All Moral State-of-affairs are Facts

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is contradictory though. If the argument that all moral states are facts is correct, then they are facts in all cases. If they are merely some sort of putative fact that requires verification before becoming real facts, then the argument that all moral states are facts is false.

It is known all mental states are facts.
How else?

Since all moral states are mental states,
then all moral states are moral facts.

Whatever that is claimed as a moral state rationally has to be verified empirically and philosophical as with any other claim of knowledge.

But they are mental states, so by your argument they are already verified facts. So why are they in need of verification when they are already fact? Likewise, all religious experience is mental states, and all religious experience is also verified fact.

Why are you filtering for falsehood AFTER proving fact status up front?

It is the same with scientific facts.
Why do we need to verify and justify all scientific facts?

In general all moral facts are mental states.
But when we make the claim of the mental ought-not_ness of 'no killing of another human or oneself' we still need to justify this particular moral fact so that it is a Justified True Moral Fact.

The fact is such a moral fact [ought-not to kill another human] is represented by some inhibitory force or tension within the person's brain that suppresses the inherent natural impulses of killing [for food, self-defense, etc.] in invoke for various reasons. When this inhibition is weaken or defective as in a psychopath or in a rage of passion, then the person is likely to kill another human.

Yes, all religious experience are mental states to the extent it is potential for believers to kill others or manifest to various actions.
However it is still preferable to justify it is a religious related mental state.
Note the work of Andrew Newberg [& many others];

• Dr. Andrew Newberg is a neuroscientist who studies the relationship between brain function and various mental states.
  He is a pioneer in the neurological study of religious and spiritual experiences, a field known as “neurotheology.”
  His research includes taking brain scans of people in prayer, meditation, rituals, and trance states, in an attempt to better understand the nature of religious and spiritual practices and attitudes.
  http://www.andrewnewberg.com/

If the resultant claim of a believer is 'God exists' what is factual is the believer has such mental activities and state of believing. Whether there is a real God or not is a separate issue.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is known all mental states are facts.
How else?

Since all moral states are mental states,
then all moral states are moral facts.

Whatever that is claimed as a moral state rationally has to be verified empirically and philosophical as with any other claim of knowledge.

But they are mental states, so by your argument they are already verified facts. So why are they in need of verification when they are already fact? Likewise, all religious experience is mental states, and all religious experience is also verified fact.

Why are you filtering for falsehood AFTER proving fact status up front?

It is the same with scientific facts.
Why do we need to verify and justify all scientific facts?

Once they are facts they are already verified. That's what fact means, it's also what verify means really.

If the resultant claim of a believer is 'God exists' what is factual is the believer has such mental activities and state of believing. Whether there is a real God or not is a separate issue.

I told you months ago that what you claimed as moral fact was only a fact that a person holds some particular opinion. Has it taken you this long to work out that this obvious statement was true?




Erm... I suppose I actually probably do need to put into explicit terms that the above invalidates your next ought-from-is argument before you even start.

[Skepdick]

I am not even arguing.

This shit again. Whatever.

Look how quickly you lose interest when the framing isn't antithetical.

I guess you just like conflict.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am not even arguing.

This shit again. Whatever.

Look how quickly you lose interest when the framing isn't antithetical.

I guess you just like conflict.

Sorry, but it's simply not interesting for me to spend my life following you around decyphering which trivial portion of the things you write you actually mean. So I'm not going to bother. Find someone else.

[Skepdick]

Sorry, but it's simply not interesting for me to spend my life following you around decyphering which trivial portion of the things you write you actually mean. So I'm not going to bother. Find someone else.

So let me save you some time then. I mean all of it.

If you have some double standard for "meaning" where some meaning is "actual" meaning, but other meaning isn't - do let me know how you determine/discriminate the difference. That would actually amount to philosophical progress.

[Sculptor]

Actually, what this is saying is that there is only one objective fact that exists; that no facts exist. The author is stating that "no facts exist" as an objective statement of fact.

This is what is known in philosophy as "non-sense" or cognitive disintegration.

No.
He's saying none of that at all.
He's pointing out a problem that exists with people that think in absolutes.
A problem I need to say that your foolish, and sadly predictable response is an example of.

As for your conclusion. Philosophy tends to use references to "sense" where matters impinge directly on matters of primary evidence from the senses. The whole point about "facts" is that your objection does not apply for that reason.
It's like objecting to criticisms of dogs by saying they are no fruit.

Got it, if today you say that Washington DC exists and I say it does not... we are both correct because there are no such things as facts. The paradox in that article is clear; the question is how people deal with such conceptual paradoxes. See Sokal for one view.

Responding with an idiotic straw man is not going to help your position

[Sculptor]

This is why I challenged Peter Holmes, you and PantFlasher,
i.e. from the ultimate perspective there are no absolute fact, i.e. fact-in-itself.

But facts do exist as qualified within a Framework and System of Knowledge.
Peter Holmes, you and PantFlasher did insist such facts exists but not moral facts.
Thus my point is, facts as qualified to a FSK in this case, moral facts do exist just like Scientific facts.

But no one accepts your silly FSK, because it is so subjective.

Here again,

• A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
  For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
  "The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact.

According to definitions upon which we all agree.

Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are both historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.

Depends on how they are articulated.
But same answer as above.

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.[/list]

Surely a linguistic fact and other types of specific facts cannot have the same degree of veracity as a scientific fact.
Thus those specific facts are dependent on the specific FSK.

The Scientific FSK that produces scientific facts is subjective?
How can you counter this?

Btw, what is objectivity is a culmination of subjects' activities, thus inter-subjectivity.

So much, so meaningless.
None of your moral framework applies to this, since any and all moral injunctions require statements of opinion.

[Skepdick]

According to definitions upon which we all agree.

Ostensive or linguistic definitions?

Ostensive definitions don't require statements. Just pointing.

[FlashDangerpants]

Sorry, but it's simply not interesting for me to spend my life following you around decyphering which trivial portion of the things you write you actually mean. So I'm not going to bother. Find someone else.

So let me save you some time then. I mean all of it.

If you have some double standard for "meaning" where some meaning is "actual" meaning, but other meaning isn't - do let me know how you determine/discriminate the difference. That would actually amount to philosophical progress.

No. Sorry but you put this argument, which is an argument, and that's not negotiable.

P2 All IMAGINARY ANIMALS are mental states
C1 All IMAGINARY ANIMALS are facts, i.e. UNICORN facts.[/list]
From the above, UNICORNS exist.

P2 ALL ABSTRACTIONS are mental states.
C1 ALL ABSTRACTIONS are facts, i.e 2+2 = 4 is a fact

So, if your argument was supposed to lead to absurdity you ought to reject unicorns together with mathematics.

Abstract ideas lead to concrete action e.g they have detectable consequences. So they exist.

then when I referenced it later you tell me that you aren't even arguing

I am. My point is that by YOUR argument, which in case you have forgotten, becuase we both knwo you never really mean any of these things, held that all mental states are facts, and all blah blah blah, therefore all mental states about moral stuff are moral facts... that makes it a fact in your argument that the rapist's view that he has a right to claim sexual intercourse by conquest makes it a moral fact that he does indeed have such a right. This called argument to an absurd conclusion. It's also a clear recipe for relativism.

Looks like you are struggling with drawing distinctions to escape the corner you've painted yourself in.
I am not arguing about conclusions. I am not even arguing. I am pointing equifinality.

I tolerate an amount of this shit from you, the amount varies entirely by whether I am finding it interesting. when I lose interest I stop tolerating your bullshit.

I have lost interest. It's done now.

[Sculptor]

According to definitions upon which we all agree.

Ostensive or linguistic definitions?

Ostensive definitions don't require statements. Just pointing.

Ah, how sweet. Dick has learned a new word today.
Why the F do you think this distinction is relevant to the discussion?
Don't bother to answer that. I can tell you it is not.

Can you point to the concept President of the United States?
Can you point to Abraham Lincoln?
Can you point to "assassination"?

[Skepdick]

Ah, how sweet. Dick has learned a new word today.
Why the F do you think this distinction is relevant to the discussion?
Don't bother to answer that. I can tell you it is not.

Are you an idiot?

Don't bother answering. It's ostensive.

Can you point to the concept President of the United States?
Can you point to Abraham Lincoln?
Can you point to "assassination"?

Yes, I can. All of the above will produce ostensive results on wikipedia/youtube.

[Skepdick]

No. Sorry but you put this argument, which is an argument, and that's not negotiable.

How prescriptive of you.

Guess you believe in moral facts after all.

[Sculptor]

Ah, how sweet. Dick has learned a new word today.
Why the F do you think this distinction is relevant to the discussion?
Don't bother to answer that. I can tell you it is not.

Are you an idiot?

Don't bother answering. It's ostensive.

Can you point to the concept President of the United States?
Can you point to Abraham Lincoln?
Can you point to "assassination"?

Yes, I can. All of the above will produce ostensive results on wikipedia/youtube.

You are talking utter bollocks as per usual.
Since you can only point to linguistic definitions.
FFS
Not that this is RELEVANT.

[FlashDangerpants]

No. Sorry but you put this argument, which is an argument, and that's not negotiable.

How prescriptive of you.

Guess you believe in moral facts after all.

lol, it had premises and conclusions and the premises were claimed to support the conclusions.
It lacked inferential validity on account of affirming the consequent, so some might insist that it failed to actually become an argument, but hair splitting is boring and I'm already bored.
So again, no need to continue this further for the sake of that.

[Skepdick]

You are talking utter bollocks as per usual.
Since you can only point to linguistic definitions.
FFS
Not that this is RELEVANT.

According to our resident retard this is a "linguistic definition" of Abraham Lincoln.

abl.png

According to the same resident retard this is a "linguistic definition" of POTUS.

potus.png

And this is a linguistic definition of an assassination

Do you even know how to breathe without assistance?