The 'Marmite' of Objective Morality

[Sculptor]

This thread a new low.

To summarize.

1. Not everyone likes Marmite.
2 Consequently morality is objective.

Fuck the fuck of you dipstick

[Iwannaplato]

The Marmite Gene Project was a marketing effort not a scientific one. It concluded that the tendency to enjoy Marmite was the result of some complicated genetic outcomes and some unquantifiable environmental factors.

Wait, FDP. VA's last post is utterly absurd. He is rebutting Hume's idea that taste comes from feelings by arguing that it comes from genes. That's not a rebuttal. Feelings can come from genes (and from environmental factors, like what we are exposed to in eating food, if that's the topic). The problem with Marmite as an example is that there is no universal taste about Marmite. So, even if it was just genes, we cannot then conclude anything universal about taste, just that people will have some kind of reaction. This would lead to, in the analogy, people having different moralities from different genes.

Which means he comes nowhere near a universal morality, just as there is no universal reaction to Marmite.
Let alone an objective taste or morality.

[FlashDangerpants]

The Marmite Gene Project was a marketing effort not a scientific one. It concluded that the tendency to enjoy Marmite was the result of some complicated genetic outcomes and some unquantifiable environmental factors.

Wait, FDP. VA's last post is utterly absurd. He is rebutting Hume's idea that taste comes from feelings by arguing that it comes from genes. That's not a rebuttal. Feelings can come from genes (and from environmental factors, like what we are exposed to in eating food, if that's the topic). The problem with Marmite as an example is that there is no universal taste about Marmite. So, even if it was just genes, we cannot then conclude anything universal about taste, just that people will have some kind of reaction. This would lead to, in the analogy, people having different moralities from different genes.

Which means he comes nowhere near a universal morality, just as there is no universal reaction to Marmite.
Let alone an objective taste or morality.

Well yeah. The whole reason Pete used Marmite as his example is that it's famous for being absolutely hated by about as many people as supposedly super enjoy it, and their entire advertising campaign is about nothing else but that. But you'd have to know a weird amount about British TV to know that if you don't live here.

VA never understands any point he is attempting to rebut anyway. Quite why he's arguing against that section of the treartise I do not even know. It doesn't even coutn as any form of attempt to shore up the OP and there's no quality of argument involved at all.

Tbh I find him increasingly dreary in general. He's invoking hte Naturalistic Fallacy against other people without even noticing that his entire DNA-makes-right theory is the NF writ large and Pete has already explained that for him numerous times. He's in a tedious tailspin.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This thread a new low.

To summarize.

1. Not everyone likes Marmite.
2 Consequently morality is objective.

Fuck the fuck of you dipstick

I admit I make the mistake of stating ALL those who taste marmite will find it delicious; I was relying on the fact that marmite contain UMAMI which is universal savoriness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umami

When UMAMI is added to one's favored food, it will make it more delicious. That was my intended point to demonstrate the objectivity of taste, i.e. it is grounded on the physical taste receptors.

That not everyone likes Marmite genetically is not because of the UMANI but other secondary ingredients [the yeast effects, smell, etc.] in the Marmite.

But this fact still serves my purpose of an analogy for objective morality.
In this case, the subjective preferences for likes and dislikes of marmite is grounded on a matter of fact, i.e. the related physical genes.
At present we can tweak any human genes to make one like or hate Marmite, it is just unethical and of unworthy to do so.

The general principle is whatever is seen as 'subjective' in this case is fundamentally objective.
This is what the Hume-of-his-time was ignorant of, i.e. genetics and genomics.

It is the same with ignorant bastards like you who are so narrow minded to confine morality solely to the paradigms of individual[s] and groups' SUBJECTIVE beliefs, opinions and judgment that are imposed on others.
You are so dogmatically blinded that you cannot rationalize beyond the subjective to the underlying objective matter-of-fact in relation to morality.

FUCK OFF you Dickhead.

[popeye1945]

My point:
Similarly just as there are objective taste receptors for umami and other tastes as a matter of fact, whilst not so obvious, there are inherent physical moral algorithms represent by neuronal system in the brain, e.g. "the ought-not-ness of killing another human"; thus morality is objective.

Justified as below;

The is of predication at work

Marmite is delicious.
I/we think Marmite is delicious.
? It's a fact that Marmite is delicious.
? The assertion Marmite is delicious is true.
? The assertion Marmite is disgusting is false.
? The deliciousness of Marmite is objective - a matter of fact - not subjective - a matter of opinion.

In this context, there are no gustatory facts, just as there are no aesthetic and moral facts. It can't be a fact that Marmite is delicious/disgusting, a turd is ugly/beautiful, or capital punishment is morally right/wrong.

The is of predication introduces a subject complement. And that's all.

That marmite is delicious is objective is a good analogy for moral elements as objective moral facts.
In this particular case, the deliciousness of Marmite is objective - a matter of fact!

• Marmite is high in umami flavor, as it's fermented with yeast, while oyster sauce is umami-rich, as it's made with boiled oysters or oyster extract, which are high in glutamate.
  [Link]

• Umami or savoriness, is one of the five basic tastes.[1] It has been described as savory and is characteristic of broths and cooked meats.
  People taste umami through taste receptors that typically respond to glutamates and nucleotides, which are widely present in meat broths and fermented products. Since umami has its own receptors rather than arising out of a combination of the traditionally recognized taste receptors, scientists now consider umami to be a distinct taste.
  In 1985, the term umami was recognized as the scientific term to describe the taste of glutamates and nucleotides at the first Umami International Symposium in Hawaii.[17] Umami represents the taste of the amino acid L-glutamate and 5'-ribonucleotides such as guanosine monophosphate (GMP) and inosine monophosphate (IMP).[14] It can be described as a pleasant "brothy" or "meaty" taste with a long-lasting, mouthwatering and coating sensation over the tongue.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umami

The umami taste receptors are present in all human beings just like the other taste receptors.
That umami taste receptors detect tastes that are savory, i.e. delicious.
Since Marmite is high in umami flavor, marmite will be delicious to all normal humans without damaged taste receptors.
This is a fact that can be verified and justified with the experiences of all humans that taste marmite.
So it is an objective fact, a matter of fact, a state of affairs that marmite is delicious.

Point there is no question of right or wrong with the deliciousness of marmite, it is just a matter of fact [verifiable] that it is delicious and an innate propensity.

Similarly, just as there are objective taste receptors for umami and other tastes as a matter of fact, whilst not so obvious, there are inherent moral algorithms represent by neuronal system in the brain, e.g., "the ought-not-ness of killing another human."

Taste is a subjective experience just as sound is a subjective experience and all subjects do not taste things precisely the same. There is a basic commonality in that we have common biology but biology can be in different states in differing individuals thus a differing taste sensation. Biology is the measure and meaning of all things. All perceptions, all experiences and all meanings are biologically dependent and thus subjective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Taste is a subjective experience just as sound is a subjective experience and all subjects do not taste things precisely the same. There is a basic commonality in that we have common biology but biology can be in different states in differing individuals thus a differing taste sensation. Biology is the measure and meaning of all things. All perceptions, all experiences and all meanings are biologically dependent and thus subjective.

You missed my point?

Yes, the sensations of taste is a subjective experience

BUT is a fact that all humans have physical taste receptor in their tongue comprising amino acids, cells, RNA, DNA and the relevant molecules and atoms.
This is obviously physical and objective.
Surely you cannot deny taste has its physical aspect, i.e. physical facts and thus objective.

It is subjective that some may not like the taste of sourness but there is no denying that the physical taste receptors for sourness are present in their tongues and in all humans [with exception if one is born without a tongue]. Even then the genes for construction a tongue is in their DNA but damage.

Similarly, within all humans there are a wide range of views, opinions, beliefs and judgment related to morality [as commonly discussed and applied] which appear to be subjective, but underlying these subjective elements there are objective moral elements within the brain of all humans.

What are objective physical moral facts unfortunately are not as obvious of say taste receptors and the related genes, but they are nevertheless present in all humans. It is matter of deeper thinking over the available evidence to understand the existence of objective physical moral facts.

[popeye1945]

You need to ponder my statement a little more. In saying all perceptions, all experiences and all meanings are biologically dependent isn't exactly denying the physical. Taste is a reaction to a stimulus which is not taste, just as sound is vibrations but without an ear to react to those vibrations, there is no sound. The property of taste does not belong to the food, it belongs to the subjective experience of the chemistry of that food. All meanings are biologically determined which is of necessity subjective. There are no objective meanings. Subjectively we know not to touch the hot stove, we know the meaning of hot relative to our given biology.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

''Fuck the fuck of you dipstick''

I would have put it in 'quote of the week' but that thread seems to have vanished.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You need to ponder my statement a little more. In saying all perceptions, all experiences and all meanings are biologically dependent isn't exactly denying the physical. Taste is a reaction to a stimulus which is not taste, just as sound is vibrations but without an ear to react to those vibrations, there is no sound. The property of taste does not belong to the food, it belongs to the subjective experience of the chemistry of that food. All meanings are biologically determined which is of necessity subjective. There are no objective meanings. Subjectively we know not to touch the hot stove, we know the meaning of hot relative to our given biology.

Meanings in this case are obviously subjective. I am not interested in the property of taste for this particular discussion.

I understand 'taste' is generally referred to the sensations, feelings and experience but that is not what I am after on this issue.
What I am after are the physical grounding of taste which is common to all humans.
This is the physical fact of taste.

It is the same with the term 'morality' which is generally referred to the mental aspects which not effective for moral progress thus has stagnated.
What I am promoting morality and to expedite its progress is a call for a shift in paradigm and to focus on the physical correlates of morality within human nature.

[popeye1945]

Ok, I am not a biologist with knowledge of our inner workings but keep in mind that all knowledge, all meanings and all perceptions are biologically dependent. I'll leave you to it.

[Sculptor]

This thread a new low.

To summarize.

1. Not everyone likes Marmite.
2 Consequently morality is objective.

Fuck the fuck of you dipstick

I admit I make the mistake of stating ALL those who taste marmite will find it delicious; I was relying on the fact that marmite contain UMAMI which is universal savoriness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umami

When UMAMI is added to one's favored food, it will make it more delicious. That was my intended point to demonstrate the objectivity of taste, i.e. it is grounded on the physical taste receptors.

Your brain is a cesspit.
THere is no substance umami that you can add to anything.
You are just not thinking things through every clearly.
Umami is an idea to describe a class of taste sensation. You don't get a jar of it to add to food.
Marmite gets its umani as a by product is dead brewers yeast, ans salt.
Taste is NOT objective. It is the very essence of subjectivity.

That not everyone likes Marmite genetically is not because of the UMANI but other secondary ingredients [the yeast effects, smell, etc.] in the Marmite.

Prove it is "genetic" - you cannot. People from the same family vary in their choices for marmite. Preference for such things as Marmite and blue cheese are socially constructed.
My reasons for liking them both is due to being fed them from an early age by my grandmother. People who apprehend them in later life a s less likely to appreciate them.
Person A can both like umami and dislike umami, because it depands on things other than umami. In the same way people can love something sweet like chocolate but hate something also sweet like meringue.

But this fact still serves my purpose of an analogy for objective morality.

Except that, as usual you are wrong because you are too deperate to demonstrate that your personal opinions are objective and every other person's in the world are subjective.
My Vino in Veritas is the only person on earth who speaks the truth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This thread a new low.

To summarize.

1. Not everyone likes Marmite.
2 Consequently morality is objective.

Fuck the fuck of you dipstick

I admit I make the mistake of stating ALL those who taste marmite will find it delicious; I was relying on the fact that marmite contain UMAMI which is universal savoriness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umami

When UMAMI is added to one's favored food, it will make it more delicious. That was my intended point to demonstrate the objectivity of taste, i.e. it is grounded on the physical taste receptors.

Your brain is a cesspit.
THere is no substance umami that you can add to anything.
You are just not thinking things through every clearly.
Umami is an idea to describe a class of taste sensation. You don't get a jar of it to add to food.
Marmite gets its umani as a by product is dead brewers yeast, ans salt.
Taste is NOT objective. It is the very essence of subjectivity.

That not everyone likes Marmite genetically is not because of the UMANI but other secondary ingredients [the yeast effects, smell, etc.] in the Marmite.

Prove it is "genetic" - you cannot. People from the same family vary in their choices for marmite. Preference for such things as Marmite and blue cheese are socially constructed.
My reasons for liking them both is due to being fed them from an early age by my grandmother. People who apprehend them in later life a s less likely to appreciate them.
Person A can both like umami and dislike umami, because it depands on things other than umami. In the same way people can love something sweet like chocolate but hate something also sweet like meringue.

But this fact still serves my purpose of an analogy for objective morality.

Except that, as usual you are wrong because you are too deperate to demonstrate that your personal opinions are objective and every other person's in the world are subjective.
My Vino in Veritas is the only person on earth who speaks the truth.

Your view is that of an ignorant bastard.

I have already referenced in the OP:

Marmite is high in umami flavor, as it's fermented with yeast, while oyster sauce is umami-rich, as it's made with boiled oysters or oyster extract, which are high in glutamate.
[Link]

Read this again, again and again!

Umami or savoriness, is one of the five basic tastes.[1] It has been described as savory and is characteristic of broths and cooked meats.

People taste umami through taste receptors that typically respond to glutamates and nucleotides, which are widely present in meat broths and fermented products.

Since umami has its own receptors rather than arising out of a combination of the traditionally recognized taste receptors, scientists now consider umami to be a distinct taste.
In 1985, the term umami was recognized as the scientific term to describe the taste of glutamates and nucleotides at the first Umami International Symposium in Hawaii.[17]

Umami represents the taste of the amino acid L-glutamate and 5'-ribonucleotides such as guanosine monophosphate (GMP) and inosine monophosphate (IMP).[14]
It can be described as a pleasant "brothy" or "meaty" taste with a long-lasting, mouthwatering and coating sensation over the tongue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umami

Here is a taste test for all the 20 amino acid by a Chemist;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edSaOl08Cqs

You can buy the amino acids taste testing kit to confirm the above conclusions;
https://www.the-odin.com/amino-acid-tas ... astronomy/


Glutamate is one of the 20 necessary amino acids for humans.

Glutamate: a truly functional amino acid
John T Brosnan 1, Margaret E Brosnan

Abstract
Glutamate is one of the most abundant of the amino acids. In addition to its role in protein structure, it plays critical roles in nutrition, metabolism and signaling. Post-translational carboxylation of glutamyl residues increases their affinity for calcium and plays a major role in hemostasis. Glutamate is of fundamental importance to amino acid metabolism, yet the great bulk of dietary glutamate is catabolyzed within the intestine. It is necessary for the synthesis of key molecules, such as glutathione and the polyglutamated folate cofactors. It plays a major role in signaling. Within the central nervous system, glutamate is the major excitatory neurotransmitter and its product, GABA, the major inhibitory neurotransmitter.

Glutamate interaction with specific taste cells in the tongue is a major component of umami taste.

The finding of glutamate receptors throughout the gastrointestinal tract has opened up a new vista in glutamate function. Glutamate is truly a functional amino acid.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22526238/

What is objective is, ALL humans has receptors in their tongue for intercepting glutamate [umami]. In this sense, taste is objective besides the common understanding taste is very subjective.

It is the same for the majority of ignorant bastards like you who are dogmatic and insisting Morality is solely subjective but is ignorant of its objective physical aspects which can be verified and justified.

My claimed that morality is objective as linked to the brain, neurons, genes, DNA and is natural is not based on any arbitrary subjective opinions but it is gleaned from extensive research on the subject.

Btw, you have not quoted any references [if any is very rare] at all in your views, thus truly your views are very subjective and that's from your brain which is a cesspit.

FUCK OFF .. ignorant dickhead!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ok, I am not a biologist with knowledge of our inner workings but keep in mind that all knowledge, all meanings and all perceptions are biologically dependent. I'll leave you to it.

I totally agree with you and that has always been my mantra; this is also in a way correlate with Kant's Copernican Revolution.

[CPR-Bxvii]
If Intuition [of Objects] must conform to the constitution of the Objects [as Things-in-themselves], I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the Objects as Things-in-Themselves] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.

'Faculty of Intuition' in the above is generally our human biology.

Even with Kant the above must be subsequently linked to the practical to optimize survival where we have to refer to empirical reality [Kant's Empirical Realism], i.e. the objective.

Point is, whilst subjectivity is fundamental and keeping that in mind, we must operate in parallel and shift perspective to objectivity where it is necessary to optimize the related constraints.
Improvements and progress are ineffective if there is no objective standard to strive towards due to a lack of a controlled-feedback-system.

Thus, there is a need to shift from subjective-pseudo-morality to objective-morality-proper to expedite and optimize the well being of individuals and humanity in the future [not now].

[popeye1945]

Ok, I am not a biologist with knowledge of our inner workings but keep in mind that all knowledge, all meanings and all perceptions are biologically dependent. I'll leave you to it.

I totally agree with you and that has always been my mantra; this is also in a way correlate with Kant's Copernican Revolution.

[CPR-Bxvii]
If Intuition [of Objects] must conform to the constitution of the Objects [as Things-in-themselves], I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the Objects as Things-in-Themselves] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.

'Faculty of Intuition' in the above is generally our human biology.

Even with Kant the above must be subsequently linked to the practical to optimize survival where we have to refer to empirical reality [Kant's Empirical Realism], i.e. the objective.

Point is, whilst subjectivity is fundamental and keeping that in mind, we must operate in parallel and shift perspective to objectivity where it is necessary to optimize the related constraints.
Improvements and progress are ineffective if there is no objective standard to strive towards due to a lack of a controlled-feedback-system.

Thus, there is a need to shift from subjective-pseudo-morality to objective-morality-proper to expedite and optimize the well being of individuals and humanity in the future [not now].

All man-made creations, all meanings and understandings which might be used in human creativity are biological extensions, biological expressions of human nature. It is only with the acquired knowledge/experience/meanings that the conscious subject can then bestow that knowledge and those meanings upon a meaningless world. In the absence of a conscious subject, there is neither object or consciousness - in other words, there is nothing.

[popeye1945]

Ok, I am not a biologist with knowledge of our inner workings but keep in mind that all knowledge, all meanings and all perceptions are biologically dependent. I'll leave you to it.

I totally agree with you and that has always been my mantra; this is also in a way correlate with Kant's Copernican Revolution.

[CPR-Bxvii]
If Intuition [of Objects] must conform to the constitution of the Objects [as Things-in-themselves], I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the Objects as Things-in-Themselves] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.

'Faculty of Intuition' in the above is generally our human biology.

Even with Kant the above must be subsequently linked to the practical to optimize survival where we have to refer to empirical reality [Kant's Empirical Realism], i.e. the objective.

Point is, whilst subjectivity is fundamental and keeping that in mind, we must operate in parallel and shift perspective to objectivity where it is necessary to optimize the related constraints.
Improvements and progress are ineffective if there is no objective standard to strive towards due to a lack of a controlled-feedback-system.

Thus, there is a need to shift from subjective-pseudo-morality to objective-morality-proper to expedite and optimize the well being of individuals and humanity in the future [not now].

All man-made creations, all meanings and understandings which might be used in human creativity are biological extensions, biological expressions of human nature. It is only with the acquired knowledge/experience/meanings that the conscious subject can then bestow that knowledge and those meanings upon a meaningless world. In the absence of a conscious subject, there is neither object nor consciousness - in other words, there is nothing. As far as Kant's thing in itself goes, it could only be energy. What may be seen as an object is but the energy in and of itself, object is energy conditioned by perception and understanding, it is otherwise simply energy, just as vibrations remain vibrations if not conditioned by the ear and the understanding to give us sound. There are a great many vibrational frequencies we do not sense and they remain just frequencies and do not manifest for us as anything but vibrational frequencies.