Each Person has a different view as where "morals" comes from. and as such, the answers and opinions are many. Myself, I look at morals as things that are right and wrong and they come from backgrounds, things one is taught, and even what inspires on through out life.

Morals are powerful things and can bring joy to one's soul and passion to one's life. Just depends on where they come from. JMO.

I want to address this for clarity...



"The sun is hot compared to the moon."

The above claim is either true or false, or not truth apt. It cannot be both truth apt and not truth apt. If it is truth apt, then it cannot be both true and false. The claim is a fact.

It is a fact because it obtains a state of affairs in reality. That can be corroborated and verified by independent sources. That corroboration does not make it a fact, it makes it undeniable".

Define 'hot'

I agree, according to what I know and trust, that the sun is hot compared to the moon.


"The sun is hot compared to the moon."

I agree that the above claim (or opinion) is considered to be, and is called, a fact.

It is also a point of view or opinion, one that has been declared to be a fact.




I think the corroboration and verification by independent sources (authorities) is what determines and declares it to be a fact. This declaration placed it into law and is rarely refuted.

However, anyone can deny it or refute it if they want, but probably unsuccessfully.

Therefore it cannot be stated (as a literal fact) that it is "undeniable."

A fool is free to deny it.

The point I am trying to make is that a fact is point of view or opinion that has been corroborated and verified by independent sources (Authorities) as "true." They call it "fact." There is no hard conflict between fact and opinion. It does not have to be "either -- or."

Some "opinions" have not been corroborated or verified to be true. They are "just opinions." That is why people will ask, "Where is your proof?" or say, "That's JUST an opinion not a fact.

A fact is an opinion that is true. An opinion is not always a fact, but a fact is always, first, an opinion, which is a point of view.

My favorite ice cream is mint chocolate chip. That is a true statement because it corresponds to a state of affairs in reality. "My favorite flavor of ice cream is mint chocolate chip" is true if and only if my favorite flavor of ice cream is mint chocolate chip. It is not a fact that mint chocolate chip ice is the best flavor of ice cream. It is a fact that that is my opinion. Nor can "mint chocolate chip ice cream is the best flavor" ever be rightfully called a true opinion even though it is a fact that that is my favorite flavor of ice cream.

Facts are not true opinions.

That is a Bad example. It demonstrates, however, how you personally define the meaning of the term "opinion."



How so? It is merely a statement declaring your own personal preference for mint chocolate chip. You and only you really knows if it is a true statement. The statement is meaningless in its correspondence to the state of affairs in an external reality. It is yours and yours alone.



Because you are only one person with an opinion.

If all the chefs in the world analyzed and tasted and tested all ice creams in existence, and large studies were made with real subjects and contests were repeated and the conclusion always came up with the opinion that mint chocolate chip ice cream is the best flavor" then perhaps people would call it a fact.

Further scientific tests could be made that prove that mint chocolate chip is not only preferred by most people, but it has the best most healthy ingredients.

They might even declare it is an "indisputable" fact.

Of course there is alway the fool who might dispute it.

****

The evolution of a fact.

This is the process I am suggesting:

1. The observer/perceiver
2. The input/ stimuli
3. The perception
4. The interpretation
5. The opinion
6. The testing.
7. The validation.
8. The agreement(s)
9. The declaration that the opinion is true.
10. The fact.

Facts always begin as opinions. They sometimes revert back to opinions when they are refuted and disproved.

Triple nevermind.

The topic was about morals and has progressed into morality.

Then stick to your own topic if all you want to talk about is morals.

But your question was if there was any absolute good or bad.

I answered no that "good and bad" were words that describe opinions.

Then you used a shocking example of a despicable act as an example of something "bad."

Its still an opinion.

Then you asked when would such an act be "acceptable."

I said, "when someone accepts it."

Then you said "Nevermind."

So if you have a point, lets hear it.

What's your point? What do you seek to accomplish?

Oh.....

Nevermind.

No, double nevermind.

No, triple nevermind.

It's been a joy talking to you.

I am, but that requires knowing the difference between a fact and an opinion which is evidently a problem here.

If there can be true statements about good and bad, then there are good and bad states of affairs in the universe. If there are good and bad states of affairs, then there must be properties(goodness and badness) of the universe and/or it's contents for moral facts to obtain. I gave an example of an absolutely bad behavior, meaning one that is never good without exception. Taking a hot poker and searing through the eyes of a newborn child is morally reprehensible. It is always bad/wrong/immoral - without exception. It would take a sociopath to argue otherwise.

Are you arguing otherwise?

I asked...



you answered...



Here you are claiming that it is not odd(therefore normal/ok???) to hold that that particular behavior is not absolutely bad.

"That behavior is absolutely bad."

The above claim is either truth apt or not. If it is, it is either true or not true. If it is not truth apt, then it is neither. You're claiming that it is not true. I'm asking you to justify that claim. Your remarks about fact and opinion and my intent or whatever do not satisfy that request.

Justify your claim that that behavior is not absolutely bad.

1. Parenting
2. Personal expiriences
3. Social status

I do know the difference between a fact and an opinion. What I said was that a fact was once an opinion. It belongs to the same family tree. An opinion becomes a fact when it is verified, agreed upon and declared to be a fact by an authority.

So you THINK you know the difference between a fact and opinion and you THINK I don't. So you feel you have to correct my opinion. I understand what YOU think a fact is. You think a fact is something that is indisputable. I disagree. All facts can be disputed, some are disproved. When a fact is disproved, the hard core believers in "fact" simply say... "A mistake was made and that was never a fact, we just thought it was." That is how they cover their *****.



The "goodness" of a state of affairs depends on the observer's point of view. If an observer is a human being, then things that benefit human life or humans are "good." If an observer is a animal, then things that benefit that particular animal is "good."

But excluding animals, and only talking about human beings you would have to define "good" as "things that benefit human beings" and "bad" as things that do not benefit human beings or human life.

Once you define and agree upon the meaning of "good" and "bad" then you can make true statements about something as being "good" or "bad" because now their is a law or accepted rule as to the meaning of good and bad.

If everyone choses to follow that rule, then they will probably all agree on what is good and what is bad.

But then there are always things that are good for some humans and bad for other humans. There is when you will run into trouble.

If it is good for humans to eliminate certain people with bad genes, or contagious incurable diseases, is mass genocide then to be considered "good?"

If there is not enough food to go around, and everyone is doomed to starve to death, would killing off the weak and injured be considered "good?" How about cannibalistic practices to save some?

With all of these variables, points of view, I would still have to maintain that "good" and "bad" are opinions and cannot be clearly defined.



No, I would not argue otherwise in that example given the amount of information you provided because I would agree with the opinion that doing that is "bad." However, I maintain that that is still my personal opinion.

But I would also say that I don't have enough information to say that doing that is ALWAYS bad/wrong/immoral -without exception. And I am certainly NOT a sociopath.

On the other hand if such an operation was necessary to save the life of the child it might be acceptable. Perhaps the eyes were the breeding ground for a deadly bacteria that would wipe out the entire human population. So unless I have all the details, I can only hold an opinion on the information received.



I justify the claim on the grounds that

1.--I don't believe in absolutes,
2.--I don't believe in rules and laws being in force about what is absolutely to be considered "bad" and "good" because it robs the individual of free will to have an opinion.

Everything is not so black and white.

(Edited)

If "truth apt" means neither true or false, a person could say that the statement was neither true or false.

It 'seems true' because a lot of people would tend to agree with it.
And yet for anything to be "absolute" is a risky proposition.

So I would have to conclude that the statement is incorrect or false because of the word "absolutely."

If you were to remove the word "absolutely" the statement might seem more true, but the word that prevents it from being true or "a fact" is "bad" -- because there is no solid (and agreed upon) definition of "bad." (see above.)

Ethical statements are not in the business of being true or false. That is because they are opinions or points of view. They are not facts.

My "claim" has nothing to do with the actual behavior in question. It is a claim about THE STATEMENT itself. The statement is an opinion. It is not a fact, therefore it cannot be a true statement.

If the person stated: "I think that behavior is absolutely bad." he could be telling the truth of what he thinks and feels. But he can't try to enforce his opinion as law onto everyone else.

That was incoherent. Inconsistent with the earlier claims you've made. I'd rather not attempt to make headway of it.

Then nevermind.

First you have to define the terms "Bad and Good."

Then I'll get back to you.

Have you read through the thread?

I'd rather not attempt to make headway of it.

Lemme make one last attempt at explaining something to you JB...

Only cause I like ya.



It is a fact that a dog has fleas if and only if the dog has fleas. Remove humanity altogether and the dog would still have fleas. It would still be a fact because the statement obtains a state of affairs in reality. The dog would still have fleas even without someone to check.

That is as simple as I know to put it. It clearly shows that facts are not true opinions in addition to showing that "observers" are not necessary. The only reason I'm mentioning this again is because it plays an important role in why I agree with you regarding the most common uses of the terms "good and bad" being matters of opinion.

It is also an important aspect of assessing morality.

Perhaps...

If humans were not here to 'quantify' that fleas together with dog implies that 'a dog has fleas'..

Then the flea might quantify such a state of affiars as 'a flea having a dog to ride upon'...

Therefore the flea would have dog...

and facts do not start out as opinions proven to be true necessarily

facts are a definiton that meets a set of criteria - I'm female - that was a fact of my birth - mt Dr was not stating an opinion rather stating a fact based on a set of criteria

an opinion can be true, not true, or neither - opinons are sometimes based on facts and then assumptive reasoning - better known as the scientfic method. Opinions can also be reasoned based on feeling or emotion. These are things that go into the judgements we make about the quality of an opinion.

not sure how any of this relates to morals tho (because I haven't read the whole thread - I wasn't criticizing you)

again... define hot.

I find the moon sexier than the sun...

Therefore the moon is hotter than the sun... by this reasoning.