrive moral judgments [objective] from within a specified Moral Framework.

Your bucket of empirical evidences are merely various forms and deviations from the fundamental [substance] objective standards.
We had used the example of 'hunger' which is fundamental and generic [of substance] to ALL humans, but how each individual and group resolve their hunger is of infinite forms of producing, processing and taking in the essential food and nutrients.
I anticipate this critical point will not even 'blink' on your cheapskate radar.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 3:27 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 5:31 am DNA/RNA wise ALL humans are "programmed" [not by God] with a potential of an existential crisis.

And your source for these two claims is...?

I have gone through this before.
Basically it is because ALL normal humans are endowed with a high self-consciousness to trigger a cognitive dissonance between the evident "must survive at all costs" with the fact of inevitable mortality. This is the dilemma and existential crisis.
This is why, GOD for the majority associated with Salvation and eternal life to defeat the fact of mortality [doomed_ness] and its inherent associated fears. You cannot dispute this, especially for the Abrahamic religions.
There are loads of evidence to justify the existence of this factual existential crisis.

Humans since then, had been resorting to all sorts of ways to relieve the inherent unavoidable crisis.

This is called "the genetic fallacy." The origin of an idea does not tell us whether or not the idea itself is right or wrong. It's also ad hominem, as you're relying on a particular critique of the speakers to deny the content of a proposition. Stereo fallacies there.

The existential crisis is a fact as I had demonstrated above.

Since the emergence of the illusory God, there had been no direct empirical evidence to justify God exists as empirically real.

This claim is really amazing. I tells me the claimant has actually never read anything in regard to this debate at all. I would expect you to say, "I've read the arguments, and I don't believe X because of Y." But you don't say that...you try to say that no empirical argument even exists...but that's so manifestly untrue that only somebody who knows nothing about it could even say that.

However, for your further information, try the "Argument from Design." Now, you may still say, "I don't believe any of those arguments," and if you can say why, that's fair. But one thing you cannot possibly say: "no empirical arguments exist." They manifestly do.

Note I stated 'direct empirical evidence'.
I did not ask for arguments based on logical inferences which in any case, all the arguments for the existence of God are not sound at all. They all suffer from the fallacy of equivocation of the empirical sense [oil] with the transcendental sense [water].

The only valid and pragmatic reason to 'believe God exists' is solely from desperate psychology

Empty bluster, already debunked in front of your own eyes. Psychologizing like this doesn't work, because it can be used to exactly the same effect against Atheism...or rather, it can be used to no legitimate effect against either Theism or Atheism.

I have already given evidence, i.e. correlations.
Many theists had also converted out of theism when they rationally understood they have been duped by their own inherent desperate psychology.

Note my argument here.
Theism Driven by Desperate Psychology
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=29316
I challenge you to counter my above argument.

The fact is how can you extricate morality from human beings. No way! If so, how?

Done. If you read my "aliens" argument, you know exactly how. But you must not have read it at all.

I have responded to that and counter your 'alien' argument effectively.
I am waiting for you to counter my counter-points on this.

IF God exists, God's morality in one sense is logically conditioned upon God thus relative.

You're misusing the term "relative," as it's used in connection to morality.

"Relative" when used of morality, means "unstable, variable, or circumstantial," not merely "applied to a person." God is a Person, so a morality established on the basis of His character and identity is not "relative" in the proper sense of the word. That is, it doesn't change depending on which person (or Person) is applying it.

If God exists, murder is wrong, even if you think it isn't. And it doesn't become right even if I think it does. And if that's how it is, then morality is not, in the appropriate sense, "relative."

You are the one who is ignorant of what is 'relative' and what is Moral Relativism.

I have used the term 'relative' in the general sense, i.e. related, connected, associated, etc.
In this case, Theistic Morality [pseudo] is relative to God.

Relative as in Morality is Moral Relativism, not your invented "unstable, variable, or circumstantial".
What is Moral Relativism is such a Framework of Morality is,
"relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons"- SEP, or a person.

Thus in the above sense, theistic morality is relative [morally] because it is relative to the moral standard of a group of persons, i.e. theists.
In this case, you cannot deny theistic morality is relative in this sense.

Theists claim their moral system is objective with absolute moral ougths/command [thus independent of individual and groups] which is claimed to be moral realism.

But ultimate theistic morality is pseudo-morality.
Theism should be independent of morality.
God rules are adopted from morality and may overlap with moral standards but they cannot be solely associated with morality-proper.

It is the same with political laws [no human ought to murder another else it is a crime] which overlapped with moral standards, but politics is independent of morality.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 3:36 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 5:45 am Moral Nihilist is one who do not believe there are justification for any form of morality. I believe they will be very dogmatic with "is/ought" dichotomy.

They may. Some do. But I have found that most are not that thoughtful. Often, they're just knee-jerk skeptical of the whole idea of morality. Or they're general anarchists, who like to extend their anarchism to morality. Others like Nihilism because they imagine in grants them moral exemption or personal freedom. Others try to stop at "moral subjectivism," but are really Nihilists in ignorance of the implications of their own view. So there are different motives, and different ways of embracing Nihilism.

Nihil is a very loose term.
Whatever of existence one claim in the affirmative, the opposite is 'nihil'.
Therefore context is very important.

What I have defined as 'Moral Nihilism' is the generally accepted definition;

Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

Right/Wrong do not necessary pertains to Morality.

Actually, they do.

So you are saying objective tests of right or wrong answers pertains to morality?

Politics is independent of morality.

You should hope that's not true.

Fundamentally politics is independent of morality.
Political laws on crimes adopt moral standards within their enacted laws.
Political laws on crimes do not get involved with virtues and 'politics' inherently is by nature 'dirty'.

When have I ever claimed I am a moral nihilist?

Never, so far as I know. But one does not have to have seen the logical implications of one's own view to still have those implications be rationally necessary. A moral subjectivist may not be personally bound to be a Nihilist, but he or she is rationally compelled to become one, if he or she follows through the logic of his or her own claims.

That's because there's a difference between having a personal view and having a rational view.

As I had stated, definition within contexts is critical and what is the generally accepted definition.
I believe 'morality' [like intelligence, reason, senses] is an inherent function within the brain of all humans, thus moral nihilism is an oxymoron.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 4:44 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 3:47 pm ...If you produce a moral fact, and demonstrate that it is a fact...

Here is a fact: The color of this sentence is red.

How do I demonstrate to you that the above is a fact?

What is fact is;

• A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.
  -wiki

What is critical is a fact must always be conditioned or qualified to a specific Framework of Knowledge, thus;

For example [mine],

• "This sentence contains words," is a linguistic fact, [linguistic framework] and
  "The sun is a star." is a cosmological fact. [Astronomy Framework]
  Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history. -[Historical Framework]
  -wiki

What is justified as true within one Framework may cannot be true in another, unless it can be justified and acceptable within the other Framework of Knowledge.

Thus,
The color of this sentence is red.
the above proposition can only be true as a fact when qualified upon a specific Framework of Knowledge.

The above proposition is obviously true as a fact when deliberated within the common sense and conventional Framework of Knowledge with the assumption all observers have perfect sense organs.
But it is not true as a fact if we take into account the counter-examples fact of synaethesia - cross wirings of senses or the color under different lightings or under the sea.

Thus to determine the above as a more truer fact, we need to establish a more refined Scientific Framework that take into account the specific wavelengths which we defined as 'red' or other colors.

One point is there are degree of veracity relative to the respective Framework of Knowledge.
I believe the Scientific Framework has the highest degree of veracity, if I rate this at an index of 100, then the others are a % of this 100.

Another point is,
Philosophical Realism and Philosophical Realist claim the above facts from whatever the framework of knowledge is represented by an objective reality that is independent of human conceptions and the framework of knowledge.
While the facts within the framework of knowledge are true as qualified to the framework, there is no such thing as an objective reality of redness that is independent of human conceptions.
The point is Philosophical Realism itself is a Framework of Knowledge which has a very low [...I will insist ZERO] degree of veracity.

That is the problem when Philosophical Realists like Peter and Sculptor who insist on imposing their ZERO rated veracity Framework of Knowledge [of no credibility] in questioning the existence of moral facts.
Peter and Sculptor are using a non-factual Framework to denounce actual moral facts which are soundly established via empirical facts from a sound Moral Framework.

I can, but have yet to discuss and demonstrate what is a sound Moral Framework. This I KIV.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 4:44 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 3:47 pm ...If you produce a moral fact, and demonstrate that it is a fact...

Here is a fact: The color of this sentence is red.

How do I demonstrate to you that the above is a fact?

You could do so by comparing and constrasting it with the same shapes in blue, green, yellow, black, Hunting Stewart tartan, and so forth. Colours relate to other colours and could not exist without spectrums. Moreover the meanings of colours are probably cultural so you could go on and explain how in your culture the proposition is more exciting than if it were grey or blue.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:08 am You could do so by comparing and constrasting it with the same shapes in blue, green, yellow, black, Hunting Stewart tartan, and so forth. Colours relate to other colours and could not exist without spectrums. Moreover the meanings of colours are probably cultural so you could go on and explain how in your culture the proposition is more exciting than if it were grey or blue.

You are honest in admitting it, Belinda.

Peter - not so much.

Skepdick wrote:

You are honest in admitting it, Belinda.

I claim beliefs including moral beliefs are relatively true and can only be relatively true unless you are omniscient.

Peter Holmes I think has been rebutting Immanuel Can's belief in revelation from God .IC believes, I presume, inherent knowledge of good and evil is born with each human.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:23 am Skepdick wrote:

You are honest in admitting it, Belinda.

I claim beliefs including moral beliefs are relatively true and can only be relatively true unless you are omniscient.

Peter Holmes I think has been rebutting Immanuel Can's belief in revelation from God .IC believes, I presume, inherent knowledge of good and evil is born with each human.

Actually, I'm rebutting - and I think refuting - the claim that moral assertions have any truth-value, relative or otherwise. The claim 'slavery is morally wrong' is neither true nor false, because the moral wrongness - or rightness - of slavery isn't a feature of reality at all. And the moral wrongness of eating animals doesn't exist any more than does the moral rightness of eating animals. Moral objectivism is a huge conceptual mistake.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 11:36 am Actually, I'm rebutting - and I think refuting - the claim that moral assertions have any truth-value, relative or otherwise.

Why bother with the junior leagues?

Just prove to us that truth has any value whatsoever.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 11:36 am Moral objectivism is a huge conceptual mistake.

Eh? So how have you conceptualised the notion of a "mistake"?

How do you determine that your conception of a "mistake" isn't mistaken?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 6:16 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 3:27 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 5:31 am DNA/RNA wise ALL humans are "programmed" [not by God] with a potential of an existential crisis.

And your source for these two claims is...?

I have gone through this before.

Not with me, if you have.

Basically it is because ALL normal humans are endowed...etc.

No, no...not that. I really don't care about your own wild guesses: they don't constitute any evidence of anything. I've heard those, alright.

I'm asking for your DNA evidence. I want proof of this link between DNA and "programming" to have an existential crisis, that translates, in your telling, into religious enthusiasm.

Cite the research. That's what I want.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 6:33 am Nihil is a very loose term.

Not a bit. It's an exact equivalent of "nothing," in English.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 3:10 pm As for producing a moral fact, I'll happily go forward with that, ...

Is, "Honor your father and mother," a moral fact or principle? Is it objective? Is it absolute?

Just for clarification.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 2:11 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 3:10 pm As for producing a moral fact, I'll happily go forward with that, ...

Is, "Honor your father and mother," a moral fact or principle? Is it objective? Is it absolute?

Just for clarification.

Well, what do you mean by "moral fact"? Do you mean "objectively moral"? Or are you crossing the fact-value divide?

How do you mean to differentiate "principle" from what you take its opposite to be? By "absolute," do you mean "always right, when rightly circumstantially applied," or do you mean something like, "a purely formal principle that admits of no qualifications from circumstance?"

Do you take "honour" to mean "obey," or something more like, "to seek the best interests of"?

I can't really respond to your question until I know what you're actually asking there, RC. Can you clarify?

Immanuel Can wrote:
I cannot really respond to your question until I know what you are actually asking there

Provide an example of what you think is a moral fact without first asking me what my definition of one is as you keep doing here
For that has absolutely no bearing on what your definition is so now at the fourth time of asking from three of us can you do this