Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 4:37 am
I claimed MY [not others, e.g. utilitarianism] proposed Moral FSK is of near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.
My proposed Moral FSK rely heavily on scientific facts from the scientific FSK
plus sound philosophical reasonings.
You are missing all my critical points.
Note:
1. ALL Facts are [polished opinions, conjectures] resulting from a specific FSK.
2. My proposed Moral FSK [credibility of 80/100] is a specific FSK.
3. My Moral FSK produce Moral Facts as polished opinions, conjectures.
I have argued how we obtain from my proposed Moral FSK,
the moral fact, i.e.
It is morally wrong for a human to kill another human,
this is grounded on the empirical fact,
No normal human would want to be killed [by another humans or other reasons].
The philosophical reasonings for this is quite complex so I won't go into the details here.
To repeat (ad nauseam): grounding or basing a moral opinion on a fact doesn't turn the moral opinion into a fact. So your argument doesn't even make it to the starting post. Here it is:
Premise: No normal human would want to be killed (...). Conclusion: Therefore it is morally wrong to kill a human being.
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Even if it's true (which it isn't), the premise does not entail the conclusion. If it did, the following is valid:
No normal human being wants to be punished; therefore it is morally wrong to punish a human being.
Now, try to think very hard about this. The content of an argument has no bearing on its deductive validity (its structure). My example mirrors the structure of your example, so if yours is valid, then so is mine.
But I'm sure you disagree with my argument. So - what's gone wrong? Ah, it must be that 'what people want' can't be the deciding criterion for moral rightness and wrongness. And that's because people can want bad things - things that are morally wrong.
Your invented morality FSK has no moral facts. And non-moral facts can't entail moral conclusions. So your invented morality FSK is not an FSK at all - let alone a credible FSK. It's a dead duck in the water. No revival is possible.
Ad nauseam?? that is because of your own ad nauseam dogmatic ignorance.
Have you wondered how empirical facts as scientific facts and other considerations become a legal fact within a legal FSK?
E.g. It is legal fact of the USA legal FSK, that Joseph James DeAngelo Jr. was the Golden State Serial Killer.
Joseph James DeAngelo Jr. (born November 8, 1945) is an American serial killer, serial rapist, burglar, and former police officer who committed at least 13 murders, 50 rapes, and 120 burglaries across California between 1974 and 1986.
On April 24, 2018, authorities charged 72-year-old DeAngelo with eight counts of first-degree murder, based upon DNA evidence;[13][14][15] investigators had identified members of DeAngelo's family through forensic genetic genealogy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo
The most critical criteria that confirm the legal fact Joseph James DeAngelo Jr. was the Golden State Serial Killer is based on scientific facts.
There are many other legal facts that are based heavily on the scientific facts.
But this scientific DNA evidence, other scientific evidences, and other relevant evidences were processed within a Legal FSK to arrive at a Legal Fact.
Note there a series of various processes of the legal FSK that ultimately confirmed the legal fact by a jury decision.
If you have sufficient intelligences you would be able to infer in PRINCIPLE the parallel correlation that scientific facts via the scientific FSK can be used to process moral facts via the Moral FSK.
This principle is undeniable.
The question is what are the series of the various processes within the Moral FSK that enable a moral fact to be established. I am not going into that detail which I believe I have done so in previous posts.
So,
- 1. No normal human would want to be killed plus various scientific facts and others.
2. The above facts are processed via the Moral FSK.
3. Resulting Conclusion of the Moral FSK: Therefore it is morally wrong to kill a human being.
What you have always missed out deliberate is the Moral FSK with its detailed processes.
Note also, there are many cases where scientific facts within the scientific FSK are heavily depended upon to establish facts of other FSKs [technological, cosmological, weather, history, etc.]
Note this article where RM Hare justified why Slavery is Wrong based on the the Utilitarianism FSK which relied upon facts from various FSKs.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34282
RM Hare wrote:Utilitarianism therefore, unlike some other theories, is exposed to the facts.
The utilitarian cannot reason a priori that whatever the facts about the world and human nature, slavery is wrong.
He has to show that it is wrong by showing, through a study of history and other factual observation, that slavery does have the effects (namely the production of misery) which make it wrong.
This, though it may at first sight appear a weakness in the doctrine, is in fact its strength.
Hare relied upon his own Moral FSK which I agree with partly. My proposed Moral FSK is more extensive and detailed.
I suggest you suspend your dogmatic views [a psychological issue] and note you are ignorant and still have a long way to go to get a grip of morality in reality.
