Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides

[Iwannaplato]

Oh, interesting. Thanks for letting me know. It seems that I missed a lot of things by not being involved in ethical theory.

I corrected some of my weak and confusing writing in that post and added some new points, or at least rewordings to make it clearer.

Going further back than that, there was also his long teleological period in which all of this was underpinned by fate as determined by the brain and DNA/RNA and his 'confidence' that in ten thousand years all 'evil' would have been magicked away by this journey towards goodness that he can see in the entrails or something. I have difficulty remembering the specifics, it's weird to have to put up with such a religious argument from an atheist.

An awful lot of his stuff over the years has depended upon his personal 'confidence'.

It's been my contention that his meta-fsk is his cofidence/intuition/sense of what's true.. He gives numbers to the accuracy of different FSKs, including science which is the best FSK. But clearly it isn't the best FSK is another FSK can estimate how accurate science is. And we know that it isn't science itself evaluating the accuracy of science, since he has actually laid out the criteria of his meta-FSK and it's not science.

So, sure personal confidence, his, should at least be a synonym for the meta-fsk.

On the other hand if intersubjectivity is objectivity (which he has stated) and very few people believe what he believes, then it cannot, by his definition be objective. He cannot be being objective when he puts forward minority opinions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, if morality was universal among children then 100% of them should choose the good guy versus the bad guy. What they found is that only a fraction of children do that. The same for justice and punishment. Children are found to be racist and selfish none of these are moral.

Again you missed my point.
You should relax and suspend judgment a bit.

What you are saying above is like,
if hunger and the digestive system are universal [a fact that it is universal] then 100% should eat the same food and the same manner.
if the sexual drive is universal [a fact that it is universal], then why do we have so many sexual derivations, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual and the likes.

There is something wrong with your thinking in this case.

No, there is nothing wrong in my thinking. We were discussing that morality is universal. You provided the link to the video. As I discuss the content of the video clearly shows that morality is not universal at least when it comes to children. What is left is education. In the same video, there is a discussion about education and its impact on our behavior. So, no morality is not universal when it comes to our genetic makeup.

In addition, you totally ignored the points I posted above where they agree moral elements are innate.

Moral behavior is partly innate and partly depends on education.

What I have argued is all humans has innate potential for morality and at the same time the innate propensity for evil. Both should not be conflated.

Therefore, morality is not universal.

That is a fallacious thinking.
You cannot conflate 'morality' with 'evil'.
They are represented by separate functions in the brain.

All humans are embedded with primal functions like the 4Fs, Fight, Flight, Food, Fuck, "kill or be killed", "us versus them" and all these has a net positive effect to the resultant survival of the individual[s] therefrom the human species.
With self-consciousness and awareness, ego, etc. [evolved for good reasons] the above 4Fs and the other primal functions can also be turned [deficiency in impulse control] against the individual[s] and humanity, this is where evil arise.

To ensure the above evil potentials [primal] do not manifest to the extreme, humans are evolved with the later function of morality, just like intelligence, reason and wisdom, in separate parts of the brain whilst interconnected to other parts.
The function of morality [in its own parts] is to manage and modulated the primal impulses so that they are misdirected to be evil.

It is only natural for various reasons that the primal impulses 4Fs etc. are misdirected to evil acts BUT in normal cases they are inhibited [by the moral function] as evidenced by your point below.

As such, the inevitable existence of evil [in its own part of the brain] do not obviate the existence of the separate universal function of morality in the brain.
In this case, morality are related to the specific function of morality in the brain which is universal in all humans with different degrees of efficiency, damage or dormancy.

Get it??
You need to update yourself with evolutionary psychology and neuroscience.

For example, there are many a times in many humans where they have an impulse to commit evil acts, but then their moral conscience is activated and inhibited them to carry out the evil act. It is reasonable to speculate you personally would have such a experience.

Yes, I sometimes have the impulse to harm people.

But many a times you did not follow up with those evil impulses.
Why? Did you learn anything from such experiences??
It is because you have a universal moral function [existing in all humans] that inhibited those impulses.
Therefore the universal moral function in ALL humans denotes morality in this sense is universal, so it is objective [independent of an individual subject's view].

Your views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

I corrected some of my weak and confusing writing in that post and added some new points, or at least rewordings to make it clearer.

Going further back than that, there was also his long teleological period in which all of this was underpinned by fate as determined by the brain and DNA/RNA and his 'confidence' that in ten thousand years all 'evil' would have been magicked away by this journey towards goodness that he can see in the entrails or something. I have difficulty remembering the specifics, it's weird to have to put up with such a religious argument from an atheist.

An awful lot of his stuff over the years has depended upon his personal 'confidence'.

It's been my contention that his meta-fsk is his cofidence/intuition/sense of what's true.. He gives numbers to the accuracy of different FSKs, including science which is the best FSK. But clearly it isn't the best FSK is another FSK can estimate how accurate science is. And we know that it isn't science itself evaluating the accuracy of science, since he has actually laid out the criteria of his meta-FSK and it's not science.

So, sure personal confidence, his, should at least be a synonym for the meta-fsk.

On the other hand if intersubjectivity is objectivity (which he has stated) and very few people believe what he believes, then it cannot, by his definition be objective. He cannot be being objective when he puts forward minority opinions.

Signs of ignorance again.

The majority of people on Earth [theists being numerous and the majority] believe a God created the universe with his omnipotent power.

The theory of evolution and many other currently accepted scientific theories objected by theists are believed by a minority of people on Earth.

According to you, since only a minority believes in these scientific facts [objected by theists], then they are not objective??

Scientific theories accepted by a minority at present are objective.
But which rational person would deny currently accepted scientific theories are objectives.

I am very confident of the credibility and objectivity of the scientific FSRK, I am not relying my personal views.
Whatever views I expressed, they are grounded on scientific facts and inputs plus rational & critical thinking, thus has near credibility and objectivity to the scientific FSRK as the standard.

It is pathetic that you [& many others here] are so infected with ignorance on the subject matters discussed here.
Suggest you expand your knowledge base and vista.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wow, is he such a hard challenge!? I would certainly consider your help on this task.

Alas, VA is the self-constricting snake that strangles its own arse. Through iron will and dedication to the first idea he ever had and then equally iron dedication to every half baked add on he ever used to support it, VA is now irretrievably locked into self contradiction. If was smarter he would look at the mess he's made and realise he needed to find what was his actual first principle and hten work everything out from there avoiding the mistakes that previously took himm in crazy directions. But he can't do that. Every part of his nonsense seems obvious and right to him, and he lacks the imagination to even wonder if he's made serious mistakes.

He does believe he has made countless tiny adjustments over the years to accomodate new information better, but it wouldn't occur to him that a major error in the first steps of his theorising has taken him on a wild ride. Sadly this means that if you point him to a large problem in his argument (and there are many of these) he believes that some very small change he already made covers it. And because of the issue he has with things that seem obvious to him .... he can't long tolerate it not being obvious to you.

You are on a countdown now, soon you must accept his egregiously stupid theory that says it is objectively true that the Earth orbits the Sun only because more than half of all poeople agree it is. You must renounce the notion that what makes it objectively true is the actual fact that it happens and that this is best checked by looking at the objects ratgher than by analyzing the contents of people's beliefs. If you don't accept that definition soon, you will become a gnat, one of the army of inferiors that just cannot understand how amazing VA is, and how awesome his proofs of things are.

He will have a theory about why you don't believe (in) him, it won't be very sensible. It will be something long-winded about how you are betrayed by your inner needs, how you can't understand VA's grand wisdom because you have a cognitive dissonance that you inherited from your mother's side of the ape species.

He doesn't think there are or could be any good reasons to disagree with him. That's why he posts threads that say dumb shit like Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides.

Ok, I see. I take your word of wisdom and see what I can do with him.

Words of wisdom?? rather they are words of lies from a bitching ignoramus.

I have never accepted nor propounded this lie;

"it is objectively true that the Earth orbits the Sun only because more than half of all people agree it is"

My main principle is this;
What is fact, truths, reality, existence, knowledge, objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective at present.

There is no way a rational person will deny the above.
Would you, if so, why?

Thus "it is objectively true that the Earth orbits the Sun" because the science-FSRK said so [not the majority said so] and that is supported by a handful of scientific peers from the cosmology community.

see what I can do with him

I post in forum for my own selfish reasons to refresh and discuss what I have learned, and not to convince others of my views.
'Know Thyself' first before [especially what is going inside your brain] you think of 'what you can do with others'.
On that basis, I suggest you expand your knowledge base and vista 10x from your current state of knowledge of reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Correct. Let's see if he defines objective.

I had already given a lot of attention to 'what is objectivity'
here are some of the >10 threads I have raised re Objectivity.

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

The Two Faces of Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=41214

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286 Jan 13, 2023

What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

You don't expect me to go through five threads and discussion within to see what is your definition of universality? Could you please define the universality in a couple of sentences?

If you are doing serious philosophy [a requirement] you need to be very rigorous with a topic.

Read this:
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

My definition of what is objectivity therein is this;

What is objectivity [also fact, truth, reality, existence, knowledge,] is conditioned upon a human based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.

There is no way one can insist what is objective without reference to some kind of Framework & System of Realization and Knowledge.
A fact cannot be a standalone fact without any qualification to a specific FSRK.

To do serious philosophy we have to qualify and make clear which FSRK a claimed fact is conditioned upon.
E.g. that 'water is H20' cannot stand alone or because some mother, father or X said so;
the implied FSK must be clearly stated, i.e.
'water if H20' is a fact because the science-chemistry FSRK said so, no other FSRK can make such a claim exclusively.

It is same with any other factual claim, they all must have an underlying FSRK that conditioned the fact.

Your views??

Your definition of 'objectivity' is based on reason is too shallow.

It is not. Our behavior is either based on reason, emotion, bias,... It is only through reason that we can have a universal agreement in moral instances otherwise we would be scattered when it comes into moral instances if morality is considered to be based on emotion, bias,... therefore morality is not universal in this case.

I am not arguing on whether morality should be based on reason or emotions.

What I am claiming for morality to be objective it must be conditioned upon a very credible and objective Morality-proper FSRK that is as near to the scientific FSRK as the standard.

In this case, all [>90%] the input into my Morality-proper FSRK should be justified and verified by the scientific FSK, i.e. a scientific-grounded morality-proper-FSRK.

[nemos]

Understanding morals, as well as understanding anything else, is of course clearly subjective. However, this study is rooted in objective factors, in the relationships of natural laws. And the extent to which our actions, which are determined by subjective understanding, will correspond to these natural laws, as a result, determine our chances of survival.
And survival, both individually and in society as a whole, is also the main criterion for compliance with objectivity - including moral compliance, which also determines our actions.

It seems to me that such a mutual attitude as respect (well, or the lack of it) largely determines the nature and necessity of morality. To generalize strongly, respect as an attitude towards the environment exists not only between thinking existences, because the lack of respect always leads to conflicts and destruction, but only that which survives exists. Therefore, "respect" exists in a certain form in non-living nature, as compliance with laws, even in a much more absolute form than among humans, since non-living nature has no such choice to follow or not follow these laws.

Therefore, I believe that morality is rooted in compliance with the laws of nature. To a large extent, this correspondence is told to us by our subconscious (perhaps the consciousness of the heart), well if someone likes to listen to it. But what we call morality is the result of the subjective understanding of these laws (right or wrong). Therefore, it is necessary to increase the understanding of the regularities of nature (objectivity) in order to have a material for a greater correspondence of the understanding of objectivity and therefore also for a greater correspondence of "morality" as a form of mutual relations and behavior.

[FlashDangerpants]

Alas, VA is the self-constricting snake that strangles its own arse. Through iron will and dedication to the first idea he ever had and then equally iron dedication to every half baked add on he ever used to support it, VA is now irretrievably locked into self contradiction. If was smarter he would look at the mess he's made and realise he needed to find what was his actual first principle and hten work everything out from there avoiding the mistakes that previously took himm in crazy directions. But he can't do that. Every part of his nonsense seems obvious and right to him, and he lacks the imagination to even wonder if he's made serious mistakes.

He does believe he has made countless tiny adjustments over the years to accomodate new information better, but it wouldn't occur to him that a major error in the first steps of his theorising has taken him on a wild ride. Sadly this means that if you point him to a large problem in his argument (and there are many of these) he believes that some very small change he already made covers it. And because of the issue he has with things that seem obvious to him .... he can't long tolerate it not being obvious to you.

You are on a countdown now, soon you must accept his egregiously stupid theory that says it is objectively true that the Earth orbits the Sun only because more than half of all poeople agree it is. You must renounce the notion that what makes it objectively true is the actual fact that it happens and that this is best checked by looking at the objects ratgher than by analyzing the contents of people's beliefs. If you don't accept that definition soon, you will become a gnat, one of the army of inferiors that just cannot understand how amazing VA is, and how awesome his proofs of things are.

He will have a theory about why you don't believe (in) him, it won't be very sensible. It will be something long-winded about how you are betrayed by your inner needs, how you can't understand VA's grand wisdom because you have a cognitive dissonance that you inherited from your mother's side of the ape species.

He doesn't think there are or could be any good reasons to disagree with him. That's why he posts threads that say dumb shit like Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides.

Ok, I see. I take your word of wisdom and see what I can do with him.

Words of wisdom?? rather they are words of lies from a bitching ignoramus.

I have never accepted nor propounded this lie;

"it is objectively true that the Earth orbits the Sun only because more than half of all people agree it is"

It is completely in line with your description of objectivity and truth.

My main principle is this;
What is fact, truths, reality, existence, knowledge, objective is conditioned upon a human-based FSRK of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective at present.

There is no way a rational person will deny the above.
Would you, if so, why?

Here you are doing what I told Bahman you would do, which the assumtion that it makes sense to sort all the possible ways of answering all the possible questions (see my refernce to apples and oranges for why that makes no sense) and just assuming that anything that feels obvious to you must be obvious to everyone.

The thing you say no rational person would deny is actually something that no sane person would assert.

Thus "it is objectively true that the Earth orbits the Sun" because the science-FSRK said so [not the majority said so] and that is supported by a handful of scientific peers from the cosmology community.

Oh you haven't tried to weight the thing statistically using experts for a long time. Why are you bringing that mistake back again?

But yeah, any sane person would say that the reason why it is true that the Earth orbits the Sun isn't that men with beards say it is true, it is because the Earth is an object and the Sun is an object and the properties of one of those objects are such that it is in orbit around the other. Objective properties work that way round and your ten thousand forum threads won't change any of that.

see what I can do with him

I post in forum for my own selfish reasons to refresh and discuss what I have learned, and not to convince others of my views.
'Know Thyself' first before [especially what is going inside your brain] you think of 'what you can do with others'.
On that basis, I suggest you expand your knowledge base and vista 10x from your current state of knowledge of reality.

That's really sort of sad.

[Iwannaplato]

I post in forum for my own selfish reasons to refresh and discuss what I have learned, and not to convince others of my views.

Of course you get to choose how and why you participate. But then, your posts are presented as arguments, with assertions and support. Your responses are presented as rebuttals to points made by others.

So, your intention and the mode of communication are two different things. You may not care about trying to convince people, but then it's odd the way your format your posts and responses.

I have never accepted nor propounded this lie;

"it is objectively true that the Earth orbits the Sun only because more than half of all people agree it is"

You still don't understand the difference between when people attribute a specific quote or belief to you OR when people point out what is entailed by your positions and/or arguments.

Where does objectivity is intersubjectivity; all FSKs are objective (to varying degrees) and a number of other positions lead to.

That is the question.

[bahman]

Again you missed my point.
You should relax and suspend judgment a bit.

What you are saying above is like,
if hunger and the digestive system are universal [a fact that it is universal] then 100% should eat the same food and the same manner.
if the sexual drive is universal [a fact that it is universal], then why do we have so many sexual derivations, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual and the likes.

There is something wrong with your thinking in this case.

No, there is nothing wrong in my thinking. We were discussing that morality is universal. You provided the link to the video. As I discuss the content of the video clearly shows that morality is not universal at least when it comes to children. What is left is education. In the same video, there is a discussion about education and its impact on our behavior. So, no morality is not universal when it comes to our genetic makeup.

In addition, you totally ignored the points I posted above where they agree moral elements are innate.

Moral behavior is partly innate and partly depends on education.

What I have argued is all humans has innate potential for morality and at the same time the innate propensity for evil. Both should not be conflated.

Therefore, morality is not universal.

That is a fallacious thinking.
You cannot conflate 'morality' with 'evil'.

No, I am not conflating morality with evil. My point is that morality is not universal when it comes to our genetic makeup.

They are represented by separate functions in the brain.

All humans are embedded with primal functions like the 4Fs, Fight, Flight, Food, Fuck, "kill or be killed", "us versus them" and all these has a net positive effect to the resultant survival of the individual[s] therefrom the human species.
With self-consciousness and awareness, ego, etc. [evolved for good reasons] the above 4Fs and the other primal functions can also be turned [deficiency in impulse control] against the individual[s] and humanity, this is where evil arise.

To ensure the above evil potentials [primal] do not manifest to the extreme, humans are evolved with the later function of morality, just like intelligence, reason and wisdom, in separate parts of the brain whilst interconnected to other parts.
The function of morality [in its own parts] is to manage and modulated the primal impulses so that they are misdirected to be evil.

But as the video clearly shows there is no universal moral function. Could we agree with that?

It is only natural for various reasons that the primal impulses 4Fs etc. are misdirected to evil acts BUT in normal cases they are inhibited [by the moral function] as evidenced by your point below.

As such, the inevitable existence of evil [in its own part of the brain] do not obviate the existence of the separate universal function of morality in the brain.

I didn't say so.

In this case, morality are related to the specific function of morality in the brain which is universal in all humans with different degrees of efficiency, damage or dormancy.

Get it??
You need to update yourself with evolutionary psychology and neuroscience.

No, morality is not universal. How many times do I have to say that? It is clearly explained in the video you shared.

For example, there are many a times in many humans where they have an impulse to commit evil acts, but then their moral conscience is activated and inhibited them to carry out the evil act. It is reasonable to speculate you personally would have such a experience.

Yes, I sometimes have the impulse to harm people.

But many a times you did not follow up with those evil impulses.
Why? Did you learn anything from such experiences??
It is because you have a universal moral function [existing in all humans] that inhibited those impulses.
Therefore the universal moral function in ALL humans denotes morality in this sense is universal, so it is objective [independent of an individual subject's view].

Your views??

I am just afraid of being arrested! So it is education rather than a universal moral function.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, morality is not universal. How many times do I have to say that? It is clearly explained in the video you shared.
But as the video clearly shows there is no universal moral function. Could we agree with that?

How can I agree, when the video indicated there are universal moral function within all humans.

I presented the following from the video which you have ignored;

2:11 her laughed out of her field-- does wesley here, at 2:15 the ripe old age of five months, know the difference 2:18 between right and wrong?
Stahl: He can't answer, but he can reach.
That 3:05 one?
Stahl: Wesley chose the good guy, and he wasn't 3:09 alone.
That one! Stahl: More than three quarters of the 3:12 babies tested reached for the nice puppet.

Stahl: 3:52 So basically, as young as three months old, we human 3:56 beings show a preference for nice people over mean people.
5:23 So, do you think that babies, therefore, are born with an innate sense of justice?
5:27 Wynn: At a very elemental level, I think so.

5:30 Paul Bloom: We think we see here the foundations for morality.[

Stahl: And he says discovering this in babies who 6:02 can't walk, talk or even crawl yet suggests it has 6:06 to come built in.
6:17-23 Bloom: What we're finding in the baby lab is that there's 6:20 more to it than that, that there's a universal moral core that all humans share.

6:26:29 The seeds of our understanding of justice, our understanding of right and wrong, are part of our biological nature.

9:19 We have an initial moral sense that is, in some ways, very impressive

Don't keep saying this,
"How many times do I have to say that? It is clearly explained in the video you shared."

In what ways that you do not understand the above statements I highlighted indicated the function of morality is not innate all humans?

Here is a conclusion of a systematic review of available research done on the topic: is a moral function or sense innate and universal in all humans?

Therefore, moral sense is found to be naturally occurring; it can further be developed through exposure to constructive and interactive environments and social relationships.
In conclusion, the questions of this systematic review have been answered.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 87537/full

[Iwannaplato]

Get it??
You need to update yourself with evolutionary psychology and neuroscience.

Instead of linking to the relevant neuroscience and pointing out the part that supports VA's position....instead of making some kind of argument himself, he gives this kind of nebulous insult/ad hom. Does bahman look bad when he does this? Nope.

[bahman]

No, morality is not universal. How many times do I have to say that? It is clearly explained in the video you shared.
But as the video clearly shows there is no universal moral function. Could we agree with that?

How can I agree, when the video indicated there are universal moral function within all humans.

I presented the following from the video which you have ignored;

2:11 her laughed out of her field-- does wesley here, at 2:15 the ripe old age of five months, know the difference 2:18 between right and wrong?
Stahl: He can't answer, but he can reach.
That 3:05 one?
Stahl: Wesley chose the good guy, and he wasn't 3:09 alone.
That one! Stahl: More than three quarters of the 3:12 babies tested reached for the nice puppet.

Stahl: 3:52 So basically, as young as three months old, we human 3:56 beings show a preference for nice people over mean people.
5:23 So, do you think that babies, therefore, are born with an innate sense of justice?
5:27 Wynn: At a very elemental level, I think so.

5:30 Paul Bloom: We think we see here the foundations for morality.[

Stahl: And he says discovering this in babies who 6:02 can't walk, talk or even crawl yet suggests it has 6:06 to come built in.
6:17-23 Bloom: What we're finding in the baby lab is that there's 6:20 more to it than that, that there's a universal moral core that all humans share.

6:26:29 The seeds of our understanding of justice, our understanding of right and wrong, are part of our biological nature.

9:19 We have an initial moral sense that is, in some ways, very impressive

Don't keep saying this,
"How many times do I have to say that? It is clearly explained in the video you shared."

In what ways that you do not understand the above statements I highlighted indicated the function of morality is not innate all humans?

Here is a conclusion of a systematic review of available research done on the topic: is a moral function or sense innate and universal in all humans?

Therefore, moral sense is found to be naturally occurring; it can further be developed through exposure to constructive and interactive environments and social relationships.
In conclusion, the questions of this systematic review have been answered.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 87537/full

It does not matter what he says. He also mentioned that to him morality is universal while only a fraction of children show moral behavior!

[Sculptor]

Get it??
You need to update yourself with evolutionary psychology and neuroscience.

Instead of linking to the relevant neuroscience and pointing out the part that supports VA's position....instead of making some kind of argument himself, he gives this kind of nebulous insult/ad hom. Does bahman look bad when he does this? Nope.

His argument is as effective as saying meat is universal.
Yes we are all made of meat. But DUH. That does not mean you get to impose your morality on others and pretend it is objective.

[Iwannaplato]

Get it??
You need to update yourself with evolutionary psychology and neuroscience.

Instead of linking to the relevant neuroscience and pointing out the part that supports VA's position....instead of making some kind of argument himself, he gives this kind of nebulous insult/ad hom. Does bahman look bad when he does this? Nope.

His argument is as effective as saying meat is universal.
Yes we are all made of meat. But DUH. That does not mean you get to impose your morality on others and pretend it is objective.

Sure. I mean, he does mount arguments, merits lacking or not. But I was focused on the non-argument. I don't think he realizes that every time tells people to read more in some field, these kind of implict generalized ad homs, he actually looks silly to people. I don't think he knows that. I think he thinks this is some kind effective put down, or even worse, an acceptable form of kind advice.

I think he has no idea how this comes across, that rather than him looking good or the other person looking bad, he looks silly.

[Skepdick]

That does not mean you get to impose your morality on others and pretend it is objective.

Would gravity still be objective if it wasn't imposed on you?