Peter Holmes, FlasherDangerPants, et. al. IGNORANT

[Peter Holmes]

You are SO IGNORANT of your IGNORANCE.

Your point is no different from all the theists who claim up to the present there is still no valid and sound argument for 'God do not exist' while ignorant of their own ignorance.

The comparison is instructive. For all those books on theology, theists have not one valid and sound argument for the existence of gods, and, to my knowledge, not one scrap of credible evidence.

The Flat-Earthers' stuck to their claims for hundreds of years till Galileo, Copernicus then modern Science.
Even in the present there are still people [stupid ones] who insist the Earth is flat.

Agreed.

Note I am relying on modern Science in tandem with Ethics [present within the lists above] while you are relying on linguistic [all talk only] of narrow, shallow, dogmatic ideological thinking.

No. I'm relying on logically valid and sound argument - argument with credibly evidenced premises - of which moral realists and objectivists have none - to my knowledge. (We can't talk about reality without using language,)

Surely there is no assurance of truth in respect of logic, note GIGO, deductively Garbage In Garbage Out.

To be factual as I had always stated, facts must be grounded on a specific FSK which of course must be credible, e.g. the scientific FSK or mathematic FSK.

There are many types of moralists and objectivists, you cannot simply group them into one category.
There are two main groups, i.e. the old paradigm and new paradigm;

Old Paradigm:
Divine Command Theory believers also claim their morality is objective and factual.
Platonic moralists also claim their morality is objective.
As Hume has charged them, they simply pull their 'oughts' out of thin air without any reference any matter of fact.

New Paradigm:
What I have presented is the new paradigm of moral realism which is grounded on the new sciences i.e. neurosciences, evolutionary psychology, genetics, genomics, neuropsychology, etc. which claim moral facts are objective as represented by empirical matters.

Now, regardless of me presenting you with facts, you'll stubbornly [strawman] chuck my view within the old paradigm because you are SO ignorant of the new paradigm.

Here is one clue of the new paradigm of Moral Facts; this is just a clue of introduction, but there are more advance and in depth consideration into the genes, algorithms and DNA that are corresponded to the objective moral facts.
This article demonstrate how Objective Natural Facts are linked to Objective Moral Facts.

How Moral Facts Cause Moral Progress

The core assertion of Naturalistic Moral Realism is that Objective Moral Facts are Objective Natural Facts, in some sense.
Natural Facts are properties that can be investigated using the standard methods of the natural and social sciences (van Roojen 2015: 210).
In the literature on Naturalistic Moral Realism, there are two prominent accounts of the way in which Objective Moral Facts are Objective Natural Facts (cf. van Roojen 2015: 219 – 221).

According to one view, Objective Moral Facts are identical to Objective Natural Facts (cf. Railton 1986; Boyd 1988; Copp 2007: 137 – 142).
According to a second view, Objective Moral Facts are constituted by Objective Natural Facts (cf. Brink 1989: 157 – 159, 176 – 177; Sturgeon 1992: 98).

Identity is a symmetric relation: if x is identical to y, then y is identical to x.
However, constitution is not a symmetric relation: even if x constitutes y, it is not guaranteed that y constitutes x.
For instance: a mass of polyurethane may constitute a bowling ball, but a bowling ball does not constitute a mass of polyurethane.
The NRH is compatible with both theories of the relation between the Moral and the natural.

1 Nobody has mentioned 'assurances of truth'. What we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth or the truth. And that's it.

2 A fact-as-a-feature-of-reality has nothing to do with any kind of description - one of your invented 'FSKs' - and therefore nothing to do with truth or falsehood. To say it does is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are.

3 In your supposed 'new paradigm', non-moral premises still can't entail a moral conclusion. Whatever facts we discover about human nature - the human brain - why we do what we do - none of this shows what we should or ought to do. You simply refuse to recognise the objectivist trick of assuming and asserting an entailment between an is and an ought that doesn't exist.

4 The sources you cite demonstrate a couple of ridiculous mistakes. First, giving words initial capitals - such as 'Objective Moral Facts' does nothing to establish the seriousness or importance of those words. That's a pathetic Trumpian trick.

And second, there's no such thing as a subjective fact, so the expression 'objective fact' is vacuous. What we call objectivity means reliance on facts, so people who use the expression 'objective fact' don't understand the issue at hand.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The comparison is instructive. For all those books on theology, theists have not one valid and sound argument for the existence of gods, and, to my knowledge, not one scrap of credible evidence.Agreed.
No. I'm relying on logically valid and sound argument - argument with credibly evidenced premises - of which moral realists and objectivists have none - to my knowledge. (We can't talk about reality without using language,)

Surely there is no assurance of truth in respect of logic, note GIGO, deductively Garbage In Garbage Out.

To be factual as I had always stated, facts must be grounded on a specific FSK which of course must be credible, e.g. the scientific FSK or mathematic FSK.

There are many types of moralists and objectivists, you cannot simply group them into one category.
There are two main groups, i.e. the old paradigm and new paradigm;

Old Paradigm:
Divine Command Theory believers also claim their morality is objective and factual.
Platonic moralists also claim their morality is objective.
As Hume has charged them, they simply pull their 'oughts' out of thin air without any reference any matter of fact.

New Paradigm:
What I have presented is the new paradigm of moral realism which is grounded on the new sciences i.e. neurosciences, evolutionary psychology, genetics, genomics, neuropsychology, etc. which claim moral facts are objective as represented by empirical matters.

Now, regardless of me presenting you with facts, you'll stubbornly [strawman] chuck my view within the old paradigm because you are SO ignorant of the new paradigm.

1 Nobody has mentioned 'assurances of truth'. What we mean when we say a factual assertion is true is what constitutes what we call truth or the truth. And that's it.

You are heading into la la land where your 'truth' is nothing but words and language directed at nothing that is real.
Note the effective definition of 'truth'.

Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

You understand what is 'reality'?
What is real must be conditioned within a specific FSK or FSR [reality].

2 A fact-as-a-feature-of-reality has nothing to do with any kind of description - one of your invented 'FSKs' - and therefore nothing to do with truth or falsehood. To say it does is to mistake what we say about things for the way things are.

You are strawmaning as usual.
My focus is NEVER on descriptions but knowledge and cognition.

I did not invent the scientific FSK.
Are you insisting scientific knowledge conditioned upon the scientific FSK is not factual, not real and not true?
Can you confirm?

3 In your supposed 'new paradigm', non-moral premises still can't entail a moral conclusion. Whatever facts we discover about human nature - the human brain - why we do what we do - none of this shows what we should or ought to do. You simply refuse to recognise the objectivist trick of assuming and asserting an entailment between an is and an ought that doesn't exist.

Note:

1. What is Human nature [& its elements] is a fact - Biological, Evolutionary, and the likes.
2. Morality [existing evidently] is part and parcel of human nature.
3. T4, moral elements are facts.

I am not claiming the expressions-of-moral-thoughts are facts.
What are moral facts are the inherent moral potentials and functional processes as supported by its physical elements.

4 The sources you cite demonstrate a couple of ridiculous mistakes. First, giving words initial capitals - such as 'Objective Moral Facts' does nothing to establish the seriousness or importance of those words. That's a pathetic Trumpian trick.

You need to read the whole article that demonstrate how natural facts related to morality are objective moral facts.
As I had stated you are very ignorant.

Objective = independent of individual[s] beliefs and opinions.
Facts are whatever that are verifiable and justifiable within a specific FSK.
Objective moral facts are those generated from the moral FSK.

The article defined 'objective' as;

A property is Objective if it exists independently of the attitudes—i.e., the beliefs, desires, intentions, and emotions—of any particular individual or group of appraisers (cf. van Roojen 2015: 100 in Metaethics: A Contemporary Introduction. ).

And second, there's no such thing as a subjective fact, so the expression 'objective fact' is vacuous. What we call objectivity means reliance on facts, so people who use the expression 'objective fact' don't understand the issue at hand.

Strawman again, who is arguing for subjective fact.

The meaning of the term 'objectivity' and 'fact' do overlap but each has its distinct meaning as I had defined above.

In practice, the problems is each of the diverse groups claim their moral oughts are facts. These are subjective claims thus no correspondence to facts.
To differentiate from the above subjective claims of supposedly facts, the added term "objective" reinforces the meaning of 'fact' thus objective moral facts.

My point:
Despite my mention of the New Paradigm re Morality & Ethics you are so dogmatic with your archaic ideology.
This resistance to change or new ideas is very common within human nature [perhaps necessary] with the majority within the history of mankind; BUT it is also a hindrance to the progress and reforms of moral competence within humanity.

[Iwannaplato]

3 In your supposed 'new paradigm', non-moral premises still can't entail a moral conclusion. Whatever facts we discover about human nature - the human brain - why we do what we do - none of this shows what we should or ought to do. You simply refuse to recognise the objectivist trick of assuming and asserting an entailment between an is and an ought that doesn't exist.

Yes, this seems central.

Non-moral premises can entail conclusions about human morals. IOW we can study things and people and draw conclusions about what people believe is good and bad and how this related, say, to research in neuroscience. Morality is a real phenomenon. There can be facts about people's morality. There can be facts about the effects of certain moralities and the the causes of them. Lots of conclusions can be drawn via research and tested. People believe things like doing X is bad or having attitude C is good. These are assertions that can be tested, etc.

But if we find that humans tend to get envious if others have more stuff or better stuff than them, we cannot determine whether this is Good or Bad. We can express preferences.

But just cause humans do X, have attitude z, character B, even if it was universal, would not entail that these attitudes, character traits or behaviors are good or bad morally

[Peter Holmes]

3 In your supposed 'new paradigm', non-moral premises still can't entail a moral conclusion. Whatever facts we discover about human nature - the human brain - why we do what we do - none of this shows what we should or ought to do. You simply refuse to recognise the objectivist trick of assuming and asserting an entailment between an is and an ought that doesn't exist.

Yes, this seems central.

Non-moral premises can entail conclusions about human morals. IOW we can study things and people and draw conclusions about what people believe is good and bad and how this related, say, to research in neuroscience. Morality is a real phenomenon. There can be facts about people's morality. There can be facts about the effects of certain moralities and the the causes of them. Lots of conclusions can be drawn via research and tested. People believe things like doing X is bad or having attitude C is good. These are assertions that can be tested, etc.

But if we find that humans tend to get envious if others have more stuff or better stuff than them, we cannot determine whether this is Good or Bad. We can express preferences.

But just cause humans do X, have attitude z, character B, even if it was universal, would not entail that these attitudes, character traits or behaviors are good or bad morally

Nicely expressed. And just to develop your: 'Non-moral premises can entail conclusions about human morals.'

Conclusions (assertions) about morals or morality aren't moral conclusions - assertions that say something is morally right or wrong, good or bad (evil), or that we should or shouldn't do something because it's right or wrong, etc.

[Skepdick]

Nicely expressed.

On the basis of which moral framework are you asserting the "niceness" of the expression? Why isn't it "poorly" expressed?

Please ground your criteria for making such appraisals. Opinions or not - you still need to justify why you hold them.

Thanks.

[Iwannaplato]

Nicely expressed. And just to develop your: 'Non-moral premises can entail conclusions about human morals.'

I am trying to find different wordings and also noting yours and others. For two reasons 1) sometimes it seems like VA may be conflating facts about human morals with objective morals. I mean, he may not be using language well and also not understanding what others are saying. English is not his first language. Sometimes it seems clear that he is saying there are objective morals. We can determine what is morally good or the morally good attitudes or tendencies. Other times his wording seems to be saying that we can objective figure out what physiology leads to morals. We can have facts about morals. My guess is he thinks there is an objective morality. But on the off chance he is communicating/understanding others poorly, I keep throwing different wordings and approaches to explaining, in case it jars something in his brain. 2) If he is sure there is an objective morality, I try to word it differently so he can see that transition moment between X leads to certain attitudes/morals. It seems almost like he cannot see that juncture. His writing is jumpy, often, and I wonder if he truly doesn't understand that you may well be open to various things he calls objective being in fact objective (or potentially so) but it's the jump to moral he can't see. I know, that sounds ridiculous, but there are signs this is the case sometimes. Further he often takes for granted that not killing is moral, so when he finds, for example, that mirror cells lead to empathy this confirms his beliefs that morals are objective. But this is circular and I am not sure he is aware that he is being circular. However much you and I have sympathy for finding ways for people not to kill each other.

Conclusions (assertions) about morals or morality aren't moral conclusions - assertions that say something is morally right or wrong, good or bad (evil), or that we should or shouldn't do something because it's right or wrong, etc.

Right. One thing he seems to think you don't get is that he is generally no longer talking about coming up with rules for morality. Sometimes it seems like he is talking about virtues, attitudes, compassionate views, character traits, etc. So, if you focus just on
actions
he will tell us all that PH is ignorant about morality, that morality is only viewed as behavoiral rules by primitive minds. LOL.

So, when countering him I always list the various ways morality can be conceived, including virtue morality, charater traits, tendencies toward compassion and empathy so at least that little rant need not appear again and again.

[Peter Holmes]

Nicely expressed. And just to develop your: 'Non-moral premises can entail conclusions about human morals.'

I am trying to find different wordings and also noting yours and others. For two reasons 1) sometimes it seems like VA may be conflating facts about human morals with objective morals. I mean, he may not be using language well and also not understanding what others are saying. English is not his first language. Sometimes it seems clear that he is saying there are objective morals. We can determine what is morally good or the morally good attitudes or tendencies. Other times his wording seems to be saying that we can objective figure out what physiology leads to morals. We can have facts about morals. My guess is he thinks there is an objective morality. But on the off chance he is communicating/understanding others poorly, I keep throwing different wordings and approaches to explaining, in case it jars something in his brain. 2) If he is sure there is an objective morality, I try to word it differently so he can see that transition moment between X leads to certain attitudes/morals. It seems almost like he cannot see that juncture. His writing is jumpy, often, and I wonder if he truly doesn't understand that you may well be open to various things he calls objective being in fact objective (or potentially so) but it's the jump to moral he can't see. I know, that sounds ridiculous, but there are signs this is the case sometimes. Further he often takes for granted that not killing is moral, so when he finds, for example, that mirror cells lead to empathy this confirms his beliefs that morals are objective. But this is circular and I am not sure he is aware that he is being circular. However much you and I have sympathy for finding ways for people not to kill each other.

Conclusions (assertions) about morals or morality aren't moral conclusions - assertions that say something is morally right or wrong, good or bad (evil), or that we should or shouldn't do something because it's right or wrong, etc.

Right. One thing he seems to think you don't get is that he is generally no longer talking about coming up with rules for morality. Sometimes it seems like he is talking about virtues, attitudes, compassionate views, character traits, etc. So, if you focus just on
actions
he will tell us all that PH is ignorant about morality, that morality is only viewed as behavoiral rules by primitive minds. LOL.

So, when countering him I always list the various ways morality can be conceived, including virtue morality, charater traits, tendencies toward compassion and empathy so at least that little rant need not appear again and again.

Understood. But I think the problem remains how ever morality is 'conceived'. It's no more a fact that we should have or cultivate certain virtues or character traits or tendencies towards compassion and empathy, than that we should act or behave in certain ways. Those are opinions, and objectivity is to do with facts.

VA wants to argue from facts about human nature - specifically about the human brain - to what he calls moral facts, and therefore moral objectivity. But he says the oughts and ought nots that he thinks those brain-facts entail have nothing to do with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

And, to deepen the conceptual mess, he identifies what he calls ought-to-breathe(?) with ought-not-to-kill, as though the word ought has no different and specifically moral use. Which is just false.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Understood. But I think the problem remains how ever morality is 'conceived'.
It's no more a fact that we should have or cultivate certain virtues or character traits or tendencies towards compassion and empathy, than that we should act or behave in certain ways. Those are opinions, and objectivity is to do with facts.

PH: "how ever morality is 'conceived'"
That where is your dogmatic ideology is has entrapped you into such rigid thinking, i.e. stuck in the OLD PARADIGM on the subject of morality.

VA wants to argue from facts about human nature - specifically about the human brain - to what he calls moral facts, and therefore moral objectivity. But he says the oughts and ought nots that he thinks those brain-facts entail have nothing to do with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

Strawman.
The facts of human nature [generic to all humans] I refer to are the moral potential and functions of oughtness and ought-not-ness which is physical in contract to the thoughts and ideas of 'oughts' and 'ought nots' which are subjective to individual[s].

I posted this in the other post;

• I am not referring to the thoughts and ideas of rightness and wrongness [supposedly related to morality] that arise in individual[s] from the empirically verifiable and justifiable within the moral FSK which are not objective nor facts.
  
  Analogically, it is just like people when thinking, they generate a wide variety of opinions and beliefs, these are not objective facts but are merely subjective;
  BUT it is undeniable that the thinking function in the brain and mind is an objective biological, physiological and psychological fact as represented by the physical 'neural states, neural algorithms, neurons, genes, DNA and quarks'.
  
  It is the same with food and nutrition, all humans as a generic digestive system which is physical and an objective metabolic fact; BUT the choice of food produced, prepared and ways of eating are varied and subjective.

And, to deepen the conceptual mess, he identifies what he calls ought-to-breathe(?) with ought-not-to-kill, as though the word ought has no different and specifically moral use. Which is just false.

What I have demonstrated is that 'the oughtness-to-breathe' is an objective biological fact or human nature. You deny this?
This the oughtness-to-breathe' is programmed and inherent within human nature and it is represented its corresponding physical 'neural states, neural algorithms, neurons, genes, DNA and quarks'.

'Killing another human' is a moral issue.
What I hypothesize is there is an 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' is programmed and inherent within human nature and it is represented its corresponding physical 'neural states, neural algorithms, neurons, genes, DNA and quarks'; as such, being considered within a moral FSK, it is an objective moral fact.

So far, I have not given a thorough justification of the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' as an inherent program within human nature.
I have done extensive research on this and I confident I am in the right direction.

One clue is, as evident, the majority of humans do not simply kill another human even though the potential to kill exists in ALL humans.
This is because of the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' [as a matter of fact] is NOT active in these majority of people but this inhibitorcan be overcome under certain circumstances.

When this 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' inhibitor is considered within the Moral FKS, it is then an objective moral fact.

Note the advantage of recognizing the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' inhibitor within the brain as a matter of fact, i.e. an objective moral fact, is that humanity can focus on such an objective matter to improve the degree of inhibition objectively in each individual to modulate the 'ought-ness to kill'. This will expedite the moral progress and average moral competence within humanity.

What advantage can your dogmatic views, "how ever morality is 'conceived" [resistance to change and new paradigms] other than to soothe the pains of the cognitive dissonance arising from the inherent existential angst.

[FlashDangerpants]

_______

I see that, once again, it's time to add some more items to V.A.'s ever-growing list of self-aggrandizing statements:

• 1. Note I have martial arts background.
  
  2. Note I have done extensive research into the spirituality of human nature.
  
  3. I am inclined with one-upping knowledge.
  
  4. My struggle to be understood is on a par with the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, and Kant.
  
  5. I am an expert on Islam.
  
  6. I am an expert on Buddhism.
  
  7. I am an expert on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
  
  8. I am an expert on "What is Philosophy."
  
  9. I've done extensive research into "altered states of consciousness" leaving no stones unturned.
  
  10. One of my specialty is problem solving techniques.
  
  11. After a long time of research, I understand the neuroscientific and psychological basis why the majority of people have to be theists.
  
  12. (new): I understand the full range of Morality & Ethics.
  
  13. (new): I am a master of Aquinas's Metaphysics and his FIVE WAYs.
  
  14. Soon to be announced...

Over the years there had been many people who had exposed my lack-of or ignorance in various essential philosophical topics and I will make it a point to read up what I had been ignorant of.

Apparently, you missed reading-up on the essential philosophical topic of...

Humility
and the art of not coming-off as an
Insufferable Blowhard

Generally available as a download from the commonsense section of functional minds everywhere.
_______

Don't forget he also declared himself a scientist on the basis of the 3 week online access courses he likes to do

You are so psychologically stuck in the primal paradigm it is unlikely you will be able to see sense in what I am and other scientists are proposing above.

[Peter Holmes]

Understood. But I think the problem remains how ever morality is 'conceived'.
It's no more a fact that we should have or cultivate certain virtues or character traits or tendencies towards compassion and empathy, than that we should act or behave in certain ways. Those are opinions, and objectivity is to do with facts.

PH: "how ever morality is 'conceived'"
That where is your dogmatic ideology is has entrapped you into such rigid thinking, i.e. stuck in the OLD PARADIGM on the subject of morality.

VA wants to argue from facts about human nature - specifically about the human brain - to what he calls moral facts, and therefore moral objectivity. But he says the oughts and ought nots that he thinks those brain-facts entail have nothing to do with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

Strawman.
The facts of human nature [generic to all humans] I refer to are the moral potential and functions of oughtness and ought-not-ness which is physical in contract to the thoughts and ideas of 'oughts' and 'ought nots' which are subjective to individual[s].

You strip 'oughtness' and 'ought-not-ness' of any moral significance. Then you call human 'programming' with 'ought-not-to-kill' a moral fact.

Why is it a moral fact? You say 'morality proper' is nothing to do with rightness and wrongness, so why is programming either to kill or not to kill a moral matter?

Try this: take out morality and 'ought' altogether, because they have no function in your argument.

'Humans are physically programmed not to kill humans.'

Now, that really is a factual assertion with a truth-value, and neuroscience may provide empirical evidence to support it. But notice, there's no need to mention morality or 'oughtness', just as there's no need to say that blood 'ought' to oxygenate the cells, because if it doesn't, they'll die.

Your analogous claim - 'humans ought to breathe' - is incoherent, as is 'the heart ought to pump blood'. The word 'ought' in these claims has no useful or even discernable meaning.

In other words, you're not arguing for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts - at all.

[seeds]

_______

I see that, once again, it's time to add some more items to V.A.'s ever-growing list of self-aggrandizing statements:

• 1. Note I have martial arts background.
  
  2. Note I have done extensive research into the spirituality of human nature.
  
  3. I am inclined with one-upping knowledge.
  
  4. My struggle to be understood is on a par with the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, and Kant.
  
  5. I am an expert on Islam.
  
  6. I am an expert on Buddhism.
  
  7. I am an expert on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
  
  8. I am an expert on "What is Philosophy."
  
  9. I've done extensive research into "altered states of consciousness" leaving no stones unturned.
  
  10. One of my specialty is problem solving techniques.
  
  11. After a long time of research, I understand the neuroscientific and psychological basis why the majority of people have to be theists.
  
  12. (new): I understand the full range of Morality & Ethics.
  
  13. (new): I am a master of Aquinas's Metaphysics and his FIVE WAYs.
  
  14. Soon to be announced...

Over the years there had been many people who had exposed my lack-of or ignorance in various essential philosophical topics and I will make it a point to read up what I had been ignorant of.

Apparently, you missed reading-up on the essential philosophical topic of...

Humility
and the art of not coming-off as an
Insufferable Blowhard

Generally available as a download from the commonsense section of functional minds everywhere.
_______

Don't forget he also declared himself a scientist on the basis of the 3 week online access courses he likes to do

You are so psychologically stuck in the primal paradigm it is unlikely you will be able to see sense in what I am and other scientists are proposing above.

It's hard to keep track of all his boastings.

The problem that I am now discovering is that instead of him seeing this growing list as a source of mockery and shame for the way he presents himself, I think he's viewing it as me helping him create an impressive résumé that he can use to "wow" future employers.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Understood. But I think the problem remains how ever morality is 'conceived'.
It's no more a fact that we should have or cultivate certain virtues or character traits or tendencies towards compassion and empathy, than that we should act or behave in certain ways. Those are opinions, and objectivity is to do with facts.

PH: "how ever morality is 'conceived'"
That where is your dogmatic ideology is has entrapped you into such rigid thinking, i.e. stuck in the OLD PARADIGM on the subject of morality.

VA wants to argue from facts about human nature - specifically about the human brain - to what he calls moral facts, and therefore moral objectivity. But he says the oughts and ought nots that he thinks those brain-facts entail have nothing to do with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

Strawman.
The facts of human nature [generic to all humans] I refer to are the moral potential and functions of oughtness and ought-not-ness which is physical in contract to the thoughts and ideas of 'oughts' and 'ought nots' which are subjective to individual[s].

You strip 'oughtness' and 'ought-not-ness' of any moral significance. Then you call human 'programming' with 'ought-not-to-kill' a moral fact.

Why is it a moral fact? You say 'morality proper' is nothing to do with rightness and wrongness, so why is programming either to kill or not to kill a moral matter?

Try this: take out morality and 'ought' altogether, because they have no function in your argument.

'Humans are physically programmed not to kill humans.'

Now, that really is a factual assertion with a truth-value, and neuroscience may provide empirical evidence to support it. But notice, there's no need to mention morality or 'oughtness', just as there's no need to say that blood 'ought' to oxygenate the cells, because if it doesn't, they'll die.

As I had stated many times, we must define what is morality-proper.
Generally morality is avoiding evil to promote good for the welfare of humanity.
Killing another human is evil thus related to morality.

As you agreed:
'Humans are physically programmed not to kill humans' is a verifiable fact.
WHY?
It is because that is avoiding evil to promote good for the welfare of humanity - which is Morality.
To maintain Morality [dealt within the Moral FSK], there is an inherent 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' that is programmed within ALL humans.
This is related to the human nature of morality, thus a moral fact.

Note this very important point;
There is definitely an ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans within one's own human nature, thus one ought to comply with one's human nature.
This 'oughtness' is different from typical Hume's 'ought' where such oughts are imposed upon individual by external authorities and others.

Note there is also:
'Humans are physically programmed to kill humans' is a verifiable fact.
Because this inherent 'ougthness' is more stronger than the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' there is a moral oughtness to align with the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' to modulate and suppress the 'oughtness to kill' WITHIN ONESELF.

This personal battle of good over evil is a moral function of human nature within oneself, thus the related 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' is a moral fact verifiable and justifiable within the scientific FSK and thence to Moral FSK.

Your analogous claim - 'humans ought to breathe' - is incoherent, as is 'the heart ought to pump blood'. The word 'ought' in these claims has no useful or even discernable meaning.

Nah, strawman again.
There is a big difference between a whole conscious person [Agent] oughtness to breathe in contrast to 'the heart ought to pump blood' or 'the stomach ought to digest.'
It is very appropriate to assign 'oughtness' to agents rather than non-agents.

In other words, you're not arguing for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts - at all.

Note my argument linking a verifiable empirical fact [scientific FSK] to a moral fact [moral FSK] above.

[FlashDangerpants]

-proper

Not even a word, a mere suffix by which VA can ruin anything.

Anything he he presents as the -propper edition of something is invariably -fake, -fucked and -useless.

[Iwannaplato]

Understood. But I think the problem remains how ever morality is 'conceived'. It's no more a fact that we should have or cultivate certain virtues or character traits or tendencies towards compassion and empathy, than that we should act or behave in certain ways. Those are opinions, and objectivity is to do with facts.

VA wants to argue from facts about human nature - specifically about the human brain - to what he calls moral facts, and therefore moral objectivity. But he says the oughts and ought nots that he thinks those brain-facts entail have nothing to do with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

And, to deepen the conceptual mess, he identifies what he calls ought-to-breathe(?) with ought-not-to-kill, as though the word ought has no different and specifically moral use. Which is just false.

Yes, I noticed that equivocation. And it's actually an excellent one, at first glance, for yet another attempt to get across the gap we have with him. Because the equivocation gives us a nice starting point.

The ought in ought to breathe assumes another premise: that we want to continue living. If we have this practical goal, then we should, in the non-moral sense, keep breathing.

If we want to take out small phillips head screws we should/ought to definitely not use our flathead screwdriver, especially if we have a small phillips head screwdriver. That's not morals, that practical advice in the context of a specific goal.

But look at some recent quotes from his posts....
1)

A belief or opinion that 'murder is morally wrong' expressed by individuals or groups without any empirical verification and justification within a scientific FSK then a moral FSK is not a moral fact.
What is the moral fact is that 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' that is physically represented in the brain and body of the individual is the moral fact as conditioned to a moral FSK.

2)

"A scientific fact is scientific" is meaningless, thus I have never claimed a moral fact must be moral.

3)

My stance is 'objectivity' emerges from intersubjectivity.

I make the claim, now, that at this point it is nearly impossible to know what VA is saying. He seems to be ruling out any deontological claim based on an FSK (the bolded portion of quote 1). So, there he seems to be on board with you, so far. He seems to be saying that his version of 'objectivity' is universality in quote 3. And in quote 2, the second clause seems to be, well, saying he is not saying his moral facts are moral. (and yes, there could be all sorts of gnarly problems (or not) with the first clause in quote 1)

But drawing from these three quotes we find something like....

We can have as a fact that people do have a tendency to be empathetic. That's a moral fact. It does not mean that being empathetic is being morally good.

Which I would think you would be on board with. Or at least, I would guess, you would be on board with the idea that this is a reasonable objective claim that we could find evidence for and evaluate objectively.

But is he saying what he seems to be saying??????

If he is saying what seems implicit in the above, why is he so vehemently disagreeing with you?

Does his not being a native English speaker lead to some of the problems?

Has his position evolved (and I think this is demonstrable) in reaction to criticism in such a way that he on the one hand is saying something quite different from what he did before without admitting it?

Do his writings contradict each other?

Does he know what he is doing?

And so on.

I think at this point the investment in PH being wrong must be enormous. At the same time I can see how critical posts affect his later posts. He integrates criticisms even from posts that he never responds to directly. I can see he reads posts of people he has on ignore and adjusts his wordings and presentations, while not acknowledging why). So, there's this ongoing process of showing you're wrong, while at the same time rewording and redefining his positions to such a degree that they could be quotes from the posts of critics, but again without acknowledging the shifts or apparant shifts.

It might be useful - hope springs eternal - to highlight these seeming areas of potential agreement. You may well have done this. I am not saying, oh, you guys are really on the same page. More like, I don't think it's clear what he means anymore, perhaps even that it's not clear to him, not that I know he's noticed or willing to admit it.