Why Our Children Don’T Think There Are Moral Facts

[Eagledad]

Quite by accident, I stumbled on this opinion piece from the NY Times of how our kids are being taught morality. In light of the homosexual discussion, I thought it worth passing along. 

 

""In summary, our public schools teach students that all claims are either facts or opinions and that all value and moral claims fall into the latter camp. The punchline: there are no moral facts. And if there are no moral facts, then there are no moral truths.""

 

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

 

Barry

[packsaddle]

So how would you define or otherwise distinguish 'fact' as different from 'opinion'? 

How would you objectively determine that moral claims are 'fact'?

[Eagledad]

So how would you define or otherwise distinguish 'fact' as different from 'opinion'? 

How would you objectively determine that moral claims are 'fact'?

Great question. Merlin! Pack needs some help here.

 

Barry

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I read this blather when it was first printed.

 

For someone who claims that moral facts exist, Mr. McBrayer seems awfully reticent to list any.

[packsaddle]

Or, Eagledad, you could answer. You started the thread after all. Unless you really want Merlyn to be your voice in these forums.

[NJCubScouter]

I think we already had a thread about that article.

 

Of course, that's just an opinion.

 

Get it? Just an opinion?

[packsaddle]

NJ, if we DID have a previous thread about that article THAT would be a fact. 

It might not be a fact that you 'know', however. Therefore I suppose you could have an 'opinion' about it thus making it both a fact AND an opinion???

 

OK,  now roll your eyes and silently listen to yourself thinking, "what-EV-er". 

[Stosh]

One can interpret moral opinions all they want, they might even have their own moral codes based on those opinions, but he FACT remains, the only opinion that counts is that of the judge in the courtroom you and your lawyer are in.

[Gone]

Wouldn't murder be a moral fact?

 

One would think the vast majority of reasonable and sane people would agree murder is a moral fact, no?

[Eagledad]

Wouldn't murder be a moral fact?

 

One would think the vast majority of reasonable and sane people would agree murder is a moral fact, no?

You would think, but then my religion supports it as a moral fact. To be fair, what do the unreligious say? 

 

Barry

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Depends how "murder" is defined.  Some people consider abortion to be murder, some don't.  "Murder" is generally "unlawful killing of a person", which means that governments that kill people aren't murdering them as long as it's legal, so stoning someone to death for, say, picking up sticks is OK (Numbers 15:32-36).

 

Now, I happen to think that many capital offenses from lots of religions are immoral, but is that equivalent to saying it constitutes murder to carry them out?  It would be if it was against the local laws, but that's because "murder" as I'm using it is a legal term, not a moral term.  If I use it in a looser moral sense, I'd say that a lot of religions are just fine with specific kinds of murder.

 

So I don't see how "murder" can be a moral fact, if it merely hinges on whether the current local government says that killing person X for reason Y is legal.  And if you want to base it on morals, I can find lots of moral systems that are OK with killing people that I would consider murder in a moral sense, so murder isn't a moral fact in that case, either.

[Eagledad]

So I don't see how "murder" can be a moral fact, if it merely hinges on whether the current local government says that killing person X for reason Y is legal.  And if you want to base it on morals, I can find lots of moral systems that are OK with killing people that I would consider murder in a moral sense, so murder isn't a moral fact in that case, either.

Ah, so would say that murder is defined by the guy with the biggest stick?

 

Barry

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ah, so would say that murder is defined by the guy with the biggest stick?

 

Barry

 

No.  Would you say murder is defined by whatever morals the local majority believes its god requires?

[Sentinel947]

No.  Would you say murder is defined by whatever morals the local majority believes its god requires?

 Or in the Soviet Union, China or North Korea, their governments, since they are officially atheists. 

 

I'd say murder is double faceted. It's both a legal term and an action that has moral implications. However ones religion of philosphy defines it is the question. 

[Eagledad]

No.  Would you say murder is defined by whatever morals the local majority believes its god requires?

Yes, because everyone follows one single unchanging consistent source. Those citizens know that nothing changes after the next election cycle or changing of the guard. And the poor can hold the elitist accountable to the equal standard. 

 

Barry