Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[The Grand Nudger]

Currently my gut instinct is telling me that I should go further and declare that the term 'moral facts' is oxymoronic.  I could be wrong and I'm open to being convinced otherwise.  

I'm basing this on the definition you provided earlier in post #117: "a thing that is indisputably the case."  Something might be OK by one person (i.e. no 'morality system' alerts are firing) and not OK by another person (their senses are tingling away like crazy).  So there's 'disputable' right there.

Ask a creationist whether evolutionary biology is indisputably the case.  I think you're failing to read an important distinction there - that some person can disagree does not mean that something is meaningfully disputable.

I can dispute that your name is whatever you say it is.  That's the objection you've just fielded...to moral realism.

-but okay.  A moral realist will tell you that the existence of objective moral statements would not preclude moral disagreement.  Or, in the other direction..that the existence of moral disagreement does not threaten moral objectivity. 

Perhaps we can leave aside the term 'subjectivity' for now.  We are obviously not using it in the same sense.  E.g.:

I would argue that Autonomy ethics is the more selfish of the two.

Confusing, right?  This is why the terms 'objective' and 'subjective' have been relegated / reserved for types of metrics.

Not to me.  Yes, people can be selfish, but that doesn't mean that they based their moral system on that selfishness.  That would make a moral system -meaningfully- subjective.  That people are selfish doesn't make purportedly objective moral statements subjective.  

I'm selfish, does that change something about the act of assault?  If I really wanted to hit you...would that make it a good thing?  A moral realist could say no.  It's a bad thing we might want to do.  Happens all the time.  That moral statements might be facts would not change -that- fact.  

(my comment about community ethics being the more subjective of the two is in reference to the fact that even if it were only a community of two, community ethics necessitates some concern for the subjective requirements of the other and our relationships with them.  

OK, so it seems that here, 'moral facts' is being used in two ways:
1. Classification: An output of a Knowledge Management process where 'moral' is the information category and 'facts' is the information itself.  'A moral' being used in the sense of "a lesson that can be derived from a story or experience."    
2. Trigger: A 'moral fact' (indisputable to the individual, at least initially) would be the input to the Event Management process that would lead to an action; an input to the decision-making process.

It's being used in one way, the same way it's used in any other context.  That is what the position of moral realism is.  

If by "lesson" you mean that a person can be convinced that being punched in the face hurts - by being punched in the face..sure.  The moral fact behind the moral statement "punching people in the face is wrong" - is that it's harmful.  That it hurts.  

The second use is not relevant at all, considering the above.  Moral facts -will- be disputed, if there are moral facts.  

Fine with that, limited though it is.  It's still likely to be conditional.

All known truth is conditional.  That's the essence of a logical statement.  If, and if, then-

Only if the underlying epistemology has validity, soundness, reliability etc. Otherwise it would still be disputable and therefore not a fact, by definition.  

It would be "disputable" even if it were..but yes...that's a requirement of an objective morality.  The form must be valid.  The statements must be sound.  

If hurting people is wrong
and if some action hurts people
then this action is, broadly speaking, wrong.  

Hell, lets include every things that slithers swims flies or burrows.  

If causing harm is wrong
and if some action causes harm
then this action is, broadly speaking, wrong.  

Now....that statement being true, we could fill in the specifics with whatever, would not mean that there wasn't someone, somewhere, in some situation, that would argue against the conclusion.  They might provide a compelling reason to hit some asshole in the face (or kill him, even).  Hell, they might even provide a compelling subjective reason.  They hate that motherfucker so much because of x y and z and having heard it now we all hate him too!

However, those would be compelling reasons to act against the normative ethics of the moral conclusion above.  It doesn't change the conclusion.  Harm is still wrong, you're still harming the person.  

Yes and yes. 

You can construct a semi educated professional opinion without the use of at least one fact?  

So some do and some don't (whoop-de-do)... and here we are referring to facts as an output of the decision-making process e.g. It is a fact that I, personally, have decided that starving my family is not conducive with their well-being.

Is that decision meaningfully based on you..or on something about the act of starving a family?  Yes, you may have decided..but had you decided otherwise, would something about the act of starving a family change.

-but yeah..moral realism does contend that at least some moral statements purport to report facts, don;t get the facts right, and are then false on account of that.  

Fair enough.  It says nothing about whether there should be a general rule about this i.e. that I should be concerned about whether or not anyone else agrees with me or I should lose any sleep over the nutritional in-take of families on the other side of the planet.  

If it's objective..then it does suggest a general rule.  Starving families is a bad thing, regardless of what you decide or whether you care.  Regardless of whose family.  That's the general rule.  

I notice that in many of your comments you choose to emphasize your personal agency ad it's involvement in moral decisions.  This is driving your idea of what is being discussed when we use the term objective or subjective in a moral context.  A moral realist is not contending otherwise.  Yes, you're involved..yes, others are involved...no they don't always agree.  If you were (or are) living in a universe where there are moral facts..all of that can be (or is) simultaneously true.  

So, yes, you decided this, others would not decide that, we all make decisions.  Moral subjectivity and objectivity makes a distinction between the basis of those decisions, not on the presence of an agent.  A moral agent is always present in any moral decision.  Just like you are always present whenever you refer to any other fact.  If it's a problem for one, it's a problem for both..or more accurately..all.  



*Nope, I think Bucky is here now, though!  So...more new friends! 

Yeah, it's emphasis, I use ital too.