Adv of Moral Objectivity over Others

[Veritas Aequitas]

The advantages Moral Objectivity has over moral subjectivity [relativity] moral skepticism, moral nihilism are as follows;

Note:
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. The human-based-FSRC sense of objectivity
2. The absolute independence [mind] sense of objectivity.

• PH insist morality is not objective based on 2, i.e. all facts [objective] are independent regardless of humans; moral elements are based on opinions, beliefs, feelings and judgment' therefore morality cannot be objective.

I don't agree with moral objectivity from the theological FSRC which is based on immutable commands for an illusory God.

In my case, Moral Objectivity is based on the human-based-FSRC sense of objectivity [1] that is dynamic.

The critical advantage FSRC-ed Moral Objectivity over others is the recognition of moral facts and the moral functions inherent within the human neural system, which will facilitates humanity to expedite moral intelligence & progress [average moral quotient] in the future.

From AI [wR];

Moral objectivity based on a human-based framework and system (FS) offers several advantages over moral relativism, skepticism, and nihilism. Here are some additional benefits to consider:

1. Shared moral ground: Moral objectivity (FS) allows for a foundation of common morality. Even with cultural variations within the FS, there would be core principles everyone could agree on (e.g., minimizing suffering). This fosters communication, cooperation, and the resolution of moral conflicts.

2. Accountability and Justice: An FS-based system allows for holding individuals and societies accountable for their actions. Universal moral principles establish a framework for judging right and wrong, promoting justice and deterring wrongdoing.

3. Motivation and Inspiration: Knowing there are objective moral truths can be a powerful motivator. It gives purpose and direction to actions beyond personal gain, inspiring people to strive for the betterment of themselves and society.

4. Openness to Revision and Improvement: While the FS provides a foundation, it doesn't have to be static. As societies evolve and gain new knowledge, the FS can adapt through open discourse and critical examination. This fosters progress in moral understanding.

5. Combating Moral Nihilism and Skepticism: FS-based objectivity counters the apathy and despair of nihilism and skepticism. It provides a framework for making moral judgments and taking action to improve the world.

Comparison with other views:
• Moral Relativism: FS avoids the pitfalls of relativism, where actions can be right or wrong depending on the culture, leading to potential moral inconsistency and difficulty in addressing universal issues like human rights.
• Moral Skepticism: FS offers a path out of skepticism by proposing a framework within which moral knowledge can be ascertained and justified.
• Moral Nihilism: FS provides meaning and purpose in contrast to [moral] nihilism, where [...] morality is seen as meaningless.

From WIKI;

Moral realism allows the ordinary rules of logic (modus ponens, etc.) to be applied straightforwardly to moral statements. We can say that a moral belief is false or unjustified or contradictory in the same way we would about a factual belief. This is a problem for expressivism, as shown by the Frege–Geach problem.

Another advantage of moral realism is its capacity to resolve moral disagreements: if two moral beliefs contradict one another, realism says that they cannot both be right, and therefore everyone involved ought to be seeking out the right answer to resolve the disagreement. Contrary theories of meta-ethics have trouble even formulating the statement "this moral belief is wrong," and so they cannot resolve disagreements in this way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism#Advantages

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is an example [re incest], why Moral Objectivity has the advantage over other moral views.

I once knew a mill owner whose children has born an incestuous child together. Their wood mill was some 10 miles from the nearest small town and his family had very few opportunities to meet members of the opposite sex, and being very close the children had a child together. ALl members of the family were ery healthy and intelligent people. A cut above the rest and were hinest and stright in their business dealings. Thought they experienced some bigotry, the child was bonny and healthy and smart.

This is more common that we know, since the prejudice means that such children are kept secret. The bond is most commonly between father and daughter, and can be abusive in nature. But genetic problems do not occur.

It is not because of the incest that problems occur but the simple fact that were a recessive gene is in place this inevitably leads to the expression fo the trait phenotypically. And is more likely in close relatives.
...

As stated, the inbreeding avoidance instinct is an evolutionary default, i.e. evolved over time.
Nature is such that whatever the basic evolved algorithm, there is no provision for exception in itself. Take for example, inbreeding in certain higher animals where the males are kicked out of the group upon reaching adulthood. There are no exceptions in such cases.

In small groups of humans there is a very likelihood for incest and in a way for the better to increase the population. It is not for certain that incest is 100% detrimental but if continued for a long time, then it can be detrimental to the group and the human species. But once the population [humans and higher animals] got larger the incest breeding avoidance get more evolved and will deter incestuous relationships with a more active inhibiting system.

The inhibition is part of another system from the higher executive brain. Together with other relevant systems they form the Moral and Ethics System.

You gave an example of an isolated family. In such a situation, incest is likely to happen as what had happened during the primitive times of the human species.
This is because the sexual drive is in general much stronger that the incest inhibitors, so incest is very likely to happen.

What is most is evil is where there in institutionalized incest, i.e. first cousin marriages in certain societies and religion, within royal families to control power, etc.

The point here is, even though when incest happens [sometimes necessary and for the better] the fact is there is a moral system within all humans that is driven by an algorithm that is supported by physical neural correlates in the brain. Biologically this is scientific and objective scientifically.
When this scientific fact is inputted in to the moral and ethical system [FSERC] it is an objective moral fact. So, Morality is Objective.

It is armed with an objective moral fact that 'Morality is Objective' as supported by scientific facts that we can enable moral progress.

With the above objective moral fact humanity can then have a basis to prevent the negatives of incest.
As such, all those living in small groups should be educated on the dangers of incest.
I believe the present royal families are well aware, thus they do not marry their first cousins.
All first cousins marriage should be banned.

What is most important with morality and ethics [independent of politics] is human will have to strive to develop and make the objective moral/ethics inhibitors stronger in all humans, so that they will be spontaneous [no need for threats and coercion by laws] in avoiding incest.

This is the point why 'Morality is Objective' is so critical which will enable moral progress.

On the other hand, with moral relativists like you, you have to tolerate incest if it is part of a culture or institution. It is the same with moral skeptics and moral nihilists who are indifferent to morality.

[Sculptor]

Here is an example [re incest], why Moral Objectivity has the advantage over other moral views.

I once knew a mill owner whose children has born an incestuous child together. Their wood mill was some 10 miles from the nearest small town and his family had very few opportunities to meet members of the opposite sex, and being very close the children had a child together. ALl members of the family were ery healthy and intelligent people. A cut above the rest and were hinest and stright in their business dealings. Thought they experienced some bigotry, the child was bonny and healthy and smart.

This is more common that we know, since the prejudice means that such children are kept secret. The bond is most commonly between father and daughter, and can be abusive in nature. But genetic problems do not occur.

It is not because of the incest that problems occur but the simple fact that were a recessive gene is in place this inevitably leads to the expression fo the trait phenotypically. And is more likely in close relatives.
...

As stated, the inbreeding avoidance instinct is an evolutionary default, i.e. evolved over time.

False. No such things exists. There is no mechanism in animals that allow them to discriminate and coitus between siblings is common.
In populations which have a harem system such as many herd animals and gorillas coitus between father and daughter is guarenteed.
No harm results from this.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is an example [re incest], why Moral Objectivity has the advantage over other moral views.

I once knew a mill owner whose children has born an incestuous child together. Their wood mill was some 10 miles from the nearest small town and his family had very few opportunities to meet members of the opposite sex, and being very close the children had a child together. ALl members of the family were ery healthy and intelligent people. A cut above the rest and were hinest and stright in their business dealings. Thought they experienced some bigotry, the child was bonny and healthy and smart.

This is more common that we know, since the prejudice means that such children are kept secret. The bond is most commonly between father and daughter, and can be abusive in nature. But genetic problems do not occur.

It is not because of the incest that problems occur but the simple fact that were a recessive gene is in place this inevitably leads to the expression fo the trait phenotypically. And is more likely in close relatives.
...

As stated, the inbreeding avoidance instinct is an evolutionary default, i.e. evolved over time.

False. No such things exists. There is no mechanism in animals that allow them to discriminate and coitus between siblings is common.
In populations which have a harem system such as many herd animals and gorillas coitus between father and daughter is guarenteed.
No harm results from this.

I had stated the inbreeding avoidance mechanism evolved over time and species so, that includes its efficiency which effectiveness improve over time and species.
Thus, the inbreeding avoidance mechanism do exists in certain more evolved and more stronger in the latest evolved, i.e. primates and humans.

You are not well informed about gorillas. Read this;

• However, how do other, less sophisticated, social animals cope with the problem? One such species, the mountain gorilla, seems to have adopted a strategy very similar to our own, according to research just published.
  https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/c ... 35110.html

My point;
The inbreeding avoidance is a scientific objective fact based on evolutionary biology and psychology via the scientific FSERC.
When inputted into the morality-proper FSERC, this is an objective moral fact such support Morality is objective.
The inbreeding avoidance mechanism [objective fact] is still evolving, thus there will be non-compliances within higher animals and humans.

To expedite the effectiveness of the inbreeding avoidance mechanism [neural algorithm] we need to recognize its objective existence within a moral framework and system to increase its moral competence.
The moral framework and system denotes objectivity, thus morality is objective.

You and your like as a moral relativists or moral skeptics like FDP are indifferent to deliberately expedite the moral progress, in this case, re the inbreeding avoidance to prevent incest and its negative consequences.

[Sculptor]

Here is an example [re incest], why Moral Objectivity has the advantage over other moral views.


As stated, the inbreeding avoidance instinct is an evolutionary default, i.e. evolved over time.

False. No such things exists. There is no mechanism in animals that allow them to discriminate and coitus between siblings is common.
In populations which have a harem system such as many herd animals and gorillas coitus between father and daughter is guarenteed.
No harm results from this.

I had stated the inbreeding avoidance mechanism evolved over time and species so, that includes its efficiency which effectiveness improve over time and species.

It's all in your imagination. No such mechanism exists and there is no mechanism in nature that would "improve" it, because incest results in viable progeny pretty much all the time. It's almost as if you do not understand evolutionary theory. No surprises there. You basic ignorance is legendary

Our nearest relatives the Benobo have almost no barriers to coitus. THey happily fuck any and all members of the family and in any event their clades are so small that even if they had such a "mechanism" (the very idea is bonkers), then ehy could nver avoid it.
In truth the strenth of their genome is based on what we would like to call incest.
Fathers have sex with their children, children with each other, aunts with nephews; nieces with uncles. Their sex is female to male and female to female and male to male.
And they are at it like hammer and tong.


No such mechanism exists and there is no mechanism in nature that would "improve" it, because incest results in viable progeny pretty much all the time. It's almost as if you do not understand evolutionary theory. No surprises there. You basic ignorance is legendary

VA on the Prowl

Ben looking for his sister.jpg (17.36 KiB) Viewed 57 times

[Veritas Aequitas]

False. No such things exists. There is no mechanism in animals that allow them to discriminate and coitus between siblings is common.
In populations which have a harem system such as many herd animals and gorillas coitus between father and daughter is guarenteed.
No harm results from this.

I had stated the inbreeding avoidance mechanism evolved over time and species so, that includes its efficiency which effectiveness improve over time and species.

It's all in your imagination. No such mechanism exists and there is no mechanism in nature that would "improve" it, because incest results in viable progeny pretty much all the time. It's almost as if you do not understand evolutionary theory. No surprises there. You basic ignorance is legendary

Our nearest relatives the Benobo have almost no barriers to coitus. THey happily fuck any and all members of the family and in any event their clades are so small that even if they had such a "mechanism" (the very idea is bonkers), then ehy could nver avoid it.
In truth the strenth of their genome is based on what we would like to call incest.
Fathers have sex with their children, children with each other, aunts with nephews; nieces with uncles. Their sex is female to male and female to female and male to male.
And they are at it like hammer and tong.


No such mechanism exists and there is no mechanism in nature that would "improve" it, because incest results in viable progeny pretty much all the time. It's almost as if you do not understand evolutionary theory. No surprises there. You basic ignorance is legendary

Ben looking for his sister.jpg

You are so ignorant.
I have given you a link related to

Inbreeding Avoidance,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance#
The inbreeding avoidance hypothesis posits that certain mechanisms develop within a species, or within a given population of a species, as a result of assortative mating and natural and sexual selection, in order to prevent breeding among related individuals.

The Content therein and read the full article;

Mechanisms
Kin recognition
Human kin recognition
Post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance in mice
Inbreeding avoidance in plants
Dispersal
Sex-biased dispersal
Female dispersal
Male dispersal
Delayed maturation
Extra-pair copulations
Gaps
References

Don't insult your own intelligence in deny the inherent inbreeding avoidance mechanism which is more stronger in human.
Even plants and mice has some sort of inbreeding avoidance mechanism.

There loads of papers on the inherent inbreeding avoidance mechanism in the internet.

Our nearest relatives the Bonobo have almost no barriers to coitus. THey happily fuck any and all members of the family and in any event their clades are so small that even if they had such a "mechanism" (the very idea is bonkers), then why could never avoid it.

As I had stated the inherent inbreeding avoidance mechanism is evolving within the species and in time.

Again you are ignorant with bonobos.
Note the inbreeding avoidance mechanisms being activated in the bonobos, albeit in the weaker mode in contrast to humans.

Bonobos engage in sex in virtually every partner combination (although such contact among close family members may be suppressed).
...
In both bonobos and chimpanzees, males stay in their natal group, whereas females tend to migrate during adolescence.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... y-2006-06/

How come I have to keep educating you all the time?