For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Peter Holmes should not be murdered.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:40 am Please produce a moral assertion that you think is a fact
OK. Go ahead.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 11:26 am Here are three facts.
1 I believe there are no moral facts.
2 I don't want to be murdered.
3 I believe murder is morally wrong.
Problem you don't have the capacity to grasp what is presented.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:40 amNope. You've failed every time so far. And I and others have shown you very clearly why you've failed. So.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:57 amAfter 'a thousand times' showing you the evidence,Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:50 am
Your self-delusion is impenetrable. Your claim that 'morality is specific to the human species' is blatantly and irrefutably a matter of opinion - not a fact. The scope of our moral concerns is not some fixed feature of reality. I'm beyond amazed, yet again.
Oh, and where's that example of a moral fact? Still waiting.
I am not going to waste time.
You can find it in the various threads and in your two thread re 'Is Morality Objective'.
Please produce a moral assertion that you think is a fact. And I'll show you why it isn't. Or produce an argument with a factual premise that entails a moral conclusion. And I'll show you why it doesn't.
1 Like all abstract things, propositions are misleading metaphysical fictions. There are only assertions - typically linguistic expressions, which are real. So moral assertions are real linguistic expressions. And they express value-judgements about certain features of reality, such as slavery, abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:43 amProblem you don't have the capacity to grasp what is presented.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:40 amNope. You've failed every time so far. And I and others have shown you very clearly why you've failed. So.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:57 am
After 'a thousand times' showing you the evidence,
I am not going to waste time.
You can find it in the various threads and in your two thread re 'Is Morality Objective'.
Please produce a moral assertion that you think is a fact. And I'll show you why it isn't. Or produce an argument with a factual premise that entails a moral conclusion. And I'll show you why it doesn't.
Here is the Searle's argument again.
Note Searle's argument is only one of the counter to demonstrate the moral ought logically.
Searles' Is-Ought Argument - Syllogism Only
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30045
As for a moral assertion that is a moral fact, I have also justified that countless times but you are obviously blind [intellectually dishonest] to them.
Note this thread;
A Moral Assertion that is a Moral Fact
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30046
Btw, do you agree your stance is that of NonCognitivism and its sub, Expressivism?
NonCognitivism & Expressivism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30047
which deny there are moral facts and moral statements are not propositions and has no true or false elements.
Where and what are these "value-judgments" being expressed? If they don't exist (as you insist), then what is it that you are expressing?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:01 am 1 Like all abstract things, propositions are misleading metaphysical fictions. There are only assertions - typically linguistic expressions, which are real. So moral assertions are real linguistic expressions. And they express value-judgements about certain features of reality, such as slavery, abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on
Peter Holmes believes it is a fact that he doesn't want to be murdered.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:01 am The horse is dead. The race is forfeit in advance. Moral cognitivism is iraational.
Let's relegate the word 'fact' from absolute meaning to social meaning. So the meaning of 'fact' is its social use which varies from one social situation to another, and while the social situations have sort of family resemblance, there is no defining characteristic of the word's usage.(See Wittgenstein's social theory of language .)Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:30 amWhere and what are these "value-judgments" being expressed? If they don't exist (as you insist), then what is it that you are expressing?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:01 am 1 Like all abstract things, propositions are misleading metaphysical fictions. There are only assertions - typically linguistic expressions, which are real. So moral assertions are real linguistic expressions. And they express value-judgements about certain features of reality, such as slavery, abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on
Peter Holmes believes it is a fact that he doesn't want to be murdered.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:01 am The horse is dead. The race is forfeit in advance. Moral cognitivism is iraational.
Peter Holmes believes it is not a fact that he ought not be murdered.
If that's what rationalists believe, then I don't want to be rational.
these propositions don't contradict each other. The first proposition recalls the Boo-Hurrah theory of ethics.The second proposition is sceptical of the Boo-Hurrah theory of ethics.In both cases 'fact' is something that exists in nature and it's even conceivable Peter's utterances are part of recorded history.Peter Holmes believes it is a fact that he doesn't want to be murdered.
Peter Holmes believes it is not a fact that he ought not be murdered.
What exists in nature is Peter's violent, physical objection to any attempts to murder him. The reaction to the action. The reflex.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:47 amthese propositions don't contradict each other. The first proposition recalls the Boo-Hurrah theory of ethics.The second proposition is sceptical of the Boo-Hurrah theory of ethics.In both cases 'fact' is something that exists in nature and it's even conceivable Peter's utterances are part of recorded history.Peter Holmes believes it is a fact that he doesn't want to be murdered.
Peter Holmes believes it is not a fact that he ought not be murdered.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:09 amWhat exists in nature is Peter's violent, physical objection to any attempts to murder him. The reaction to the action. The reflex.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:47 amthese propositions don't contradict each other. The first proposition recalls the Boo-Hurrah theory of ethics.The second proposition is sceptical of the Boo-Hurrah theory of ethics.In both cases 'fact' is something that exists in nature and it's even conceivable Peter's utterances are part of recorded history.Peter Holmes believes it is a fact that he doesn't want to be murdered.
Peter Holmes believes it is not a fact that he ought not be murdered.
Logic/language doesn't feature. Behaviour/empirical consequence does.
And so Peter will resist attempts to murder him, is a true/factual statement.
This is the problem of future contingents
That's interesting. But I think it demonstrates the problem with talk about propositions. A logic of any kind deals with language - what can be said consistently, without contradiction - not reality. Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences. And any use of language has to use one kind of logic or another.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:57 amSkepdick wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:09 amWhat exists in nature is Peter's violent, physical objection to any attempts to murder him. The reaction to the action. The reflex.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:47 am
these propositions don't contradict each other. The first proposition recalls the Boo-Hurrah theory of ethics.The second proposition is sceptical of the Boo-Hurrah theory of ethics.In both cases 'fact' is something that exists in nature and it's even conceivable Peter's utterances are part of recorded history.
Logic/language doesn't feature. Behaviour/empirical consequence does.
And so Peter will resist attempts to murder him, is a true/factual statement.
This is the problem of future contingents
That is a nice link which I read with interest.
I especially liked
(vii) It is not possible that (P and not P)
(viii) (It is not possible that not P) entails (it is necessary that P)
From these latter two premises, one cannot validly infer the conclusion:
(ix) P entails it is necessary that P
That's why I think a belief in hard determinism is faith and hope.I mean it is a matter of faith that P entails it is necessary that P. I especially like hard determinism as a faith stance as it is the best stance to justify and rationalise forgiveness and mercy. Not, I can add, forgiveness and mercy due to soft heartedness, but forgiveness and mercy based on the principle that the more a person knows of causes and possible causes, and the more acute the person's reasoning, the better the moral judgement.For instance causes of the specific criminal act should be a prime consideration when a criminal is brought to justice, and so punishment should be not retribution but removing the causes of the crime.
So slavery is wrong is true by virtue of up to date historical knowledge, plus modern capacity for empathy which is based on the success of the human sciences.
Also, I don't believe Aristotle's theory of forms which posits that each species is absolutely identifiable by its own exclusive form.
"Ouch that hurt!" is a use of language that uses neither inductive nor formal logic.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:46 amThat's interesting. But I think it demonstrates the problem with talk about propositions. A logic of any kind deals with language - what can be said consistently, without contradiction - not reality. Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences. And any use of language has to use one kind of logic or another.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:57 amSkepdick wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:09 am
What exists in nature is Peter's violent, physical objection to any attempts to murder him. The reaction to the action. The reflex.
Logic/language doesn't feature. Behaviour/empirical consequence does.
And so Peter will resist attempts to murder him, is a true/factual statement.
This is the problem of future contingents
That is a nice link which I read with interest.
I especially liked
(vii) It is not possible that (P and not P)
(viii) (It is not possible that not P) entails (it is necessary that P)
From these latter two premises, one cannot validly infer the conclusion:
(ix) P entails it is necessary that P
That's why I think a belief in hard determinism is faith and hope.I mean it is a matter of faith that P entails it is necessary that P. I especially like hard determinism as a faith stance as it is the best stance to justify and rationalise forgiveness and mercy. Not, I can add, forgiveness and mercy due to soft heartedness, but forgiveness and mercy based on the principle that the more a person knows of causes and possible causes, and the more acute the person's reasoning, the better the moral judgement.For instance causes of the specific criminal act should be a prime consideration when a criminal is brought to justice, and so punishment should be not retribution but removing the causes of the crime.
So slavery is wrong is true by virtue of up to date historical knowledge, plus modern capacity for empathy which is based on the success of the human sciences.
Also, I don't believe Aristotle's theory of forms which posits that each species is absolutely identifiable by its own exclusive form.
But the first premise you cite states the non-contradiction rule. And reality is not linguistic, so there are no contradictions ('speakings-against) in reality. To think there are is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are.
I don't know how you get from belief in hard determinism to 'so slavery is morally wrong is true'. That seems a leap to me. I can't see the stepping stones.
Okay, thanks. I think I see what you mean. I understand the argument that what we call moral improvement comes from greater knowledge and empathy. I just don't think that makes 'slavery is morally wrong' a fact. All it means is that more of us now think slavery is morally wrong. It's still - and can only be - a value-judgement, whatever reasons there are for making it.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 2:03 pm"Ouch that hurt!" is a use of language that uses neither inductive nor formal logic.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:46 amThat's interesting. But I think it demonstrates the problem with talk about propositions. A logic of any kind deals with language - what can be said consistently, without contradiction - not reality. Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences. And any use of language has to use one kind of logic or another.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:57 am
That is a nice link which I read with interest.
I especially liked
(vii) It is not possible that (P and not P)
(viii) (It is not possible that not P) entails (it is necessary that P)
From these latter two premises, one cannot validly infer the conclusion:
(ix) P entails it is necessary that P
That's why I think a belief in hard determinism is faith and hope.I mean it is a matter of faith that P entails it is necessary that P. I especially like hard determinism as a faith stance as it is the best stance to justify and rationalise forgiveness and mercy. Not, I can add, forgiveness and mercy due to soft heartedness, but forgiveness and mercy based on the principle that the more a person knows of causes and possible causes, and the more acute the person's reasoning, the better the moral judgement.For instance causes of the specific criminal act should be a prime consideration when a criminal is brought to justice, and so punishment should be not retribution but removing the causes of the crime.
So slavery is wrong is true by virtue of up to date historical knowledge, plus modern capacity for empathy which is based on the success of the human sciences.
Also, I don't believe Aristotle's theory of forms which posits that each species is absolutely identifiable by its own exclusive form.
But the first premise you cite states the non-contradiction rule. And reality is not linguistic, so there are no contradictions ('speakings-against) in reality. To think there are is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are.
I don't know how you get from belief in hard determinism to 'so slavery is morally wrong is true'. That seems a leap to me. I can't see the stepping stones.
Stepping Stones.
Hard determinism (arrow) every event is a caused event (arrow) slavery was caused (arrow).
The more one knows about causes of slavery, and the more one knows how other people feel, the better is the judgement.
Modern judgement is more knowledgeable because we are better at history and empathy than when slavery was endemic.(arrow) modern people generally say slavery is wrong (arrow) modern people are more right about this than those people who endorsed historical slavery.
Note: Right and wrong are relative to the reason that is brought to the table and are never absolutely right or wrong.
Slavery is morally wrong , and a dropped apple falls, and Paris is lovely in the spring are facts. However all moral and physical 'facts' are nothing but working hypotheses, whether they are received wisdom or whether they are eccentric opinions. Briefly, we know nothing.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 2:44 pmOkay, thanks. I think I see what you mean. I understand the argument that what we call moral improvement comes from greater knowledge and empathy. I just don't think that makes 'slavery is morally wrong' a fact. All it means is that more of us now think slavery is morally wrong. It's still - and can only be - a value-judgement, whatever reasons there are for making it.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 2:03 pm"Ouch that hurt!" is a use of language that uses neither inductive nor formal logic.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:46 am
That's interesting. But I think it demonstrates the problem with talk about propositions. A logic of any kind deals with language - what can be said consistently, without contradiction - not reality. Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences. And any use of language has to use one kind of logic or another.
But the first premise you cite states the non-contradiction rule. And reality is not linguistic, so there are no contradictions ('speakings-against) in reality. To think there are is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are.
I don't know how you get from belief in hard determinism to 'so slavery is morally wrong is true'. That seems a leap to me. I can't see the stepping stones.
Stepping Stones.
Hard determinism (arrow) every event is a caused event (arrow) slavery was caused (arrow).
The more one knows about causes of slavery, and the more one knows how other people feel, the better is the judgement.
Modern judgement is more knowledgeable because we are better at history and empathy than when slavery was endemic.(arrow) modern people generally say slavery is wrong (arrow) modern people are more right about this than those people who endorsed historical slavery.
Note: Right and wrong are relative to the reason that is brought to the table and are never absolutely right or wrong.
I was puzzled by your reference to physical determinism - every event is fully causally determined by the preceding physical state-of-affairs, plus physical regularities. And since that includes brain-states and A/B decision making, determinism is usually deployed to counter the idea of moral agency and therefore responsibility for moral choices. I think that resonates with your view about understanding vs blame - and I'm with you on that.
What exactly does the word, "moral," mean? Everyone says this is morally right, morally wrong, etc. etc. instead of just this right or this wrong. What's the difference between plain old right and wrong and, "moral," right and wrong.
I think I was trying to differentiate between aesthetically wrong, historiographically wrong, and morally wrong. I ended by claiming all sorts of propositions are hypotheses, and as such may not endure.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:06 pmWhat exactly does the word, "moral," mean? Everyone says this is morally right, morally wrong, etc. etc. instead of just this right or this wrong. What's the difference between plain old right and wrong and, "moral," right and wrong.
[I asked this question here, and still have no answer.] I also asked Peter Holmes this question on another thread.
Yes, I see that. It's the clearest answer I've received so far. I'll comment more there. Thank you.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:16 pmI think I was trying to differentiate between aesthetically wrong, historiographically wrong, and morally wrong. I ended by claiming all sorts of propositions are hypotheses, and as such may not endure.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:06 pmWhat exactly does the word, "moral," mean? Everyone says this is morally right, morally wrong, etc. etc. instead of just this right or this wrong. What's the difference between plain old right and wrong and, "moral," right and wrong.
[I asked this question here, and still have no answer.] I also asked Peter Holmes this question on another thread.
Okay. As you know, I think the function of 'a dropped apple falls' is completely different from the function of 'slavery is morally wrong' and 'Paris is lovely in the spring' - and that to call them all facts is a fundamental mistake.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:22 pmSlavery is morally wrong , and a dropped apple falls, and Paris is lovely in the spring are facts. However all moral and physical 'facts' are nothing but working hypotheses, whether they are received wisdom or whether they are eccentric opinions. Briefly, we know nothing.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 2:44 pmOkay, thanks. I think I see what you mean. I understand the argument that what we call moral improvement comes from greater knowledge and empathy. I just don't think that makes 'slavery is morally wrong' a fact. All it means is that more of us now think slavery is morally wrong. It's still - and can only be - a value-judgement, whatever reasons there are for making it.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 2:03 pm
"Ouch that hurt!" is a use of language that uses neither inductive nor formal logic.
Stepping Stones.
Hard determinism (arrow) every event is a caused event (arrow) slavery was caused (arrow).
The more one knows about causes of slavery, and the more one knows how other people feel, the better is the judgement.
Modern judgement is more knowledgeable because we are better at history and empathy than when slavery was endemic.(arrow) modern people generally say slavery is wrong (arrow) modern people are more right about this than those people who endorsed historical slavery.
Note: Right and wrong are relative to the reason that is brought to the table and are never absolutely right or wrong.
I was puzzled by your reference to physical determinism - every event is fully causally determined by the preceding physical state-of-affairs, plus physical regularities. And since that includes brain-states and A/B decision making, determinism is usually deployed to counter the idea of moral agency and therefore responsibility for moral choices. I think that resonates with your view about understanding vs blame - and I'm with you on that.
Yes, we are on the same boat regarding determinism and its ethical corollary.