The article doesn't provide anything to back the claim that moral opinions may be universally, non-subjectively true. The cartoonist example is deeply flawed. We're outraged because this event violated our deepest beliefs and values we hold dear, not because it violated some universal eternal moral law. We also know that there were people that weren't saddened by this event too.<p>This is the problem I have with many philosophers. In the whole text you cannot find a single strong logical evidence. Everything is just an opinion.<p>It is impossible to prove that e.g. "stealing from others" is universally "bad". It may not be a beneficial strategy in a game theory, or maybe some statistical analysis can show societies are better off with this rule, or just that people sleep better knowing that others can't steal. But neither of this is universally true for humanity in general, and there are examples in game theory were cheating actually is a winning strategy.
The ignorance is much easier to process upon learning that the author works at an episcopal church and is on the committee of two "Societies of Christian Philosophers".<p><a href="http://www.justinmcbrayer.com/#!leadership/c53p" rel="nofollow">http://www.justinmcbrayer.com/#!leadership/c53p</a>
Not a single argument against moral relativism was put forth in this article. But they mentioned that there actually are moral facts ad nauseum without a reason.<p>"Furthermore, if proof is required for facts, then facts become person-relative. Something might be a fact for me if I can prove it but not a fact for you if you can’t."
Yes, yes, they are! Welcome to reality, a place where we can't even be sure it exists! I am proud of this educational system, teaching kids intellectual integrity and preventing them from accepting random statements as true facts just because someone repeats over and over again that they're true!
"All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."<p>REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.<p>"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"<p>YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.<p>"So we can believe the big ones?"<p>YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.<p>"They're not the same at all!"<p>YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.<p>"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"<p>MY POINT EXACTLY."<p>― GNU Terry Pratchett
When I was a boy, if you wanted to talk philosophy you reasoned from first principles.<p>Apparently now you can just take whatever half-baked ideas you already have in your head, hold them as the truth, and wantonly criticize anyone or any system that slights those beliefs.<p>Also, we had to walk up hill both ways to school in the snow. /s<p>Turns out that living in a pluralistic, modern society makes it really hard to reason about moral truths when claimed moral facts are so tightly coupled to cultural baggage. I argue that from a practical perspective, our best bet is moral consensus.
<p><pre><code> We then had this conversation:
Me: “I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?”
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?”
</code></pre>
At least his son is smarter than he is.
<p><pre><code> > Conversely, many of the things we once “proved” turned
> out to be false. For example, many people once thought
> that the earth was flat
</code></pre>
Is this satire?
Moral 'facts' require a universal standard of morality. It's hard to come up with a truly universal standard. The best answer I've seen is: Man's life.<p>"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." -Ayn Rand [1]<p>[1] <a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html" rel="nofollow">http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html</a>
It's amazing a professor of philosophy seems to understand this less than elementary school kids. There is a surprising shallowness to this article.<p>I left this article applauding the school and son, and questioning the author.
The author declines to demonstrate to the reader that there are moral facts.<p>He attempted reductiones ad absurdum fall completely flat, e.g.,<p>> If it’s not true that it’s wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged?<p>...As if nobody has ever been outraged on the basis of their opinions!<p>He also fails to even mention what a moral fact would consist of. He doesn't say whether he agrees with this definition:<p>> Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.<p>But clearly if one takes this position, there are no moral facts. What would constitute moral proof?<p>My guess is that the author is crypto-monotheist. With a God around, you could say that a moral claim is God's will, and even if we can't prove it there is a fact of the matter. In a godless world, there is no basis on which a moral claim could be a fact.
The OP's mistake is to characterize all "moral facts" as simple binary answers. Cheating = bad. Killing = wrong. Those are too simple. That they are labeled opinion does not imply that there aren't any not-simple moral facts.<p>"Cheating undermines meritocracies and is therefor frowned upon by those in control of such."<p>I'd say that qualifies as a moral fact and most all would call it an accurate description of a state of affairs, a fact.<p>"All men are created equal" is not a fact, or even an opinion imho. It is a hope, a dream of people trying to describe an ideal state of affairs. That it isn't a "fact" doesn't mean that it cannot be something to believe in and strive for.
What is this reactionary garbage doing on HN?<p>This is a popular far right talking point, fear or "moral relativism" and the ridiculous assertion that millions of kids are being indoctrinated into it by public schools. It's horse shit.
>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 ...<p>Two decades ago, when I was in elementary school, we were taught pretty much the exact same thing. If someone states something is a fact, demand proof.
And for children, this is good enough. When they grow up to be pedantic associate professors of philisophy, they may feel free to expand on the above definitions.
Sure, it’s a mistake to treat facts and beliefs as disjoint. But moral relativism is the only honest position—we do not know what’s morally right, nor do we know whether right things even exist, nor can we necessarily prove these things even though we believe them. So we pragmatically follow evidence and try to treat people decently in an ad-hoc fashion.<p>More to the point, if a teacher teaches kids any <i>specific</i> absolute moral system, many of their parents will be upset with it. So the school system only allows teachers to teach what is essentially agnosticism—the absence of a moral position.<p>The examples from the article can all be dismissed by simple descriptivism:<p>> If it’s not true that it’s wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged?<p>A person can be outraged for any reason they want. It happens that this kind of thing outrages a lot of people.<p>> If there are no truths about what is good or valuable or right, how can we prosecute people for crimes against humanity?<p>We can, and do, do so arbitrarily. It happens that a lot of people agree on what “crimes against humanity” entail.<p>> If it’s not true that all humans are created equal, then why vote for any political system that doesn’t benefit you over others?<p>Humans are occasionally altruistic for some reason.<p>Isn’t it more interesting to investigate the reasons for why so many humans believe these things than to endlessly conduct the same debates about truth, provability, and knowledge?
None of the examples come close to moral fact. (The author wasn't claiming they all were moral fact, but he suggests without being specific that at least some of them ought to be.)<p>— Copying homework assignments is wrong.<p>A situational ethic.<p>— Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior.<p>A situational ethic.<p>— All men are created equal.<p>Objectively false.<p>— It is worth sacrificing some personal liberties to protect our country from terrorism.<p>Too vague to be either fact or opinion.<p>— It is wrong for people under the age of 21 to drink alcohol.<p>A situational ethic.<p>— Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat.<p>Most likely false.<p>— Drug dealers belong in prison.<p>A situational ethic.
From the article:<p>"Conversely, many of the things we once “proved” turned out to be false. For example, many people once thought that the earth was flat."<p>I don't think this is an example of something that was ever "proved".<p>Nevertheless, I feel like the author's grasping for straws in his unwillingness to admit that morality is subjective and situational. He's done nothing to prove that moral values can or should be considered "facts" instead of (or in addition to, as he's advocating) opinions.
"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."<p>What if we say "cheating is not allowed". Can we blame them then?
The likelihood that human definition of life DOESN'T exist elsewhere in the universe is infinitesimally small. That's not make it a fact that life DOES exist. We just shouldn't be surprised when they arrive to probe the OP.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick<p>Facts are observations that persist no matter how much you wish otherwise. - me, just now.
I mean they are facts in that most everyone agrees on them, which is one usage of the word "fact". But they're not facts in the same way as "the sun will rise tomorrow" or "2 + 2 = 4" (which those statements themselves are two different types of fact also!).