Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:22 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 7:13 pm

*Anyone who says/thinks it's a fact that X is morally right/wrong is a moral egotist and a fuckwit. The end.

And anyone who can't flat-out say rape is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone, is a coward and hypocrite.

'nuff said.

*the author removed his post, so I removed his name

I think rape is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone.

I also think capital punishment is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone. But other people disagree.

If you think 'rape' and 'capital punishment' are morally wrong, there must be some sort of moral standards [internalized and shared by others] that you are relying upon to judge they are wrong.

That the majority take it that 'rape' [my guess >90%], capital punishment [guess >80%] take it that both are morally unacceptable, this must be grounded on some sort of norms as conditioned an implied moral FSK.

Not everyone [>50% of people are Abrahamic theists ] accept scientific facts [e.g. Big Bang or evolution] as a fact, but they are nevertheless scientific facts conditioned upon a human-based scientific FSK.

Just as scientific truths are scientific facts are grounded on the intersubjective agreement of a group of people,
"that the majority take it that 'rape' [my guess >90%], capital punishment [guess >80%] take it that both are morally unacceptable, this must be grounded on some sort of norms as conditioned an implied moral FSK" is a moral fact in continuum with scientific facts albeit of different objectivity.

Therefore there are moral facts as implied and morality is thus objectivity which is implied with your acceptance that rape and capital punishment is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone.

So you cannot deny there are moral facts and morality is objective.

Now, what fact - what feature of reality - can we point out to settle the disagreement?

As I had argued, your 'what is fact' in this case is grounded on an illusion via the ideology of philosophical realism.
As such you cannot use your illusory basis of 'what is fact' to deny morality is objective.

Rather you should rely on your own moral intuition as agreed by the majority on earth as a norm to ground that is an FSK fact that 'rape' and 'capital punishment' are FSK-ed moral facts [not your kind of philosophical realist facts].

Answer: none. And that's because 'capital punishment is morally right/wrong' is not a factual assertion with a truth-value independent from opinion.

Now, what makes 'rape is morally wrong' different? What makes it a factual assertion with a truth-value independent from opinion?

Any offers from a moral objectivist here? Or will it be the usual bluster, evasion and sophistry? I wonder.

Note my explanation above.
There are FSK-ed moral facts that is based on your moral intuition that you agree that rape and capital punishment is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone.

For me, I am going one step further "that rape and capital punishment are morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone" are moral-FSK-ed facts in alignment with biological facts via the science-biology FSK.

Views??

Notes:

Okay. The opinion that "rape is morally wrong" is better than "rape is morally acceptable", is definitely more popular than it's opposite. And obviously partisans can cherry-pick this or that "reason" to support their opinion/conclusion. However, the fact that a set of "reasons" exist that support one side of the argument ignores the fact that a different set of "reasons" support the opposite opinion. And the reality that there is such a debate leaves morality squarely in the subjective column. However no intellectually honest observer would debate that within society at large that rape is a violation of ethical standards, thus the ethical standing of rape (when accurately and completely defined) is objective.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 10:25 pm Okay. The opinion that "rape is morally wrong" is better than "rape is morally acceptable", is definitely more popular than it's opposite. And obviously partisans can cherry-pick this or that "reason" to support their opinion/conclusion. However, the fact that a set of "reasons" exist that support one side of the argument ignores the fact that a different set of "reasons" support the opposite opinion. And the reality that there is such a debate leaves morality squarely in the subjective column.

However no intellectually honest observer would debate that within society at large that rape is a violation of ethical standards, thus the ethical standing of rape (when accurately and completely defined) is objective.

So, we agree re your last para.

However, "rape" is not a very clear-cut moral element because there is are so many grey areas related to "what is rape".

My usual reference to a definite moral element is 'the killing of human[s]' with an objective scientific confirmation the person is dead.

That the majority find 'the killing of another human' detestable to be avoided must be related to some internal moral standard which is inherent in ALL humans.
I have argued this possible to be supported by human-based science-biology FSK in alignment with a credible moral FSK.

Where killing is permissible under certain conditions and exceptions, that is not morality-proper but rather is a political issue within a political-FSK, social customs, traditions, and the like.
As such where views on certain actions are subjective, they are not related to morality per se but rather pseudo-morality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 8:19 am Rather you should rely on your own moral intuition as agreed by the majority on earth as a norm to ground that is an FSK fact that 'rape' and 'capital punishment' are FSK-ed moral facts [not your kind of philosophical realist facts].
Views??

The problem with relying on intuition plus marjority would have led to believing that slavery is good/neutral morally for much of human history. Likewise the beating of spouses and children. And then you, as a non-theists arguing there is no God, majorities would have seen you killed for this. IOW can look back in time and see that your heuristic would have led to beliefs you think are false.

That said, I also asked PH about what sounded very much like a moral realist condemnation of rape in the other thread. I am curious what he means when he universalizes rape as morally wrong, but not as a moral realist. What nuance of meaning does the word 'morally' add? Is it something beyond preference, desire and abhorance on his part? If so what?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 9:53 am The problem with relying on intuition plus marjority would have led to believing that slavery is good/neutral morally for much of human history.

The way to dismantle this line of reasoning is to ask you to draw the line between slavery and non-slavery.

Did we decide that slavery is immoral?
Did we decide to even end slavery?
Or did we simply decide that the system works much better when the slaves are well looked after and called "employees"?

Give them weekends off maybe. Just enough to prevent a revolt.

In general this is the way to dismantle every single categorical argument.
Did slavery end or did it just become less terrible?

And the burden of proof for why "terrible" is wrong is still on the moral skeptic's back.

Did rape really end or is the circumvention of consensus now more elaborate? Because you can't draw a discontinuity in the continuum of where "consent" happened.

Is the absence of consent evidence for non-consent. How did she end up at my house naked then?

The problem's the categories. Where is the dividing line? You'll never find it but you can dance around it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 3:06 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 10:25 pm Okay. The opinion that "rape is morally wrong" is better than "rape is morally acceptable", is definitely more popular than it's opposite. And obviously partisans can cherry-pick this or that "reason" to support their opinion/conclusion. However, the fact that a set of "reasons" exist that support one side of the argument ignores the fact that a different set of "reasons" support the opposite opinion. And the reality that there is such a debate leaves morality squarely in the subjective column.

However no intellectually honest observer would debate that within society at large that rape is a violation of ethical standards, thus the ethical standing of rape (when accurately and completely defined) is objective.

So, we agree re your last para.

However, "rape" is not a very clear-cut moral element because there is are so many grey areas related to "what is rape".

My usual reference to a definite moral element is 'the killing of human[s]' with an objective scientific confirmation the person is dead.

That the majority find 'the killing of another human' detestable to be avoided must be related to some internal moral standard which is inherent in ALL humans.
I have argued this possible to be supported by human-based science-biology FSK in alignment with a credible moral FSK.

Where killing is permissible under certain conditions and exceptions, that is not morality-proper but rather is a political issue within a political-FSK, social customs, traditions, and the like.
As such where views on certain actions are subjective, they are not related to morality per se but rather pseudo-morality.

Okay, so we agree that a statistical analysis of the individuals within a community yields an objective ETHICAL conclusion of the popularity of various individual, subjective MORAL stances.

Killing, slavery, rape and any other action you could name has occupied both minority and majority statistical status at various times in various communities. Thus why any intellectually honest description of the ethical status of an action requires details about the timing and make up of the community being evaluated.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 7:43 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 3:06 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 10:25 pm Okay. The opinion that "rape is morally wrong" is better than "rape is morally acceptable", is definitely more popular than it's opposite. And obviously partisans can cherry-pick this or that "reason" to support their opinion/conclusion. However, the fact that a set of "reasons" exist that support one side of the argument ignores the fact that a different set of "reasons" support the opposite opinion. And the reality that there is such a debate leaves morality squarely in the subjective column.

However no intellectually honest observer would debate that within society at large that rape is a violation of ethical standards, thus the ethical standing of rape (when accurately and completely defined) is objective.

So, we agree re your last para.

However, "rape" is not a very clear-cut moral element because there is are so many grey areas related to "what is rape".

My usual reference to a definite moral element is 'the killing of human[s]' with an objective scientific confirmation the person is dead.

That the majority find 'the killing of another human' detestable to be avoided must be related to some internal moral standard which is inherent in ALL humans.
I have argued this possible to be supported by human-based science-biology FSK in alignment with a credible moral FSK.

Where killing is permissible under certain conditions and exceptions, that is not morality-proper but rather is a political issue within a political-FSK, social customs, traditions, and the like.
As such where views on certain actions are subjective, they are not related to morality per se but rather pseudo-morality.

Okay, so we agree that a statistical analysis of the individuals within a community yields an objective ETHICAL conclusion of the popularity of various individual, subjective MORAL stances.

Killing, slavery, rape and any other action you could name has occupied both minority and majority statistical status at various times in various communities. Thus why any intellectually honest description of the ethical status of an action requires details about the timing and make up of the community being evaluated.

That statistical analysis and other evidences yielding objective moral facts must be supported by objective scientific facts, both being conditioned to a human-based FSK.
The human-based FSK is a critical variable in this case to support whatever is objective.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 2:16 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 7:43 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 3:06 am
So, we agree re your last para.

However, "rape" is not a very clear-cut moral element because there is are so many grey areas related to "what is rape".

My usual reference to a definite moral element is 'the killing of human[s]' with an objective scientific confirmation the person is dead.

That the majority find 'the killing of another human' detestable to be avoided must be related to some internal moral standard which is inherent in ALL humans.
I have argued this possible to be supported by human-based science-biology FSK in alignment with a credible moral FSK.

Where killing is permissible under certain conditions and exceptions, that is not morality-proper but rather is a political issue within a political-FSK, social customs, traditions, and the like.
As such where views on certain actions are subjective, they are not related to morality per se but rather pseudo-morality.

Okay, so we agree that a statistical analysis of the individuals within a community yields an objective ETHICAL conclusion of the popularity of various individual, subjective MORAL stances.

Killing, slavery, rape and any other action you could name has occupied both minority and majority statistical status at various times in various communities. Thus why any intellectually honest description of the ethical status of an action requires details about the timing and make up of the community being evaluated.

That statistical analysis and other evidences yielding objective moral facts must be supported by objective scientific facts, both being conditioned to a human-based FSK.
The human-based FSK is a critical variable in this case to support whatever is objective.

If by "human based FSK", you are referring to, for example, in response to the challenge that slavery was acceptable according to the ethical standards of the antebellum South, that this acceptance was due to the mindset of slave owners, that seems self evident, without adding any non-obvious information.

BTW statistical analysis is performed on communities of individuals, thus gives ethical (not moral) data.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 8:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 2:16 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 7:43 pm

Okay, so we agree that a statistical analysis of the individuals within a community yields an objective ETHICAL conclusion of the popularity of various individual, subjective MORAL stances.

Killing, slavery, rape and any other action you could name has occupied both minority and majority statistical status at various times in various communities. Thus why any intellectually honest description of the ethical status of an action requires details about the timing and make up of the community being evaluated.

That statistical analysis and other evidences yielding objective moral facts must be supported by objective scientific facts, both being conditioned to a human-based FSK.
The human-based FSK is a critical variable in this case to support whatever is objective.

If by "human based FSK", you are referring to, for example, in response to the challenge that slavery was acceptable according to the ethical standards of the antebellum South, that this acceptance was due to the mindset of slave owners, that seems self evident, without adding any non-obvious information.

BTW statistical analysis is performed on communities of individuals, thus gives ethical (not moral) data.

No.

What I am referring to is we humans collectively need to establish a moral model [objective moral FSK] that will justify why slavery is immoral and evil.
This must be supported with statistical analysis of moral and ethical views within humanity and supported by scientific facts and various rational arguments.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 8:58 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 8:34 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 2:16 am
That statistical analysis and other evidences yielding objective moral facts must be supported by objective scientific facts, both being conditioned to a human-based FSK.
The human-based FSK is a critical variable in this case to support whatever is objective.

If by "human based FSK", you are referring to, for example, in response to the challenge that slavery was acceptable according to the ethical standards of the antebellum South, that this acceptance was due to the mindset of slave owners, that seems self evident, without adding any non-obvious information.

BTW statistical analysis is performed on communities of individuals, thus gives ethical (not moral) data.

No.

What I am referring to is we humans collectively need to establish a moral model [objective moral FSK] that will justify why slavery is immoral and evil.
This must be supported with statistical analysis of moral and ethical views within humanity and supported by scientific facts and various rational arguments.

An interesting goal though less important than you're implying. In my experience humans run into trouble more often by failing to adhere to their moral code rather than having an imperfect moral code.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 4:46 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 8:58 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 8:34 am

If by "human based FSK", you are referring to, for example, in response to the challenge that slavery was acceptable according to the ethical standards of the antebellum South, that this acceptance was due to the mindset of slave owners, that seems self evident, without adding any non-obvious information.

BTW statistical analysis is performed on communities of individuals, thus gives ethical (not moral) data.

No.

What I am referring to is we humans collectively need to establish a moral model [objective moral FSK] that will justify why slavery is immoral and evil.
This must be supported with statistical analysis of moral and ethical views within humanity and supported by scientific facts and various rational arguments.

An interesting goal though less important than you're implying. In my experience humans run into trouble more often by failing to adhere to their moral code rather than having an imperfect moral code.

Note moral relativism where any moral code is relative to the dictates of each moral system. It is up to them to do what they dictated and others cannot judge them morally.
One's man meat and another man's poison; what if, to some moral system, what is morally good code is the killing of certain races, e.g. Nazism or the adoption of various 'evil' act.
So, Hitler ran into trouble because he failed to adhere effectively to his moral code which to him is morally good.

The main purpose of an effective moral system is to start with 'perfect' moral ideals [must be justified] and using then as guide only for moral conduct.
Then humans need to strive continuously and optimally to close the moral gap between what is practiced and the ideal.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 2:38 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 4:46 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 8:58 am
No.

What I am referring to is we humans collectively need to establish a moral model [objective moral FSK] that will justify why slavery is immoral and evil.
This must be supported with statistical analysis of moral and ethical views within humanity and supported by scientific facts and various rational arguments.

An interesting goal though less important than you're implying. In my experience humans run into trouble more often by failing to adhere to their moral code rather than having an imperfect moral code.

Note moral relativism where any moral code is relative to the dictates of each moral system. It is up to them to do what they dictated and others cannot judge them morally.
One's man meat and another man's poison; what if, to some moral system, what is morally good code is the killing of certain races, e.g. Nazism or the adoption of various 'evil' act.
So, Hitler ran into trouble because he failed to adhere effectively to his moral code which to him is morally good.

The main purpose of an effective moral system is to start with 'perfect' moral ideals [must be justified] and using then as guide only for moral conduct.
Then humans need to strive continuously and optimally to close the moral gap between what is practiced and the ideal.

Hitler aside, most folks (and I did stipulate "more often", not "always") have a pretty good moral code perhaps containing a few edicts that conflict with what is generally considered ideal, but frequently violate their moral codes, usually in minor ways. Thus I've heard nothing that effectively contradicts my previous post.

Oh and BTW, using Hitler specifically as an example, tends to make your audience tune out on what you're trying to say.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 2:38 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Sep 23, 2023 4:46 pm
An interesting goal though less important than you're implying. In my experience humans run into trouble more often by failing to adhere to their moral code rather than having an imperfect moral code.

Note moral relativism where any moral code is relative to the dictates of each moral system. It is up to them to do what they dictated and others cannot judge them morally.
One's man meat and another man's poison; what if, to some moral system, what is morally good code is the killing of certain races, e.g. Nazism or the adoption of various 'evil' act.
So, Hitler ran into trouble because he failed to adhere effectively to his moral code which to him is morally good.

The main purpose of an effective moral system is to start with 'perfect' moral ideals [must be justified] and using then as guide only for moral conduct.
Then humans need to strive continuously and optimally to close the moral gap between what is practiced and the ideal.

Hitler aside, most folks (and I did stipulate "more often", not "always") have a pretty good moral code perhaps containing a few edicts that conflict with what is generally considered ideal, but frequently violate their moral codes, usually in minor ways. Thus I've heard nothing that effectively contradicts my previous post.

Oh and BTW, using Hitler specifically as an example, tends to make your audience tune out on what you're trying to say.

To each their own is not effective for morality.
It may work with the obvious moral elements [e.g. killing another human] but there a big range of other moral elements.

Note Kant's Categorical Imperative;

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"
which actually meant

"Be guided only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"

It is always easier to work with a fixed goal post than one that move too easily left to it may concern.
Fixed in this case does not mean absolutely fixed but can be changed if well justified.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 6:34 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 2:38 am
Note moral relativism where any moral code is relative to the dictates of each moral system. It is up to them to do what they dictated and others cannot judge them morally.
One's man meat and another man's poison; what if, to some moral system, what is morally good code is the killing of certain races, e.g. Nazism or the adoption of various 'evil' act.
So, Hitler ran into trouble because he failed to adhere effectively to his moral code which to him is morally good.

The main purpose of an effective moral system is to start with 'perfect' moral ideals [must be justified] and using then as guide only for moral conduct.
Then humans need to strive continuously and optimally to close the moral gap between what is practiced and the ideal.

Hitler aside, most folks (and I did stipulate "more often", not "always") have a pretty good moral code perhaps containing a few edicts that conflict with what is generally considered ideal, but frequently violate their moral codes, usually in minor ways. Thus I've heard nothing that effectively contradicts my previous post.

Oh and BTW, using Hitler specifically as an example, tends to make your audience tune out on what you're trying to say.

To each their own is not effective for morality.
It may work with the obvious moral elements [e.g. killing another human] but there a big range of other moral elements.

Note Kant's Categorical Imperative;

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"
which actually meant

"Be guided only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"

It is always easier to work with a fixed goal post than one that move too easily left to it may concern.
Fixed in this case does not mean absolutely fixed but can be changed if well justified.

"To each their own is not effective"? What are you talking about? We're discussing personal (first person) moral codes. You're taking the community's (third person) perspective.

You can beat your drum outside of an agent's mind, but the agent's mind is going to formulate their moral code. Thus why morality lends itself to description and much, much less to influence.

You'd be more on-topic to address the community's ethical standard, ie ethics, rather than morality.