Why Our Children Don't Think There are Moral Facts

[Cola76]

Grounded in religion. Grounded in tradition? We have many religions that say similar things, e.g., be good, not bad. Tradition (I include that which works well) may be seen as religion. Societies that work well and thrive have similar traditions (I know this may be weak). That is my 'belief', or opinion. I haven't done the research. As I stated in my previous post, tradition may become religion. This becomes grounding. Don't eat pig! Pig kills! Not eating pig is holy......
I was replying and my argument was wiped out by a MS Windows restart. Divine intervention?

Implicit in a moral system grounded in religion is that morals go beyond simply an agreed upon set of social constructs. There is an objectivity to morals that grounds them in the set of universal standard to just and unjust. More specifically, morally is grounded in the nature or direction of a necessary being, or deity. My point in the earlier post was that secular ethics, philosophically speaking, do not find grounding in a objective moral standard. The problem comes when two secular moral systems collide. How can one assert that their particular set of morals is primary and should be adhered to by others? Rather than talking bout eating pork, which requires a discussion about particular religious traditions and may be beyond the latitude given by the Mod., we could use theft. (1)One group says stealing is bad, (2)another that only stealing from people in their own group is bad. Where does the moral authority (not political or legal) come from to say that (1) can hold (2) accountable to their(1) moral system? Without and universal standard moral authority falls flat in complex situations. Many secular philosophers want to assert objectivity to fundamental moral claims, but have had a difficult time doing so.
s

If life does exist elsewhere, it's conditionally true, the condition being proof by the scientific method. I don't know if I've addressed your ideas, or just expressed mine. I hope maybe both. Cheers.

I agree that the question of alien life can be answered in principle even if it cannot be answered practically due to the lack of technology. I would not say it is conditionally true, it is simply true, but we cannot prove it to be so. The point the author makes is that there is a difference between truth and fact. Truth and proof are distinct ideas.

 

[Cola76]

There is no reason that a secular moral system cannot be developed and utilized by people. A secular moral system need only be grounded by the nature of it's tenants. "Other" kinds of moral systems have no greater intrinsic quality other than that have been written and widely acknowledged.

As I said in my reply to FindingZzero, moral systems developed and utilized by common consent have no more moral authority than any other similarly derived moral systems when they conflict with each other. Other moral systems that claim to be grounded in a universal moral standard, either metaphysical or divine, do have an intrinsic objectivity to give authority and stability. These systems clearly require a particular, broader worldview, but every moral system does.

You don't read that as the author reporting to us that schools are teaching kids that it's not wrong to kill or cheat?

Taken along with the rest of the article, it seems the author would not deny that schools would support the idea that it is wrong to kill and cheat. The author certainly does not suggest that schools are teaching students that it is right to kill or cheat. However, he is stating that when you couple a statement like "It is wrong to kill and cheat." with "Statements like 'It is wrong to kill and cheat.' are opinions, not facts." you undercut the force of the first statement.

It only would undermine authority if students were also taught that the opinion of the school wasn't important and that there would be no consequences to disregarding it.

The given definition of fact and opinion places statements about cheating in the opinion, not true, category. Imagine the conversation in the principal's office. A student is caught cheating and the principal is about to give a consequence, but the student objects. The student says he has been taught that statements like "it is wrong to cheat" are only opinions, not truth. The principal can't deny it, because it is in black and white in the curriculum materials. The student then asks why the school's opinion takes priority over the student's opinion. What is the principle going to say? The student is part of the community and should adhere to the school's rules? The student is forced to be a part of the school, so that doesn't help. The principal say's it is not fair, which implies that fairness is a principle worth upholding, and is another opinion statement according to the curriculum. The conversation could go round and round all day. In the end, according to the definition used in the curriculum, the matter comes down to two competing opinions with no objective truth to either one. In my opinion, the student has a good point from a moral perspective the school is teaching in stating there is no clear way to discern which opinion should be enforced.

He is arguing that certain opinions should be considered as truths, and he gives what he thinks is a valid reason to do that, just as you have done. Neither you nor the author could give, as part of your argument, a definition of truth and of opinion, and then logically prove the that the statement "It is wrong to cheat in school" and the statement "If you drop an apple, it will fall" fit the same definition.

True. That still does not mean that it is correct to apply "truth" things that can be proven through the scientific method. Science is not the only valid epistemological method.