If facts are true statements and there are no objective values then saying that there are no objective values is a fact. If we ought believe true statements, then we ought not believe the above quote.
— creativesoul

The argument, rephrased a little, contends that there must be objective values if there are facts. If this is the case then it’s not actually possible for “there are no objective values” to be a fact. — AJJ

But it's not the case. "There are no objective values" is true.

Actually the word “fact” doesn’t even mean anything here. It means “state of affairs”, — AJJ

Isn't that contradictory? To say it doesn't mean anything and then turn around and say what it meams?

Wow. That has to have been on purpose. Here’s the full quote again mate, come on now:

Actually the word “fact” doesn’t even mean anything here. It means “state of affairs”, which means “is the case”, which means “fact”. The word just refers to itself. — AJJ

But it's not the case. "There are no objective values" is true. — creativesoul

It bloody baffles me that you guys do this. “Err, I’ll think you’ll fine you’re wrong mate.” *Post Comment*

Whether or not there are objective values is what's in contention. That is what's at issue. You're assuming what's at issue in the argument you're offering. I've merely done the same.

How do we reconcile that?

Argument for it rather than assume it.

Got one?

All statements are existentially dependent upon a subject. Some statements are true. All true statements are existentially dependent upon a subject. That which is existentially dependent upon a subject cannot be objective. There are no objective true statements. There is no objective truth value.

Whether or not there are objective values is what's in contention. That is what's at issue. You're assuming what's at issue in the argument you're offering. I've merely done the same. — creativesoul

What’s more accurately been in contention is whether we ought to believe facts. The OP argument assumes it, I’ve been single-handedly defending that that is indeed the case, starting in fact from the OP.

All statements are existentially dependent upon a subject. Some statements are true. All truth value is existentially dependent upon a subject. There is no objective truth value. — creativesoul

You’ll have to more clearly explain what “All truth value is existentially dependent upon a subject” means.

Come on now, it’s not “being believed” that is necessary, it’s that they ought to be believed. — AJJ

Come on now, when you or Clark say:

If there are no objective values then there are no facts ( — AJJ

that makes facts contingent upon belief. You may want to revise his/your claim but either make it clear that you are revising it, or stick with what was said and defend it. You already backed away from defending it on page one:

Facts don’t depend on whether or not we believe them — AJJ

And so, if facts do not depend on whether or not we believe them then how can it be that if there are no objective values then there are no facts?

What’s more accurately been in contention is whether we ought to believe facts. — AJJ

If facts are true statements, then whether or not we ought believe them has nothing to do with 'objective values'. We can know what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so. We can know how irrevocably important it is to form, have, and/or hold true belief. We can know that and also know that there is no such thing as 'objective value' aside from being an imaginary construct. It points to nothing but linguistic conception.

Come on now, when you or Clark say:

If there are no objective values then there are no facts (
— AJJ

that makes facts contingent upon belief. You may want to revise his/your claim but either make it clear that you are revising it, or stick with what was said and defend it. You already backed away from defending it on page one: — Fooloso4

No it bloody doesn’t mate. It means, as you keeping forcing me to say, that they ought to be believed. That does not mean that they’re contingent on belief. It means we ought to believe them. They still exist if we don’t, but we ought to believe them. We don’t have to believe them to make them exist, they exist anyway, and we ought to believe them.

I have no idea why you guys spout this nonsense about me not defending the argument. Look back over the thread, please. Be fair.

Facts don’t depend on whether or not we believe them
— AJJ

And so, if facts do not depend on whether or not we believe them then how can it be that if there are no objective values then there are no facts? — Fooloso4

See above.

If facts are true statements, then whether or not we ought believe them has nothing to do with 'objective values'. We can know what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so. We can know how irrevocably important it is to form, have, and/or hold true belief. We can know that and also know that there is no such thing as 'objective value' aside from being an imaginary construct. It points to nothing but linguistic conception. — creativesoul

Urgh. I don’t care about anyone’s personal credo.

If it means something, it's not true that it means nothing, right?

Nope, try again:

Actually the word “fact” doesn’t even mean anything here. It means “state of affairs”, which means “is the case”, which means “fact”. The word just refers to itself. — AJJ

If facts are true statements, then whether or not we ought believe them has nothing to do with 'objective values'. We can know what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so. We can know how irrevocably important it is to form, have, and/or hold true belief. We can know that and also know that there is no such thing as 'objective value' aside from being an imaginary construct. It points to nothing but linguistic conception.
— creativesoul

Urgh. I don’t care about anyone’s personal credo. — AJJ

Your belief isn't necessary. If what I've said is true, then what you've said is not.

Fascinating.

Horses and water...

Be well.

Oy vey

“Oy vey” all you want mate. Unclear whether you actually get the point or not. Seems a good one to me though.

No it bloody doesn’t mate. It means, as you keeping forcing me to say, that they ought to be believed. — AJJ

It would help if you provided the original claim in context, but despite the request to do so early on, you have not, unfortunately, done so. And so, all we have to go on is what you have presented. It is a simple if-then claim - if not this then not that. Now you may claim it means something else, and perhaps Clark meant or said something different, but based on what you have presented there is not reason to believe he did.

As stated, it does not say we ought to believe facts. If says that if there are no facts then there is nothing we ought to believe. One major flaw with this is the jump from objective values to facts. As has been stated repeatedly by various participants, that we ought to believe something is not a statement of objective value. Even if we accept that one ought to believe objective facts, it does not follow that this is an objective value.

In order to see this, suppose that all those who agree that we ought to believe objective facts are wrong. If you object that they can't be wrong, an appeal to objective values does not demonstrate that they are wrong. The demonstration that they are wrong is based on a) the contraction of accepting a fact and not believing it - if one accepts it as a fact then one believes it, and if one does not believe it then one does not accept it as a fact it, or b) the practical consequences of not believing the facts of the matter - if you do not accept that the ice is too thin to skate on you risk falling through. Practical consequences are not objective values. If there is some third option that demonstrates that accepting facts is an objective value you have not presented it, even if you have unflaggingly repeated it. Neither logic nor practical consequences are objective values.

If there is some third option that demonstrates that accepting facts is an objective value you have not presented it, even if you have unflaggingly repeated it. Neither logic nor practical consequences are objective values. — Fooloso4

I’m tired and about to quit, so I’ll just refer you to the thread again. I’ve defended the argument as much as I’d like to now.

Alright, it’s been three days now so that’s me done.

know it is true that I should help you when you’re having a heart attack, therefore I help you. Like I’ve said, goodness and truth - or how we perceive them - are the basis for our actions. — AJJ

However, as I said, there are many instances when someone knows what ought to be done, but does not do it. For example, knowingly breaking the law, it happens all the time. So it's completely false to say "I know what I ought to do therefore I do it". It must be something other than knowing what ought to be done which inspires one to do what ought to be done. This was covered in some depth by Augustine.

Again, you’re just repeating what you think without considering what I’m saying. — AJJ

Actually, I've considered what you've said, and demonstrated it as false, reread the above if you still do not understand that.

But whatever. I’d like to ask this important question again: Where does our inspiration to be moral come from, if not from our understanding of what is moral? — AJJ

I don't think anyone knows the answer to that question, that's why there is philosophy, to seek the answers to questions like that. But it's very clear that the inspiration to be moral does not come from understanding what moral is, just watch a child learning. We only come to understand what moral is, a long time after learning how to be moral, if ever.

This ignores important parts of my last two responses to you. You can try again if you want, may not respond though.

Why is the notion of objective value so important on your view?

Though I would actually be interested in an example of a lie that leads to good.

I would actually be interested in an example of a lie that leads to good. — AJJ

The Nazis are at your doorstep. They ask...

Are there any Jews in your attic? There are.

The Nazis are at your doorstep. They ask...

Are there any Jews in your attic? There are. — creativesoul

And here’s what I wanted to say: It’s not telling the Nazis the truth there that leads to wrong, it’s the implicit lie that they should arrest the Jews. It could be that those particular Nazis oppose their regime, and would actually help the Jews once they knew they were there, because they recognise it’s true that they should do so. It’s always the truth that leads to good.

I recognise that in reality you would have the Nazis believe the lie in that situation. But in principle, if everyone understood the truth, then no wrong would occur.

Last thing: If you say that someone can know the truth yet still do wrong, then I’d say they’re justifying that wrong to themselves with something they believe is true, but is actually a lie.

So all together we ought to believe the truth (facts), since it’s by the truth that we do right. Take that as my final statement because I really do want to close this now.

You got a lot mileage out of one sentence :smile:

Aye, a little too much maybe.