Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:21 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:16 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 10:03 am

So are you merely saying that if I think of a unicorn, it is a fact that I am thinking of a unicorn?

That is correct.

Or if I think it is wrong for a human being to kill another human being, it is a fact that I think it is wrong for a human being to kill another human being?

Yes, that is correct BUT the mental state of thinking of whatever is a fact of the thinking faculty but it is not a moral fact of the moral faculty in the brain.

You are conflating out of ignorance. Note the difference in this analogy between

• 1. -the mental state of thinking you are angry -the thinking faculty - a fact of thinking
  and
  2. -the actual mental state of being angry - the activation emotion - a fact of emotion.

The above two separate mental activities are represented by different set of activities of neurons in different parts/faculties of the the brain.

The fact is there is a moral faculty in the brain which is represented by a neural algorithm that involved neurons activated from different parts of the brain.
Within this moral faculty there is a major "sub-routine" of 'ought-not to kill another human' IF the "kill" program is activated for some reasons. This is a mental state of being in control of oneself in not killing another human being. This is the moral fact that has a physical referent.

The above active mental state of inhibition in killing another human is the moral fact. Such a mental state of inhibition to kill another human is in your brain, that is why you do not simply go out to kill another human or perhaps even when you are offended by another person.

Thinking about such a state of killing is not a moral fact but a fact of thinking.
For example if some BLM protestor killed one of your near relative and you have identified the murderer, it is likely you may have thoughts of revenge and driven to kill the murderer, but that thinking is not a moral fact.
If is only when your 'ought-not to kill another human' inhibitors kicked in and you don't go on to kill the murderer that is the issue of the inherent moral fact in your brain.

Get it?

I think the reason why your thread has created controversy is your choice of terminology; specifically your designation "moral fact". It gives the impression that morality is a property of the fact, rather than merely the subject of it. A fact can be concerned with morality, but cannot possess the quality of being moral.

I don't even see the need for the word "moral" in the thread title. You could have just said: "All states-of-affair are facts", which, of course, would have included moral ones.

• P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
  P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
  C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.
Book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739)
-Wiki

• A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[6] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism#

The fact is there is a moral faculty in the brain which is represented by a neural algorithm that involved neurons activated from different parts of the brain.
Within this moral faculty there is a major "sub-routine" of 'ought-not to kill another human' IF the "kill" program is activated for some reasons. This is a mental state of being in control of oneself in not killing another human being. This is the moral fact that has a physical referent.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 8:54 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:

The fact is there is a moral faculty in the brain which is represented by a neural algorithm that involved neurons activated from different parts of the brain.
Within this moral faculty there is a major "sub-routine" of 'ought-not to kill another human' IF the "kill" program is activated for some reasons. This is a mental state of being in control of oneself in not killing another human being. This is the moral fact that has a physical referent.

But I sometimes struggle with my conscience before I set myself to any boring task that has no 'moral' dimension whatsoever.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 8:37 am
I believe it is a problem of the different paradigm I approached with towards Morality and Ethics which I believe accords with reality and human nature.

I believe the terms I used for 'fact' 'states-of-affairs' 'mental states' 'morality', moral fact are correct and effective to the paradigm of morality [Framework and System of Morality and Ethics] that I am referring to.

Basically my paradigm of morality [definition] refer to the what the individual ought to do, i.e. to do good which is to avoid evil [as defined]. Moral facts, i.e. principles and rules are not to be imposed on any individuals at all but relate to the voluntary personal self-development of moral competence with focus within the individual.

I have already defined the above terms within my moral paradigm [Framework and System of Morality and Ethics] many times elsewhere.

What is a moral fact is this;
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

• P1 All Framework and System of Knowledge process and produce facts in alignment with its referent.
  P2 What is moral is dealt via a [Moral] Framework and System of Knowledge.
  C1 Therefore the Moral Framework and System produce moral facts.

Thus what is a moral fact has the properties of morality [as defined above].

Why my thread created so much controversy especially with moral-facts-deniers is very historical, psychological, due to emotional and confirmation bias based on some paradigm of bastardized philosophy traceable mainly to the logical positivists who abused Hume's is-ought distinction.

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.
Book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739)
-Wiki

Note the mentioned of 'God' in the above quote.
In those days, the idea of God imposing moral commands on believers and on non-believers by the Church which was very powerful was strongly HATED and abhorred by non-theists of which Hume was one of them.

The Logical Positivists then adopted Hume's point [together with Moore's Naturaistic Fallacy] and amplified the HATRED to theists and all those who do not agree with their bastardized ideology of analyticity and non-verifiable claims especially from a God and other non-theistic perspectives.

Those who tried to push their non-verifiable moral claims and other metaphysical claims were pummeled by the logical positivists who had held to their arrogance based on ignorance until Quine came into the picture.

But this arrogance based on ignorance is still maintained by some [a minority <28%*] at present, i.e. the Moral Facts Deniers [moral anti-realists] to pummel those who they ignorantly think are peddling the moral claims of the old, i.e. from God, Platonic Forms and others.

• A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[6] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism#

But note my paradigm as explained above is totally different from those of God and Platonic Forms but the Moral Facts Deniers do not believe so and insist what I presented is merely in a disguised form of equivocating fact [descriptive] with values [prescriptive] directly.

But the ignorant driven arrogant moral facts deniers do not understand Morality [as defined] is in reality in accord with the paradigm I have presented.

Because the hatred by moral-facts-deniers are so embedded psychologically I am not expecting they will change at all.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:13 am I don't really follow all that, but I think most of it is irrelevant to the issue. I personally think the term "moral fact" is both incorrect and misleading.
I won't argue about its correctness, but I won't budge on the point of its being misleading.
.......

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:36 am
To each his own.
I am not here with any primary concern to convince anyone but merely to express my views to whoever want to read. I believe I am on sufficient grounds and note my New Morality & Ethics Folder now has 690 files in 36 subfolders, so I am not that ignorant.

If you have research in depth and width, the term 'moral fact' is commonly used by moral realists and the cognitivists who claim moral judgments are factual, are proposition, has truth/false values and others.

See this new thread I just raised;
The Moral-Facts-Deniers' Claims are False & Toothless
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30330

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:42 am Okay, but let me just ask you, for my own benefit, if no one else's: If I were to say, "it is wrong to kill another human being", am I stating a fact?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:48 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:42 am Okay, but let me just ask you, for my own benefit, if no one else's: If I were to say, "it is wrong to kill another human being", am I stating a fact?

There exists a semantic/conception for "facts" and "wrongness" for which the answer is "yes".

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:52 am Well can I make an appeal for plain English in this instance?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 10:16 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:52 am Well can I make an appeal for plain English in this instance?

You can make one - I doubt I can oblige you. English (language in general) is part of the problem.

The issue boils down to whether all questions are equally meaningful.

Is the sky grobmunf?

You'd agree with me that this question is undecidable until we figure out whether grobmunf-ness is even a thing.

Apply this same reasoning to the question "Is murder wrong?". Is wrong-ness even a thing?

My position this is trivial. All yes/no questions are decision problems.
The default position on decision problems is undecidability.

If you are answering the question with anything other than "I don't know", then the question is decidable. To you. Somehow.
Whatever swayed you one way or the other is ontological - emotion, feeling, intuition.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 10:29 am If I ask the question: is the assertion, "murder is wrong" a statement of fact? You know exactly what I mean, and so does any reasonably intelligent person.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 10:29 am Some question cannot be answered in any meaningful way with a simple yes or no, but I think this one can.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 10:33 am
No, I don't know "exactly what you mean" - because I am not a mind reader. And so I have no idea how you conceptualise "wrongness" and "factuality".

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 10:55 am I know you're not a mind reader, that's why I wrote it down for you, rather than just thought it at you. And unless you think I am trying to trick you, you will have a good enough idea of what I mean by "wrong" and "fact".

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 10:55 am I'll tell you what: you ask me the same question and I'll show you how easy it is to answer.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 10:33 am
I am not talking about process of arriving at answers. I am talking about the process of formulating meaningful questions.