Philosophy Now Forum

My stance on Morality-proper and Moral Facts is as follow;

1. I do not define 'morality' in terms of morally right or wrong. That belong to pseudo-morality not morality-proper.

2. I have argued what is moral fact MUST be empirically verified and justified [scientifically or via other credible FSK] and is inputted into the moral FSK which enable moral facts to emerge to be used as moral standards which must not be enforced.
Since they are not to be enforced, there is no question of right or wrong in this case.
Rather there are moral gaps and deviations from the moral standards which trigger the necessity for continuous improvements toward the moral standards.

I presented the two points above to remind Peter Holmes of where I stand.
Despite my explanation of a 'million' times, PH kept on misrepresenting my position and abuse it as his strawman.

Here is one of PH's latest misrepresentation of my stance of morality-proper and moral facts despite me having explained my position > a "million" times.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 10:50 am I and others have pointed out what's wrong with it a million times, and you either don't understand or ignore what we say. Which is both perplexing and boring.

.......
2 It's true that what we call facts exist within a descriptive context. But that doesn't mean that any descriptive context can produce facts - as, for example, astrology shows. That you say there are astrological facts of near to zero credibility exposes the ridiculous nature of your argument. There's no empirical evidence for astrological claims, so there are no such facts. And, to repeat, whether astrological arguments are deductive, inductive or abductive makes absolutely no difference.

3 Your claim that moral conclusions can follow inductively from non-moral premises is astoundingly stupid. What non-moral observations could cumulatively lead to the conclusion that, say, slavery is morally wrong? What would count as non-moral evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 7:19 am Here's VA's accumulative mistake. (The coinage, 'FSK', = framework and system of knowledge.)

P1 What we call facts are 'conditioned to a specific FSK' - iow, all facts exist in a descriptive context.
P2 What we call facts exist only because there is a specific FSK.
P3 Any FSK can 'produce' what we call facts.
P4 The credibility of an FSK depends on the empirical evidence for its factual claims.
P5 There is a morality FSK.
Conclusion: Therefore, within a credible morality FSK, there can be moral facts.

Critique.

P1 This first premise conflates two radically different ways in which we use the word fact. What we call a fact is: primarily, a feature of reality that is or was the case; or, derivatively, a description of such a feature of reality - typically, a linguistic expression. So P1 is true for the second meaning of the word fact, but false for the first (primary) meaning.

Strawmaning as usual, especially P1.
Yes, "What we call facts are 'conditioned to a specific FSK' "
but I have never agreed that "all [such] facts exist in a descriptive context."

I have always refer to fact in this sense,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
with scientific facts from the scientific FSK as the most credible.

There are two aspects to the above, i.e.
1. The emergence of the facts as conditioned to the FSK.
2. The description of the emerged fact.

What you are strawmaning is 2 as what I am claiming as fact which I never did.
What I am claiming in the emergence of facts as conditioned upon a FSK and there is no fact that is pre-existing and independent by itself awaiting discovery. I have also mentioned this point a 'million' times but you cannot grasp and understood [not necessary agree with] my point.

P2 is false, because it follows from the confusion in P1. The claim that what we call a fact exists only because there is a description is obviously false. For example, the fact that water is H2O doesn't exist only because, in chemistry, we describe water as H2O. Water just is what it is, how ever we describe it. A description doesn't create the thing being described, so describing the same thing in different ways doesn't create different things.

Your P1 is a strawman, thus all your other premises are strawman and useless.

Your reliance on what is fact is archaic and dogmatic;

• Your idea of 'fact' is based on the early-Wittgenstein idea of "what is fact" which W had subsequently abandoned and yet you are still stuck with it.
  see:
  Peter Holmes' grounding on 'Early'-Wittgenstein
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35416

OTOH, what is most realistic is where 'what is fact' as based on emergence from a credible FSK and therefrom described by anyone.

P3 is false, because it follows from the confusion in P1 and P2. For example, the so-called astrology FSK doesn't produce or create what we call facts-as-features-of-reality. So the existence of a so-called FSK doesn't, in itself, guarantee the existence of the things it describes - and so, the truth of its claims.

Your argument here is useless because your critique of P1 is a strawman.

As I had stated "facts-as-features-of-reality" is archaic thinking from the early-Wittgenstein which was abandoned by the later-Wittgenstein as kindergartenish.

What is claimed as 'fact' must be verified and justified by a credible FSK.
We cannot deny a astrological FSK and claims of 'facts' by astrologers.
It is evident the astrological FSK is not credible, thus what is claimed as fact is not credible at all in contrast to scientific facts as the standard.

P4 Exposes the fallacy of the preceding premises, 1 to 3. If the credibility of an FSK depends on empirical evidence for its claims, that evidence must exist outside the FSK. For example, the evidence that water is H2O is not that, in chemistry, we call water H2O. That claim is circular and self-defeating.

Strawman again, I never claimed the above.
Empirical evidence is imperative but the credibility of a FSK depend on its processes of verification and justification of empirical evidence.
Note this:
Why the Scientific FSK is the most credible and trustworthy?
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338

P5 is back-to-front, and question-begging. There can be a credible 'morality FSK' only if there is empirical evidence for the existence of so-called moral facts, outside the morality FSK. Otherwise, the morality FSK has exactly the same status as the astrology FSK: no empirical evidence = no FSK in the first place.

Again, your dependence of metaphysical realism [outside] is not realistic and too archaic.

With reference to my point re FSK, the moral facts emerge in entanglement with the moral FSK just like scientific facts are.
I have already provided clues that the moral facts are physical in terms of moral potentials supported by neurons, neural correlates, one of which are mirror neurons.

Astrologers merely speculate their claims of astrological facts based on speculation without supporting empirical evidences, e.g. if you are born within certain days of the year then your personality, etc. will be such an such. Such claims of so-called 'facts' are very irrational.

The conclusion is the cumulative consequence of all the mistakes in the premises - so it's worthless.

Your counter is based on your ignorance, is dependent on archaic ideas and a dogmatism driven by desperate psychology. Note I raised the thread 'Know Thyself'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35481
I bet you don't know much about yourself that is critical for such a discussion.

VA's protestation that his invented 'morality proper' has nothing to do with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour - which he dismisses as merely subjective matters of opinion - confuses the whole discussion about the supposed existence of moral facts. And his perverse claim that morality-proper is about the avoidance of evil makes no sense until he explains why it's a fact that we should avoid evil, given that the issue is not moral rightness and wrongness.

Can't you see the primary purpose of morality is to avoid "evil" naturally and spontaneously.
If not what else?
You will note the elements with the heaviest weights within the topic of morality is about 'killing' [murder, genocides,] rapes, violence, serious crimes, and the likes which are elements of evilness.
The focus of morality is not primary on the 'good' because naturally avoiding evil will facilitate the related 'good' to emerge.

As I had stated I do not prefer to use the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' ['bloody' subjective] in relation to the topic of morality because such terms has been abused to the detriment and progress of moral competence within humanity.

Your strawmaning and ignorance exposed above.
Suggest you think and reflect deeper, wider and be less dogmatic on philosophical matters.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 10:50 am I and others have pointed out what's wrong with it a million times, and you either don't understand or ignore what we say. Which is both perplexing and boring.

.......
2 It's true that what we call facts exist within a descriptive context. But that doesn't mean that any descriptive context can produce facts - as, for example, astrology shows. That you say there are astrological facts of near to zero credibility exposes the ridiculous nature of your argument. There's no empirical evidence for astrological claims, so there are no such facts. And, to repeat, whether astrological arguments are deductive, inductive or abductive makes absolutely no difference.

3 Your claim that moral conclusions can follow inductively from non-moral premises is astoundingly stupid. What non-moral observations could cumulatively lead to the conclusion that, say, slavery is morally wrong? What would count as non-moral evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery?

My response to the above;
viewtopic.php?p=589097#p589097

Note there are two views of what is fact, i.e.
1. Your early-Wittgenstein 'what is fact' - which is not realistic!
2. My realistic 'what is fact'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

It is so obvious what is descriptive cannot produce facts regardless which definition is used above.
In my case of what is fact, I not referring to the descriptive aspects of facts but rather to the emergence of facts in entanglements with the human conditions and the subsequent necessary verification and justification of those facts.

What is wrong with stating astrological facts has zero credibility?
It is the same as stating a truth is half-truth or has zero-value [equivalent to false].
Christians creationists claim theirs are facts of creation but they do not provide the necessary verification and justifications, thus zero credibility [equivalent to false].
It is a matter of taking into account the contexts to ensure the statement is valid.

Your dogmatic insistence that 'what is fact' must be what you defined as 'what is fact' is purely due to your emotional and psychological impulses.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:46 am 1. I do not define 'morality' in terms of morally right or wrong.

Then you fucked up and you have chosen permanent failure.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:46 am My stance on Morality-proper and Moral Facts is as follow;

1. I do not define 'morality' in terms of morally right or wrong. That belong to pseudo-morality not morality-proper.

2. I have argued what is moral fact MUST be empirically verified and justified [scientifically or via other credible FSK] and is inputted into the moral FSK which enable moral facts to emerge to be used as moral standards which must not be enforced.
Since they are not to be enforced, there is no question of right or wrong in this case.
Rather there are moral gaps and deviations from the moral standards which trigger the necessity for continuous improvements toward the moral standards.

I presented the two points above to remind Peter Holmes of where I stand.
Despite my explanation of a 'million' times, PH kept on misrepresenting my position and abuse it as his strawman.

Please furnish an example of a moral fact that is verified empirically.
Thank you in advance.

There can be facts about morality, such as: Human beings tend to adopt a set of principles by which they can judge their actions as right or wrong in terms of the impact they might have on a third party. We call this system of principles and acting in accordance with them morality. That is a fact about morality. The fact itself has no moral value, so it would be misleading to call it a moral fact. What then, I wonder, could legitimately be called a moral fact?

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:58 pm There can be facts about morality, such as: Human beings tend to adopt a set of principles by which they can judge their actions as right or wrong in terms of the impact they might have on a third party. We call this system of principles and acting in accordance with them morality. That is a fact about morality. The fact itself has no moral value, so it would be misleading to call it a moral fact. What then, I wonder, could legitimately be called a moral fact?

That's what I keep asking.
But to no effect.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:12 pm
That's what I keep asking.
But to no effect.

Please let me now if you ever manage to get a satisfactory answer, because if one should ever come along I would hate to miss it.

VA,

You know, while I don't agree with your approach, I support the spirit of what you do, yes?

If so: then take me seriously when I say: this...

I do not define 'morality' in terms of morally right or wrong.

...is self-defeatin' and amounts to self-castration.

Morality is only about what is morally right or morally wrong. It's about what is permissible among and between men. It's immutable, and if true, cannot be improved.

You've let the war with the amoralists blunt your thinkin'.

I suggest you step away from the tussle and look at the root of your theory. Seems to me: if you have anything at all you'll find it there, in the beginning. Be ruthless -- more than the amoralists have been -- and strip things down to the essentials.

And: quit expectin' the amoralists to be wowed or convinced. They can't be your measure.

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:20 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:12 pm
That's what I keep asking.
But to no effect.

Please let me now if you ever manage to get a satisfactory answer, because if one should ever come along I would hate to miss it.

My advice:
1) Rest assured I will
2) Do not hold your breath.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:36 pm VA,

You know, while I don't agree with your approach, I support the spirit of what you do, yes?

If so: then take me seriously when I say: this...

I do not define 'morality' in terms of morally right or wrong.

...is self-defeatin' and amounts to self-castration.

Morality is only about what is morally right or morally wrong. It's about what is permissible among and between men. It's immutable, and if true, cannot be improved.

You've let the war with the amoralists blunt your thinkin'.

I suggest you step away from the tussle and look at the root of your theory. Seems to me: if you have anything at all you'll find it there, in the beginning. Be ruthless -- more than the amoralists have been -- and strip things down to the essentials.

And: quit expectin' the amoralists to be wowed or convinced. They can't be your measure.

Yes, morality is about the rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

No, to say there are no moral facts - that morality isn't and can't be objective - is not to be an 'amoralist'.

It's just to recognise a profoundly important fact about our predicament: we have to make moral decisions.

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:58 pm The fact itself has no moral value, so it would be misleading to call it a moral fact. What then, I wonder, could legitimately be called a moral fact?

In my opinion the question should be phrased differently:
"Is it possible that there is no moral fact?"

And you should ask this question to yourself.

Then perhaps you may be aware of how absolutely essential it is that there are moral facts.

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:58 pm There can be facts about morality, such as: Human beings tend to adopt a set of principles by which they can judge their actions as right or wrong in terms of the impact they might have on a third party. We call this system of principles and acting in accordance with them morality. That is a fact about morality. The fact itself has no moral value, so it would be misleading to call it a moral fact. What then, I wonder, could legitimately be called a moral fact?

Note this thread;
There are moral facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

What is moral facts are facts activated via a moral Framework and System of Reality.
These moral facts are physical, i.e.
Physical Moral Machineries
viewtopic.php?p=500644#p500644

Analogy:
All humans are programmed with the potential-for-Puberty which is initially dormant and it unfolds when a person reaches near to pre-adulthood.
Surely this potential-for-Puberty is represented by DNA codes, genes, neural correlates and other bodily organs which are all physical facts and they collectively are facts of Puberty with considered within the Puberty-FSK [Framework and System of Knowledge].
Do you deny this potential-for-puberty is a fact?

Similarly there are moral potentials within all humans with various stages of unfoldment where it is very less active in the majority of humans but it is progressing to unfold very slowly. [which is evident with the evolutionary inhibition of evil of human history to the present].
These moral potentials are the moral facts when deliberated within the moral FSK.
When we recognized and understand the mechanisms of these real moral facts then there is the possibility to expedite the unfoldment of these potentials to keep in line with the inherent evil potential within.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:36 pm VA,

You know, while I don't agree with your approach, I support the spirit of what you do, yes?

If so: then take me seriously when I say: this...

I do not define 'morality' in terms of morally right or wrong.

...is self-defeatin' and amounts to self-castration.

Morality is only about what is morally right or morally wrong. It's about what is permissible among and between men. It's immutable, and if true, cannot be improved.

You've let the war with the amoralists blunt your thinkin'.

I suggest you step away from the tussle and look at the root of your theory. Seems to me: if you have anything at all you'll find it there, in the beginning. Be ruthless -- more than the amoralists have been -- and strip things down to the essentials.

And: quit expectin' the amoralists to be wowed or convinced. They can't be your measure.

Thanks for your points but I cannot agree.

It is so glaringly obvious that the majority of themes of morality in the present 'morality' community is dealing with what is 'right' or 'wrong' accompanied with some sense of consequences, utilities, compulsion, enforcement, threats, etc. This is very kindergartenish.

This approach to 'morality' has been going on since philosophy began, say back to 10,000 years ago in the East to the present in the West, but they are stuck with a conundrum with no room for progress.

When 'morality' is nailed down to the question of 'right' or 'wrong' it would be absolutely subjective and thus a state of "till the cows come home" with no room for progress.

As I had highlighted the Kantian's mission and vision, i.e.
1. What can I know -epistemology
2. What ought I do - Morality
3. What can I hope for - perpetual peace

If the approach to morality is grounded on 'right' or 'wrong' there is no way humanity can ever drive and progress [not achieving final] towards perpetual peace.

But it is very feasible for humanity to drive and progress [not achieving final] towards perpetual peace when morality is adopted via a Standard [of moral facts] and Deviation approach which generate a moral gap for continuous improvement to close the moral gap.

What is critical is these moral facts must be empirically verified and justified via a moral FSK.
OTOH, your moral intuition is on target but it is not empirically verified and justified via a moral FSK, thus unable to convince the moral fact deniers.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:30 am

Similarly there are moral potentials within all humans with various stages of unfoldment where it is very less active in the majority of humans but it is progressing to unfold very slowly. [which is evident with the evolutionary inhibition of evil of human history to the present].
These moral potentials are the moral facts when deliberated within the moral FSK.
When we recognized and understand the mechanisms of these real moral facts then there is the possibility to expedite the unfoldment of these potentials to keep in line with the inherent evil potential within.

This "potential" within us for moral behaviour is what I described in another thread as being hard wired into us. We are born with it, but how it expresses itself in later life depends on how it is primed by our early environment. I don't know what a psychologist or whatever kind of expert whose field of knowledge includes this aspect of human behaviour would think of that description, but it seems to broadly agree with what you have said, so for the sake of this discussion let's say it is the case. Given that, I would call it a biological fact, if I had to use the word fact at all.

All human beings are capable of feeling love of various kinds; the potential for that is also part of our make up, but it would seem odd to call it a love fact. Maybe the fact that human beings have a predisposition to behave within a personal framework of what we call morality is an anthropological fact. If you insist on calling it a moral fact I think most people are going to either not know what you mean, or misunderstand what you mean. Language is for communication, so the language we use should be that which communicates what we are trying to express to others most effectively.