15 May 06
Originally posted by dottewellSo who decides which is 'better' ? By what criteria? What is this criteria grounded in? How does one adjudicate between opinions to verify which are 'facts' and which are distortions of facts? How would one differentiate between mere opinion and truth? Who then claims they are closer to moral truth than someone else and by what process? how can that process be shown to be more valid than someone elses?
The fact moral issues are elusive and complicated does not mean there are not, more or less, morally better or worse ways to act in particular circumstances.
You would not have this debate over whther New York is a city or not because it's self evidently a fact based on a real tangible reality.
By the way , do you think the hospice would be a good idea? If so how would you show the goodness of this idea to be a fact and not just your own certainty of opinion?
15 May 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo one decides; we have a range of criteria; it is grounded in the same thing as our other concepts, language; we can't "verify" as this word is normally understood & we rely on argument to lay out the issues; hopefully it becomes apparent through argument; I don't know; see above.
So who decides which is 'better' ? By what criteria? What is this criteria grounded in? How does one adjudicate between opinions to verify which are 'facts' and which are distortions of facts? How would one differentiate between mere opinion and truth? Who then claims they are closer to moral truth than someone else and by what process? how can that pr ...[text shortened]... you show the goodness of this idea to be a fact and not just your own certainty of opinion?
Not all facts are tangible. Words do not work like labels on external or "internal" objects.
I don't know if the hospice would be a good idea; I generally prefer higher, targeted investment in public health services than high-profile, one-off, grandstanding schemes. But it would depends on the details.
15 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou're not addressing the point, which is another Kantian one:
I didn't need an escape route because I thought this through years ago.
Given that we have a God-given moral sense, what properties of God guarantee that this moral sense is (morally) right? For it seems we can meaningfully ask that question.
Is it, perhaps, his goodness?
16 May 06
Originally posted by dottewellThe property of God that guarantees (or creates) our moral sense is the presence of God with us via the Holy Spirit. In Christianity this is the thing that prompts (and sometimes haunts) our conscience. God does not just instill in us a 'moral sense' of morality , he instills Himself in us. When we break moral law we are placing ourselves against him directly in the same way as we might physically swim against a current in a river.
You're not addressing the point, which is another Kantian one:
Given that we have a God-given moral sense, what properties of God guarantee that this moral sense is (morally) right? For it seems we can meaningfully ask that question.
Is it, perhaps, his goodness?
You are right to say it is his goodness that defines morality so if he changed to 'badness' then 'badness' would then become morality in a real sense (however unpalatable that might be) . So just as barr would abandon human flourishing as a grounding for morality , I would abandon God (in theory). The difference is I would have nowhere else to go because my definition of God implies that I would have discovered the ultimate moral truth of the universe to be badness. I'm stuck with the facts even if my internal world tells me comopassion is right not wrong. Barr on the other hand would be left searching for something else better or beyond a concept of human flourishing in which to root his moral facts. It's still not the same.
16 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'll leave you to think about any possible circularity here. I might recommend you read Bernard Williams' Morality, which has the admirable qualities of being short and to the point.
You are right to say it is his goodness that defines morality
16 May 06
Originally posted by dottewellCertainly your description of what you call moral facts do not sound like facts as I understand them. There's too much controversy. You also say that 'hopefully' there would be agreement through argument . This to me places your 'facts' in a very different catagory than "New York is a city" fact.
No one decides; we have a range of criteria; it is grounded in the same thing as our other concepts, language; we can't "verify" as this word is normally understood & we rely on argument to lay out the issues; hopefully it becomes apparent through argument; I don't know; see above.
Not all facts are tangible. Words do not work like labels on external or ...[text shortened]... s than high-profile, one-off, grandstanding schemes. But it would depends on the details.
You say that not all facts are tangible? Which ones are you referring to? The problem I have here is that us Theists are always being accused of appealing to some 'intangible' reality (or fact) like God which cannot be proven objectively but only known by faith...and we get slated for this position. And yet here you are appealing to this intangible reality or these moral facts which you agree are impossible to establish scientifically/objectively?! Surely, I could be forgiven for thinking that this sounds a hell of a lot like faith to me! You can't prove it but you do have faith in the certainty of these moral facts. Don't worry , it's nothing to be ashamed of ..we've been doing it for years..and like you we don't care...it has to be true..we can sense that it most definitely HAS to be a property.
(Apologies for being playful and deeply patronising , but you see my point?)
16 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou say that not all facts are tangible? Which ones are you referring to?
Certainly your description of what you call moral facts do not sound like facts as I understand them. There's too much controversy. You also say that 'hopefully' there would be agreement through argument . This to me places your 'facts' in a very different catagory than "New York is a city" fact.
You say that not all facts are tangible? Which ones y.
(Apologies for being playful and deeply patronising , but you see my point?)
Knightmeister loves his parents. True or false? "Facts" is not a purely scientific concept.
Theists are always being accused of appealing to some 'intangible' reality (or fact) like God which cannot be proven objectively but only known by faith...and we get slated for this position.
What I am trying to demonstrate is not a question of faith. It is a matter of how language works. You love your mother/father. That is (presumably) a fact that does not require faith to see it is true. Can you really not see the difference?
I don't see your point. I don't consider you "deeply patronising", just confused.
16 May 06
Originally posted by dottewellYou have missed my point , OF COURSE I think there are such things as facts that are intangible (what theist wouldn't). And yes I do love my parents , fact , and to me this being a subjective fact makes it no less of a fact (to me)
You say that not all facts are tangible? Which ones are you referring to?
Knightmeister loves his parents. True or false? "Facts" is not a purely scientific concept.
[i]Theists are always being accused of appealing to some 'intangible' reality (or fact) like God which cannot be proven objectively but only known by faith...and we get slated fo ...[text shortened]... ce?
I don't see your point. I don't consider you "deeply patronising", just confused.
But this is a good example because I cannot prove that I love my parents to anyone else. However , there is no obligation or moral imperative on me to prove this to anyone. But If I were to claim that MY 'moral facts' subjectively perceived by me to be properties of universal truth then there is some imperative and obligation on me to prove what I am grounding my 'moral facts' in before I start saying that "this is how all men should act and it's not just my opinion". I could of course say that my moral facts are just for me and me only in the same way I would not require anyone else to love my parents, but if i do this I am retreating back into opinion and subjective experience.
To say that certain moral facts are facts is to imply a moral law, and that men should obey that law and if they are don't then they are out of touch with the facts , anything less and men might rightly say "who are you to say what these moral facts are just because they are self evident properties to you".Disagree or not, Christianity has a framework for establishing true , moral facts as a law of obligation to men.
So although you are right , it IS a fact that I love my parents and that does not require faith for me to see this as true (for me). But then I do not require you to love my parents as well. To say something is true only for you is Ok , but it takes faith to extend your moral convictions beyond your own subjective experience , especially when surrounded by controversy and debate.
17 May 06
Originally posted by dottewellIf I sound confused it is partly because I am reflecting your own position back to you.
You say that not all facts are tangible? Which ones are you referring to?
Knightmeister loves his parents. True or false? "Facts" is not a purely scientific concept.
[i]Theists are always being accused of appealing to some 'intangible' reality (or fact) like God which cannot be proven objectively but only known by faith...and we get slated fo ...[text shortened]... ce?
I don't see your point. I don't consider you "deeply patronising", just confused.
1) You might be basing your moral 'facts' on the observation of how humans actually behave ..but there is no consistency here because human beings behave in a vast variety of ways.
2)You might be basing your moral 'facts' on whether humans flourish or not in the light of these facts , but again there is controversy here. Human beings also flourish by being dishonest and abusive. When the USA and UK invade Iraq on the back of dubious motives and media hype (WMD) and leaders stay in power despite having been showed to have lied I begin to wonder what human flourishing means here.
3) It seems the place you have to retreat to is an intangible concept or subjective conviction of what men 'should' do and not what they 'actually' do which you claim is self evident to you as 'truth'. But this is exactly what I do ! I call it faith in God's moral law , whereas you seem to balk at having to call it such.
This is my confusion , it all sounds very similar to a Christian concept of morality but without admitting that in order for there to be a proper moral law it has to be placed outside the scope of men and mere subjective opinion.
17 May 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo the "fact" you love your parents is in fact only "true to you". That doesn't sound like truth at all, does it?
You have missed my point , OF COURSE I think there are such things as facts that are intangible (what theist wouldn't). And yes I do love my parents , fact , and to me this being a subjective fact makes it no less of a fact (to me)
But this is a good example because I cannot prove that I love my parents to anyone else. However , there is no obligatio ...[text shortened]... our own subjective experience , especially when surrounded by controversy and debate.
17 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by dottewellHis actual concern is with the authority or bindingness of moral claims, not about facts. He mistakenly takes this concern to be about the factual status of moral claims, because he takes it to be a necessary condition on a moral claim's facticity that moral properties be objective (where 'objective' means something like 'existing independently of all minds except God's). This is why he adverts to epistemological ("why ought you believe.." ) considerations in response to your question. I'm sure you know all this already.
So the "fact" you love your parents is in fact only "true to you". That doesn't sound like truth at all, does it?
17 May 06
Originally posted by bbarrJust looking for a door...
His actual concern is with the authority or bindingness of moral claims, not about facts. He mistakenly takes this concern to be about the factual status of moral claims, because he takes it to be a necessary condition on a moral claim's facticity that moral properties be objective (where 'objective' means something like 'existing independently of all minds e ...[text shortened]... e.." ) considerations in response to your question. I'm sure you know all this already.
17 May 06
Originally posted by dottewellIt is truth , but it is MY truth and no-one elses since I have no way of proving it to you. Believe you me , I sometimes feel as if I am showing this love to my parents and it is not recognised as such (usually because I am telling them something they don't want to hear because of what I perceive as love for them and it is missinterpreted as being hurtful). So it is a particular catagory of truth which is not in the catagory of objective facts.
So the "fact" you love your parents is in fact only "true to you". That doesn't sound like truth at all, does it?
If you said "my personal moral truth is convincingly true for me and I percieve this personal truth to be a property of things" then I would have no argument with you. But you appear to jump from personal truth to universal facts with nothing more than your own conviction to substantiate it and no conception of what reality these facts are.
Therefore , it wouild be better if you kept your own personal moral truths to yourself and not talk as if they are facts which others ought to follow. For instance , I disagree with you about the hospice , my personal truth tells me something else , but I am OWNING my own belief that my personal truth is not just based in the personal where as you seem to be in denial about it because you refuse to accept they are only your facts and no-one elses.
17 May 06
Originally posted by bbarrSo how do you propose to make your 'moral facts' convincing and binding to others without stating them as facts? Anything less and you are only saying "this is my opinion and you ought to take it as a fact".
His actual concern is with the authority or bindingness of moral claims, not about facts. He mistakenly takes this concern to be about the factual status of moral claims, because he takes it to be a necessary condition on a moral claim's facticity that moral properties be objective (where 'objective' means something like 'existing independently of all minds e ...[text shortened]... e.." ) considerations in response to your question. I'm sure you know all this already.
Facts are self evidently binding simply by being facts. I am 'bound' to have to accept "New York is a city" is a fact because I would have to be psychotic or deluded to think it wasn't. I am obliged to accept that "gravity exists" unless I want to make myself foolish or do something dangerous.
So what obliges me to accept the 'fact' that "honesty is always the best policy" for example ? Or "it is better to risk death than kill another"? Should I just take your word for it (=faith) or do you just proclaim them as 'fact' based on men's opinions (mostly divided on these issues). What use are moral facts anyway if they cannot be presented as binding to all men? It would be like saying "the law says you must drive on the right hand side , but only when it fits with your own personal perception. If you happen to 'see' a property of the road which tells you to drive on the left go ahead but only if it's your personal truth".