I can't believe what I just read. There are no moral facts. That doesn't mean that some opinions are more well-founded than others, or that some opinions are near universal, but widespread belief and/or agreement does not make something a fact. Unknown facts are a different matter. These are things that can be demonstrated to be true, but are not yet known. Him: “It’s a fact.” Me: “But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion.” Him: “Yeah, but it’s true.” Me: “So it’s both a fact and an opinion?” The blank stare on his face said it all. Yes. It is. There's nothing strange there. The caveat is that whether or not George Washington was the first president is not dependent upon his opinion on the matter. Opinions can be very important. They can be more important than facts. But, they are not provable. EDIT: I'd add that facts are what lead to opinions. Opinions may be well-founded or not. Also facts can be wrong, or given inappropriate significance for a number of reasons.Me: “I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?”
Would you please review the following sentences and identify each one as a fact or opinion? • The boiling point of water is 100°C. • 22/7 is a better approximation for pi than 16/5. • Copper is a better electrical conductor than iron. • Helium is a better lifting gas than hydrogen. • Actions that do not cause unnecessary suffering are better than actions that cause unnecessary suffering.There are no moral facts.
I can't believe what I just read.
I may replace 'better' with 'preferable' in your above statement. 'Better' necessarily drags one into a language trap about the meaning of the word. I think preferable is more immune. That said, I agree with the sentiment, and by my definition of fact, elsewhere in the thread, I think your example would count.
I am not quite satisfied with your statement, but I don't know how I could improve on it so I won't criticize. "Preferable" is a better word if you happen to have iron handy and no copper when you need a conductor, but copper is still objectively better — it has a lower electrical resistivity. Saying "preferable" does not save us from the trouble of declaring our values. Hydrogen is preferable if cost is a priority; helium is preferable if safety is most important.
I understand the critique. In my view, opinions can be had about matters of fact. (Actually, I'd say that is all we can have.) Some of the underlying facts may be verifiable, some may not. Some facts may be overturned by new data. That global warming is largely due to human activity is an opinion on a matter of fact that is less verifiable than the boiling point of water. In short, some opinions have the advantage of their quality being put to a reproducable test. As for facts, their ability to be proven is rooted in physical reality. Historical facts suffer in this regard, as they rely upon the evidence left, and as they can be contextual, they don't prop up opinion as well as physical ones. BTW, you can substitute belief for opinion here IMO, which better clarifies my view. I think they are very similar in meaning, although opinion is often used for matters of preference too. But I am a relativist.
"Belief" in place of "opinion" is helpful. But the main point is that there are truths, which we can try to determine with observations. New data may cause us to update our beliefs, but we do not conclude that the truth changed, rather that we were mistaken. I still don't understand "there are no moral facts." Do you deny that a sentence like "Actions that do not cause unnecessary suffering are better than actions that cause unnecessary suffering" can be true or false? The sentence may not be precise enough to be universally true, just like the boiling point of water depends on altitude, but in a given situation, is it meaningful to have beliefs that include moral values?
Not exactly, but it is a cultural and contextual truth that is fundamentally different than a physical reality. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that morals are any less meaningful than provable facts. There are many times where morality and even irrationality is of more consequence and more to the point than what we can gather scientifically. Indeed, the simple motive to uncover and catalog facts is based in a system of culture and belief. Not only do I believe that it is meaningful to have beliefs that include moral values, I feel it is inescapable, and thus, the search for a rational philosophy is Quixotic.Do you deny that a sentence like "Actions that do not cause unnecessary suffering are better than actions that cause unnecessary suffering" can be true or false?
We like "scientific" statements because they are tidy. But they are not absolutely tidy, they are relatively tidy. Take the tidiest statement on my list: The boiling point of water is 100°C. If you are poaching eggs, the amount of sloppiness in that statement is acceptable. But suppose you were asked to measure the boiling point of water to within a millionth of a degree. Suddenly it becomes very difficult to decide what the truth is. Your instruments are too sloppy, your environment is too sloppy. Your definition of boiling is sloppy: "The experimenter saw some bubbles." Heck, your definition of water is sloppy. How much contamination? What proportion of heavy water? Laboratory supply companies do not sell "pure water." The standards for standard water are all approximate. If you and b_b both make experimental measurements, you'll probably disagree. Yet water still has a boiling point. The fact that we can't perfectly apprehend the truth does not make us doubt that it exists. The scientific workaround is a confidence interval. The ± symbol has little to do with water, and much to do with your contextual, culturally-informed, biased, local experience with water. Boiling water is a simple case, where we have to require high precision in order to expose the sloppiness. Choosing the best approximation for pi might be harder. What are we trying to optimize for, do we want more accuracy or ease of calculation? There might be a lot to discuss. But for a given set of values, some approximations will be better than others. It is absurd to conclude that there is no right answer because it is hard to find agreement. Suppose I exhibit two actions. In my view, Action A is virtuous and Action B is evil. I choose extreme examples to make the point clear; we don't need expensive thermometers to make a judgment. I say, "Action A is better than Action B," do you agree? Does my statement have a truth value? You may have utilitarian values, or you may follow some kind of Kantian rule system, but I have selected exhibits such that we are pretty sure to agree. If you deny that my statement has a truth value, if you say it's all relative, I don't see how you can do science or form beliefs. Saying "Water boils at 100±2°C" is equivalent to saying "It appears to me that water boils at 100±2°C." Your confidence is increased by wide agreement with the statement. You will say that detractors are probably mistaken. If you do agree with me, the next step is to find some human society that has unusual mores. Someone in that society says that Action B is better. Does that mean there is no truth? I say no, I say that person is wrong. I am fairly certain that I am right, but I am very certain that only one of us can be right.a cultural and contextual truth
Those sound like code words for "no truth at all."
Not at all. It is a statement that regards the nature of the truth, not the quality of it. I agree here. Everything in the physical world must be described in relative terms. There is no such thing as an independent quality. Thus all qualities are dependent upon the quality of the relationship by which a definition of state is to be made. I think this may be where we see things differently. I do not assert that a boiling point of water exists beyond the degree to which it may be measured. It's a fine point, but IMHO it is of crucial importance. We can plot the boiling point of water, at one atmosphere, we might say that water boils at exactly 100°C. Although useful for most experimentation, in actuality that definition mischaracterizes boiling for what it is. In truth, there is a point to which you become close enough to 100°C whereby you cannot physically discern where boiling actually begins. That is because boiling is a macro phenomenon that results from micro phenomena that are not perfectly relatable to 'boiling'. This is something that is true of all physical phenomenon, and there is often confusion when definitions are applied beyond their scope. Thus, we can say that water at one atmosphere boils at 100°C, and as far as we are concerned with boiling of water, it is correct and reproducable. However, to conclude that water does begin to boil at exactly 100°C (but that we cannot measure it) simply does not describe a physical reality. Pi is similar. There is no exact value for Pi. What we have are calculations that approximate the value of Pi. However, the universe makes no such calculations and no such value need exist, nor can it exist. Yes, your statement absolutely has truth value. It might be a truth rooted in cultural context rather than physical reality, but it absolutely has value. To me, it might be more valuable than a truth rooted in physical reality. The color green exists only because my nervous system has the capacity to interact with photons of a wavelength of ~500nm in a particular manner. Does that make trees any less green? No. Trees are green to me, and that can be a very important truth to me. That that truth of green is not shared by a dog, a rock, a blind person, or anything in the majority of the time since the Big Bang where there were no eyes to see it, it doesn't mean that it does not exist for me, or have meaning to me.Those sound like code words for "no truth at all."
But they are not absolutely tidy, they are relatively tidy.
The fact that we can't perfectly apprehend the truth does not make us doubt that it exists.
Suppose I exhibit two actions. In my view, Action A is virtuous and Action B is evil. I choose extreme examples to make the point clear; we don't need expensive thermometers to make a judgment. I say, "Action A is better than Action B," do you agree? Does my statement have a truth value? You may have utilitarian values, or you may follow some kind of Kantian rule system, but I have selected exhibits such that we are pretty sure to agree.
I haven't yet decided if we strongly disagree, or we agree on a level deeper than I can fathom. Regardless, I conclude that you deny the following statement: For every real number q, it must be the case that q < pi, or q = pi, or q > pi. I conclude that, if I describe two circles that each have a radius of 1, you will not know if they have the same area.There is no exact value for Pi.
Would you say the same of the square root of two, or one-seventh, or thirteen?
I guess I should clarify, that in the language of mathematics pi can be said to have an exact value. However, it cannot be realized in a physical sense, that is, printed as an exact value in decimal form. Math can have absolute axioms, but the physical world has only approximations.Would you say the same of the square root of two, or one-seventh, or thirteen?
Exactly, the author of the article is retarded. >When I went to visit my son’s second grade open house, I found a troubling pair of signs hanging over the bulletin board. They read: >Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven. >Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes. >Hoping that this set of definitions was a one-off mistake, I went home and Googled “fact vs. opinion.” The definitions I found online were substantially the same as the one in my son’s classroom. As it turns out, the Common Core standards used by a majority of K-12 programs in the country require that students be able to “distinguish among fact, opinion, and reasoned judgment in a text.” I'm glad they teach that, it opens the mind to critical thinking skills. Plus those are the actual definitions. Sure it's simplified, but that's because it's target audience is seven year olds. If I went into Algebra 1, and the teacher was writing calculus equations all over the board, I'd be pissed. > The inconsistency in this curriculum is obvious. For example, at the outset of the school year, my son brought home a list of student rights and responsibilities. Had he already read the lesson on fact vs. opinion, he might have noted that the supposed rights of other students were based on no more than opinions. According to the school’s curriculum, it certainly wasn’t true that his classmates deserved to be treated a particular way — that would make it a fact. Alright, let's say that the rights the author is talking about is a right to not be bullied, for the sake of argument. The school, at some point, received complaints about students being bullied. The school looked into the complaints, and began to notice that, compared to non-bullied kids, the bullied kids had worse grades, lower self-esteem, and XYZ. After discussions with other authority figures, teachers who have seen the effects first hand, and bullied students, they came to the conclusion that bullying was very closely followed by upset and harmed students. They then decided to make bullying against the rules so other students wouldn't be harmed. True, this was based off of opinions, such as the the opinion of the teacher the the student was doing poorly after being bullied, and the authority figure's opinion that kids shouldn't be bullied in a place of learning. However, bullying is far too closely correlated with those negative effects, to risk placing the student's ability to learn and grow in jeopardy. The classmates deserve to not get bullied, not because it's a moral fact, but because the risks of potential side effects towards bullied students could have very far reaching consequences. > Similarly, it wasn’t really true that he had any responsibilities — that would be to make a value claim a truth. It should not be a surprise that there is rampant cheating on college campuses: If we’ve taught our students for 12 years that there is no fact of the matter as to whether cheating is wrong, we can’t very well blame them for doing so later on. Cheating is against the rules because if everyone cheated, then students would lose the motivation to learn material, and school would be pointless. How is this dude writing for the Times?
Sigh, I had posted this to Hubski hoping for a debate a cut above what was going on at Reddit. There is nothing "retarded" about the view that educators should not simply define away the whole question of moral realism versus antirealism. How ethical discourse and debate works is very much a live and open question, just as much as the ethical questions themselves. Whatever our ultimate stance on ethical realism versus antirealism (or all of the more subtle position that this crude dichotomy of options obscures) it is by no means obvious which is right. It is not dispiriting to see people taking a the view that "there are no moral facts". But it is dispiriting to see people treating this as obvious and anyone who disagrees as "retarded". This has been a live philosophical debate for as long as we have records of such things (excepting those times and places where people were too afraid to speak the questions aloud). I'm not aware of any great recent discovery that suddenly makes the answer obvious beyond debate. And yet quite a few people seem to think moral realism is just obviously wrong. To plenty of intelligent people it's not obvious. To me that just confirms that something has gone awry in our culture - people are not merely siding with moral antirealism and relativism (which could be fine), but they're not even aware that there's a debate to be had about this and if anyone proposes a debate they get written off as an idiot. And I don't know what you mean by "Plus those are the actual definitions" of fact and opinion. Whose definitions? Who's the authority on this? Maybe they're accepted definitions in US educational institutions, but the point of the article is to question them.Exactly, the author of the article is retarded.
The ad hominem attack is not helpful. However the reasoning that may have led to it may still be valid. The author fails to meet the prima facie burden of his argument. He presents some evidence, but does not connect it up to a solid argument. For example: Instead of explaining why the "I believe" is not an assertion of an opinion but a hedging of a bet on a fact, he just leaves the kid confused. I don't see the connection from "these are facts while these are opinions" to "cheat on your tests! Pave the Earth! Vote for evil!" If I'm missing it, please help me see it. Otherwise it's just some slippery slope stuff.
Thanks for reading past sentence one before writing me off. I don't have any remote problem with anyone who holds the moral facts stance. I personally don't agree with it, but I won't insult someone simply for having different thoughts than me. However, it does irritate me when writers for high profile publications post awful arguments, and everyone hails them as a genius without stopping to think 'Maybe this person isn't infallible.' It's frustrating to watch people lose their critical thinking abilities when they read something that looks official.
People have, and are shifting to a worldview that doesn't rely on moral truths existing anymore, it instead relies on facts and evidence. All things that don't have it, get disregarded and thrown away. A great time to live. Truly, a great time to live. Moral truths, something that has zero evidence or reason to be considered true in the first place, finally ends up back in it's proper place. Funnily enough, I got into a very long and drawn out debate with a bunch of vegans on the topic recently. The only real "debate" is the same as the same debate that comes up when you debate anything spiritual "well, nothing says this is true, and we have zero evidence of it, you can't really disprove it with any amount of evidence, but guys, it's possible!" It isn't good enough for me, and it shouldn't have ever been good enough for anyone. Yeah, there is a debate, but it's long gone and long settled. Pointless as debating if the world is flat.To me that just confirms that something has gone awry in our culture - people are not merely siding with moral antirealism and relativism (which could be fine), but they're not even aware that there's a debate to be had about this and if anyone proposes a debate they get written off as an idiot.
On the opinion vs. fact debate I totally disagree with the school's definitions. I've always held that a statement of fact is one that necessitates a judgement about its truth. That is, the statement is true or untrue in an objective sense. Whereas opinions are statements of the kind that could not be judged to be true or false in an objective sense. Statements of morality could be judged to be true or false (and thus statements of fact) if they meet a very high standard. That is, if everyone agrees that a particular act is immoral, then we can say that that it is a matter of fact (functionally) that the act in question is immoral. I suppose the problem is that there is a lot of grey area, and that grey are seems counter intuitive when discussing 'facts'. I understand that simplifying is necessary when talking to elementary school kids, but simplifying implies incomplete information, not incorrect information. Saying that things you believe are matters of opinion is very much incorrect.
It seems like the original author is ill-equipped to teach philosophy if he isn't familiar with the a posteriori state of morals. He wants moral facts -- a priori moral guidelines that would exist regardless of the nation or classroom. There aren't any. Instead we have moral assertions that are inherent in the social contract. While these have to exist for any civilization to exist, they are still only inherent to that state. Having a paved town and not murdering each other are super important for us to make progress. Nevertheless, that's not inherent in being alive -- it's inherent in not fleeing to the woods and never having a day job with other humans. Don't steal, don't cheat, don't poison the well. It all makes sense when we each want to have stuff, each want to know the abilities of each other, each want to drink from the same well. It's obvious but not mandatory -- and the punishment for flouting such rules is some from of exclusion from society. This is basic Rousseau, straight outta Hobbes as well -- Ethics 101. Nature is nasty, brutish, and full of disease-riddled insects. You want out? You agree to some stuff. That doesn't make those rules into facts -- just deep-down, well-tested opinions. The laws that come from these rules are facts, but they are also instantiations of opinions. It's much like turning pseudocode into code. It's like how gravity is still a theory. We will never get to shake gravity's hand, but we'll also never get to escape it. Even in outer space, it will pull us around.
A guess: The author wants to go from "associate professor" to "full professor" and that involves publication and profile. A few articles under your belt also help with non-fiction book proposals. The NYT saw it as print-worthy; controversy certainly helps circulation. I've also found that people who know their shit about philosophy aren't always the greatest about communicating philosophy to people who don't. Finally, we have no idea how long the article was before it was cut down for publication. The NYT may well have edited out any number of cogent points we're all arguing the lack of. That is a spectacular turn of phrase.We will never get to shake gravity's hand, but we'll also never get to escape it.
I think the phrasings of "moral facts" is very hard to pin down when you are just saying "do you think there are moral facts". Almost everyone in the world will agree that there are good things and bad things, but more importantly, everyone will agree that that depends on the person, the culture, and the situation. Consider the core parts of human societies. We all work together, we all operate on similar rules, and we all have our base desires and needs. These base things come together to create a framework that is nearly always there, that can be called "moral fact" in that it is a core part of all human society, and is what is best for everyone if you act that way. However, that doesn't mean they are objective facts. Consider for the average person in the US. A moral fact is that you should stand up against your government, your peers, and everything/everyone else. Compete, argue, fight, stand up for yourself, speak your mind. Those are moral goods. Consider the average person in China. The opposite is true. Simplifying to a large degree there, but that's an example of culture chaning things. In the US, it is far better to not listen to superiors if you think you are right. We praise and value it. In China, the same doesn't apply (or so I've heard). Consider the eating of cows. Most in the US consider that moral and fine. In India, however, it is a moral wrong. Some things. Murder, rape, stealing, and so on, have and will be universally immoral through all modern societies. (Stealing the last strong of those, as there may be cultures that have no concept of possession). Does that mean they are objectively wrong? No. They aren't objectively wrong. However, you aren't going to find an instant, in any place, that any human being interested in being part of a strong, healthy, and decent society, will tell you that such things are good. It's in our interests, in societies interest, to keep those things from happening. Hence. Moral "truth" is born.
> Sigh, I had posted this to Hubski hoping for a debate a cut above what was going on at Reddit. Christ, I had commented this to Hubski hoping for fellow posters who aren't PC hypersensitive and actually pay attention to the argument I present. If you would have read my post in full, and not just the first sentence that you love so much, you would see that I don't think he's retarded because of the opinion itself, I think he's retarded because the points he make are awful. The author was correct in that the subject isn't that simple, and that educators should make an effort to get their students to critically think about the world around them. I believe that philosophical debate should be integrated into high school curriculum. However, sitting down a group of seven year olds, lecturing them about morality and relativism, then telling them to engage in ethical discourse and debate over the concepts of moral realism versus antirealism would come to a grinding halt very quickly. Ok, I admit that my scenario was a bit extreme, but I stand by the fact that these things come in steps. These kids can barely write their entire name, and their brains' are just now becoming physically capable of complex thoughts. Have you talked to a 2nd grader recently? It's not very stimulating. The human mind is very malleable until the early 20's, so this process neither should be nor needs to be rushed. Let the kid live a little before he contemplates the abstract thoughts and questions about life. > And I don't know what you mean by "Plus those are the actual definitions" of fact and opinion. Whose definitions? Who's the authority on this? Maybe they're accepted definitions in US educational institutions, but the point of the article is to question them. I stated in my reply that they were simplified. Most definitions for kids that age are pretty simple as well, they don't have full their full cognitive processing abilities yet. The definition was written for a premature mind, it was written so that the children would be able to relate to it and then understand the meaning. Like nearly all subjects, the concept was planted so that they would be able to later build on that concept. I'll elaborate on my math analogy. First you learn addition: 3+2=4. Then you learn multiplication: 3x2=6. Then you learn algebraic substitution: 3xA=6, therefore A=2. If before he was taught any of the steps, the kid was thrown 3xA=6, A=_?, it would confuse the hell out of him. Just because I point out awful supporting points, don't assume that I'll write off an entire debate, and don't assume I'll write anyone with an opposing mindset off as an idiot. You present any position that I agree with, but if it's poorly thought out and full of holes, expect it to be written off.
MrDr, rrrrr: Could you both sit down for a moment and think about how both of your messages affect the value of the conversation? There is no benefit to anger or making your partner into an adversary. What is the point of these both comments?Sigh, I had posted this to Hubski hoping for a debate a cut above what was going on at Reddit.
Christ, I had commented this to Hubski hoping for fellow posters who aren't PC hypersensitive and actually pay attention to the argument I present.
Because of the nature of rrrrr's rebuttal, it's safe to assume he started reading the comment, didn't care to finish, and jumped to the conclusion that I'm some asshole who hates anyone that doesn't have the same opinion as me. So I decided to put something that might make him take a second look at my comment. But there's no point in doing that if he's just going to ignore that too, so I formatted the first line identical to his in an attempt to catch his attention. Granted, calling the author of the link retarded isn't the best way to open an honest critique of his argument, but high profile bloggers who post flawed arguments with long words and sensationalized phrases irk me.
Whatever you call it, it is overly harsh. It puts any person on the other side at unease.
I do not have the ability to speak for rrrrr, but I assume that an apology would be good enough. Frankly I am very happy with a cessation of the argument.
Fair enough, I was a little hasty to jump on that. I had been primed by coming from a discussion on reddit where they were calling the writer similar things because he is a moral realist. I was expecting another "moral realism is obviously stupid" response and that coloured my reading of your post. Yes, you have a fair point that these definitions have to be simplified as a teaching tool for young kids, so perhaps we shouldn't be taking them quite as an expression of the educators' deeply held philosophy. But it is so easy to tilt people's thinking by the way we frame the debate through terminology that I'm still a little wary of these definitions and of the exercise that requires children to decide whether something is an opinion or a fact. Such an exercise could be valuable as a way of starting a discussion but if it suggests to kids that this is a judgement we should be able to make just by looking at the statement, before engaging in debate about the statement's content, then that's an insidious pernicious effect.
3 things: 1) I moderate a default on Reddit. It has a long and contentious queue of reported comments. One of the words we auto-report is "retarded." Most comments involving the word "retarded" add nothing to the general discourse. Not true for all comments, but most. I say this not to scold, but to give the perspective of one who reads "never go full retard" and "you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded" 7-10 times a day. Suffice it to say - starting an argument with the word "retarded" is kind of like stepping to the podium and picking your nose. Doesn't mean you're an idiot, but it mostly scores points with nose-pickers. I too am often guilty but if you're wondering where the tenor went sideways, there it is. 2) Until Hubski rolls out the new version of the site, we use a semi-peculiar implementation of markup. The upper-right corner of the comment window will tell you just how semi-peculiar. I actually didn't read your comment until now because I didn't recognize your name and you were using Reddit markup. And because it's been a busy day and I likes me some whitespace. 3) But holy shit you managed to get a plus sign in there without breaking things which I'm incapable of doing so I guess I shouldn't say boo about markup. That said, 3 plus 2 only equals 4 in Indiana. I really have no substantive arguments with your point. However, it's apparently my job to "give you the business." Consider the business given. Welcome.quotes, for example, are surrounded by pipes.
Oh, yeah! Getting Kleinbl00ed isn't inherently a negative thing. It's like hunting a Tigrex in MHFU2 - everything's been smooth sailing up to this point, you have to change your thought process to understand the game, and even if it's eye-opening/embarrassing, finally understanding the "rules" is what makes the experience (Hubski/the topic at hand) enjoyable.