Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 7:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 7:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 5:12 am
We can explain what we mean when we say we intend to do something.
Then ask of any one who have intention to kill you [for whatever reason] to explain his intentions before carrying out the act.
Or have any murder
in most cases [note] explained or expressed their intentions to kill the victim before they carried out the murder?
The 'impulse of intending' is a fact.
This is the same as the consistent and continual moral impulse within the moral agent's brain/mind of ' one human ought not to kill another human being' is a fact.
In any actions, there are two main set of facts, i.e.
- 1. the impulses to act and its corresponding activities in the brain
2. the subsequent actions that follow
What I deemed as relative moral facts are with reference to 1 and not 2.
To deal with 2 is too late, i.e. fire fighting rather than addressing the root causes.
Fact: brain events produce what we call impulses to act and intentions, such as the impulse or intention to kill.
Opinion: it's morally wrong to kill.
There's absolutely no connection between those two claims.
When have I ever attempted to 'connect' the impulse or intention to kill with 'it is morally wrong to kill'.
I have claimed moral facts in alignment with their specific referent are generated via the Framework and System [F/S] of Morality and Ethics.
From that F/S I have generated the following moral facts as a moral standard and GUIDE, i.e.
"no human ought to kill another human"
I have provided the justifications for the above Justified True Moral Belief via the Moral F/S - details in the various previous posts and OPs.
Your task remains to demonstrate the connection between a true factual assertion and a moral conclusion. No moral realist or objectivist, of any stripe, has done so, to my knowledge.
Yes, it is not solvable BUT ONLY within "your" dogmatic knowledge, rigidity and ignorance.
But it is solvable if one
thinks outside the box.
Note how Bohr resolved the once seemingly impossible dilemma in Physics which was because most Physicists were stuck in the old paradigm then. Bohr applied the complementarity principle from Yin-Yang to resolve the dilemma and now QM is one of the most significant contribution to humanity at present.
I have read of many solutions to the 'Is-Ought' Problem and the most reliable is the one from:
- Alan Gewith -
"The 'Is-Ought' Problem Resolved"
Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Vol. 47 (1973 - 1974), pp. 34-61 (28 pages)
Published by: American Philosophical Association/
As usual there will be crazy counters from opponents of your breed, but their counters are as usual too rigid, dogmatic, narrow, shallow and not thinking-outside-the-box.
The point is you are operating within a rigid paradigm from a Framework and System of Knowledge, i.e. Analytic Philosophy and Philosophical Realism which conditions do not allow facts [as defined within the F/S] to be moral facts.
This F/S of Analytic Philosophy is too pedantic with the Law of the Excluded Middle which is not efficient in all aspects of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_ex ... Criticisms
Those who do not subscribe the very limited Analytic Philosophy Framework do not have to abide with the rules set and agreed within themselves.
- Hey! you are not a God to dictate, your thinking, views, and philosophical framework is the ONLY WAY and the ONLY Truth. You look like a Fundy in this case.
The Problem is your thinking is too narrow, shallow and worst too dogmatic thus unable to think-outside-the-box and shift paradigm to generate useful knowledge and practices. Note this challenge;
The "nine dots" puzzle.
The goal of the puzzle is to link all 9 dots using four straight lines or fewer, without lifting the pen and without tracing the same line more than once. One solution appears below.
Those [not informed of the solution] like you with the sort of narrow, shallow and dogmatic thinking will NEVER be able to find a solution and will just surrender to make various noises and grunts as a defense mechanisms.
To resolve the solution, one need to think-outside-the-box.
Those [like your] who are unable to think-outside-the-box will NEVER be able to reconcile empirical facts to arrive at justified moral facts which are
necessary to guide and steer humans to morally right actions.
What you are doing is adopting a very lackadaisical attitude to morality and ethics.
The claim that linguistic facts are products of intersubjective consensus, so that any linguistic product of intersubjective consensus is a fact, is false - and an elementary mistake. Consensus isn't even a necessary - let alone a sufficient - condition for what we call a fact.
What you called "fact" within Analytical Philosophy is ultimately 'fart' i.e. illusory.
Linguistic facts emerge from intersubjective consensus within a specific Logico-Linguistic Framework and System.
In addition the so called referents representing those facts are also emergence from intersubjective consensus within the mechanisms of reality.
If you are so insistence, prove to me a fact-in-itself or referent-in-itself exists as
ultimately real.
I have mentioned Russell's "perhaps there is no table [the referent] at all" many times. You have not bothered to counter this. For you 'ignorance is bliss' or ignorance is truth.
Read this and provide a counter to it;
http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html
Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
In this quote, Russell is referring to the 'referent-table' not the fact-table.
I maintain it is true, there is no referent that is a table-in-itself.
Prove this is wrong?