Moral Facts

[Dr. Zaus]

This article starts off base runs around and eventually finds the base on accident:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opi...en-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/?referrer

This is my take:

A fact, as the present word game has it, is a statement which can be tested for veracity. It is both a fact that George Washington was the first President of the US and that Abraham Lincoln was the first president of the US.

A TRUE Fact is one that has been verified. George Washington was the first president of the US = True Fact. Abraham Lincoln was the first president of the US = False Fact. As what we talk about when we distinguish fact form opinion is NOT "truth" but testability of a claim. But what if I choose to define the US as a union created at the end of the civil war?

All Fact based statements entail a particular assumed means of measuring the fact. This is why as technology progresses and our accepted definitions of what is acceptable as test-able progresses, our the number of potential factual statements increases.

At one point it was opinion that there were planets outside our solar system. It was a strongly held opinion that comported with the best theories of galaxy formation, but it was an opinion (as expert as it was). Now that we have an accepted norm by which to test the opinion, the statement has become a factual one. A factual statement that has, as it turns out, been accepted as a true fact. Whilst the opinion that there were no other planets outside our solar system also became a fact. A fact that, based on agreed upon measurements, is now a false fact.

It does't mean the measurements are perfect; it just means that we've agreed to the authority by which the measurement is made.

When I was in school this distinction was rather clear. And while the implicit appeal to authority of "scientists know how to measure things" was required, it was an assumption we all worked on regarding how one might measure and test a fact for it's truthfulness vs. falsehood.

The problem is that morality is, in fact, opinion, when we drop our shared agreement on what defines what is moral. This is why I would find it impossible to live consistently believing there is no Ontic Good. Thus I start with the assumption that there is an Ontic-Real Creator of Truth and Morality; a belief that has lead me to believe (an expert opinion) in the Jesus Mythos.

Should we find a way to look back in time and see if Jesus did, or did not, rise form the dead my opinion would turn into a fact as would the countervailing opinion. We would then decide if that fact were true or not. This would, of course, mean agreeing upon the measure by which we were looking into the past.

So while the author is quite wrong about the nature of teaching facts vs. opinions; he is quite right in pointing out that in a secular world there are no moral facts outside of the emotionally shared mythos of societies. Only strongly held opinions that I cannot prove are 'morally wrong' because the people I disagree with do not agree with me regarding a measure of morality. Some examples of things I believe that others don't are the idea that we should not: 1) Murder a woman for being raped 2) rape young boys 3) Commit acts of terrorism, and so on.

I recognize there are groups of people who hold a different opinion than mine. I also recognize that you can live a very moral (by my opinion) life without an appeal to the authority I have made. But without any acceptable authority to appeal to by which to measure the a truth-statement about morality, the entire faced of morality is quite clearly exposed for the farce it is. Nietzsche is right:

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

If you've followed me so far let me end with what I feel is a good measure for the existence of moral good: a universal moral truth that runs throughout humanity, but which cultures are often built around denying:

It is Evil to hurt someone else in order to serve your own lust or pride.

It is Good to help someone else at the expense of your own lust or pride.

And so for everyone that can agree to these statements of measurement Moral Truths become measurable Facts.

 

[inachu]

If you kill just for the hell of it or by proxy then it is evil. You can not wear the shame or destruction of another race and wear it as your own.

A lion survives by killing life but it is not evil. If a muslim kills to protect his family and the victim just so happens to be jewish or vice versa then it is not evil. That is just called life.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The problem I always run into is that if there were an 'Ontic-Real Creator of Truth and Morality' then nearly everyone would share that Ontic-Real Morality. There might be people that choose to not follow it, but almost all would all accept it as the one true morality. This is shown, by your own example, to not be the case.

It seems to me, that instead of there being a Real Truth Morality that morality is better explained as an emergent property of society. That would mean that different social conditions lead to different moralities, which I think fits pretty well with what we observe.

 

[inachu]

The problem I always run into is that if there were an 'Ontic-Real Creator of Truth and Morality' then nearly everyone would share that Ontic-Real Morality. There might be people that choose to not follow it, but almost all would all accept it as the one true morality. This is shown, by your own example, to not be the case.

It seems to me, that instead of there being a Real Truth Morality that morality is better explained as an emergent property of society. That would mean that different social conditions lead to different moralities, which I think fits pretty well with what we observe.

So called morality will always fall to the one with the one holding power.

Let us kill so and so because of morality. Large country

Why do you kill us? Small country

No matter how you play the logic out it will always boil down to the one who has the power/might

 

[sm625]

From the article:

— Copying homework assignments is wrong.

— Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior.

— All men are created equal.

— It is worth sacrificing some personal liberties to protect our country from terrorism.

— It is wrong for people under the age of 21 to drink alcohol.

— Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat.

— Drug dealers belong in prison.

He seems to have a problem with these statements all being viewed as opinions. But that is exactly what they are. Every single one of them. And most of them are actually wrong opinions, if an opinion can ever really be wrong. At first I agreed that it is "wrong" for a person under 21 to drink. But then I realized that a glass of wine for an 18 year old isnt going to kill them, and would indeed most likely be an overall very good experience. You could make a similar argument for and against all of these opinions.

The auther fails to make a compelling argument.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The problem I always run into is that if there were an 'Ontic-Real Creator of Truth and Morality' then nearly everyone would share that Ontic-Real Morality. There might be people that choose to not follow it, but almost all would all accept it as the one true morality. This is shown, by your own example, to not be the case.

I agree with your premise, but I feel your conclusion may be unwanted. I say this because a universal sense of good and evil does exist, as I sated:

"
It is Evil to hurt someone else in order to serve your own lust or pride.

It is Good to help someone else at the expense of your own lust or pride.
"

And while people with power in societies work to mold society so as to maintain their power; people across religions and societies, at the core, feel this to be true.

It is inachu's point "If a muslim kills to protect his family and the victim just so happens to be jewish or vice versa then it is not evil." that shows us the flaw:

People serve themselves and hurt others under the auspice of doing exactly the opposite. It doesn't mean that they are right, only that they've come up with some mental-hoops that they can jump through to justify their violent acts.

 

[sandorski]

I agree with your premise, but I feel your conclusion may be unwanted. I say this because a universal sense of good and evil does exist, as I sated:

"
It is Evil to hurt someone else in order to serve your own lust or pride.

It is Good to help someone else at the expense of your own lust or pride.
"

And while people with power in societies work to mold society so as to maintain their power; people across religions and societies, at the core, feel this to be true.

It is inachu's point "If a muslim kills to protect his family and the victim just so happens to be jewish or vice versa then it is not evil." that shows us the flaw:

People serve themselves and hurt others under the auspice of doing exactly the opposite. It doesn't mean that they are right, only that they've come up with some mental-hoops that they can jump through to justify their violent acts.

Whether there is a "universal sense" of something or not, does not make it a Real truth within our Universe. Senses in this usage are entirely subject to Us as human beings. I'm no Philosopher, so had to Google "Ontic", from what I understand from the term, it seems rather dubious to consider Morality as Factualy Ontic. I understand why some would want it to be, but Want is not enough to make something a Fact.

I suppose that's really my problem with the discussion as I see it. If our Facts are not based upon Demonstrable Evidence, they lose their meaning and utility. One non-Fact accepted as Fact opens the door for other non-Facts to creep in.

So before we start applying words like Ontic or Objective to things, please provide the Evidence of its' existence in that state.

That said, Morality/Ethics are important. The Community sets these standards in a completely Subjective fashion. The Individual generally accepts these standards Objectively. Generally speaking this arrangement works fine for the Community, however it can cause conflict between different Communities.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I agree with your premise, but I feel your conclusion may be unwanted. I say this because a universal sense of good and evil does exist, as I sated:


It is Evil to hurt someone else in order to serve your own lust or pride.

It is Good to help someone else at the expense of your own lust or pride.

I'm not at all sure that either of these can be counted as morals in their current state. The words 'hurt' and 'someone' is too broad for it to have much meaning, seeing as how we can cavalierly re-define those terms as it suits us.
It seems that the bar for being a 'someone' is very, very high. Even minor differences can cause a person to not be a someone. It seems that killing 'not someones' that are different than you is also a universal morality.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I agree with your premise, but I feel your conclusion may be unwanted. I say this because a universal sense of good and evil does exist, as I sated:

"
It is Evil to hurt someone else in order to serve your own lust or pride.

It is Good to help someone else at the expense of your own lust or pride.
"

And while people with power in societies work to mold society so as to maintain their power; people across religions and societies, at the core, feel this to be true.

It is inachu's point "If a muslim kills to protect his family and the victim just so happens to be jewish or vice versa then it is not evil." that shows us the flaw:

People serve themselves and hurt others under the auspice of doing exactly the opposite. It doesn't mean that they are right, only that they've come up with some mental-hoops that they can jump through to justify their violent acts.

In my opinion, the semantics of "hurt" and "help" make the example statements tautologies.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Whether there is a "universal sense" of something or not, does not make it a Real truth within our Universe. Senses in this usage are entirely subject to Us as human beings. I'm no Philosopher, so had to Google "Ontic", from what I understand from the term, it seems rather dubious to consider Morality as Factualy Ontic. I understand why some would want it to be, but Want is not enough to make something a Fact.

Right: I don't think that the universalizable notion of good and evil (as limited as they are, as can be seen below) prove that there IS an ontic-good; It's just that a lack of universalizable notions of good and evil would be strong evidence against ontic-good. My argument was limited to establishing my reasoning for why there is not yet a good disproof for an ontic-good. My reason for believing is that I find it personally valuable to have hope in the existence of ontic-good.

That said, Morality/Ethics are important. The Community sets these standards in a completely Subjective fashion. The Individual generally accepts these standards Objectively. Generally speaking this arrangement works fine for the Community, however it can cause conflict between different Communities.

I would like to think we have a moral-sense that comes before community and which is directed, and often perverted, by communities. I think there are material conditions. Otherwise it seems (and i'm happy to have it explains to me why this is not the case) that the only real mistake Hitler made was not winning.

In my opinion, the semantics of "hurt" and "help" make the example statements tautologies.

It seems that the bar for being a 'someone' is very, very high. Even minor differences can cause a person to not be a someone. It seems that killing 'not someones' that are different than you is also a universal morality.

Both good points. Human history is fought with considering living, genetically individual, humans "non-persons". and Hurt and Help also are clearly not definitionally strong enough.

Might we consider psychological harm "hurting" someone? Is saving someone from a 1:10000 chance of injury actually 'helping' someone?

Back to the drawing board: thank you for the thoughtful replies!

 

[sandorski]

Right: I don't think that the universalizable notion of good and evil (as limited as they are, as can be seen below) prove that there IS an ontic-good; It's just that a lack of universalizable notions of good and evil would be strong evidence against ontic-good. My argument was limited to establishing my reasoning for why there is not yet a good disproof for an ontic-good. My reason for believing is that I find it personally valuable to have hope in the existence of ontic-good.



I would like to think we have a moral-sense that comes before community and which is directed, and often perverted, by communities. I think there are material conditions. Otherwise it seems (and i'm happy to have it explains to me why this is not the case) that the only real mistake Hitler made was not winning.

1) There is some Pre-Human indications of innate Morality. We can see similar behaviours in other Species. So in a sense Evolution may have resulted in our having Moral sensibilities.That still doesn't make it Ontic, just that it has utility.

2) Sadly, in a sense that was his biggest mistake. Along those same lines many Christian Apologists attempt to justify similar actions spoken of in the Bible. We as contemporary Humans have made a choice to value diversity and generally find Genocide to be abhorrent. We don't always act to stop it, but in time I hope we will come to do that regardless of where it is occurring.

 

[Vdubchaos]

We don't always act to stop it, but in time I hope we will come to do that regardless of where it is occurring.

don't always?

Truth is, hardly EVER or "sometimes".

 

[inachu]

The truth is: Hurt, Help, Hope Have different meanings for those who live in different places. If your hope gets the help it need by having someone on the other side of the earth dying for your needs either you knowingly know this or are naive to that fact makes no difference and you would be evil by proxy?

One of the reasons why I make sure my family does not deal in diamonds even in the least!

 

[inachu]

Look at all the moral lessons spewed out by the TV show Star Trek TNG.
Now look how many nations still violate those morals today.

Does having morals make you more or lesser of a person? We may not be subjected to those morals but I myself call those not morals but vanities.

To put it short: Life is vain. Life makes you want things.

If you do not have vanity then you have no wants or desires. Then there is a lesser need for morals because you do not need to be bound by such concepts because you know how vanity traps you.

 

[Caravaggio]

This is my take:

A fact, as the present word game has it, is a statement which can be tested for veracity. It is both a fact that George Washington was the first President of the US and that Abraham Lincoln was the first president of the US.

A TRUE Fact is one that has been verified. George Washington was the first president of the US = True Fact. Abraham Lincoln was the first president of the US = False Fact. As what we talk about when we distinguish fact form opinion is NOT "truth" but testability of a claim. But what if I choose to define the US as a union created at the end of the civil war?

All Fact based statements entail a particular assumed means of measuring the fact. .......

It does't mean the measurements are perfect; it just means that we've agreed to the authority by which the measurement is made.
....

This is mine.

Firstly, that was all wonderfully expressed. The language both elegant and eloquent.

Alas, I think that Ludwig Wittgenstein solved your riddle around 94 years ago.

(All that follows is taken from his Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, 1921 (1922 in English)

1) the world is all that is the case.

1.1) the world is the totality of facts.

1.11) the world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.

(Thus much of what you said about 'facts' is actually in error.

It follows that it is simple to demonstrate that two different people cannot both have been the ' first President of the U.S.'.)

 

[KeithP]

This is my take:

A fact, as the present word game has it, is a statement which can be tested for veracity.

Nope, that is not a fact's definition. Your definition is incomplete. Since that part was wrong I didn't bother with the rest.

-KeithP

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Nope, that is not a fact's definition. Your definition is incomplete. Since that part was wrong I didn't bother with the rest.

-KeithP

you'll need to specify the problem

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think the most useful definition of "fact" is "a proposition which has been tested for truth and verified." In my experience, the notions of an "untrue fact" or an "untested fact" are treated as incoherent. Facthood implies verifiable truth.

^^ Post #10,000 ^^

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I think the most useful definition of "fact" is "a proposition which has been tested for truth and verified." In my experience, the notions of an "untrue fact" or an "untested fact" are treated as incoherent. Facthood implies verifiable truth.

^^ Post #10,000 ^^

1) It's an honor

2) That's fine. But we do ourselves a disservice if we fail to recognize that one standard of verification may verify a statement whilst another standard may find it ether not-true or even entirely un-verifyable.

For example: The standards presented by Dewy regarding verification of an idea hold the fact-hood of historical materialism; On the other hand Popper's standards of verification of an idea say that historical materialism is un-verifyable.

Or again: At one point it was a fact that AMD was better than Intel vis a vis price-to-performance; while at the same time it was a fact that Intel was better than AMD in relation to total maximum performance; excepting that at that same time total maximum performance also belonged to AMD if your metric was total maximum performance including over clocking. And in today's mobile market we might compare power to performance ratios... (where those chips not made obsolete)

The point being that there are many fully verified 'false' facts out there; or at least they will be when the zeitgeist shifts and a different form of verification is used.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The point being that there are many fully verified 'false' facts out there; or at least they will be when the zeitgeist shifts and a different form of verification is used.

I guess I don't really see this as problematic. "The time is 3:30am" is factual once every 24 hours at your house; or 24 times every 24 hours, but each occasion at a different location on the globe. At any other place and time not just described, it is unfactual.

In general, facts are contingent upon a number of presuppositions, and re-aligning those presuppositions can "unfactualize" certain propositions. This is greatly apparent when talking about "moral facts"*.


*I don't generally agree that moral propositions are capable of achieving facthood. Factual propositions describe external reality, whereas moral propositions describe internal reality -- specifically individual values. For example, the proposition "X thinks that A is morally wrong" can be factual, but "A is morally wrong" cannot be.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is only love.

 

[SMOGZINN]

There is only love.

That is a strange comment comming from someone that spends so much time talking about hate.

 

[cabri]

There is only love.

That is a strange comment comming from someone that spends so much time talking about hate.

He only talks hate when it opposes his beliefs.

It is rough for him to look in the mirror and see a reflection of what he opposes.
Intolerance and denial of others ideas, values, beliefs

 

[Moonbeam]

That is a strange comment comming from someone that spends so much time talking about hate.

There is only love. Hate is a delusion. Jesus expressed God's absolute love and told us we were forgiven. In return for the demonstration of God's love incarnate, we murdered him. We will never forgive and we will never hear that we have been forgiven because we will never open those wound. Only he or she who bleeds out will know grace. Only the meek and little children, only those who have had their egos destroyed and have nothing at all to lose. Yet you imagine that by calling me strange you can have some effect on me. I know the pain you won't feel. Go in peace.