Morality

There's a New York Times opinion piece floating around Facebook.  Part of me agrees with it, in part, while part of me wants to mark it as spam, primarily because of the title.  The piece revolves around people not believing in "moral facts."  There is a great deal of problems with the piece, especially the idea of "moral facts."

To start with, we need to understand the objective and subjective space, and the definition of morality.  The prior is easy, but the latter is still a matter of some debate.  Subjective space is what we see, think, feel, and in every way perceive the world.  Objective space is what's left when you take yourself out of the equation and is, arguably, impossible for us to actually obtain.  Who's to say this isn't just some dream?

Morality, on the other hand, can be defined a number of ways.  There are divisive ways, such as by religious laws, which seem to serve as the majority of morality in America and the middle east.  Then, there's also my definition, which is simple and perhaps the oldest: treat others how you would want to be treated.  This relies on no mythology, no scripture, and applies equally regardless of background.  The only contention is when you want to be treated differently than someone else, which seldom actually amounts to much drama, as the basics are rather universal.

What is a fact?  A fact is a unit of information found in the objective space.  The question of whether or not something is a fact can be debated, as is currently the status of evolution and global warming, but the idea of what makes a fact is simple: it is, independent of perspective, creed, or opinion.  Stars produce radiation is a fact.  The sky is blue is not.  Why?  Is it blue on Mars?  What about Jupiter?  Is it blue to someone who is bichromatic and can't see the same colors as "normal" people?

This is what muddies the waters.  Most people would say that the sky being blue is a fact.  I'm sorry, it isn't, mostly because it is a vague, generalized statement that relies on perception.  But the statement is TRUE.  At least, it's true to most people.  Being true does not make it a fact.  What makes it true?  It fits all of the criteria of analysis in the subjective space (and elements of it can not withstand objective analysis, as it is equally correct to say that the sky is WHITE at about 8000K based on a black-body radiation curve.  This is closer to a fact.  The fact would be that the light filtering from the sun at this particular moment in this particular location from this particular direction through this particular lens has a radiation distribution curve as defined as follows...  Do you see the difference?  It is specific, and objective, as it removes the subjective references as much as is humanly possible.

So, it thereby stands, that a statement can be true but not a fact, and that truth and morality are both matters of a subjective space rather than objective, the realm of facts.  It is therefore correct to state that there ARE NO MORAL FACTS.  With this statement I agree completely, but it is also misleading, as most people reading don't understand everything I've just written.

The part I agree about is the issue the author takes with the polar, binary categorization of information into facts and opinions.  That's like saying an object is either hot or round, or bright or brown,  You can not compare information in the objective space relative to a subjective space in a binary fashion!  Let me elaborate.

I mentioned earlier about the blue sky.  It isn't a fact, but it is true.  I could argue that it's an opinion, but really that's a silly argument, for to most readers, it's not an opinion.  A large number of people agree to this statement: it is true to them.  Because it's true to so many, and such a fundamental, seemingly indisputable truth, to call is an opinion is, frankly, insulting.  Here's a the difference:  when the same data is processed by numerous similar subjective entities and they all arrive at a similar conclusion, this is a truth, at least to that group.  If one entity were to say that the sky is pretty, and everyone agreed, it would also be a truth.  Most likely there would be a large deviation in the validity of that statement, as it is highly subjective and relies on concepts that are not physiological constants among the group, ultimately rendering it an opinion.

There are moral truths, but there are no moral facts.  It is wrong to take the life of a person who is guilty of no offence is one such truth.  The golden rule I mentioned earlier is another.  Homosexuality (polygamy, sex before marriage, illicit drug usage, speeding) is wrong is moral opinion.  The difference: the vast majority of reasonable people will agree with the prior, but not so with the latter.  But none of them are facts.