WaGuns.org

Guns4Liberty wrote:We now return you to our regularly scheduled program: "Why our children don't think there are moral facts"

Can a moral value judgment be both opinion AND fact? Discuss.

If we try to discuss, with children or even among adults, a topic such as Fascism without tightly constructed operational definitions in place, the discussion will almost surely run amok.

For example, throughout history the bundle of sticks with an axe in the middle has represented governments that would use physical force if necessary to accomplish its goals. It is the ultimate 'power' symbol, but there is no single, agreed-to-by-everyone definition of it. The back of certain year US dimes had a fasces on them, the wall behind the US House chamber has two, and Mussolini adopted the symbol from the Romans who adopted it from the Etruscans:


Skipping the definition step invariably leads to talking past each other - a comment about Congressional architecture is rebutted with a comment about World War II alliances. Both are 'about Fascism' but the interchange makes no sense. Both statements are facts that have strong value positions (opinions) associated with them - the US wanted to project a strong image to the world and to its citizens so their use of fasces was good, while what Mussolini did under the fasces symbol was bad.

Addressing the initial post in this thread, there are no moral facts, because morality is entirely relative & subjective. Facts are immutable, and are not dependent on the observer.

The main flaw in the article is that the author does not (or cannot) differentiate between things that he knows, and things that he believes. The very nature of beliefs is that they aren't able to be objectively verified. He doesn't "believe" that George Washington was the first president, he knows it, because it's objectively confirmable.

You cannot prove or disprove morals, so you cannot have any moral facts.

lunacite wrote:You cannot prove or disprove morals, so you cannot have any moral facts.

I know what you're saying, and to a logical extent I agree with you, but I also think it is possible that this understanding of morality is confined to the capacity of the human mind. What if there exists a supernatural code of morality that objectively exists, but we are not able to fully comprehend it because of our limited understanding of the universe, and therefore cannot prove it exists? That would pose a quandary wherein moral facts do exist, but humans simply lack the ability to prove it to one another. Of course, for practical purposes, that which cannot be proven nor disproven should not be treated as fact, but I also don't think we should completely rule out possible alternative explanations for subjects we do not yet fully understand. The inability to prove or disprove morality demonstrates the immense uncertainty surrounding the subject, so I think it is essential to keep an open mind about it.

solyanik wrote:

DSynger wrote:

solyanik wrote:

DSynger wrote:Her illegal activities back in the 70's to try to stamp out pornography in San Fran also show how extreme she is to her own views.

So now that we agree that Feinstein is no progressive (you wouldn't expect a progressive to try and ban porn, would you? For a liberal, First Amendment is even more important than Second Amendment to a conservative) - would you like me to go and dissect Pelosi's political positions? Of can you read her website yourself. Pelosi is nothing even close to a extremist. She is very much a centrist, and would make a reasonable Republican Senator in 1970s.

Ah... so it was the Conservatives that were opposed to Citizens United, which the ACLU supported. The Liberals were all for removing any type of restriction on government regulation of the 1st Amendment. Because I thought it was the other way around... 1st Amendment support is not one side or the other, they both use to their own ends. I know many Conservatives who use the 1st Amendment for religious purposes.

I think you're argument is moot... While mine still stands that Feinstein is extreme. She had people associated with the porn establishments in San Fran arrested illegally. It got to the point where the courts recognized this and would drop the cases when they came up in court.

I don't even think I mentioned Pelosi... I recognize that there are more conservative extremists in Congress than liberal ones. I think religion plays a big part of that.

Feinstein IS extreme - extremely stupid, but she is not at all extremely liberal. She is not even mildly liberal.

Wrt Citizens United, the position of Liberals is that corporations are not people and so First Amendment, as well as any other human rights, do not apply to them.

This seems to support her liberalism...
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Dianne_Feinstein.htm

I'm sorry if you don't care for her, but the liberals are stuck with her as much as the conservatives are stuck with the people they have in office...

Citizens United is not just about corporations though.