Moral Fact

Thoughts on this article anyone?


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.


http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/why-our-children-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/?_r=0

There are a variety of troublesome distinctions like Fact - Opinion. A favorite of mine to debunk is Myth - Fact. The juxtaposition of categories is the grist of philosophy. Moral - Fact is another flawed distinction but the author of "Why our children don't think...", Justin P. McBrayer, uses the confusion of this distinction without questioning if the distinction is a valid one and compounds the confusion through the equivalence of Moral Facts - Moral Truths.

McBrayer, "Opinions are things we believe. Some of our beliefs are true. Others are not. Some of our beliefs are backed by evidence. Others are not." Like Plato, McBrayer asserts that there are different kinds of knowledge and different kinds of things that can be known. Knowledge about an object of scientific study is not the same as a moral or aesthetic concepts.

McBrayer, "Value claims are like any other claims: either true or false, evidenced or not." McBrayer has not proven that value claims are equivalent with any other claims. I would say No they are not the same. Values, by definition, are not facts and so truth claims cannot therefore be equivalent. Also, he has not proven what constitutes adequate evidence when asserting the truth value of value claims. How does one prove value? What kind of evidence supports value claims?

I think the definitions provided for what constitutes a fact and an opinion respectively do not do either term justice.

To say that a fact is something that is true doesn't actually help anyone understand what a fact is, it just swaps one label for another. Same with opinions being (merely?) something one thinks or feels.
I suppose it is good enough for fourth grade and an exercise to tell the difference under these definitions certainly has its place, too, but I would challenge Professor McBrayer to demonstrate that these definitions are being used throughout twelve years, as he puts it, or that the students are supposed to view them as opposites as much in the end as they did in the beginning.

There is also a distinction necessary between moral relativism and the unnamed alternative he proposes. To defend realistic moral cognitivism (a position - and I am simplifying here - where there are actual moral truths and where we are in principle capable of identifying them) is nigh impossible but he is sure welcome to try, though might it take more than he had to offer in this article. In any case, to disagree with that position is in no way equivalent to agreeing with moral relativism instead. Nor for that matter, has Mr. McBrayer made a case for what's wrong with moral relativism even if the dichotomy he seems to be presenting were true.

He also tried and miserably failed at presenting a consequentialist case against the curriculum as it is. There is neither cognitive dissonance in most people when it comes to clear-cut issues like shamelessly cheating in competitions or murdering people nor has modern education demonstrably done anything to increase either. If anything, local communities with less public education, be that by choice of the parents or by mere shortage of schools and teachers, seem to be slightly worse off. The only real large scale moral problem he mentions is the voting one, and it just so happens that people actually do and always have been voting in the way he thinks is contrary to the famous platitude and so deems wrong because Adam Smith rings none of his bells while oh that wicked education does.

All in all, a number of mostly false and occasionally partially true assertions, some appeals to emotion and false dichotomy fallacies and a conclusion that wouldn't follow from any prior point even under valid argumentation... I'm unimpressed. From a philosophy professor speaking about his own field I learned to expect more than what can be torn to pieces by the very first lay person to come along.

its always good imo when people are encouraged to acknowledge that it is their responsibility to sort out what is true from what is untrue

there may be better contextual foundations for this than fact/opnion but it worked well for me

i realized that 99% of what the adults in my life thought were true were really just the repetition of what others had told them was true when they were young.

the proccess may be more painful for some than for others but i expect the majority will come to the understanding that the choices are

isolation or integration

and isolation really is not possible without certain resources which can only be achieved through integration

therefore integration is to some extent mandatory

the consequences for treating society as if my wishes or needs are the only which matter can be harsh

most will come to the understanding that stealing (for instance) is "wrong" or "bad" by the understanding that they dont want it to happen to them

and of course while the morality of behavior may be relative

the imposition of consequeses such as imprisonment is a FACT

a person effectively guided to we their own belife system as a personal responsibility will come to see that consequenses exist for everything, even if you "get away" with cheating or stealing for a time, it is a factual experience that a life built on deception and exploitation eventually crumbles

there may be exceptions to this, but from what i have seen they are very few, and given enough time i belive there are none

also theres nothing wrong with beliving in opinions or making value judgements and this is something we all come to understand naturally

but there is a huge difference between building our own value system based upon our own understanding and life experience, and attempting to live up to a value system we were given and told not to question

the former is honest even when it is not maturely functional while the latter is both disingenuous and ultimately disfunctional; the difference between an heirloom and a handme down is that the heirloom was personally meaningful in a way that transcends momentary convenience

a morality or belife system which is not by and large self developed is spiritually and intellectually much more of a handme down than an heirloom imo

what is missing in the fact/opinion dichotomy is the third point of TRUTH

two points make a line and a line can go on and on forever

a third point makes a triangle and allows perspective to flow between varying positions

it can be observed that personal understanding and personal interpretation are the "truths" by which we all live our lives and make our decisions

which for all of us is a blend of what we know to be factually correct and what we feel to be emotionally real

neither garantee perfection
and more immediately
niether factual verification nor emotional appeal exclusively offer a sure means of effective relationship with each other

it really is true that all things are relative
gravity works the same for a sucide jumper, a stealth fighter, a falcon, or a waterfall

but the effects are highly subjective to each and are a result of personal or inherent inclination

honestly i feel that the writer here is expressing an idea that is essentially sound
i basically agree with his basic position

but it seems to me that he is coming from a place internally that results from and appeals to
personal fear

and i refuse on principal to submit my conclusions of anything to the mandates of anyones fear, even my own

fear is not a worthy guide for leading us to personal conclusions about truth or life or anything whatsoever

but it is an excellent guide to a life of regrets and animosities and bitterness

which is in fact my opinion about the moral fact of fear being an inadequate foundation for our personal opinions

i almost think that statement alone could be the basis for his next article

This all depends on the point of view.
if we are looking at things from the Earthly state of things, morality is fluid and relative to the situation. Like laws, regulations, and stipulations.

If we look at this from a spiritual stand point, then morality is eternal and a "fact".
We know what is true. We know what truly makes us feel good about yourselves. We do know what is accurate. Due to external things, we question or doubt these universal truths. We surrender to what is easy in our life verses holding true to what is accurate in spirit. This is the job of the Jedi. This is our challenge.

If a person is connected up to the Force, there is no doubt about the truth of morals.
Only when we are challenged by choices in our material lives do we resist or reject these moral facts.

Are you willing to risk your life in order to uphold what you know to be accurate and true?

baru wrote: This all depends on the point of view.
if we are looking at things from the Earthly state of things, morality is fluid and relative to the situation. Like laws, regulations, and stipulations.

If we look at this from a spiritual stand point, then morality is eternal and a "fact".
We know what is true. We know what truly makes us feel good about yourselves. We do know what is accurate. Due to external things, we question or doubt these universal truths. We surrender to what is easy in our life verses holding true to what is accurate in spirit. This is the job of the Jedi. This is our challenge.

If a person is connected up to the Force, there is no doubt about the truth of morals.
Only when we are challenged by choices in our material lives do we resist or reject these moral facts.

Are you willing to risk your life in order to uphold what you know to be accurate and true?

But what exactly are these moral truths? And why are those moral truths true instead of another set of moral truths?

baru wrote: if we are looking at things from the Earthly state of things, morality is fluid and relative to the situation.

No, I'm sorry. That doesn't follow. Here, have a look:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/

If we look at this from a spiritual stand point, then morality is eternal and a "fact".

No, I'm sorry. That doesn't follow either. First, because 'spiritual' is an ill-defined term and can mean just about anything, and second, because there is an infinite number of different spiritual belief configurations none of which are sufficient for moral realism. Well - unless moral realism is one of those beliefs, of course.

We know what is true.

No, we don't. We still have our way all ahead of us to show that we even can.

We know what truly makes us feel good about yourselves. We do know what is accurate.

Nope. Another non-sequitur. Only by hedonistic and arguably naive utilitarian standards are one's personal or at least immediate collective feelings a sufficient criterion to make a moral judgement, and even then it is still logically impossible to derive a moral truth without massive reservations.

Due to external things, we question or doubt these universal truths.

No, that, too, is simply not true. Many of our doubts come from within because we catch ourselves in hypocricy, but even more importantly, what we doubt is ourselves and our own attitudes, not any universal truths; because even if our perceptions coincided with any universal truths, we would have no way of knowing so and would still be struggling with ourselves or at best our fellow people.

We surrender to what is easy in our life verses holding true to what is accurate in spirit.

Did you not just say that what makes us feel good is (at least) close to the accurate? So either you are saying that the easy way is to torment ourselves or you are contradicting yourself. I'll leave that choice up to you

If a person is connected up to the Force, there is no doubt about the truth of morals.

Are you now being the arbiter of who and when is 'connected up to the Force' or do you have any evidence to back this up?

Only when we are challenged by choices in our material lives do we resist or reject these moral facts.

First, you can't just assume there are any such facts - you have to actually show that there are before refering to them. Second, while our choices in our material lives may be of a significant interest, if you are going to say that they are the only factor, you have to demonstrate that there either are no choices outside of it or that all of them never make us reject or resist the moral facts you speak of.

Are you willing to risk your life in order to uphold what you know to be accurate and true?

No sooner than there is no more good I can do with it. But after that, sure, why not?

Akkarin wrote:
But what exactly are these moral truths? And why are those moral truths true instead of another set of moral truths?

i know this was not directed at me
i would like to respond
i dont expect my answer to be equally true for everyone else

even though i know that it actually is equally true for all of us



in a moment of danger or challenge the body and the mind can kick into a kind of overdrive which empowers us to survive and to overcome

within this context fear is a healthy and useful feature of our psycho-physiology

in fact it is a powerful stimlant with extraordinary potential for our betterment

however

without attempting to get in to how or why
i want to submit that people often allow unhealthy fear to be the foundation for a large percentage of their/our decisions

for clarity
i consider fear to be unhealthy if it is centered around the conviction that one is inadequate for facing the circumstances of ones life

its foolish to think that i can count on my ability to defeat a grizzly bear in a boxing match
or a tiger shark in a swimming competition

but it is an unhealthy fear to refuse the forests and the oceans because i know that grizzly bears and tiger sharks exist

a healthy fear is to acknowledge the risks of whatever activity i aspire to and take responsibility for my own safety by understanding them and being prepared to face them and determined that i will overcome them if i am required to.

this is the kind of fear that that propels us into excellence

because it encourages us to follow our dreams and desires while demanding that we do so with open eyes and alert minds

in juxtapositoon to this

the kind of fear that comes from the conviction that we are somehow lacking

this is the fear which keeps us timid about life and makes us insecure in each others presence

which is the source of much violence and injury to one another
as it results in a constant sense of having to be more powerful or more in charge

or feeling that one is being insulted or attacked when there is no attack or insult intended

this is the source imo of unhealthy self fixation

to have a sense of ones inherent worth and power as a living consciousness is natural and healthy
and
the desire to sustain and to expand
and to grow and to achieve things
and to do and to experience things
is a wholesome and healthy characteristic of life

of all life imo
from human beings to armadillos to redwoods

each in its own context

but the fear of personal insufficiency leads to people warping and distorting the innate drives to acheive and to actualize
into a self fixated impulse to win and to dominate over others

and to be dependent on things exterior to the self for well being or acknowledgement or validation

this fear invariably results in distorted relationships with the self
and from there with all others
which are intrinsically less meaningfull, less nourishing, and less reliable than they would be if the fear of insufficiency were not so prevalent

this is a moral truth which each of us can attest to in some degree by simply looking at our own lives

and while i am not familiar enough with the fiction of star wars to speak in a cannonically accurate manner, i am familiar enough with life to say that this is the essencial distinction between Jedi and the "dark side"

in real life there is no dark side of the force

there is only the force

but there are and will always be people who have yet to reach that place internally where they/we recognise the difference between self actualization and self fixated ego power games

its as simple and as challenging as being able to stay grounded in self confidence and love for both the self and the other

and it is the loss of this confidence and love which is at the heart of every single act which can be objectively agreed upon to be morally wrong