Philosophy Now Forum

The usual counter by Peter Holmes et. al. is there are only moral opinions which are not independent.

Here I will demonstrate there are independent facts using the game of chess as an analogy.

In a game of chess, a player will exercise his own personal calculated "opinion" of what moves to take to win the game within the international stipulated rules by the International Chess Federation.
But the end result of who won or lost is an independent fact which is independent of the individual players.
Whatever the opinion any of the player, they don't count, the result is independent of the individual players.

What enable the generation of the fact that X won and Y lost in a game of chess is conditioned upon the Chess FSK [Framework and System of Knowledge].
In this case the FSK is constitutionalized by the International Chess Federation [ICF].
Also the players has to agree to the rules of the Chess from the ICF.

I had defined a fact is a 'thing' [widest sense] that is conditioned within a specific FSK.

As such the above is not an absolute fact in itself, it has to be qualified an objective Chess-Fact, i.e. conditioned by the Chess FSK.

So it is a fact - a chess fact - The World Chess Champions 2021 is Magnus Carlsen.
Who deny this is a fact - a chess fact - independent of any individual's opinion?

The above analogy is applicable to objective moral facts.

There are loads of moral opinions floating around which are not moral facts.
But as with the above analogy, there are inherent moral facts within a Moral FSK.
Note my argument,
There are Moral Facts [Rape]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34746

Here the moral FSK is more difficult to explain, but it is established within all humans in their DNA and neural circuit in the brain via evolution.
ALL humans has evolved ["programmed"] to dislike being rape [as defined].
This fact [moral, rape] is independent of individual[s]' opinion.

As with the above analogy, the what determines there are moral fact re rape is the moral FSK associated with rape, just like the ICF is the determinant FSK for the fact [Chess] that The World Chess Champions 2021 is Magnus Carlsen.

My point:
There are moral facts conditioned upon the moral FSK which are independent of any individual's opinion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 4:25 am My point:
There are moral facts conditioned upon the moral FSK which are independent of any individual's opinion.

But can you show us chess facts and moral facts that are independent of any humanly established "FSK"?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 4:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 4:25 am My point:
There are moral facts conditioned upon the moral FSK which are independent of any individual's opinion.

But can you show us chess facts and moral facts that are independent of any humanly established "FSK"?

That is the point, whatever fact that is independent of any individual's opinion cannot ultimately be independent of any humanly established FSK.
There can never be any fact that is absolute and independent by itself.

For example, scientific facts are independent of any individual's opinion, including the individual scientist who introduced the hypothesis and verified it to be true.
All scientific facts are entangled with the humanly-established-scientific-FSK.

Therefore there are no chess facts nor moral facts that are independent of any humanly established "FSK" nor any entanglement with humans.

The analogy between morality and chess is false. And usually it's used to explain the 'subjective goal/objective means' approach promoted by Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty, among others. The argument is that, having subjectively chosen a goal - winning at chess - there are given rules - and objectively measurable means to achieve that goal, regardless of anyone's opinion. In other words, there are factual 'oughts' in chess - and morality is similar.

But the assertion 'action X is consistent with goal Y' is not a moral assertion, so it has no moral implication. And if the 'ought' in the conclusion - therefore, we ought to do X - is purely instrumental, the conclusion also has no moral implication. In other words, goal-consistency doesn't confer objectivity on moral assertions. If it did, the following would be a moral fact:

If the goal is white supremacy, then non-white people ought to be subjugated.

And, of course, this is the opposite of moral objectivism.

This takes us back to the unavoidable logical non sequitur of claiming a factual (non-moral) premise can entail a moral conclusion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 4:25 am The usual counter by Peter Holmes et. al. is there are only moral opinions which are not independent.

I would shift this to
There are only likes and dislikes, not moral facts.
Now sometimes people take on the likes of authorities, because they prefer to let someone else determine their likes and dislikes. So, at a meta-level they are following likes and dislikes.

And yes, the chess example fails because the entire process, all the tactics and strategies that lead to winning, is within in an utterly subjective context. That winning is better than losing, chess that is.

So, sure, if you, for some non-scientific, non-deductive reason ASSUME that winning chess is a good thing, rather than something one likes, those relative few who do, since most don't care about chess, then those tactics and strategies are useful and objective in achieving something they enjoy/prefer/like.

Of course we can use objective knowledge to better achieve out likes and avoid our dislikes. But those latter are not objective. They are, well, likes and dislikes.

It's actually a good analogy. But it utterly undermines objective morality as an example.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 7:24 am The analogy between morality and chess is false. And usually it's used to explain the 'subjective goal/objective means' approach promoted by Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty, among others. The argument is that, having subjectively chosen a goal - winning at chess - there are given rules - and objectively measurable means to achieve that goal, regardless of anyone's opinion. In other words, there are factual 'oughts' in chess - and morality is similar.

But the assertion 'action X is consistent with goal Y' is not a moral assertion, so it has no moral implication. And if the 'ought' in the conclusion - therefore, we ought to do X - is purely instrumental, the conclusion also has no moral implication. In other words, goal-consistency doesn't confer objectivity on moral assertions. If it did, the following would be a moral fact:

If the goal is white supremacy, then non-white people ought to be subjugated.

And, of course, this is the opposite of moral objectivism.

This takes us back to the unavoidable logical non sequitur of claiming a factual (non-moral) premise can entail a moral conclusion.

Strawman again!
Winning is not the main goal of Chess for many, it can be a mental exercise, for fun, to improve on one's competence is strategizing, etc.

1. Do you deny the fact [chess]
the current World Chess Champion 2021 is Magnus Carlsen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Che ... nship_2021
If that is a fact, then it can only be a fact related to the chess FSK.
If it is a chess fact, how did it emerge as an undeniable fact.

2. My point of the OP is;
Chess Facts are contingent upon the chess FSK and they are independent of the individual's or player's opinion.
Similarly,
Moral Facts are contingent upon the Moral FSK and they are independent of the individual's or player's opinion.

3. How are moral facts contingent upon the Moral FSK, I have provided the justification here,
There are Moral Facts [Rape]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34746

4. The ought-not-ness to rape is a natural emergence from the existence of the moral fact as a physical reference represented as a moral potential [as potential energy] contained in the neural set and correlates within the human brain.

To counter my argument, you have to focus on points 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, else you are attacking your own strawman.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 7:47 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 7:24 am The analogy between morality and chess is false. And usually it's used to explain the 'subjective goal/objective means' approach promoted by Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty, among others. The argument is that, having subjectively chosen a goal - winning at chess - there are given rules - and objectively measurable means to achieve that goal, regardless of anyone's opinion. In other words, there are factual 'oughts' in chess - and morality is similar.

But the assertion 'action X is consistent with goal Y' is not a moral assertion, so it has no moral implication. And if the 'ought' in the conclusion - therefore, we ought to do X - is purely instrumental, the conclusion also has no moral implication. In other words, goal-consistency doesn't confer objectivity on moral assertions. If it did, the following would be a moral fact:

If the goal is white supremacy, then non-white people ought to be subjugated.

And, of course, this is the opposite of moral objectivism.

This takes us back to the unavoidable logical non sequitur of claiming a factual (non-moral) premise can entail a moral conclusion.

Strawman again!
Winning is not the main goal of Chess for many, it can be a mental exercise, for fun, to improve on one's competence is strategizing, etc.

1. Do you deny the fact [chess]
the current World Chess Champion 2021 is Magnus Carlsen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Che ... nship_2021
If that is a fact, then it can only be a fact related to the chess FSK.
If it is a chess fact, how did it emerge as an undeniable fact.

2. My point of the OP is;
Chess Facts are contingent upon the chess FSK and they are independent of the individual's or player's opinion.
Similarly,
Moral Facts are contingent upon the Moral FSK and they are independent of the individual's or player's opinion.

3. How are moral facts contingent upon the Moral FSK, I have provided the justification here,
There are Moral Facts [Rape]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34746

4. The ought-not-ness to rape is a natural emergence from the existence of the moral fact as a physical reference represented as a moral potential [as potential energy] contained in the neural set and correlates within the human brain.

To counter my argument, you have to focus on points 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, else you are attacking your own strawman.

1 The so-called moral FSK is your question-begging invention: 'there is a moral framework and system of knowledge that can produce moral facts; therefore, there are moral facts'. This demonstrates or proves absolutely nothing.

2 You either ignore or don't understand the point about goal-consistency failing to establish moral objectivity.

3 And, to repeat: a factual (non-moral) assertion can't entail a moral conclusion. You also ignore or don't understand that fact.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 8:23 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 7:47 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 7:24 am The analogy between morality and chess is false. And usually it's used to explain the 'subjective goal/objective means' approach promoted by Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty, among others. The argument is that, having subjectively chosen a goal - winning at chess - there are given rules - and objectively measurable means to achieve that goal, regardless of anyone's opinion. In other words, there are factual 'oughts' in chess - and morality is similar.

But the assertion 'action X is consistent with goal Y' is not a moral assertion, so it has no moral implication. And if the 'ought' in the conclusion - therefore, we ought to do X - is purely instrumental, the conclusion also has no moral implication. In other words, goal-consistency doesn't confer objectivity on moral assertions. If it did, the following would be a moral fact:

If the goal is white supremacy, then non-white people ought to be subjugated.

And, of course, this is the opposite of moral objectivism.

This takes us back to the unavoidable logical non sequitur of claiming a factual (non-moral) premise can entail a moral conclusion.

Strawman again!
Winning is not the main goal of Chess for many, it can be a mental exercise, for fun, to improve on one's competence is strategizing, etc.

1. Do you deny the fact [chess]
the current World Chess Champion 2021 is Magnus Carlsen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Che ... nship_2021
If that is a fact, then it can only be a fact related to the chess FSK.
If it is a chess fact, how did it emerge as an undeniable fact.

2. My point of the OP is;
Chess Facts are contingent upon the chess FSK and they are independent of the individual's or player's opinion.
Similarly,
Moral Facts are contingent upon the Moral FSK and they are independent of the individual's or player's opinion.

3. How are moral facts contingent upon the Moral FSK, I have provided the justification here,
There are Moral Facts [Rape]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34746

4. The ought-not-ness to rape is a natural emergence from the existence of the moral fact as a physical reference represented as a moral potential [as potential energy] contained in the neural set and correlates within the human brain.

To counter my argument, you have to focus on points 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, else you are attacking your own strawman.

1 The so-called moral FSK is your question-begging invention:
'there is a moral framework and system of knowledge that can produce moral facts; therefore, there are moral facts'.
This demonstrates or proves absolutely nothing.

2 You either ignore or don't understand the point about goal-consistency failing to establish moral objectivity.

3 And, to repeat: a factual (non-moral) assertion can't entail a moral conclusion. You also ignore or don't understand that fact.

Strawman again, again and again!

I argued strongly
Whatever is fact must be conditioned upon a specific FSK.
E.g. the scientific facts [the most credible] can only be generated and conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
Therefore credible moral facts must be conditioned upon a specific credible moral FSK.
What is wrong with this logic?

The most credible FSK at present is constructed by humans,
if that is the case, there is no reason for humans to construct a credible moral FSK.

Your refutation should be that it is impossible for humans to construct a moral FSK.
I have shown elsewhere it is possible to construct a moral FSK with must be of near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.

Btw, you still have not given me you answer to what is the basis [grounds, fundamentals] of the FSK supporting your definition of what is fact which cannot standalone by itself.

2. My point of the OP is;
Chess Facts are contingent upon the chess FSK and they are independent of the individual's or player's opinion.
Similarly,
Moral Facts are contingent upon the Moral FSK and they are independent of the individual's or player's opinion.

Sure, but if the fact has to do with whether it is morally good to use the Sicilian defense against a player who has trouble with that opening...no, it is not morally good or bad. It is just useful toward that goal.

Strawman again!
Winning is not the main goal of Chess for many, it can be a mental exercise, for fun, to improve on one's competence is strategizing, etc.

He wasn't using a strawman, you mentioned winning. But further his argument works against all the other goals you mention.

They are all based on value judgments, that is likes and dislikes. I like challenging myself. A value judgment, subjective. And the fact that you admit that people have different goals supports the idea that none of those goals is universal, let alone objective.

ALL humans has evolved ["programmed"] to dislike being rape [as defined].
This fact [moral, rape] is independent of individual[s]' opinion.

All you have argued is that it is universal, not objective. Let's say you are correct that everyone dislikes being raped. Let assume that for the sake of argument. That is only universal. That is not objective.

Further we now have absurd conclusions, for most people, about morals.
If everyone dislikes experiencing something then it is immoral to do it to them.
I'll let readers find their counterexamples...and there are many in every legal and moral system I have ever heard of.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 8:53 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 8:23 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 7:47 am
Strawman again!
Winning is not the main goal of Chess for many, it can be a mental exercise, for fun, to improve on one's competence is strategizing, etc.

1. Do you deny the fact [chess]
the current World Chess Champion 2021 is Magnus Carlsen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Che ... nship_2021
If that is a fact, then it can only be a fact related to the chess FSK.
If it is a chess fact, how did it emerge as an undeniable fact.

2. My point of the OP is;
Chess Facts are contingent upon the chess FSK and they are independent of the individual's or player's opinion.
Similarly,
Moral Facts are contingent upon the Moral FSK and they are independent of the individual's or player's opinion.

3. How are moral facts contingent upon the Moral FSK, I have provided the justification here,
There are Moral Facts [Rape]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34746

4. The ought-not-ness to rape is a natural emergence from the existence of the moral fact as a physical reference represented as a moral potential [as potential energy] contained in the neural set and correlates within the human brain.

To counter my argument, you have to focus on points 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, else you are attacking your own strawman.

1 The so-called moral FSK is your question-begging invention:
'there is a moral framework and system of knowledge that can produce moral facts; therefore, there are moral facts'.
This demonstrates or proves absolutely nothing.

2 You either ignore or don't understand the point about goal-consistency failing to establish moral objectivity.

3 And, to repeat: a factual (non-moral) assertion can't entail a moral conclusion. You also ignore or don't understand that fact.

Strawman again, again and again!

I argued strongly
Whatever is fact must be conditioned upon a specific FSK.
E.g. the scientific facts [the most credible] can only be generated and conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
Therefore credible moral facts must be conditioned upon a specific credible moral FSK.
What is wrong with this logic?

The most credible FSK at present is constructed by humans,
if that is the case, there is no reason for humans to construct a credible moral FSK.

Your refutation should be that it is impossible for humans to construct a moral FSK.
I have shown elsewhere it is possible to construct a moral FSK with must be of near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.

Btw, you still have not given me you answer to what is the basis [grounds, fundamentals] of the FSK supporting your definition of what is fact which cannot standalone by itself.

Your premise - 'whatever is fact must be conditioned upon a specific framework and system of knowledge' - is false. We English speakers use the word 'fact' to mean 'a feature of reality that is or was the case' - which has nothing to do with knowledge or description. And words can mean only what we use them to mean. You can object to this use of the word 'fact' - but so what? That's how we use it.

If your claim is that nothing exists outside a framework and system of knowledge - say it clearly, and prove it. Otherwise, your whole argument collapses. It's patent nonsense, of course.

Your refutation should be that it is impossible for humans to construct a moral FSK.
I have shown elsewhere it is possible to construct a moral FSK with must be of near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.

You haven't show it. You claim it. You made arguments, but they do not hold. Especially in your evaulation that it has near equivalent to scientific FSKs.
YOu continuously make category errors.
You fail to understand that an argument that contains a lot of science but utterly depends on a value judgment is not, for example, 80% science.
That's not how it works.
If you have a long text, an argument, that uses generally accepted science, then on the last step use something utterly subjective,

THE CONCLUSION

is not mostly science. It is not factual. It's a completely subjective conclusion.

I could write a 200 page thesis about badgers, using all the latest research on badgers and how they dig. Then at the end I say, because digging is good behavior and badgers dig well, badgers are morally good animals.

That argument is not 80% science. It is zero science. It's an opinion about what you like or what you think we should like. That's it.

If I write a long mathematical paper and then end with saying that prime numbers are morally good, I did not draw a mathematical conclusion and the entire argument is groundless.

Now if science showed that everyone on earth, all humans, think that digging is morally good, you could argue that it is objective that people think that badgers are morally good. That could be a fact, that people think that
or it could be a fact that people like digging.

But the conclusion that badgers are good is subjective, not factual. The fact that people like this could potentially be universal, but this should not be confused with objective or that the conclusion that badgers are good is factual or objective.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 6:35 am That is the point, whatever fact that is independent of any individual's opinion cannot ultimately be independent of any humanly established FSK.
There can never be any fact that is absolute and independent by itself.

That would imply that there is no objective reality. The universe is human-dependent, and it came into existence when the first human FSK was established, and it will cease to exist when the last human using an FSK dies.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 12:03 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 8:53 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 8:23 am
1 The so-called moral FSK is your question-begging invention:
'there is a moral framework and system of knowledge that can produce moral facts; therefore, there are moral facts'.
This demonstrates or proves absolutely nothing.

2 You either ignore or don't understand the point about goal-consistency failing to establish moral objectivity.

3 And, to repeat: a factual (non-moral) assertion can't entail a moral conclusion. You also ignore or don't understand that fact.

Strawman again, again and again!

I argued strongly
Whatever is fact must be conditioned upon a specific FSK.
E.g. the scientific facts [the most credible] can only be generated and conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
Therefore credible moral facts must be conditioned upon a specific credible moral FSK.
What is wrong with this logic?

The most credible FSK at present is constructed by humans,
if that is the case, there is no reason for humans to construct a credible moral FSK.

Your refutation should be that it is impossible for humans to construct a moral FSK.
I have shown elsewhere it is possible to construct a moral FSK with must be of near equivalent credibility to the scientific FSK.

Btw, you still have not given me you answer to what is the basis [grounds, fundamentals] of the FSK supporting your definition of what is fact which cannot standalone by itself.

Your premise - 'whatever is fact must be conditioned upon a specific framework and system of knowledge' - is false. We English speakers use the word 'fact' to mean 'a feature of reality that is or was the case' - which has nothing to do with knowledge or description. And words can mean only what we use them to mean. You can object to this use of the word 'fact' - but so what? That's how we use it.

If your claim is that nothing exists outside a framework and system of knowledge - say it clearly, and prove it. Otherwise, your whole argument collapses. It's patent nonsense, of course.

While there is a large number of people speaking English, the distribution of language speaker is widely spread around the world, note, Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, French, etc.
To ground your argument on "We English speakers ..." is one of the worst defense in any philosophical argument. It is too flimsy!
In a way you are relying merely in a restricted linguistic FSK.

OTOH, I am relying heavily on the scientific FSK which is definitely more reliable than the linguistic FSK.

Show me what other FSK is more reliable than the scientific FSK?

If you claim there is something existing independent of the entanglement of a specific FSK, then prove it.
This is similar to what theists are claiming, i.e. God exist independent of all FSKs.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 2:56 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 6:35 am That is the point, whatever fact that is independent of any individual's opinion cannot ultimately be independent of any humanly established FSK.
There can never be any fact that is absolute and independent by itself.

That would imply that there is no objective reality. The universe is human-dependent, and it came into existence when the first human FSK was established, and it will cease to exist when the last human using an FSK dies.

There is no such thing as the absolutely independent 'objective reality' you intended as above. To think of such an independent objective reality is psychologically driven.

But nevertheless there is still objective reality relative to the human conditions.
Do you agree that scientific facts are objective?
Surely you cannot deny that?
Scientific facts are objective, but they are ultimately entangled with the human conditions, thus never absolutely independent of human conditions.

Thus you cannot deny 'objectivity' which is ultimately intersubjectivity.

To insist upon absolutely independent 'objective reality' is delusional just like what theists are doing insisting there an absolutely independent 'objective God.'

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 5:28 am There is no such thing as the absolutely independent 'objective reality' you intended as above. To think of such an independent objective reality is psychologically driven.

Nowhere did I say "absolutely independent", try again without the false dichotomy.