Moral Facts, and Why A Bunch of Y'all Are About To Agree With The NY Times

[bayonetbrant]

This might be one of the best opinion columns I've read in a while about what we teach students and how we teach it.

Bayonet Jr is on break right now, but I have feeling there's going to be some educating over the next week, covering this very topic.  I only hope it's not too late for him to grok it.  We've tried hard to lay a solid groundwork for him, but this column really distills a lot of issues quite well.

Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts
By JUSTIN P. MCBRAYER  MARCH 2, 2015 3:25 AM

What would you say if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it's wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?

I was. As a philosopher, I already knew that many college-aged students don't believe in moral facts. While there are no national surveys quantifying this phenomenon, philosophy professors with whom I have spoken suggest that the overwhelming majority of college freshmen in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture.

What I didn't know was where this attitude came from. Given the presence of moral relativism in some academic circles, some people might naturally assume that philosophers themselves are to blame. But they aren't. There are historical examples of philosophers who endorse a kind of moral relativism, dating back at least to Protagoras who declared that "man is the measure of all things," and several who deny that there are any moral facts whatsoever. But such creatures are rare. Besides, if students are already showing up to college with this view of morality, it's very unlikely that it's the result of what professional philosophers are teaching. So where is the view coming from?

A few weeks ago, I learned that students are exposed to this sort of thinking well before crossing the threshold of higher education. When I went to visit my son's second grade open house, I found a troubling pair of signs hanging over the bulletin board. They read:

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, I went home and Googled "fact vs. opinion." The definitions I found online were substantially the same as the one in my son's classroom. As it turns out, the Common Core standards used by a majority of K-12 programs in the country require that students be able to "distinguish among fact, opinion, and reasoned judgment in a text." And the Common Core institute provides a helpful page full of links to definitions, lesson plans and quizzes to ensure that students can tell the difference between facts and opinions.

So what's wrong with this distinction and how does it undermine the view that there are objective moral facts?

First, the definition of a fact waffles between truth and proof — two obviously different features. Things can be true even if no one can prove them. For example, it could be true that there is life elsewhere in the universe even though no one can prove it. Conversely, many of the things we once "proved" turned out to be false. For example, many people once thought that the earth was flat. It's a mistake to confuse truth (a feature of the world) with proof (a feature of our mental lives). 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. In that case, E=MC2 is a fact for a physicist but not for me.

But second, and worse, students are taught that claims are either facts or opinions. They are given quizzes in which they must sort claims into one camp or the other but not both. But if a fact is something that is true and an opinion is something that is believed, then many claims will obviously be both. For example, I asked my son about this distinction after his open house. He confidently explained that facts were things that were true whereas opinions are things that are believed. 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?"

The blank stare on his face said it all.

How does the dichotomy between fact and opinion relate to morality? I learned the answer to this question only after I investigated my son's homework (and other examples of assignments online). Kids are asked to sort facts from opinions and, without fail, every value claim is labeled as an opinion. Here's a little test devised from questions available on fact vs. opinion worksheets online: are the following facts or opinions?

— Copying homework assignments is wrong.

— Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior.

— All men are created equal.

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

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

— Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat.

— Drug dealers belong in prison.

The answer? In each case, the worksheets categorize these claims as opinions. The explanation on offer is that each of these claims is a value claim and value claims are not facts. This is repeated ad nauseum: any claim with good, right, wrong, etc. is not a fact.

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.

The inconsistency in this curriculum is obvious. For example, at the outset of the school year, my son brought home a list of student rights and responsibilities. Had he already read the lesson on fact vs. opinion, he might have noted that the supposed rights of other students were based on no more than opinions. According to the school's curriculum, it certainly wasn't true that his classmates deserved to be treated a particular way — that would make it a fact. Similarly, it wasn't really true that he had any responsibilities — that would be to make a value claim a truth. 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.

Indeed, in the world beyond grade school, where adults must exercise their moral knowledge and reasoning to conduct themselves in the society, the stakes are greater. There, consistency demands that we acknowledge the existence of moral facts. If it's not true that it's wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged? If there are no truths about what is good or valuable or right, how can we prosecute people for crimes against humanity? 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?

Our schools do amazing things with our children. And they are, in a way, teaching moral standards when they ask students to treat one another humanely and to do their schoolwork with academic integrity. But at the same time, the curriculum sets our children up for doublethink. They are told that there are no moral facts in one breath even as the next tells them how they ought to behave.

We can do better. Our children deserve a consistent intellectual foundation. Facts are things that are true. Opinions are things we believe. Some of our beliefs are true. Others are not. Some of our beliefs are backed by evidence. Others are not. Value claims are like any other claims: either true or false, evidenced or not. The hard work lies not in recognizing that at least some moral claims are true but in carefully thinking through our evidence for which of the many competing moral claims is correct. That's a hard thing to do. But we can't sidestep the responsibilities that come with being human just because it's hard.

That would be wrong.

Justin P. McBrayer is an associate professor of philosophy at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo. He works in ethics and philosophy of religion.

[Barthheart]

Interesting read. As one of those few who chose not to procreate, I can only sympathize with you parents out there in trying to raise good people in the this day and age.  O0

[LongBlade]

Interesting read. As one of those few who chose not to procreate, I can only sympathize with you parents out there in trying to raise good people in the this day and age.  O0

Not trying to start a flame war here, but our kids received several years of education at the hands of a Catholic school. They've managed to demonstrate a solid sense of right and wrong.

I can't say I agree with *everything* they were taught, upon the basics I have no issues.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

The problem with the article is the guy is a philosopher. He weaves words, which have very imprecise logic, to try to make claims on precise logic.

There is nothing wrong with wha the school is teaching. The moral positions are a representation of our Christian culture. We agree with it, and go along with it, to be a cooperative part of the society in which we live. Most religions that form the basis of societies have very similar values. I'm talking in general at the 10 commandments type level, not specifics. Various sects within Christianity will fight each other over minor details.

Language failings are the reason laws will always be a jumble of evolving words.

When you say something is a fact, it is in reference to a specific theory in science. Atoms are the basic unit. Atoms are made of quarks. the speed of light is fixed. etc.

When you talk about moral positions, it is in reference to the norms of the culture in which it is being considered. Capital punishment. 50 lashes. The sanctity of marriage. Animal grazing rights. These are norms not facts.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

It should be obvious that societal norms are binding on all members of the society. Just like a contract is binding. Something does not become optional just because someone says that is just opinion.

With ISIL there is a group with very abhorent values compared to the rest of the world. They may well think the world should be like they want. The rest of the world says they are incompatible, even as a seperate region, so they must end with permanence. That is the position of people in societies that say killing is the fundamental wrong.

So what some people may see as a moral fact is irrelevant when there is serious threat to the society.

[W8taminute]

I'm not sure I understand what this article is saying.  Is the message that anyone who has an opinion is evil and stupid?  Is this article saying that people who have morals are inferior because they don't base their actions on facts?

[jejo68]

The author should get out more.
Even his example with president Washington shows that he doesnt really understand the difference between opinion and fact.

just because he starts saying "i believe" doesnt change his statement from a fact to an opinion given that his belief can be proven right or wrong Thus making his claim true or false and therefore a fact or not a fact. And for the record you can choose to believe in facts or choose not to believe in it. Case in sample, the "earth is flat society" which still holds to the belief that the earth is flat even though science has proven them wrong, or the creationist that rejects the notion on evolution and claim that the earth is 6000 years old.

Then he goes on about morality. It seems that in his opinion, just because there is no objectively moral truth then people has no moral. Thats bollocks to be franck.
The moral code is the one society deems right in any given time. Not long ago slavery was widely accepted, even the bible supports this. Now we have another view on the matter because society has moved on. Same with all other moral codes, some will endure and others will dissapear in accordance to how society in general deems what is the best behaviour for men in order for any given country to Work.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

A prime example of relativity in moral judgments.

YANGON, Myanmar — A bar manager from New Zealand and two Burmese men were sentenced to two years in prison in Myanmar on Tuesday for posting an image online of the Buddha wearing headphones to promote an event.

Also from NY times.

[JasonPratt]

The problem with the article is the guy is a philosopher. He weaves words, which have very imprecise logic, to try to make claims on precise logic.

Is that a fact or only your opinion?

Actually his argument is that people can have true and false opinions about facts. They aren't merely one or the other, even though he recognizes the fact/value distinction (where valuation is itself also one or more kinds of fact). He's pretty precise and detailed in his argument, despite the imprecision of words.

What he disagrees with is the policy of dichotomizing the fact/value distinction in such a way as to render moral judgments incapable of being qualifiably 'moral' judgments about facts.

When you say something is a fact, it is in reference to a specific theory in science. Atoms are the basic unit. Atoms are made of quarks. the speed of light is fixed. etc.

Theories of science are beliefs and opinions, too, just like any other operation of reasoning. And not all fact-claims are in reference to specific scientific theories or even to vague scientific theories. 2+2=4 is not merely an opinion (though so far as a rational agent understands and accepts it, it's a belief of a rational agent), and is not in reference to a specific or general theory of science. We might come to understand 2 oranges and 2 oranges add up to four oranges because we have never caught them behaving otherwise, but our understanding and acceptance of the truth involved doesn't depend formally on an inductive likelihood based on past experience.

Far from a "fact" being a reference to a specific theory in science, science couldn't even get going to reach conclusions (whether inductive, abductive, or deductive), without gathering and assessing facts.

When you talk about moral positions, it is in reference to the norms of the culture in which it is being considered. Capital punishment. 50 lashes. The sanctity of marriage. Animal grazing rights. These are norms not facts.

They're modal expressions and deployments of principles, which have value and which may themselves be facts.

The author should get out more.
Even his example with president Washington shows that he doesnt really understand the difference between opinion and fact.

just because he starts saying "i believe" doesnt change his statement from a fact to an opinion given that his belief can be proven right or wrong

Actually, he's complaining that the school was, wrongly but perhaps inadvertently, teaching that. You and he are on the same side there. Though it might be a question of fact whether the school was actually teaching that. ;)

And for the record you can choose to believe in facts or choose not to believe in it. Case in sample, the "earth is flat society" which still holds to the belief that the earth is flat even though science has proven them wrong, or the creationist that rejects the notion on evolution and claim that the earth is 6000 years old.

The author not only agrees in principle but cited the same flat earth example.

Then he goes on about morality. It seems that in his opinion, just because there is no objectively moral truth then people has no moral. Thats bollocks to be franck.

Actually he does believe there is objective moral truth; that people make claims, right or wrong, about the moral value of facts; and that it's both incorrect and dangerous to deny there are moral facts even though it's hard to work out what they are and how best to situationally apply them. He would probably argue that people having morality is evidence of objective morality.

This does however get into the question of whether rationally invented ethics are truly ethical (morality by sheer assertion); or if discovered irrational ethics are truly ethical ('moral' behavior being only a side effect to non-rational, non-moral behavior); or if ethics can be rationally discovered and if so how and on what standards.

The moral code is the one society deems right in any given time. Not long ago slavery was widely accepted, even the bible supports this. Now we have another view on the matter because society has moved on. Same with all other moral codes, some will endure and others will dissapear in accordance to how society in general deems what is the best behaviour for men in order for any given country to Work.

No point on that theory to ask whether we progressed or not in rejecting slavery; the fact/value distinction becomes absolutely impermeable with the valuation reduced to some kind of illusion. Also no point talking about rights and responsibilities other than as a game, which those who (on this theory) understand the game can manipulate to their advantage where possible. Morality becomes not even what "society in general" (as a mere abstraction?) deems best for men to work, but what a few men deems best for men to work, and then can effectively fool other men to take seriously.

I'm not sure I understand what this article is saying.  Is the message that anyone who has an opinion is evil and stupid?

No.

Is this article saying that people who have morals are inferior because they don't base their actions on facts?

No.

He's saying we shouldn't whiffle away value in fact/value evaluations about facts. He actually wants people to work on discovering moral facts, and is complaining about disparaging morality as mere opinion vs fact.

[JasonPratt]

I will add that to me the problem is pretty clearly, and always has been pretty clearly, disagreements about how to ground moral judgments. Even denials of objective moral value tend to be a reply to the (apparently) mistaken belief that moral value can be discovered and evaluated by a rational agent.

[W8taminute]

Quote from: W8taminute on 14 March 2015, 16:27:56
Is this article saying that people who have morals are inferior because they don't base their actions on facts?

No.

He's saying we shouldn't whiffle away value in fact/value evaluations about facts. He actually wants people to work on discovering moral facts, and is complaining about disparaging morality as mere opinion vs fact.

Thanks for the explanation Jason.  Ok now I am picking up what he's putting down. 

[Father Ted]

Me: "I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?"

Him: "It's a fact."

The son is right or, perhaps, correct: that his dad believes that Washington was the first president is a fact (unless the dad is lying).  The rest is just sophistry.  There are no moral facts.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Jason, I write my opinion. As for 2+2=4 , what we are taught in basic math is a set of rules based on euclidean space. There are maths with different axioms that are used for other things. Math is understood to be in the common framework unless they say they are referring to hyperbolic space or whatever.
Science does not claim to have the final facts. It has hypotheses, some of which have passes significant testing to be called theories.

[Smuckatelli]

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

Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes.


How can someone test or prove that George Washington was the first President?

Basically, all historical 'facts' are opinions based off of beliefs that can not be tested or proven.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

How's about forget fact, use data. Fact implies authority over the judgement. Data implies impartiality.