Incest Deterrence & Morality is Objectivity

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you have reference to support humans-in-general has been using 'incest' as a tool for something positive or progress?

Example already given of European Royal families. Also Pharoahs of Egypt, and anthropologically look up endogamy.

But in animal breeding the examples are legion.

My point was with reference to the modern era in relation to humans-in-general who has the full knowledge of the negative consequences of inbreeding.
In recent years, most of the later generations of the British and the European Royal families are marrying non-royalties, and if royalty, are of very distanced-related.

I have argued the higher evolved animals practiced some or limited sort of interbreeding avoidance where the males or females upon puberty move away from the group.
Even plants practiced some kind of inbreeding avoidance via pollination by insects, wind, etc.

[Sculptor]

Do you have reference to support humans-in-general has been using 'incest' as a tool for something positive or progress?

Example already given of European Royal families. Also Pharoahs of Egypt, and anthropologically look up endogamy.

But in animal breeding the examples are legion.

My point was with reference to the modern era in relation to humans-in-general who has the full knowledge of the negative consequences of inbreeding.

Why.
I thought you were interested in objective morality

[Veritas Aequitas]

Example already given of European Royal families. Also Pharoahs of Egypt, and anthropologically look up endogamy.

But in animal breeding the examples are legion.

My point was with reference to the modern era in relation to humans-in-general who has the full knowledge of the negative consequences of inbreeding.

Why.
I thought you were interested in objective morality

Definitely I am interested in objective morality.
It is that inbreeding avoidance is scientific objective and morally objective, that humans are nudging slowly to comply and align with this moral standard [objectivity].

In this modern era, most of the royalties are recognizing this moral fact which is objective and the standard to be complied with eventually.

[Sculptor]

My point was with reference to the modern era in relation to humans-in-general who has the full knowledge of the negative consequences of inbreeding.

Why.
I thought you were interested in objective morality

Definitely I am interested in objective morality.
It is that inbreeding avoidance is scientific objective and morally objective, that humans are nudging slowly to comply and align with this moral standard [objectivity].

In this modern era, most of the royalties are recognizing this moral fact which is objective and the standard to be complied with eventually.

You are assuming that your personal moralism is progress.
Progress can take avenues that you cannot predict.
It was decided by the Nazis that it was a moral imperitive that Germans only mated with other Germans and that all were to be judged by the degree to which each had German ancestry. This was essentailly inbreeding,
The end of the war brought a cessation of that sort of thinking, yet here we are nearly 80 years later and the new moral imperitive seems to suggest a return to that sort of thinking, as racial superiority seems to be taking hold across the world; be that Modi's India the persecution of Uighurs in China, or he rise of White Supremacists in the USA (notably CHristian Nationalists).

Bu what you seem to be doing is to formulate moral ossification. No moral standard can stand up to the pressure of historical and cultural changes.
I wonder if you had lived just 50 years ago, what you might be saying about LGBTQI+ issues and how you would most probably have demandad that homosexualtiy (then a crime) would be proscribed by your morally objectivising thinking.
So, as a matter of interest - where does your moral system stand on LGBTQI+ issues?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why.
I thought you were interested in objective morality

Definitely I am interested in objective morality.
It is that inbreeding avoidance is scientific objective and morally objective, that humans are nudging slowly to comply and align with this moral standard [objectivity].

In this modern era, most of the royalties are recognizing this moral fact which is objective and the standard to be complied with eventually.

You are assuming that your personal moralism is progress.
Progress can take avenues that you cannot predict.
It was decided by the Nazis that it was a moral imperitive that Germans only mated with other Germans and that all were to be judged by the degree to which each had German ancestry. This was essentailly inbreeding,
The end of the war brought a cessation of that sort of thinking, yet here we are nearly 80 years later and the new moral imperitive seems to suggest a return to that sort of thinking, as racial superiority seems to be taking hold across the world; be that Modi's India the persecution of Uighurs in China, or he rise of White Supremacists in the USA (notably CHristian Nationalists).

Bu what you seem to be doing is to formulate moral ossification. No moral standard can stand up to the pressure of historical and cultural changes.
I wonder if you had lived just 50 years ago, what you might be saying about LGBTQI+ issues and how you would most probably have demandad that homosexualtiy (then a crime) would be proscribed by your morally objectivising thinking.
So, as a matter of interest - where does your moral system stand on LGBTQI+ issues?

It is not 'my' personal moralism.
What is morality-proper is inherent in ALL humans embedded in the DNA expressed in varying degrees of strength and progressing on average in time toward the future.

Say, around 5000 years ago somewhere in Egypt, there was a chattel slave-A who was a SAVANT and realized that there is an inherent moral potential in all humans and that one day slavery will be prevented and all slaves will be freed by legal bondage.
When he told his fellows of such a fact, they all laughed at him and condemned him as stupid.
Nevertheless he managed to write down his thesis somehow.
Whatever the circumstances of slavery, no slave will naturally want to be enslaved because it is also an inherent propensity of all not be owned absolutely.

Around 2000 years ago, someone [slave-B] discovered the tablet and interpreted the thesis of slave A and as also a SAVANT agree with the thesis of Slave A. He translated the thesis in his own language B.
When he told his fellows of such a fact, they all laughed at him and condemned him as stupid because it is so evident chattel slavery is acceptable and increasing everywhere.

In the Early 1700s, someone [abolitionist thinking] C discovered the writings of slave B who is also a SAVANT he agreed with the thesis of Slave B that all chattel slaves will be freed in the future because there is an inherent moral nature that slavery is immoral.
Many slaves and non-slaves will think C is out of his mind because at that time as evident there were load and loads of chattel slaves from Africa arriving in the Americas. Almost all would be not be able to see any end to chattel slavery.

But in 1942 the last chattel slave was freed confirming the thesis of slave-A postulated >5000 years ago.

How did that happened?
It took >5000 years for freedom from chattel slavery to be real.
That is my point, there is an inherent objective moral fact within ALL humans that no human would want to be enslaved as a chattel-slave.
It is this objective moral standard [represented by its physical neural correlates] that is driving humans to end chattel slavery.
In respect of slavery as explained, there is an objective moral fact, thus morality is objective as qualified to slavery in this case.

In the same for inbreeding, rape, murder, killing of humans and other evil acts which are immoral and its immorality is inherent in all humans.
However due to past and present circumstances, they cannot be fully realized.
That the immorality of 'chattel-slavery' is proven to be realized at present as an objective moral fact, provide the evidence that the above can be justified to be objective moral facts.

What is critical is whether the above thesis [moral objectivism, moral realism] can be applied pragmatically for moral progress within humanity, as evidenced via the chattel slavery case.

Moral relativism [no fixed moral goal post] and moral skepticism [no goal post at all] has no potential for triggering and promoting moral progress.

[Sculptor]

Definitely I am interested in objective morality.
It is that inbreeding avoidance is scientific objective and morally objective, that humans are nudging slowly to comply and align with this moral standard [objectivity].

In this modern era, most of the royalties are recognizing this moral fact which is objective and the standard to be complied with eventually.

You are assuming that your personal moralism is progress.
Progress can take avenues that you cannot predict.
It was decided by the Nazis that it was a moral imperitive that Germans only mated with other Germans and that all were to be judged by the degree to which each had German ancestry. This was essentailly inbreeding,
The end of the war brought a cessation of that sort of thinking, yet here we are nearly 80 years later and the new moral imperitive seems to suggest a return to that sort of thinking, as racial superiority seems to be taking hold across the world; be that Modi's India the persecution of Uighurs in China, or he rise of White Supremacists in the USA (notably CHristian Nationalists).

Bu what you seem to be doing is to formulate moral ossification. No moral standard can stand up to the pressure of historical and cultural changes.
I wonder if you had lived just 50 years ago, what you might be saying about LGBTQI+ issues and how you would most probably have demandad that homosexualtiy (then a crime) would be proscribed by your morally objectivising thinking.
So, as a matter of interest - where does your moral system stand on LGBTQI+ issues?

It is not 'my' personal moralism.
What is morality-proper is inherent in ALL humans embedded in the DNA expressed in varying degrees of strength and progressing on average in time toward the future.

I've no idea why you are persisting with this delusion.

Say, around 5000 years ago somewhere in Egypt, there was a chattel slave-A who was a SAVANT and realized that there is an inherent moral potential in all humans and that one day slavery will be prevented and all slaves will be freed by legal bondage.
When he told his fellows of such a fact, they all laughed at him and condemned him as stupid.
Nevertheless he managed to write down his thesis somehow.
Whatever the circumstances of slavery, no slave will naturally want to be enslaved because it is also an inherent propensity of all not be owned absolutely.

You are talking bollocks

Around 2000 years ago, someone [slave-B] discovered the tablet and interpreted the thesis of slave A and as also a SAVANT agree with the thesis of Slave A. He translated the thesis in his own language B.
When he told his fellows of such a fact, they all laughed at him and condemned him as stupid because it is so evident chattel slavery is acceptable and increasing everywhere.

But this completely invalidates the claim you are making above that it is "embedded in the DNA expressed in varying degrees of strength".

In the Early 1700s, someone [abolitionist thinking] C discovered the writings of slave B who is also a SAVANT he agreed with the thesis of Slave B that all chattel slaves will be freed in the future because there is an inherent moral nature that slavery is immoral.
Many slaves and non-slaves will think C is out of his mind because at that time as evident there were load and loads of chattel slaves from Africa arriving in the Americas. Almost all would be not be able to see any end to chattel slavery.

There are more slaves on earth now that at any time in history. And those that are free are mostly chained to wage-slavery.

But in 1942 the last chattel slave was freed confirming the thesis of slave-A postulated >5000 years ago.

Ignorance and garbage.

How did that happened?
It took >5000 years for freedom from chattel slavery to be real.
That is my point, there is an inherent objective moral fact within ALL humans that no human would want to be enslaved as a chattel-slave.
It is this objective moral standard [represented by its physical neural correlates] that is driving humans to end chattel slavery.
In respect of slavery as explained, there is an objective moral fact, thus morality is objective as qualified to slavery in this case.

In the same for inbreeding, rape, murder, killing of humans and other evil acts which are immoral and its immorality is inherent in all humans.
However due to past and present circumstances, they cannot be fully realized.
That the immorality of 'chattel-slavery' is proven to be realized at present as an objective moral fact, provide the evidence that the above can be justified to be objective moral facts.

What is critical is whether the above thesis [moral objectivism, moral realism] can be applied pragmatically for moral progress within humanity, as evidenced via the chattel slavery case.

Moral relativism [no fixed moral goal post] and moral skepticism [no goal post at all] has no potential for triggering and promoting moral progress.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are assuming that your personal moralism is progress.
Progress can take avenues that you cannot predict.
It was decided by the Nazis that it was a moral imperitive that Germans only mated with other Germans and that all were to be judged by the degree to which each had German ancestry. This was essentailly inbreeding,
The end of the war brought a cessation of that sort of thinking, yet here we are nearly 80 years later and the new moral imperitive seems to suggest a return to that sort of thinking, as racial superiority seems to be taking hold across the world; be that Modi's India the persecution of Uighurs in China, or he rise of White Supremacists in the USA (notably CHristian Nationalists).

Bu what you seem to be doing is to formulate moral ossification. No moral standard can stand up to the pressure of historical and cultural changes.
I wonder if you had lived just 50 years ago, what you might be saying about LGBTQI+ issues and how you would most probably have demandad that homosexualtiy (then a crime) would be proscribed by your morally objectivising thinking.
So, as a matter of interest - where does your moral system stand on LGBTQI+ issues?

It is not 'my' personal moralism.
What is morality-proper is inherent in ALL humans embedded in the DNA expressed in varying degrees of strength and progressing on average in time toward the future.

I've no idea why you are persisting with this delusion.

You are deliberately ignoring my argument.

I persist because I have hope for humanity's moral progress grounded on moral objectivity and moral realism.

I persist because I oppose your Moral Relativism:
"Moral relativism [no fixed moral goal post] and moral skepticism [no goal post at all] has no potential for triggering and promoting moral progress."
You are "morally" indifferent to people torturing killing babies for pleasure and committing all sort of other evils, like genocides, rapes, murder, incest, etc.

Say, around 5000 years ago somewhere in Egypt, there was a chattel slave-A who was a SAVANT and realized that there is an inherent moral potential in all humans and that one day slavery will be prevented and all slaves will be freed by legal bondage.
When he told his fellows of such a fact, they all laughed at him and condemned him as stupid.
Nevertheless he managed to write down his thesis somehow.
Whatever the circumstances of slavery, no slave will naturally want to be enslaved because it is also an inherent propensity of all not be owned absolutely.

You are talking bollocks

You cannot read properly? or you are so shallow.
The above was merely a postulation, note 'say'..

Around 2000 years ago, someone [slave-B] discovered the tablet and interpreted the thesis of slave A and as also a SAVANT agree with the thesis of Slave A. He translated the thesis in his own language B.
When he told his fellows of such a fact, they all laughed at him and condemned him as stupid because it is so evident chattel slavery is acceptable and increasing everywhere.

But this completely invalidates the claim you are making above that it is "embedded in the DNA expressed in varying degrees of strength".

Again you missed my point.
Do you understand what is a SAVANT?

I stated the moral potential and function is inherent and embedded in the DNA but for the majority it is not fully expressed, but merely active in varying degrees.
It is like all humans via human nature has inherent human intelligence in their DNA, but such intelligence is not expressed distinctively in all humans until they reach adulthood and in varying degrees.
A IQ savant is one who has say an IQ of 300 whereas the average is around 100.


A Moral Savant is a rare exception, i.e. 1 in 500,000 who has say, Moral Quotient of 500 in terms of moral competence strength while the majority's MQ is 100.
Since he is 1-in-500,000 whatever he insist upon morality, the majority will not understand him or likely to condemn him since the majority are committing various kinds of evil acts.

In the Early 1700s, someone [abolitionist thinking] C discovered the writings of slave B who is also a SAVANT he agreed with the thesis of Slave B that all chattel slaves will be freed in the future because there is an inherent moral nature that slavery is immoral.
Many slaves and non-slaves will think C is out of his mind because at that time as evident there were load and loads of chattel slaves from Africa arriving in the Americas. Almost all would be not be able to see any end to chattel slavery.

There are more slaves on earth now that at any time in history. And those that are free are mostly chained to wage-slavery.

You are changing the subject.
I am talking about a very specific type of slavery, i.e. chattel slavery where a slave is legally own by the owner like legally owning a car and can be traded.

But in 1942 the last chattel slave was freed confirming the thesis of slave-A postulated >5000 years ago.

Ignorance and garbage.

For intellectual integrity sake, provide your counter argument in relation to chattel slavery.

• Chattel is a catch-all category of property associated with movable goods. At common law, chattel included all property other than real property. Examples include leases, animals, and money. In modern usage, chattel usually only refers to tangible movable personal property.
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chattel

• Chattel slavery is the most common form of slavery known to Americans. This system, which allowed people — considered legal property — to be bought, sold and owned forever, was lawful and supported by the United States and European powers from the 16th – 18th centuries.
  Link

Wage-Slavery [I don't agree with this term] is not a moral issue per se.
A wage-earner is not legally owned as a chattel but has full freedom outside working hours and has full freedom to terminate his employment contract.

How did that happened?
It took >5000 years for freedom from chattel slavery to be real.
That is my point, there is an inherent objective moral fact within ALL humans that no human would want to be enslaved as a chattel-slave.
It is this objective moral standard [represented by its physical neural correlates] that is driving humans to end chattel slavery.
In respect of slavery as explained, there is an objective moral fact, thus morality is objective as qualified to slavery in this case.

In the same for inbreeding, rape, murder, killing of humans and other evil acts which are immoral and its immorality is inherent in all humans.
However due to past and present circumstances, they cannot be fully realized.
That the immorality of 'chattel-slavery' is proven to be realized at present as an objective moral fact, provide the evidence that the above can be justified to be objective moral facts.

What is critical is whether the above thesis [moral objectivism, moral realism] can be applied pragmatically for moral progress within humanity, as evidenced via the chattel slavery case.

Moral relativism [no fixed moral goal post] and moral skepticism [no goal post at all] has no potential for triggering and promoting moral progress.

[Sculptor]

It is not 'my' personal moralism.
What is morality-proper is inherent in ALL humans embedded in the DNA expressed in varying degrees of strength and progressing on average in time toward the future.

I've no idea why you are persisting with this delusion.

You are deliberately ignoring my argument.

You do not have an argument. You have a delusion.

I persist because I have hope for humanity's moral progress grounded on moral objectivity and moral realism.

If you have hope for humanity than why are you trying to do it harm?

Do you understand what is a SAVANT?

Is that you??
LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Veritas Aequitas]

I've no idea why you are persisting with this delusion.

You are deliberately ignoring my argument.

You do not have an argument. You have a delusion.

I persist because I have hope for humanity's moral progress grounded on moral objectivity and moral realism.

If you have hope for humanity than why are you trying to do it harm?

Do you understand what is a SAVANT?

Is that you??
LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Your usual when you run out of arguments.

Strawman, where did 'harm' come from?
I have already mentioned I adopts Kant's mission and vision, i.e.

1. What can we know [epistemology]
2. What can we do [morality & ethics
3. What can we hop for? - upon 1 & 2 - perpetual peace

[Sculptor]

You are deliberately ignoring my argument.

You do not have an argument. You have a delusion.

I persist because I have hope for humanity's moral progress grounded on moral objectivity and moral realism.

If you have hope for humanity than why are you trying to do it harm?

Do you understand what is a SAVANT?

Is that you??
LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Your usual when you run out of arguments.

Strawman, where did 'harm' come from?
I have already mentioned I adopts Kant's mission and vision, i.e.

1. What can we know [epistemology]
2. What can we do [morality & ethics
3. What can we hop for? - upon 1 & 2 - perpetual peace

Yes the reich will last 1000 years.
All objective moral systems are out of date the moment they are devised and enforce stasis upon the growth of culture and cross cultural understanding.
EIn Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Gott, Ein Führer

[Veritas Aequitas]

You do not have an argument. You have a delusion.

If you have hope for humanity than why are you trying to do it harm?

Is that you??
LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Your usual when you run out of arguments.

Strawman, where did 'harm' come from?
I have already mentioned I adopts Kant's mission and vision, i.e.

1. What can we know [epistemology]
2. What can we do [morality & ethics
3. What can we hope for? - upon 1 & 2 - perpetual peace

Yes the reich will last 1000 years.
All objective moral systems are out of date the moment they are devised and enforce stasis upon the growth of culture and cross cultural understanding.
EIn Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Gott, Ein Führer

Your thinking is so confined, pessimistic, bias an without hope.

What is morality-proper is the management of evil [as defined] to enable it related good to manifest naturally.
Thus an objective moral system cannot contain any element of evil.
Do you know how a System [semi-closed] within a Framework is established and organized?

Whatever the "reich" promote is evil of the worst kind, e.g. genocide of the Jews and those inferior to them.
Therefore the 'reich' system cannot be an objective morality-proper system.
It just does not follow, your logic is a sham.

An objective morality-proper system will contain objectives that are against all evil with intent to eliminate if not reduce evil to the continual optimal minimum.

Now, if you are a moral relativist [.I think you are] will have to tolerate whatever is claimed to be moral but has evil objectives, e.g. genocides, rapes, and other evil acts.

[Sculptor]

Your usual when you run out of arguments.

Strawman, where did 'harm' come from?
I have already mentioned I adopts Kant's mission and vision, i.e.

1. What can we know [epistemology]
2. What can we do [morality & ethics
3. What can we hope for? - upon 1 & 2 - perpetual peace

Yes the reich will last 1000 years.
All objective moral systems are out of date the moment they are devised and enforce stasis upon the growth of culture and cross cultural understanding.
EIn Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Gott, Ein Führer

Your thinking is so confined, pessimistic, bias an without hope.

Wonderful gaslighting.
THe complete reverse is the truth.
My moral philosophy is definitely inclusive and more understanding of the rich diversity of human culture.
Yours is utterly without hope of understanding.
And that is so obvious since you have failed to establish a single moral rule with your method, it is laughable

What is morality-proper is the management of evil [as defined] to enable it related good to manifest naturally.
Thus an objective moral system cannot contain any element of evil.
Do you know how a System [semi-closed] within a Framework is established and organized?

Whatever the "reich" promote is evil of the worst kind, e.g. genocide of the Jews and those inferior to them.
Therefore the 'reich' system cannot be an objective morality-proper system.
It just does not follow, your logic is a sham.

An objective morality-proper system will contain objectives that are against all evil with intent to eliminate if not reduce evil to the continual optimal minimum.

Now, if you are a moral relativist [.I think you are] will have to tolerate whatever is claimed to be moral but has evil objectives, e.g. genocides, rapes, and other evil acts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes the reich will last 1000 years.
All objective moral systems are out of date the moment they are devised and enforce stasis upon the growth of culture and cross cultural understanding.
EIn Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Gott, Ein Führer

Your thinking is so confined, pessimistic, bias an without hope.

Wonderful gaslighting.
THe complete reverse is the truth.
My moral philosophy is definitely inclusive and more understanding of the rich diversity of human culture.
Yours is utterly without hope of understanding.
And that is so obvious since you have failed to establish a single moral rule with your method, it is laughable

You misunderstood my objective moral system as a theological moral system where there is no exception, i.e. one must comply with the immutable God's moral commands, else there is the threat of hell.

Within an objective moral system [proper], the objective moral standards are merely acting guides for moral progress.
We do not accept deviations from the standards but has to tolerate it because at the current psychological states, the majority or most of the people are unable to comply with the inherent standard.
However, moral objectivists will strive hard to find optimal ways to drive towards the standard [which could be ideal that is impossible to achieve]; the striving will nevertheless enable continuous improvements toward the standard.

• Here is an analogy:
  You understand the metabolic syndrome that generate critical illness to any human.
  To avoid a state of metabolic syndrome, there is a standard that the average humans MUST have a range of intake of grams of carbohydrates [sugar, etc.] per meal and per day.
  This standard is objective at its core because the same consequences will happen to all humans who defy this objective standard within the human biological system.
  This is not a subjective thing but exists objectively in all humans.
  The point is being-human, the majority cannot and will not comply to the above objective standard.
  As such, those advocates within the Healthy-Metabolic System will not accept the deviation from standard but have to tolerate the deviations because that is the current psychological state of the majority who are ignorant, if they know are unable to control their inherent impulse of carbs.
  You will note metabolic activists [like you] are striving to find ways to get the majority of people to be mindful of their intake of carbs to within the acceptable objective standard.

As with the above analogy, it is the same with the objective moral system [proper] within all humans [majority and you are ignorant of it].
So my objective moral system [proper] is not a rigid system like that of the theological moral system.
I do not accept non-compliances but will tolerate non-compliance with the objective moral standards; however i will strive to get all to drive towards the objective moral standards even some standards may only be ideals [fixed goal posts] but they are nevertheless guides for continuous improvement of moral progress.

[Alexiev]

Let's see. Since scientific postulates gain credence (supposedly) by unsuccessful attempts to "falsify" them, how would it b

[accelafine]

Yes the reich will last 1000 years.
All objective moral systems are out of date the moment they are devised and enforce stasis upon the growth of culture and cross cultural understanding.
EIn Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Gott, Ein Führer

Your thinking is so confined, pessimistic, bias an without hope.

Wonderful gaslighting.
THe complete reverse is the truth.
My moral philosophy is definitely inclusive and more understanding of the rich diversity of human culture.
Yours is utterly without hope of understanding.
And that is so obvious since you have failed to establish a single moral rule with your method, it is laughable

What is morality-proper is the management of evil [as defined] to enable it related good to manifest naturally.
Thus an objective moral system cannot contain any element of evil.
Do you know how a System [semi-closed] within a Framework is established and organized?

Whatever the "reich" promote is evil of the worst kind, e.g. genocide of the Jews and those inferior to them.
Therefore the 'reich' system cannot be an objective morality-proper system.
It just does not follow, your logic is a sham.

An objective morality-proper system will contain objectives that are against all evil with intent to eliminate if not reduce evil to the continual optimal minimum.

Now, if you are a moral relativist [.I think you are] will have to tolerate whatever is claimed to be moral but has evil objectives, e.g. genocides, rapes, and other evil acts.