Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 11:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 9:56 am
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 9:22 am
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.