Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 7:05 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:54 pm

Harbal. Please don't apologise for your lack of faith and or intelligence.

Or indeed my lack of faith in your intelligence, fish pie.

Clever kunt.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:08 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 4:54 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 2:48 am I'll need your definition of "moral fact," first.

Moral facts are a set of principles that the rightness or wrongness of an act can be derived from.

???? That definition is totally inadequate. Good heaven's man...you can't expect anyone to accept that.

Firstly, you've put it into what we call "the passive voice." That is a grammar term, meaning that the doer of the action is either not specified, or not even included in the sentence.

Moral facts are a set of facts that one can derive the rightness or wrongness of an act from them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:08 pm So "somebody" is "deriving" something, somehow, from somewhere. That's all you've said.

Yes, that is the meaning of moral facts. What do you expect? Either God has reasons/facts for why an action is wrong or not. My question to you is whether God, being an Omniscient, has a single reason for prohibiting an act like adultery? If yes what is that reason?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:08 pm Then, you've called "moral facts" a "set of principles." But a "fact" is not a "set." And a "set" is not a "fact." So you there is no coherence in that statement.

I didn't say that fact is a set.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:08 pm Most tellingly, a priniciple has to be legitimized. What that means is that you owe a person to show what authority, reasons or grounds stand behind a given principle and make it obligatory. You can't just say, "Well, this is my principle, and you ought to follow it, too." Nobody has any reason to think they do, given no more than that.

So if you say, "My principle is, "You shall not kill," say, you have to say as well what grounds make that something that everybody else should believe and practice. What makes it obligatory? What makes us confident that it is genuinely a moral imperative?

So if you have no moral authorities, and no grounded methods for locating a moral principle, then by definition, all you have, at most, is arbitrary wishes...nothing more. And anyone and everyone can safely ignore you on that.

If there is no moral fact then whatever that God prohibits is also arbitrary. That is my point.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:08 pm So again, what is a "moral fact", according to you?

I already defined it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:43 pm How you conceive of love appears rather shabby.

It's not how I conceive of it that matters here: it's how you do. You haven't given us any reason to think you have anything particular in mind: if you say "I'm expressing love..." in doing anything, there's nothing you left us believing there's nothing we can't get away with.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:17 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:43 pm How you conceive of love appears rather shabby.

It's not how I conceive of it that matters here: it's how you do.

Wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:17 pmYou haven't given us any reason to think you have anything particular in mind: if you say "I'm expressing love..." in doing anything, there's nothing you left us believing there's nothing we can't get away with.

Idiot.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:06 pm Moral facts are a set of facts that one can derive the rightness or wrongness of an act from them.

You've used "facts" to define "facts." That's called a circular definition. It tells us nothing, because it requires us to believe already in the term to understand the term it's supposed to explain.

A "moral fact" is derived from what source, in your thinking?

My question to you is whether God, being an Omniscient, has a single reason for prohibiting an act like adultery?

I gave the reason, and you didn't understand it. What do you want me to do for you now?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:08 pm Then, you've called "moral facts" a "set of principles." But a "fact" is not a "set." And a "set" is not a "fact." So you there is no coherence in that statement.

I didn't say that fact is a set.

You said, "Moral facts" are a "set of principles." Well, what makes those "principles" into "facts"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:08 pm Most tellingly, a priniciple has to be legitimized. What that means is that you owe a person to show what authority, reasons or grounds stand behind a given principle and make it obligatory. You can't just say, "Well, this is my principle, and you ought to follow it, too." Nobody has any reason to think they do, given no more than that.

So if you say, "My principle is, "You shall not kill," say, you have to say as well what grounds make that something that everybody else should believe and practice. What makes it obligatory? What makes us confident that it is genuinely a moral imperative?

So if you have no moral authorities, and no grounded methods for locating a moral principle, then by definition, all you have, at most, is arbitrary wishes...nothing more. And anyone and everyone can safely ignore you on that.

If there is no moral fact then whatever that God prohibits is also arbitrary. That is my point.

There is a God. And He establishes moral facts. It is a fact that, in this universe God has established, infanticide is an immoral action. It will be immoral even if every human person decides it's just dandy to immolate their children to Molech. It will always be immoral. It will be immoral because that's the God and universe we really have.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:08 pm So again, what is a "moral fact", according to you?

I already defined it.

So badly as to be utterly uninformative, though. Try again, please.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:17 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:43 pm How you conceive of love appears rather shabby.

It's not how I conceive of it that matters here: it's how you do.

Wrong.

Right, actually.

You're the one who alleged that acting out of "love" excuses everything. I didn't. I wouldn't agree with it unless "love" were propertly defined...which you, so far, have refused to do.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:27 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:17 pm
It's not how I conceive of it that matters here: it's how you do.

Wrong.

Right, actually.

You're the one who alleged that acting out of "love" excuses everything. I didn't. I wouldn't agree with it unless "love" were propertly defined...which you, so far, have refused to do.

So you finally ask a reasonable question. Empathy is key, and so is your own personal view of what love entails. If you don't understand what Christ did to insist on being faithful to love and when in love, then you don't understand.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:25 pm
There is a God. And He establishes moral facts. It is a fact that, in this universe God has established, infanticide is an immoral action..

That isn't a fact, it is merely a belief, and I'm not totally convinced that you actually do believe it. I don't see how someone with your intelligence could. But, even if you have total conviction in the truth of it, you know perfectly well that you can't present it as a fact, and you certainly wouldn't let anyone else get away with a similar liberty.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:31 pm Empathy is key,

So now, "empathy," not "love" becomes the explanation?

So you're now saying that if I think I'm "feeling for" somebody else (though of course, I never am; I am not that person, and can never feel what they really feel, as a consequence. I'm only "feeling" my own imaginings of what they are supposed to be "feeling.") then my adultery and covetousness is excused?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:40 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:31 pm Empathy is key,

So now, "empathy," not "love" becomes the explanation?

So you're now saying that if I think I'm "feeling for" somebody else (though of course, I never am; I am not that person, and can never feel what they really feel, as a consequence. I'm only "feeling" my own imaginings of what they are supposed to be "feeling.") then my adultery and covetousness is excused?

You truly are annoying when you make your own analysis of what I am stating, and output garbage.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:25 pm There is a God. And He establishes moral facts. It is a fact that, in this universe God has established, infanticide is an immoral action..

That isn't a fact, it is merely a belief...

Well, that's exactly what we have to debate. Is the existence of God a fact, or not? IF it is, there's no problem with moral facts; if it's not, then there are no such things as objective moral facts at all. Anybody can do anything they can get away with.

As for the existence of God, I genuinely think it IS a fact, and others suppose it's not. They're entitled to. They have a right, like anybody else, to be wrong. And they have a right to live and die by their decision. That's perfectly fair.

So, we'll see...or rather, I will.

Because if they are right, then nobody will ever see. Oblivion will swallow us all, and we won't even know what it all meant.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:44 pm So, we'll see...or rather, I will.

Because if they are right, then nobody will ever see. Oblivion will swallow us all, and we won't even know what it all meant.

Just curious, what would you expect heaven to be like? Care to describe a version of heaven that you would like?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:51 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:44 pm So, we'll see...or rather, I will.

Because if they are right, then nobody will ever see. Oblivion will swallow us all, and we won't even know what it all meant.

Just curious, what would you expect heaven to be like?

We can talk about that...but first, I need something I can believe on "love" or "empathy" or whatever it is that you think actually excuses adultery and theft.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:54 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:51 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:44 pm So, we'll see...or rather, I will.

Because if they are right, then nobody will ever see. Oblivion will swallow us all, and we won't even know what it all meant.

Just curious, what would you expect heaven to be like?

We can talk about that...but first, I need something I can believe on "love" or "empathy" or whatever it is that you think actually excuses adultery and theft.

FFS. I have never stated adultery and theft are a part of LOVE, quite the opposite. Adultery is awful, when someone betrays the love and trust of their partner.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:25 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:06 pm Moral facts are a set of facts that one can derive the rightness or wrongness of an act from them.

You've used "facts" to define "facts." That's called a circular definition. It tells us nothing, because it requires us to believe already in the term to understand the term it's supposed to explain.

No, a fact is defined as a thing that is known or proved to be true. Here I am trying to define moral facts. You can derive the rightness and wrongness of an action from moral facts.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:25 pm A "moral fact" is derived from what source, in your thinking?

No source. They should be as valid as the truth if there is any.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:25 pm

My question to you is whether God, being an Omniscient, has a single reason for prohibiting an act like adultery?

I gave the reason, and you didn't understand it. What do you want me to do for you now?

What you said as a fact was: "The fact is that it's wrong.". You have to show that this statement is correct. Just saying so does not make anything correct or incorrect.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:08 pm Then, you've called "moral facts" a "set of principles." But a "fact" is not a "set." And a "set" is not a "fact." So you there is no coherence in that statement.

I didn't say that fact is a set.

You said, "Moral facts" are a "set of principles." Well, what makes those "principles" into "facts"?

I corrected the definition.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 9:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:08 pm Most tellingly, a priniciple has to be legitimized. What that means is that you owe a person to show what authority, reasons or grounds stand behind a given principle and make it obligatory. You can't just say, "Well, this is my principle, and you ought to follow it, too." Nobody has any reason to think they do, given no more than that.

So if you say, "My principle is, "You shall not kill," say, you have to say as well what grounds make that something that everybody else should believe and practice. What makes it obligatory? What makes us confident that it is genuinely a moral imperative?

So if you have no moral authorities, and no grounded methods for locating a moral principle, then by definition, all you have, at most, is arbitrary wishes...nothing more. And anyone and everyone can safely ignore you on that.

If there is no moral fact then whatever that God prohibits is also arbitrary. That is my point.

There is a God. And He establishes moral facts. It is a fact that, in this universe God has established, infanticide is an immoral action. It will be immoral even if every human person decides it's just dandy to immolate their children to Molech. It will always be immoral. It will be immoral because that's the God and universe we really have.

You cannot establish a moral fact. They exist like the truth. If a moral fact exists then it is true and one can derive the rightness and wrongness of action from it otherwise one cannot say that any action is right or wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 6:08 pm So again, what is a "moral fact", according to you?

I already defined it.

So badly as to be utterly uninformative, though. Try again, please.

Please read again.