Philosophy Now Forum

This OP is for Discussion. I am not making any strong claims on it [yet].

PH and others who deny there are no objective moral facts because they have conflated practical knowledge with Speculative Knowledge.

Here is Discussion from ChatGpt [with reservations] on that point.

Question
G E M Anscombe introduced the idea of Speculative Knowledge vs. Practical Knowledge.
Please give a brief description of the above.
Did she mean that Speculative Knowledge belong to those of the empirical world objects while Practical Knowledge is akin to those related to morality & Ethics?

ChatGPT
Elizabeth Anscombe, commonly known as G.E.M. Anscombe, was a British philosopher who made significant contributions to various areas of philosophy. One of her notable ideas is the distinction between speculative knowledge and practical knowledge.

Speculative Knowledge:
This type of knowledge is concerned with understanding the world and its objects. It often deals with empirical facts and scientific knowledge.
Speculative knowledge is typically descriptive and aims to provide an accurate representation or explanation of the way things are in the world.

Practical Knowledge:
Practical knowledge, on the other hand, is more concerned with matters of action, intention, and ethics.
It includes knowledge about what one ought to do, moral principles, and ethical considerations.
Practical knowledge is prescriptive and involves guidance on how one should act or behave in certain situations.
Anscombe's distinction suggests that there are different types of knowledge, each with its own domain of application. Speculative knowledge deals with the factual and empirical aspects of the world, while practical knowledge is more focused on normative and ethical considerations.

However, it's important to note that Anscombe's ideas go beyond a simple division between empirical and ethical realms. She was deeply interested in moral philosophy and made significant contributions to virtue ethics. In her influential work "Intention," she also explored the nature of intentional action and the connections between action, intention, and morality.

While speculative knowledge may have empirical objects as its focus, and practical knowledge often involves moral and ethical considerations, the distinction is not strictly confined to these specific domains. Anscombe's broader contributions to philosophy involve a nuanced understanding of human action, intentionality, and ethics.


Question
Moral facts deniers deny there are no moral facts because moral elements cannot be objective fact.
It seems [is this reasonable inference?] moral facts deniers are conflating the objective facts of speculative knowledge with objects of practical knowledge.
Can we say there are objective moral facts that are conditioned to practical knowledge and not speculative knowledge?

ChatGPT
The debate over the existence of objective moral facts is a complex and ongoing one in philosophy. Moral facts deniers, often associated with moral anti-realism or moral relativism, argue that there are no objective moral facts because moral values are subjective and culturally contingent.

Your inference about the potential conflation of objective facts in speculative knowledge with objects in practical knowledge is an interesting one. Some philosophers argue that moral facts, if they exist, might be a distinct kind of fact that is not easily reducible to empirical or speculative knowledge.

Here's a breakdown of the perspective you're hinting at:

Objective Moral Facts:
If one were to argue for the existence of objective moral facts, it might be suggested that these facts are not of the same nature as empirical facts about the world.
Objective moral facts, if they exist, could be seen as grounded in practical knowledge, involving normative principles and ethical considerations, rather than empirical observations.

Conflation of Knowledge Types:
The potential conflation you mentioned could arise if someone denies objective moral facts based on the belief that all facts must be of the same empirical nature as those in speculative knowledge.
However, proponents of objective moral facts might argue that moral facts belong to a different category altogether – one that is based on practical knowledge, ethical reasoning, and normative principles.

It's important to note that the debate over objective moral facts is highly nuanced, and philosophers hold a variety of positions on this issue. Some argue for moral realism, asserting the existence of objective moral facts, while others advocate moral anti-realism, denying such objectivity. There are also positions in between, such as constructivism, which suggests that moral facts are constructed through social and cultural processes.

In the end, whether one accepts the existence of objective moral facts often depends on their broader philosophical commitments and the framework through which they understand the nature of morality and knowledge.

..............................
Note ChatGpt mentioned 'framework' which implied 'Framework and System' i.e. FSR or FSK.

Discussion?? View??

From the above, ChatGpt is not very committed to Objective Moral Facts.

Elsewhere I have argued there are Objective Moral Facts as conditioned from a human-based moral FSK which are grounded on empirical scientific facts [FSK].

Notes:

Here is what Anscombe wrote in counter to the old fashioned and outdated ideas of morality from PH and his likes.

Modern Moral Philosophy
G. E. M. Anscombe
Philosophy 33, No. 124 January 1958

I will begin by stating three theses which I present in this paper.

The first is that it is not profitable for us at present to do moral philosophy; that should be laid aside at any rate until we have an adequate philosophy of psychology, in which we are conspicuously lacking.

The second is that the concepts of obligation, and duty — moral obligation and moral duty, that is to say — and of what is morally right and wrong, and of the moral sense of “ought,” ought to be jettisoned if this is psychologically possible; because they are survivals, or derivatives from survivals, from an earlier conception of ethics which no longer generally survives, and are only harmful without it.

My third thesis is that the differences between the well-known English writers on moral philosophy from Sidgwick to the present day are of little importance.

The above was written in 1958.
After more than 60 years since the above, there had been a lot of advances in psychology and other modern knowledge from the advanced sciences.

So it is time for us to rely on the modern knowledge to deal with morality & ethics instead of the out-of-date moral ideas from those of the English traditions which PH and his likes are dogmatically clinging upon to counter modern ideas of morality like mine.