Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 4:29 pm Moral realists and objectivists claim that moral rightness and wrongness are actual features of reality

specifically, I say there is a fact about man that leads to a moral fact about man


the reality that existed before we turned up, and which will exist after we're gone.

I never said that...specifically, I've talked about morality as what is permissible between and among men and moral fact as what pertains to men, is inherent in man...never said diddly about some free-floatin' thing

I've been meaning to ask, Henry: what evidence is there for the factual assertion - the supposed fact - that a human, uniquely among the animals, owns herself? You say it's a fact, so I assume you can point to evidence. Or is it just your opinion?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:42 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 4:29 pm Moral realists and objectivists claim that moral rightness and wrongness are actual features of reality

specifically, I say there is a fact about man that leads to a moral fact about man


the reality that existed before we turned up, and which will exist after we're gone.

I never said that...specifically, I've talked about morality as what is permissible between and among men and moral fact as what pertains to men, is inherent in man...never said diddly about some free-floatin' thing

I've been meaning to ask, Henry: what evidence is there for the factual assertion - the supposed fact - that a human, uniquely among the animals, owns herself? You say it's a fact, so I assume you can point to evidence. Or is it just your opinion?

I started a whole thread on that, pete...the pithy, red meat one...i offered my evidence there...you dismissed it and I dismissed you

same as it always was.. :shrug:

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:19 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:42 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 4:29 pm Moral realists and objectivists claim that moral rightness and wrongness are actual features of reality

specifically, I say there is a fact about man that leads to a moral fact about man


the reality that existed before we turned up, and which will exist after we're gone.

I never said that...specifically, I've talked about morality as what is permissible between and among men and moral fact as what pertains to men, is inherent in man...never said diddly about some free-floatin' thing

I've been meaning to ask, Henry: what evidence is there for the factual assertion - the supposed fact - that a human, uniquely among the animals, owns herself? You say it's a fact, so I assume you can point to evidence. Or is it just your opinion?

I started a whole thread on that, pete...the pithy, red meat one...i offered my evidence there...you dismissed it and I dismissed you

same as it always was.. :shrug:

Oh, sorry. I forgot. No worries. I'll see if I can find it.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:10 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:19 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:42 pm
I've been meaning to ask, Henry: what evidence is there for the factual assertion - the supposed fact - that a human, uniquely among the animals, owns herself? You say it's a fact, so I assume you can point to evidence. Or is it just your opinion?

I started a whole thread on that, pete...the pithy, red meat one...i offered my evidence there...you dismissed it and I dismissed you

same as it always was.. :shrug:

Oh, sorry. I forgot. No worries. I'll see if I can find it.

why?

you'll just dismiss it again and I'll just dismiss you again

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:46 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:10 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:19 pm

I started a whole thread on that, pete...the pithy, red meat one...i offered my evidence there...you dismissed it and I dismissed you

same as it always was.. :shrug:

Oh, sorry. I forgot. No worries. I'll see if I can find it.

why?

you'll just dismiss it again and I'll just dismiss you again

Or you could just ignore me.

Anyway, I found it. You think the evidence for the claim that a person owns herself is that she knows she does 'Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously'. And her 'self-possession', her 'ownness, is essential to what and who [she] is'.

There are two different pieces of supposed evidence here: one that a person knows she owns herself; and the other that self-possession is essential to her nature. And you're right, neither of them amounts to credible evidence. I think they're just your opinions - projections of what you think ought to be the case - like all forms of essentialism.

So the fact isn't a fact, and the supposed moral entailment is flapping in the wind. Opinions all the way down.

I stand dismissed, of course. That's understood. Moral objectivists have no choice but to dismiss refutation and retreat into mysticism.

Or you could just ignore me.

doesn't appear either of us is all-fired interested in doin' that


Anyway, I found it. You think the evidence for the claim that a person owns herself is that she knows she does 'Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously'. And her 'self-possession', her 'ownness, is essential to what and who [she] is'.

not exactly, pete...as you know

no, my evidence is all men know this, recognize this about themselves...every man, anywhere, at any time, knows he belongs to himself, that ownness is his nature...even the slaver, as he's sellin and buyin' men, knows this about himself

even you know this about yourself

the universality of ownness, the *self-evidence of it, is my proof

falsify it (or not)


I stand dismissed, of course.

of course









*self-evidence, what is self-evident...this is on my mind these days...topic, mebbe, for another thread

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 9:14 am Yes, you claim there are moral facts inherent within humans. But you haven't shown that there are, or that the expression 'moral fact' is even coherent in the first place.

What all moral realists and objectivists have in common is the claim that there's a moral reality, and that therefore there are moral facts. So they are lumped together in their metaphysical delusion - which you share.

One of the worst intellectual dishonesty is deliberately lying without supporting evidence.

I have told you many times and you have acknowledged in prior posts, I do not share my views with moral objectivists like those of the theists and the Platonists.

You are getting desperate.

I have already demonstrated the existence of Justified True Moral Facts/Beliefs as conditioned upon a moral FSK.
I am not expecting you to understand and agree with the above given your very strong dogmatic and bigoted stance.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 12:55 am

Anyway, I found it. You think the evidence for the claim that a person owns herself is that she knows she does 'Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously'. And her 'self-possession', her 'ownness, is essential to what and who [she] is'.

not exactly, pete...as you know

no, my evidence is all men know this, recognize this about themselves...every man, anywhere, at any time, knows he belongs to himself, that ownness is his nature...even the slaver, as he's sellin and buyin' men, knows this about himself

even you know this about yourself

the universality of ownness, the *self-evidence of it, is my proof

falsify it (or not)

Good point.

I believe the above is reasonably sufficient [any normal* person would recognize] to indicate there are such a moral fact as represented by a psychological state in ALL normal person, i.e. 'an abhorrence to be owned by another human.'

There loads of other additional means to support and reinforce the above as a Justified True Moral Fact/Belief.

People like PH et. al. has a moral deficit thus do not even have the moral intuition of sense the above as a moral fact.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:47 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 9:14 am Yes, you claim there are moral facts inherent within humans. But you haven't shown that there are, or that the expression 'moral fact' is even coherent in the first place.

What all moral realists and objectivists have in common is the claim that there's a moral reality, and that therefore there are moral facts. So they are lumped together in their metaphysical delusion - which you share.

One of the worst intellectual dishonesty is deliberately lying without supporting evidence.

I have told you many times and you have acknowledged in prior posts, I do not share my views with moral objectivists like those of the theists and the Platonists.

You are getting desperate.

I have already demonstrated the existence of Justified True Moral Facts/Beliefs as conditioned upon a moral FSK.
I am not expecting you to understand and agree with the above given your very strong dogmatic and bigoted stance.

Yes, you're not a theist or a Platonist. But you are a moral realist and objectivist, so you think there's a moral reality consisting of moral facts. And that's a delusion you share with (some) theists and Platonists. You just disagree with them about the nature of that reality and those facts.

No, you have not demonstrated the existence of even one moral fact, or of a supposed moral FSK, which is your question-begging invention. And your appeal to the spurious JTB theory of knowledge demonstrates your philosophical immaturity.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:09 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:47 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 9:14 am Yes, you claim there are moral facts inherent within humans. But you haven't shown that there are, or that the expression 'moral fact' is even coherent in the first place.

What all moral realists and objectivists have in common is the claim that there's a moral reality, and that therefore there are moral facts. So they are lumped together in their metaphysical delusion - which you share.

One of the worst intellectual dishonesty is deliberately lying without supporting evidence.

I have told you many times and you have acknowledged in prior posts, I do not share my views with moral objectivists like those of the theists and the Platonists.

You are getting desperate.

I have already demonstrated the existence of Justified True Moral Facts/Beliefs as conditioned upon a moral FSK.
I am not expecting you to understand and agree with the above given your very strong dogmatic and bigoted stance.

Yes, you're not a theist or a Platonist. But you are a moral realist and objectivist, so you think there's a moral reality consisting of moral facts. And that's a delusion you share with (some) theists and Platonists. You just disagree with them about the nature of that reality and those facts.

I am not surprised you are ignorant of the very significant difference between the theist & Platonist moral objective reality and my Justified True Moral Beliefs/Facts.

What is critical with my moral facts is they are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.

The theists & Platonists do not claim there are moral facts like mine but rather they claim there are moral commands and universals that has objective reality, but are unable to provide sound justifications for their claims.

Btw, theistic morality is not classified as moral realists within the Philosophy of Morality, but they are moral relativists, i.e. relative to a specific group, i.e. theists. That's where you are ignorant and is philosophically immature.

No, you have not demonstrated the existence of even one moral fact, or of a supposed moral FSK, which is your question-begging invention. And your appeal to the spurious JTB theory of knowledge demonstrates your philosophical immaturity.

The above is your opinion which is based on ignorance.
You have not researched extensively on the subject of morality.
There are loads of support for the JTB theory with qualifying Gettier. Scientific knowledge in a way is JTB. You're saying scientific knowledge is philosophical immaturity??

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:59 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:09 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:47 am
One of the worst intellectual dishonesty is deliberately lying without supporting evidence.

I have told you many times and you have acknowledged in prior posts, I do not share my views with moral objectivists like those of the theists and the Platonists.

You are getting desperate.

I have already demonstrated the existence of Justified True Moral Facts/Beliefs as conditioned upon a moral FSK.
I am not expecting you to understand and agree with the above given your very strong dogmatic and bigoted stance.

Yes, you're not a theist or a Platonist. But you are a moral realist and objectivist, so you think there's a moral reality consisting of moral facts. And that's a delusion you share with (some) theists and Platonists. You just disagree with them about the nature of that reality and those facts.

I am not surprised you are ignorant of the very significant difference between the theist & Platonist moral objective reality and my Justified True Moral Beliefs/Facts.

What is critical with my moral facts is they are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.

The theists & Platonists do not claim there are moral facts like mine but rather they claim there are moral commands and universals that has objective reality, but are unable to provide sound justifications for their claims.

Btw, theistic morality is not classified as moral realists within the Philosophy of Morality, but they are moral relativists, i.e. relative to a specific group, i.e. theists. That's where you are ignorant and is philosophically immature.

No, you have not demonstrated the existence of even one moral fact, or of a supposed moral FSK, which is your question-begging invention. And your appeal to the spurious JTB theory of knowledge demonstrates your philosophical immaturity.

The above is your opinion which is based on ignorance.
You have not researched extensively on the subject of morality.
There are loads of support for the JTB theory with qualifying Gettier. Scientific knowledge in a way is JTB. You're saying scientific knowledge is philosophical immaturity??

I've explained why the JTB theory of knowledge is incorrect. And Gettier merely recycled the theory's truth-condition, which mistakes what we say about things for the way things are. The fact that you rely uncritically on the JTB is unsurprising. Genuinely critical thinking - rational skepticism - is hard and patient work. Much easier to parrot current orthodoxies and cite how many philosophers agree with them.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:45 pm Much easier to parrot current orthodoxies and cite how many philosophers agree with them.

But that's exactly what all subjective moralists are doing!

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:45 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:59 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:09 am
Yes, you're not a theist or a Platonist. But you are a moral realist and objectivist, so you think there's a moral reality consisting of moral facts. And that's a delusion you share with (some) theists and Platonists. You just disagree with them about the nature of that reality and those facts.

I am not surprised you are ignorant of the very significant difference between the theist & Platonist moral objective reality and my Justified True Moral Beliefs/Facts.

What is critical with my moral facts is they are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.

The theists & Platonists do not claim there are moral facts like mine but rather they claim there are moral commands and universals that has objective reality, but are unable to provide sound justifications for their claims.

Btw, theistic morality is not classified as moral realists within the Philosophy of Morality, but they are moral relativists, i.e. relative to a specific group, i.e. theists. That's where you are ignorant and is philosophically immature.

No, you have not demonstrated the existence of even one moral fact, or of a supposed moral FSK, which is your question-begging invention. And your appeal to the spurious JTB theory of knowledge demonstrates your philosophical immaturity.

The above is your opinion which is based on ignorance.
You have not researched extensively on the subject of morality.
There are loads of support for the JTB theory with qualifying Gettier. Scientific knowledge in a way is JTB. You're saying scientific knowledge is philosophical immaturity??

I've explained why the JTB theory of knowledge is incorrect. And Gettier merely recycled the theory's truth-condition, which mistakes what we say about things for the way things are. The fact that you rely uncritically on the JTB is unsurprising. Genuinely critical thinking - rational skepticism - is hard and patient work.

I understand JTB is not absolute and is limited.
Show me where JTB [references] is totally and absolutely useless?
Note Science is Justified True Beliefs [hypothesis] as the standard bearer of truths and knowledge.

Do you even take note of the term 'justified' within JTB?

If justified knowledge [JTB] is incorrect, then what knowledge is correct?

Much easier to parrot current orthodoxies and cite how many philosophers agree with them.

It is common knowledge, philosophizing currently is 90% parroting [on giant shoulders and others] and 10% by one's own argument.
Have you done a thesis before or are you familiar with how the PhDs of philosophy produced their thesis paper?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:57 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:45 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:59 am
I am not surprised you are ignorant of the very significant difference between the theist & Platonist moral objective reality and my Justified True Moral Beliefs/Facts.

What is critical with my moral facts is they are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.

The theists & Platonists do not claim there are moral facts like mine but rather they claim there are moral commands and universals that has objective reality, but are unable to provide sound justifications for their claims.

Btw, theistic morality is not classified as moral realists within the Philosophy of Morality, but they are moral relativists, i.e. relative to a specific group, i.e. theists. That's where you are ignorant and is philosophically immature.


The above is your opinion which is based on ignorance.
You have not researched extensively on the subject of morality.
There are loads of support for the JTB theory with qualifying Gettier. Scientific knowledge in a way is JTB. You're saying scientific knowledge is philosophical immaturity??

I've explained why the JTB theory of knowledge is incorrect. And Gettier merely recycled the theory's truth-condition, which mistakes what we say about things for the way things are. The fact that you rely uncritically on the JTB is unsurprising. Genuinely critical thinking - rational skepticism - is hard and patient work.

I understand JTB is not absolute and is limited.
Show me where JTB [references] is totally and absolutely useless?
Note Science is Justified True Beliefs [hypothesis] as the standard bearer of truths and knowledge.

Do you even take note of the term 'justified' within JTB?

If justified knowledge [JTB] is incorrect, then what knowledge is correct?

Much easier to parrot current orthodoxies and cite how many philosophers agree with them.

It is common knowledge, philosophizing currently is 90% parroting [on giant shoulders and others] and 10% by one's own argument.
Have you done a thesis before or are you familiar with how the PhDs of philosophy produced their thesis paper?

1 A justification is merely - and is nothing more than - an explanation. And your own claim that even natural science conlusions are no more than polished conjectures makes your magical belief in 'justified true belief' rather quaint.

2 The only features of reality that can have truth-value (being, classically, true or false) are factual assertions - linguistic expressions:'X is the case'. So the expression 'true belief' in the JTB is a confusing misattribution. Belief is merely the acceptance that something is the case, just as disbelief is the withholding of acceptance. And neither acceptance nor rejection have truth-value - they're just states of mind.

3 The JTB truth-condition is that S knows that p iff p is true - which conflates a feature of reality with a description of that feature of reality. So it's a complete conceptual mess. Knowing that something is the case has nothing to do with language, and therefore nothing to do with truth or falsehood, which are exclusively linguistic properties.

4 So much for the parroting of philosophical orthodoxies, such as that knowledge is justified true belief. Look where that gets us.

5 You say that the belief that there are moral facts is a justified true belief, empirically verifiable. And yet you have produced not even one example of a moral fact. Every one turns out to be a moral judgement, belief or opinion. Nul point.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 12:05 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:57 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:45 pm
I've explained why the JTB theory of knowledge is incorrect. And Gettier merely recycled the theory's truth-condition, which mistakes what we say about things for the way things are. The fact that you rely uncritically on the JTB is unsurprising. Genuinely critical thinking - rational skepticism - is hard and patient work.

I understand JTB is not absolute and is limited.
Show me where JTB [references] is totally and absolutely useless?
Note Science is Justified True Beliefs [hypothesis] as the standard bearer of truths and knowledge.

Do you even take note of the term 'justified' within JTB?

If justified knowledge [JTB] is incorrect, then what knowledge is correct?

Much easier to parrot current orthodoxies and cite how many philosophers agree with them.

It is common knowledge, philosophizing currently is 90% parroting [on giant shoulders and others] and 10% by one's own argument.
Have you done a thesis before or are you familiar with how the PhDs of philosophy produced their thesis paper?

1 A justification is merely - and is nothing more than - an explanation. And your own claim that even natural science conclusions are no more than polished conjectures makes your magical belief in 'justified true belief' rather quaint.

How come you are so ignorant that justification is merely an explanation?

Scientific knowledge [JTB] is justified upon all the requirements of the scientific framework and system, which include the scientific method, peer reviews and consensus, etc.

Yes, scientific conclusions are merely 'polished conjectures' but they are highly polished and justified with a high degree of confidence level, they are true where what is credible is such conclusion can be repeated by any one who carry out the same justifications [testing, etc.]

We can state justified true moral beliefs as moral knowledge are also mere 'polished conjectures' within a moral FSK which is similar to the scientific FSK, thus generate a high level of confidence level of its veracity, where anyone can test to get the same conclusions.

2 The only features of reality that can have truth-value (being, classically, true or false) are factual assertions - linguistic expressions: 'X is the case'. So the expression 'true belief' in the JTB is a confusing misattribution.
Belief is merely the acceptance that something is the case, just as disbelief is the withholding of acceptance. And neither acceptance nor rejection have truth-value - they're just states of mind.

Note anyone can have a belief of a scientific related claim.
Such a claim can be verified to be true or false.

Linguistic expressions are merely words and meanings, albeit useful to aid communication of ideas and truths. But they do not justify the truth of reality.

3 The JTB truth-condition is that S knows that p iff p is true - which conflates a feature of reality with a description of that feature of reality. So it's a complete conceptual mess. Knowing that something is the case has nothing to do with language, and therefore nothing to do with truth or falsehood, which are exclusively linguistic properties.

This is why you have the confirmation bias and dogmatism where truth and falsehood is only limited to language. This stance exposed your very low philosophy rating.
Note my reference to scientific knowledge as JTB.

4 So much for the parroting of philosophical orthodoxies, such as that knowledge is justified true belief. Look where that gets us.

Knowledge is literally justified true beliefs, what is wrong with that?

You are the dumb one who forced JTBs within the limited linguistic perspective which was never Plato's intention.

SEP wrote:There are three components to the traditional (“tripartite”) analysis of knowledge. According to this analysis, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge.

The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:
S knows that p iff

• p is true;
  S believes that p;
  S is justified in believing that p.

The tripartite analysis of knowledge is often abbreviated as the “JTB” analysis, for “justified true belief”.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/know ... stTrueBeli

Note the critical 3rd part, i.e. 'justified.'

• justify = show or prove to be right or reasonable.

In justification we are not seeking perfect truth [impossible anyway], thus we seek the most reasonable and reliable truth.
There are approaches which avoid the Russell and Gettier counter examples, as in the following paper.

In this paper we analyze the foundations of epistemology from a constructive Brouwerian position. In particular, we consider the famous tripartite account of knowledge as justified true belief, JTB, traditionally attributed to Plato as well as counter-examples by Russell and Gettier. We show that from an intuitionistic perspective, when the constructive character of truth is taken into account, both Russell and Gettier
examples no longer refute the principle that JTB yields knowledge. Moreover, we argue that JTB yields knowledge could be accepted given some natural constructivity assumptions.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7717301155

5 You say that the belief that there are moral facts is a justified true belief, empirically verifiable. And yet you have produced not even one example of a moral fact. Every one turns out to be a moral judgement, belief or opinion. Nul point.

Have done that a '1000' times. You are too blinded by your confirmation bias, dogmatism and bigotry to understand my argument.
It is not my responsible to convince you or my points, thus I'll leave you to wallow in your sewage pool of confirmation bias, dogmatism and bigotry.