Stock Exchange Morality

[LuckyR]

If a hangman enjoys his work, is that a crime? More importantly is that immoral. and WHY.

You still have not begun to address my questions.
This is your big chance..
You have chosen the most extreme example of human behaviour in order to nail your colours to the mast, so you should be able in this instance, at least to say why you think :
"killing Babies for pleasure".
is objectively morally bad..

All you have said so far is that "public knowledge" is evidence that it is.
So you seem to be saying that as long as most people such as the Israeli population agree that killing 4000 children is morally justified, then that makes it okay?

Definitely not a crime, nor a violation of my moral code.

But that's the unspoken key to all of these questions, namely when discussing the subjective, it is meaningless without identifying whose (subjective) perspective one is referring to.

For example, to the Israeli citizenry by and large the killing of 4000 Palistinian children is morally justified. To you and me, perhaps not.

[Sculptor]

If a hangman enjoys his work, is that a crime? More importantly is that immoral. and WHY.

You still have not begun to address my questions.
This is your big chance..
You have chosen the most extreme example of human behaviour in order to nail your colours to the mast, so you should be able in this instance, at least to say why you think :
"killing Babies for pleasure".
is objectively morally bad..

All you have said so far is that "public knowledge" is evidence that it is.
So you seem to be saying that as long as most people such as the Israeli population agree that killing 4000 children is morally justified, then that makes it okay?

Definitely not a crime, nor a violation of my moral code.

But that's the unspoken key to all of these questions, namely when discussing the subjective, it is meaningless without identifying whose (subjective) perspective one is referring to.

For example, to the Israeli citizenry by and large the killing of 4000 Palistinian children is morally justified. To you and me, perhaps not.

Are there is the rub.
InVino Veritas cannot justify his position.
He can scream about "population" and find endless numbers of people that will agree that killing babies for pleasure is bad, but none of this amounts to objectivity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can you say that for sure. And can you say why?

I'm interested in the codicil; "for pleasure". How could you prove the crime was done for pleasure, and would it not be a crime without that codicil? Since feelings are subjective, how does this figure into an Objective Morality?

And, Codicil or not, what is the basis for you declaring this a moral crime?
How can you tell?

I wrote;
Say there two opposing maxims [supposedly moral]:
1. "It is immoral to torture and kill babies for pleasure?"
2. "It is permissible to torture and kill babies for pleasure?"

"For pleasure" can be psychologically tested and verified.

NO it cannot. There is no practicable way to determine this in normal situations.

There are tons of research paper on this topic; e.g.

Pleasure is mediated by well-developed mesocorticolimbic circuitry, and serves adaptive functions.
In affective disorders anhedonia (lack of pleasure) or dysphoria (negative affect) can result from breakdowns of that hedonic system.

Human neuroimaging studies indicate that surprisingly similar circuitry is activated by quite diverse pleasures, suggesting a common neural currency shared by all.

Wanting for rewards is generated by a large and distributed brain system. Liking, or pleasure itself, is generated by a smaller set of hedonic hotspots within limbic circuitry. Those hotspots also can be embedded in broader anatomical patterns of valence organization, such as in a keyboard pattern of nucleus accumbens generators for desire versus dread. In contrast, some of the best known textbook candidates for pleasure generators, including classic pleasure electrodes and the mesolimbic dopamine system, may not generate pleasure after all. These emerging insights into brain pleasure mechanisms may eventually facilitate better treatments for affective disorders.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4425246/

.
The "oughtnot_ness not to kill humans" is evident from via induction.
The majority as gathered from common and public knowledge will agree that to kill another human is evil [immoral].
This is reflected indirectly from politics [with exception] that all murders are punished severely.

Go ahead and show the induction.!
Why is it immoral to kill?
Just because murder is punished is not a reason. "murder" is defined as illegal killing. That is a circular argument since there are many other forms of killing that are not illegal, and some involve pleasure.

It is very evident the majority of humans abhor the killings of humans by humans.
Based on this "the killings of humans by humans" is immoral as qualified within a human-based moral FSK; note the bolded.
This is supported by the default that murder is a crime in all sovereign nations.
Where killing is not illegal is the exception which is against the default.

My principle is:
What is objective is independent of an individual subject's beliefs and judgment.
Whatever is conditioned upon a human-based FSK [collective of subjects] is independent of an individual subject's beliefs and judgment.
Therefore, whatever is conditioned upon a human based FSK is is objective.
This FSK-based objectivity comes in varying degrees.

You have not begum to answer my questions, you are just self referring again

I am making a statement above.

When the moral element "oughtnot_ness not to kill humans" is conditioned within a human based FSK, i.e. a morality-proper FSK, it is considered to be objective in the FSK-sense.
Note the necessary qualification, i.e. objective in the FSK-sense.

If a hangman enjoys his work, is that a crime? More importantly is that immoral. and WHY.

First morality is independent from politics and the legislature.
That a hangman enjoys his work is not the point.
The point is a hangman has a professional duty [regardless of whether he like or dislike it] to hang a person as authorized by law which is politics not morality.
Where a political system permit the killing of humans, its is degree of morality is compromised.

In the case of morality-proper, the moral maxim is
'the killing of humans by humans is not permitted" period!.
But this is not law but a guidance for the individual in alignment with his natural moral function.
It is from this approach that humanity must address & eliminate the root cause of all moral problems and not to cure them.
As such, humanity must find way to ensure the human propensity to kill humans is efficiently modulated such that there is ZERO murder.
If there is ZERO murder there no opportunity for the hangman to kill as a duty.
It is not only murder but humans need strive to eliminate wars and other situations where humans are killed by humans.

You still have not begun to address my questions.
This is your big chance..
You have chosen the most extreme example of human behaviour in order to nail your colours to the mast, so you should be able in this instance, at least to say why you think :
"killing Babies for pleasure".
is objectively morally bad..

All you have said so far is that "public knowledge" is evidence that it is.
So you seem to be saying that as long as most people such as the Israeli population agree that killing 4000 children is morally justified, then that makes it okay?

I chose the most extreme example to ensure the point get into your thick skull.

Strawman!
I already insisted all forms of killing of humans are morally impermissible.
So how can Israelites killing anyone, Hamas, Palestinians and others be morally permissible?

[Sculptor]

I wrote;
Say there two opposing maxims [supposedly moral]:
1. "It is immoral to torture and kill babies for pleasure?"
2. "It is permissible to torture and kill babies for pleasure?"

"For pleasure" can be psychologically tested and verified.

NO it cannot. There is no practicable way to determine this in normal situations.

There are tons of research paper on this topic; e.g.

Pleasure is mediated by well-developed mesocorticolimbic circuitry, and serves adaptive functions.
In affective disorders anhedonia (lack of pleasure) or dysphoria (negative affect) can result from breakdowns of that hedonic system.
/

What do you not understand by ...
Not practical in normal circumstances?

.
The "oughtnot_ness not to kill humans" is evident from via induction.
The majority as gathered from common and public knowledge will agree that to kill another human is evil [immoral].
This is reflected indirectly from politics [with exception] that all murders are punished severely.

Go ahead and show the induction.!
Why is it immoral to kill?
Just because murder is punished is not a reason. "murder" is defined as illegal killing. That is a circular argument since there are many other forms of killing that are not illegal, and some involve pleasure.

It is very evident the majority of humans abhor the killings of humans by humans.
Based on this "the killings of humans by humans" is immoral as qualified within a human-based moral FSK; note the bolded.
This is supported by the default that murder is a crime in all sovereign nations.
Where killing is not illegal is the exception which is against the default.

My principle is:
What is objective is independent of an individual subject's beliefs and judgment.
Whatever is conditioned upon a human-based FSK [collective of subjects] is independent of an individual subject's beliefs and judgment.
Therefore, whatever is conditioned upon a human based FSK is is objective.
This FSK-based objectivity comes in varying degrees.

You have not begum to answer my questions, you are just self referring again

I am making a statement above.

When the moral element "oughtnot_ness not to kill humans" is conditioned within a human based FSK, i.e. a morality-proper FSK, it is considered to be objective in the FSK-sense.
Note the necessary qualification, i.e. objective in the FSK-sense.

If a hangman enjoys his work, is that a crime? More importantly is that immoral. and WHY.

First morality is independent from politics and the legislature.
That a hangman enjoys his work is not the point.
The point is a hangman has a professional duty [regardless of whether he like or dislike it] to hang a person as authorized by law which is politics not morality.
Where a political system permit the killing of humans, its is degree of morality is compromised.

In the case of morality-proper, the moral maxim is
'the killing of humans by humans is not permitted" period!.
But this is not law but a guidance for the individual in alignment with his natural moral function.
It is from this approach that humanity must address & eliminate the root cause of all moral problems and not to cure them.
As such, humanity must find way to ensure the human propensity to kill humans is efficiently modulated such that there is ZERO murder.
If there is ZERO murder there no opportunity for the hangman to kill as a duty.
It is not only murder but humans need strive to eliminate wars and other situations where humans are killed by humans.

You still have not begun to address my questions.
This is your big chance..
You have chosen the most extreme example of human behaviour in order to nail your colours to the mast, so you should be able in this instance, at least to say why you think :
"killing Babies for pleasure".
is objectively morally bad..

All you have said so far is that "public knowledge" is evidence that it is.
So you seem to be saying that as long as most people such as the Israeli population agree that killing 4000 children is morally justified, then that makes it okay?

I chose the most extreme example to ensure the point get into your thick skull.

Strawman!
I already insisted all forms of killing of humans are morally impermissible.

But you have not said how or why, or why you are not including nonhumans

So how can Israelites killing anyone, Hamas, Palestinians and others be morally permissible?

This is not about you chosing a commonly accepted moral and insisting that it is objective. You have to do more than that - you have to do more than claim that it is a majority view.
That's not objectivity it is the rule of the MOB.

You've already said that you think a thing is morally wrong because most people think that, but cannot find a better reason for establishing that killing babies for pleasure is immoral.

Seriously if that is your rubric, then MacDonalds is Haut Cuisine, because so many people eat at MacDonalds.
And "The Donald" is the best US President of all time, because he won the election and said so.
Killing 6 million Jews is okay because the community in the polity which murdered them allowed it to happen.
THat's all ya got?

[Veritas Aequitas]

All you have said so far is that "public knowledge" is evidence that it is.
So you seem to be saying that as long as most people such as the Israeli population agree that killing 4000 children is morally justified, then that makes it okay?

I already insisted all forms of killing of humans are morally impermissible.

But you have not said how or why, or why you are not including nonhumans

This is off topic.
I have explained elsewhere why morality must be confined to only humans, but with human considerations for non-humans, e.g. germs, insects, animals, etc.

Seriously if that is your rubric, then MacDonalds is Haut Cuisine, because so many people eat at MacDonalds.
And "The Donald" is the best US President of all time, because he won the election and said so.
Killing 6 million Jews is okay because the community in the polity which murdered them allowed it to happen.
THat's all ya got?

This is a strawman.
My basis of majority is that of humanity, i.e. the >8 billion people on earth, not within certain groups or community.

So how can Israelites killing anyone, Hamas, Palestinians and others be morally permissible?

This is not about you choosing a commonly accepted moral and insisting that it is objective. You have to do more than that - you have to do more than claim that it is a majority view.
That's not objectivity it is the rule of the MOB.

You've already said that you think a thing is morally wrong because most people think that, but cannot find a better reason for establishing that killing babies for pleasure is immoral.

I have explained what is objective, i.e.

• My principle is:
  What is objective is independent of an individual subject's beliefs and judgment.
  Whatever is conditioned upon a human-based FSK [collective of subjects] is independent of an individual subject's beliefs and judgment.
  Therefore, whatever is conditioned upon a human based FSK is is objective.
  This FSK-based objectivity comes in varying degrees.

As I had stated, scientific facts are objective because they are conditioned within a human-based scientific FSK.
As such, moral facts are objective [of some degrees] because they are conditioned within a human-based morality-proper FSK which is expected to be nearly as objective as the scientific FSK.

From the above,
The "killing babies for pleasure is immoral" as conditioned within a human-based moral FSK is objective.
It is objective because it is not dependent on the a subject or individual opinions, beliefs and judgment.

Note scientific facts do not need a majority to justify an objective scientific fact. A scientific fact is one that comply with conditions of the scientific FSK.

A moral fact is also do not need a majority to justify an objective moral fact, it is objective as long as it complies with the conditions of the moral FSK. In this case, what is objective must be qualified to the specific moral FSK.

I mentioned that the majority of humans will likely [common knowledge] to agree that "the killing of babies for pleasure" is an abhorrence and morally impermissible, is not the critical determinant that it is objective but rather it add to the degrees of objectivity.
It is understood to rely solely to the majority view is subject to the ad populum fallacy.

Surely you understand,
the torture and killing of humans [incl. babies] is intrinsically cruel, malicious, and violate inherent human values, minimizing of harm, the right to life, making them objectively immoral within a human-based moral FSK.

I am not making an unqualified claim, but rather 'the killing of babies is morally impermissible' is an objective moral fact as qualified within a human-based moral FSK.

If you do not agree with the above argument, then you are condoning "the torturing and killing of babies for pleasure" because you do not have a moral compass to guide you that it is intrinsically morally impermissible regardless of anyone's beliefs and judgment.

Other than relying on the criminal laws [not effective at times], you will morally respect those who torture and kill your baby sons and daughters, and future grandchildren and all other babies?

The advantage of an objective moral fact [e.g. the killing of babies of pleasure] is when it is objective [independent of any subject's views], humanity can rely on this objectivity to improve the moral compass of every individuals in the future [not possible now], such that they will not have, feel or driven-by any impulse at all to torture and kill babies for pleasure.
In this case, we do not have to rely solely on in effective criminal laws but rather that individually naturally do not have any evil proneness to kill babies for pleasure.

What say you, baby killer?
I suspect you could either be a condoner or closet baby-killer.

[Sculptor]

All you have said so far is that "public knowledge" is evidence that it is.
So you seem to be saying that as long as most people such as the Israeli population agree that killing 4000 children is morally justified, then that makes it okay?

I already insisted all forms of killing of humans are morally impermissible.

But you have not said how or why, or why you are not including nonhumans

This is off topic.
I have explained elsewhere why morality must be confined to only humans, but with human considerations for non-humans, e.g. germs, insects, animals, etc.

No it is not "off Topic".
WHy humans at all.
You've failed to answer that question.
But the understanding of your thinking here(if there is such a thing), would revealled by why non-human.
Until you have addressed this point you are just typing empty words.

Seriously if that is your rubric, then MacDonalds is Haut Cuisine, because so many people eat at MacDonalds.
And "The Donald" is the best US President of all time, because he won the election and said so.
Killing 6 million Jews is okay because the community in the polity which murdered them allowed it to happen.
THat's all ya got?

This is a strawman.
My basis of majority is that of humanity, i.e. the >8 billion people on earth, not within certain groups or community.

The more you type the more ridiculous you get.

So how can Israelites killing anyone, Hamas, Palestinians and others be morally permissible?

This is not about you choosing a commonly accepted moral and insisting that it is objective. You have to do more than that - you have to do more than claim that it is a majority view.
That's not objectivity it is the rule of the MOB.

You've already said that you think a thing is morally wrong because most people think that, but cannot find a better reason for establishing that killing babies for pleasure is immoral.

I have explained what is objective, i.e.

• My principle is:
  What is objective is independent of an individual subject's beliefs and judgment.
  Whatever is conditioned upon a human-based FSK [collective of subjects] is independent of an individual subject's beliefs and judgment.
  Therefore, whatever is conditioned upon a human based FSK is is objective.
  This FSK-based objectivity comes in varying degrees.

As I had stated, scientific facts are objective because they are conditioned within a human-based scientific FSK.
As such, moral facts are objective [of some degrees] because they are conditioned within a human-based morality-proper FSK which is expected to be nearly as objective as the scientific FSK.

From the above,
The "killing babies for pleasure is immoral" as conditioned within a human-based moral FSK is objective.
It is objective because it is not dependent on the a subject or individual opinions, beliefs and judgment.

Note scientific facts do not need a majority to justify an objective scientific fact. A scientific fact is one that comply with conditions of the scientific FSK.

A moral fact is also do not need a majority to justify an objective moral fact, it is objective as long as it complies with the conditions of the moral FSK. In this case, what is objective must be qualified to the specific moral FSK.

I mentioned that the majority of humans will likely [common knowledge] to agree that "the killing of babies for pleasure" is an abhorrence and morally impermissible, is not the critical determinant that it is objective but rather it add to the degrees of objectivity.
It is understood to rely solely to the majority view is subject to the ad populum fallacy.

Surely you understand,
the torture and killing of humans [incl. babies] is intrinsically cruel, malicious, and violate inherent human values, minimizing of harm, the right to life, making them objectively immoral within a human-based moral FSK.

I am not making an unqualified claim, but rather 'the killing of babies is morally impermissible' is an objective moral fact as qualified within a human-based moral FSK.

If you do not agree with the above argument, then you are condoning "the torturing and killing of babies for pleasure" because you do not have a moral compass to guide you that it is intrinsically morally impermissible regardless of anyone's beliefs and judgment.

Other than relying on the criminal laws [not effective at times], you will morally respect those who torture and kill your baby sons and daughters, and future grandchildren and all other babies?

The advantage of an objective moral fact [e.g. the killing of babies of pleasure] is when it is objective [independent of any subject's views], humanity can rely on this objectivity to improve the moral compass of every individuals in the future [not possible now], such that they will not have, feel or driven-by any impulse at all to torture and kill babies for pleasure.
In this case, we do not have to rely solely on in effective criminal laws but rather that individually naturally do not have any evil proneness to kill babies for pleasure.

What say you, baby killer?
I suspect you could either be a condoner or closet baby-killer.

You are just wasting your time.
You have nothing here.

[Iwannaplato]

The advantage of an objective moral fact [e.g. the killing of babies of pleasure] is when it is objective [independent of any subject's views],

According to your own epistemology it CANNOT be independent of any subject's views or that would be a mind independent thing. A better formulation is that it is not dependent on a single individual's viewpoint (unless that person has enough power to control the views of other people). But here the problem is that baby killing can then be justified by a majority, which of course happens.

What say you, baby killer?
I suspect you could either be a condoner or closet baby-killer.

This is beneath contempt VA. I understand that Sculptor can be insulting, but this is a whole new category of insult.

If someone disagrees about the epistemology of morals or the status of objectivity of morals it does not mean they are pro-baby killing. And only a moron would have missed the types of holocaust caused by claims to objective morals. One doesn't have to conclude that objective morals don't exist because of how the objectivity of morals have been abused. But one could relate to someone who disagrees about them with some kind of minimal humane charitable interpretation, which you seem utterly incapable. Not a good sign for a moral reformer. He could easily hold his position and fight against baby killing. Something that seems utterly beyond the scope of you mind at this point.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The advantage of an objective moral fact [e.g. the killing of babies of pleasure] is when it is objective [independent of any subject's views],

According to your own epistemology it CANNOT be independent of any subject's views or that would be a mind independent thing. A better formulation is that it is not dependent on a single individual's viewpoint (unless that person has enough power to control the views of other people). But here the problem is that baby killing can then be justified by a majority, which of course happens.

Note I wrote above,
"[independent of any subject's views]"
isn't that the same as "it is not dependent on a single individual's viewpoint."
The bolded meant the same thing.

For philosophical realism, objective based on mind-independent means absolutely independent of ALL minds and human conditions.
In my case, objective meant independent of any [a single] individual's viewpoint but not independent of a collective-of-subjects viewpoint intersubjectively within a FSK.

Baby killing is committed by certain groups, Hamas the extreme, those who abandoned unwanted babies, and within primitive tribes [eskimos, old Tibetans, others] where their group cannot support too many people due to restricted resources.
The above is done circumstantially but the inherent universal "oughtness not to kill babies" still prevails in all cases to ensure survival of the tribe thus humanity.
Hamas will not kill babies of their own kind. Resource constraint tribe will only kill enough babies to ensure the tribe survive optimally.
If "oughtness not to kill babies" is not overriding, the human species would not have survived till the present with 8+ billion.

What say you, baby killer?
I suspect you could either be a condoner or closet baby-killer.

This is beneath contempt VA. I understand that Sculptor can be insulting, but this is a whole new category of insult.

If someone disagrees about the epistemology of morals or the status of objectivity of morals it does not mean they are pro-baby killing. And only a moron would have missed the types of holocaust caused by claims to objective morals. One doesn't have to conclude that objective morals don't exist because of how the objectivity of morals have been abused. But one could relate to someone who disagrees about them with some kind of minimal humane charitable interpretation, which you seem utterly incapable. Not a good sign for a moral reformer. He could easily hold his position and fight against baby killing. Something that seems utterly beyond the scope of you mind at this point.

With Sculptor, the shock therapy is necessary to get the point into his thick skull.
Sculptor's view is that of moral relativism, i.e. 'to each their own' and I stated "I SUSPECT" which is a possibility; I did not assert with certainty that he is and will be a baby-killer.