The Fact/Value Dichotomy, which began with David Hume, has confused ordinary moral talk.

2. The Objective for this session
 explain three sources of confusion in moral
discourse
 identify the language about fact and value (or
opinion), and how it complicates moral
conversation.

3. Sources Confusing
Perplexity
 Separating fact and value;
Link to The View
 Concept control.

4. Are these two statements
identical?
 Torture is immoral.
 Torture is any act by which severe pain or
suffering – whether physical or mental -- is
intentionally inflicted on a person for purposes
of obtaining information or a confession, or
punishing a person for an act committed, or is
suspected of having committed, or intimidating
or coercing a person, when such pain or
suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of
or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official.
(paraphased Geneva Convention, Part I, Article 1)

5. David Hume
1711 - 1776
The celebrated Scotitish
Skeptic.
He believe that knowledge is
the result of ideas created
external stimuli through the
five senses. This is what we
call an empiricist or
naturalists. The ramification
of this naturalist worldview is
that there is no moral
knowledge.
Awaismasood84
Image taken from: http://www.flickr.com/photos3322729@NO2/

6. Confusion: Separating
Fact from Value
Elisabeth and Rosie are forced to reduce their
ethical commitments to factual words in order be
reasonable at 1:50.
Link to The View

7. Confusion: Concept Control
 If there are no ethical facts, then conversation
reverts to using non-rational persuasive
techniques.
 Elisabeth uses a football analogy to make her
values appear rational at 21 seconds.
 Rosie twists and flips the connotative meaning
of words in complex ways at 44 seconds.
Link to The View

8. Review
Sources of the Confusion
 Separating fact and value
 Facts are directly observable; they are true or false
 Facts the preserve of science
 Values
 Values are mere personal preference, emotions, feelings
 Values non-rational
 Concept Control
 Assertion about moral events leave out important moral
information to leverage public opinion