How are you defining facts?There may be facts about what is universally approved and disapproved of by humans; well, at least by those humans that are motivated by social considerations and 'normal' levels of concern for others.
Would you call those 'moral facts'? — John
I really like that. It's like the converse of Kant's importantShe is a firefighter. Therefore she does whatever a firefighter does.
This works. But the obligation only has meaning when there is the possibility of not 'following one's function/nature. — unenlightened
I'd just like to point out that Hume never said those words. What he said wasThe point of my thread is to suggest that the claim, "you can't get an ought from an is" may not actually be binding. — anonymous66
'For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given' — David Hume
Facts are true statements. Moral statements are treated as if they are truth apt.
For all practical purposes, true moral statements are facts — Mongrel
Some will question whether it's characteristic of a human being to want to live in harmony with others ... — jamalrob
Some will question whether it's characteristic of a human being to want to live in harmony with others, so that the argument is seen to come down to her own personal desire. And this is probably just a different way of putting the objection that the derivation concerns merely instrumental oughts and not moral obligations. This is the sticking point. — jamalrob
Yes, you can live in harmony with others by exploiting them, lying to them, robbing them, raping them and their children, killing their friends and loved ones and in general by having no regard for their feelings at all....just as long as they don't mind. — John
Harmony comes at the cost of all being in the same key, for starters.
Nowadays, that is regarded as authoritarian. — Wayfarer
I think this is just the right kind of approach. The moral or ethical fact or facts is/ are based on the psychological or empirical fact or facts about individuals or people in genera — John
A purported fact is something which is posited as being the case. — John
It's common to treat them as if they're truth apt. This argument is basically from common sense.I'm uncertain that moral statements are truth-apt, but it's not the point I wish to contend here. — Moliere
The structure of the argument (which isn't mine, btw) is that we treat moral statements as if they're truth apt. Concerns over whether there are true moral statements falls into the same batch of skepticism about whether there are true statements of any kind.It's the demonstration that there are true moral statements that seems to be lacking -- at least if we're using mathematics as our basis of comparison. No moral calculus has the same force as actual mathematical statements when it comes to accepting their truth. So it's at least reasonable to believe in facts while not believing in moral facts, and it's fair to ask the moral realist for some sort of demonstration that there are true moral statements which is at least comparable to the amount of force other, already accepted facts. — Moliere
No moral calculus has the same force as actual mathematical statements when it comes to accepting their truth. — Moliere
I'd say that there's something important missing from such an account -- namely, that this is just not what "good", in the moral or ethical sense, means. The empirical desires of individuals or people in general are not always good. It's not just the extreme cases that you bring up later. Even in milder cases, people's desires are not always good. — Moliere
The reason I ask, is because it looked like you were asking, "what if there were moral facts that were determined by social considerations?" And I got the sense you were trying to sneak in some relativity, so that you were essentially asking, "what if there were facts, but they were relative to _____", and then asking, "would those still be facts?" — anonymous66
Think about math. Where did it come from? Is it present in the "real" world? Or is it just something that man made up..... did it essentially just spring up from man's brain?
It's common to treat them as if they're truth apt. This argument is basically from common sense. — Mongrel
The structure of the argument (which isn't mine, btw) is that we treat moral statements as if they're truth apt. Concerns over whether there are true moral statements falls into the same batch of skepticism about whether there are true statements of any kind. — Mongrel
It comes down to your theory of truth, basically. As long as you aren't a truth skeptic, you allow that at least one statement is true and this requires no demonstration. Its just logic. Beyond that... put forward your theory of truth and we can go from there.
As for treatment of the word fact: a slippery factor is that statement can mean proposition. So there's all sorts of hidden goodness there.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The same force? If math statements (essentially facts about math= facts about morality) are the same types of facts as moral facts, then they would, by definition, have the same force. — anonymous66
So, if this is right it would seem that morality must be seen in functional, which is really the same as to say instrumental, terms. What plausible alternative conception of the good is there? — John
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.