
Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts - grumpy-buffalo
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com//2015/03/02/why-our-children-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/
======
ikken
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.

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.

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.

~~~
jackson1372
The point of the article is not to prove that values are objective. Rather,
the point is to undermine the fact/opinion distinction.

If moral sentiments were mere opinion, then there'd be no point to arguing
over whether some action is right or wrong. When you tell me that you really
like the taste of sushi, I don't argue with you - I just accept that that's
your taste. But that we don't simply accept as 'taste' other's moral
sentiments suggests that our own understanding of what is at stake is
different.

~~~
icebraining
People argue about tastes _all the time_. That tastes can't be argued over is
what we tell ourselves, not what we actually do. Why else would we say "he has
_bad taste_ "?

~~~
jackson1372
I use taste just because it's the most widely-accepted instance where
subjectivism applies. But, certainly, a substantial minority will hold that
for certain kinds of tastes, objectivism holds. If you think there _are_
meaningful disagreements about taste, that makes you an objectivist. In which
case, you already agree that there are facts about these kinds of things.

------
flipstewart
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".

[http://www.justinmcbrayer.com/#!leadership/c53p](http://www.justinmcbrayer.com/#!leadership/c53p)

~~~
pistle
Despite it being ad-hominem, I'll let it play because it helped stop my eyes
from continuing to roll every time I replayed his arguments.

~~~
flipstewart
That was my only goal.

~~~
throwawayaway
You'll love the article he linked to:

[http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/372-mor...](http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/372-moral-
relativism-and-the-crisis-of-contemporary-education)

~~~
pistle
Hey! My eyes had just recovered! Stop that. To paraphrase, "In place of
science, I present to you a digitally-leather-bound edition of the founding
fathers (minus that Jefferson stuff about not being a Christian nation)! and a
warning to not enter into serious argument with modern or post-modern thought
and life. Best just to avoid winning that battle we always win (amongst
ourselves) than to deal with the cognitive dissonance that we may all be
desperately protecting the new version of that old Zeus stuff."

I sense a fear that many people don't know how to deal with the realization
that their 5-8 year-olds, who have internalized "the golden rule" in a
freedom-chasing culture, seem confused by their loving parents testing their
openness to religious and/or social bigotry.

Where they see the loss of their sacred talisman, I see hope that our new
generation is about to bring great levels of peace and joy to the world. I see
the dawning of a bright future where people fluidly form communities instead
of calcifying into tribes.

------
Kenji
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.

"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!

~~~
reedlaw
> 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!

What about the teaching discussed in the article about there being no moral
facts? Should kids accept this proposition just because the education system
repeats it over and over again? The teaching itself is a statement with moral
implications. Where is the proof for the statement itself?

> Welcome to reality, a place where we can't even be sure it exists!

This viewpoint also contains a truth claim. Taken to its logical conclusion,
there would be no way to prove anything since it's all an illusion.

~~~
bonaldi
> Taken to its logical conclusion, there would be no way to prove anything
> since it's all an illusion.

Yep. And then you can either get to the island of the cogito and find you
can't get off, or you end up shrugging and going with Shaw's great line about
how skepticism is "logically impeccable, but psychologically impossible".

------
paulgerhardt
"All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need...
fantasies to make life bearable."

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.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

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.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY."

― GNU Terry Pratchett

~~~
tormeh
Yeah, whenever I think too much about why we're here I discover that it's best
not to think too much about it.

------
dikaiosune
When I was a boy, if you wanted to talk philosophy you reasoned from first
principles.

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.

Also, we had to walk up hill both ways to school in the snow. /s

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.

~~~
humanrebar
> I argue that from a practical perspective, our best bet is moral consensus.

I took that as the point of the piece -- that there is no moral consensus.
That even unalienable truths like, "All men are created equal" are being
labelled as opinions and lumped in the same category as one's favorite color
or sports team.

~~~
jarin
I'd argue that "all men are created equal" is NOT an absolute moral truth,
which is what I am sure you meant (unalienable means unable to be taken away).
It's something I feel very strongly to be true, but it's something we have
collectively agreed upon as a society. There are plenty of people who consider
themselves to be moral people who don't feel that way.

~~~
humanrebar
> unalienable means unable to be taken away

Unalienable rights can be abused, but not taken away. If someone is murdered
by a dictator for his opinions, that is wrong regardless of the legality of
the action, the power imbalance in play, or the "personal morality" of the
dictator. That is, the human right to life was violated.

> I'd argue that "all men are created equal" is NOT an absolute moral truth...
> There are plenty of people who consider themselves to be moral people who
> don't feel that way.

The 'absolute' isn't about unanimity. It's about truth regardless of
disagreement. That's the way truth works. Some people think humans never
visited the Moon. And they're wrong. As were the Boston bombers, as was Ariel
Castro, as was Bernie Madoff.

------
proksoup

      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?”
    

At least his son is smarter than he is.

~~~
proksoup
What I meant was, his son's blank stare is exactly my reaction as a 30 year
old adult --- I can't comprehend how this guy doesn't comprehend how stupid
his questions are.

~~~
grumpy-buffalo
Could you please explain why you think this guy's questions are stupid? They
seemed like good questions to me. His son's school's definitions of "fact" and
"opinion" seem to not be mutually exclusive, which seems to contradict the
implicit assumptions in the exercises assigned to the students.

~~~
arxpoetica
I rather liked the article.

~~~
proksoup
I found myself nodding in agreement with the school and it's separation of
values/morality/opinion from facts/truth.

It's all just words, lines we use to divide, but they seem to be drawing nice
solid lines --- whilst the parental unit that wrote the article seems
remarkably confused about the factualness of his own beliefs.

------
peteretep

        > Conversely, many of the things we once “proved” turned
        > out to be false. For example, many people once thought
        > that the earth was flat
    

Is this satire?

~~~
ChrisGranger
Didn't you know that the Earth was once _proven_ flat? /snark

I think it's an example of Poe's Law.

------
EarthLaunch
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.

"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]

[1]
[http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html)

~~~
icebraining
That doesn't set a standard, it just moves the discussion to "what is proper
to the life a rational being", which is still completely subjective.

~~~
EarthLaunch
It progresses the discussion to there, by being a first principle of morality.
From there, with a definition of rationality, "what is proper to the life a
rational being" can be answered. For example, death is not proper to the life
a rational being. From that follows certain things to avoid. Using this logic,
those things would be morally wrong.

~~~
icebraining
_For example, death is not proper to the life a rational being._

Why not?

~~~
EarthLaunch
I didn't just assert that, it was based on the preceding logic. "Why not" is
answered by what I proposed in my previous comment.

Not up for debating it with you further. With a name like icebraining, have
you ever wondered if you're the baddy? [1]

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU)

------
kenjackson
It's amazing a professor of philosophy seems to understand this less than
elementary school kids. There is a surprising shallowness to this article.

I left this article applauding the school and son, and questioning the author.

------
jvm
The author declines to demonstrate to the reader that there are moral facts.

He attempted reductiones ad absurdum fall completely flat, e.g.,

> If it’s not true that it’s wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one
> disagrees, then how can we be outraged?

...As if nobody has ever been outraged on the basis of their opinions!

He also fails to even mention what a moral fact would consist of. He doesn't
say whether he agrees with this definition:

> Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

But clearly if one takes this position, there are no moral facts. What would
constitute moral proof?

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.

~~~
icebraining
Lots of people have claimed ungodly sources of moral objectivity/universalism
(usually nature, or reason, or some such).

~~~
jvm
Okay but that's still, like, just their opinion man :-)

------
sandworm
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.

"Cheating undermines meritocracies and is therefor frowned upon by those in
control of such."

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.

"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.

~~~
icebraining
_" Cheating undermines meritocracies and is therefor frowned upon by those in
control of such."_

 _I 'd say that qualifies as a moral fact_

What makes that a _moral_ fact? What's the moral part?

------
ebbv
What is this reactionary garbage doing on HN?

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.

------
bequanna
>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 ...

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.

------
evincarofautumn
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.

More to the point, if a teacher teaches kids any _specific_ 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.

The examples from the article can all be dismissed by simple descriptivism:

> If it’s not true that it’s wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one
> disagrees, then how can we be outraged?

A person can be outraged for any reason they want. It happens that this kind
of thing outrages a lot of people.

> If there are no truths about what is good or valuable or right, how can we
> prosecute people for crimes against humanity?

We can, and do, do so arbitrarily. It happens that a lot of people agree on
what “crimes against humanity” entail.

> 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?

Humans are occasionally altruistic for some reason.

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?

------
sjwright
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.)

— Copying homework assignments is wrong.

A situational ethic.

— Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior.

A situational ethic.

— All men are created equal.

Objectively false.

— It is worth sacrificing some personal liberties to protect our country from
terrorism.

Too vague to be either fact or opinion.

— It is wrong for people under the age of 21 to drink alcohol.

A situational ethic.

— Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat.

Most likely false.

— Drug dealers belong in prison.

A situational ethic.

------
yellowapple
From the article:

"Conversely, many of the things we once “proved” turned out to be false. For
example, many people once thought that the earth was flat."

I don't think this is an example of something that was ever "proved".

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.

------
clint
Are there moral facts?

~~~
miguelrochefort
Of course there are.

~~~
esrauch
For example?

~~~
miguelrochefort
\- Efficiency is not just the means; it's the actual end.

\- The means justify the end.

\- Truth is all that matters. Therefore, to lie is morally bad.

------
ruok0101
"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."

What if we say "cheating is not allowed". Can we blame them then?

------
leereeves
I suspect that, if asked to enumerate moral facts, the author would describe
his opinions.

------
pistle
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.

------
icebraining
"Alert: Public Schools Teach Nihilism!"

[http://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/tag/justin-p-
mcbrayer...](http://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/tag/justin-p-mcbrayer/)

------
sjwright
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." \-
Philip K. Dick

Facts are observations that persist no matter how much you wish otherwise. -
me, just now.

------
spiritplumber
There are facts. There are moral positions. What are moral facts?

~~~
cjbprime
The most plausible definition I can think of involves stating your metaethics
(e.g. utilitarianism) and then showing evidence that there is a reliably-
reached conclusion for a claim under those ethics.

Like, I don't know: "Under utilitarianism, if you are comparatively rich, it
is wrong not to attempt to relieve the suffering of people in extreme poverty,
because you can do so very cheaply in comparison to the happiness gain you
could cause for other people as rich as you". I'd say that's a moral fact.

------
EarthLaunch
This thread got bumped from #2 to #90 in less than 30 seconds. Good thing
still up top is "Can Family Secrets Make You Sick? (npr.org)".

------
savanaly
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!).

~~~
kenjackson
The sun will rise tomorrow is an opinion/speculation. The sun rose today is a
fact.

~~~
lerpa
The sun rose today is a fact only if you can prove it. I think you're crazy
everyone knows the sun just appeared out of nowhere.

PS: Your aunt Sally called, she misses you.

~~~
icebraining
No, facts are facts even if no one can prove it. It's just that if you can't
prove it, you can't know if a certain claim (like "the sun rose today") is
actually a fact or not.

~~~
lerpa
I'm having trouble with this.

Can you prove that what you said is a fact?

~~~
icebraining
Nope.

~~~
alexvoda
I think what icebraining was trying to say is: A fact is not a opinion that is
proven to be true. A fact is a opinion that is true and can be proven to be
true even if we don't yet know how. In which case we simply don't yet know
that said opinion is a fact.

I'm not sure if this definition is correct but I'm fairly certain this is what
icebraining meant.

------
AYBABTME
The author's position is as bad as what they're trying to criticize.

