The 'Marmite' of Objective Morality

[Veritas Aequitas]

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 taste that are savory, i.e. delicious.
Since Marmite is high in umami flavor, marmite will be delicious to all normal humans without damage taste receptors.
This is a fact that can be verified and justified with experiences of all humans which 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."

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How moronic can humans get? This is just depressing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are two aspects on the discussion of morality, i.e.

1. Bankrupt, corrupted, pseudo-morality.
2. Morality proper

Bankrupt, corrupted, pseudo-morality refer to the various conventional subjective morality, i.e. Consequentialism, Utilitarianism, God Commanded Morality, Deontology and the likes. Such moralities are subjective because each individual[s] or group will claim their version of morality is the standard that represent what is morality.

Morality proper refer to Normative Ethics where the norms and standard can be verified and justified empirically reinforced with rational philosophical arguments just as I had presented in the OP above.

ALL [if not most] of the critiques of Morality, i.e. morality is definitely subjective never objective, target merely the bankrupt, corrupted, pseudo-morality but not morality-proper. They had relied on the archaic and dogmatic views of Hume's No Ought from IS [matter of fact] and Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy.

Hume in this time [1700s] was ignorant of the Normative basis of Morality and Ethics which he glaringly admitted to his ignorance,

A Treatise of Human nature [1739]
Impressions may be divided into two kinds,
1. those of SENSATION and
2. those of REFLEXION.

The first kind arises in the soul originally, from unknown causes.
The second [impression of reflexion] is derived in a great measure from our ideas, and that in the following order.

An [8] impression first strikes upon the senses, and makes us perceive heat or cold, thirst or hunger, pleasure or pain of some kind or other.

The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.
SECTION II.: Division of the Subject.
………………..
Its effects are every where conspicuous; but as to its causes, they are mostly unknown, and must be resolv’d into original qualities of human nature, which I pretend not to explain.
SECTION IV.: Of the connexion or association of ideas.

In the above Hume acknowledged he lacked the knowledge then to know the causes of the sentiments and drives he was talking about.

The subject of Morality and Ethics is part and parcel of Philosophy ever since the impulse of philosophy emerged within humanity.
Due to the limitation of human abilities then to even now, humans could only deal with subjective corrupted approaches to morality which the best they can do given the various constraints.

But it is time now to turn our attention to Normative Ethics & Morality on an objective basis.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

A bit of proofreading wouldn't go amiss. Go back and read what you wrote. See if YOU can make any sense of it.

[iambiguous]

How moronic can humans get? This is just depressing.

Even I am inclined to agree with this.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A bit of proofreading wouldn't go amiss. Go back and read what you wrote. See if YOU can make any sense of it.

Have you even researched on Normative, Evolutionary Ethics & the likes and cover its range of views?
If not, and if you don't understand [not necessary agree with] what I have posted, then it is because of your ignorance.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

A bit of proofreading wouldn't go amiss. Go back and read what you wrote. See if YOU can make any sense of it.

Have you even researched on Normative, Evolutionary Ethics & the likes and cover its range of views?
If not, and if you don't understand [not necessary agree with] what I have posted, then it is because of your ignorance.

Nothing to do with it. Proofread and edit it and it might make some sense (although that's doubtful).

[Iwannaplato]

First the hilarious aspect of using Marmite in relation to morals....
https://www.prima.co.uk/diet-and-health ... 2hater%22.
That's right, love or hate Marmite. There is no universal reaction to Marmite. And then universal morals are not objective morals. So, it fails the first and does not come in the neighborhood of the second, this argument.

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.

If there was a physical moral algorith about not killing other humans, human history would look so different from how it does now, every humanity and social science would have completely different facts and texts.

As far as taste....

• Durian.
  Surströmming. ...
  Vieux Boulogne. ...
  Stinky Tofu (chòu dòufu) ...
  Lutefisk. ...
  Doenjang. ...
  Iru. ...
  Limburger cheese. ...

We cannot demonstrate in any way that the people who love these tastes are right or wrong. In fact sometimes we have to make laws because tastes vary so much....

A block of pecorino cheese is cut open and left outside to attract cheese flies, Piophila casei, that lay up to 500 eggs in it. The larvae of cheese flies then feast on the cheese, and their enzymes break down the fats in the Sardinian sheep’s milk cheese. The larvae excrement is a partially digested soft cheese, almost liquid.

The maggot cheese (also known as casu modde, casu cundídu, and casu fràzigu) is eaten with the living larvae, so diners need to protect their eyes from the jumping larvae. Eating live maggots is risky as they can survive inside their new host and can bore through intestinal walls. The worm cheese has a pungent smell and it burns your tongue, and it leaves a strong aftertaste that lasts for hours. Casu Marzu is banned in the EU and carries a fine of €40 000 for both the seller and the buyer. The local Sardinian government has along with the local worm cheese producers tried to get an exemption from the laws since it’s been made the same way for over 25 years.

If the analogy is with taste receptors, his own argument eats itself.

It is objective that we find some things tasty. It is not objective what we find tasty. We one flexible species.
Try proving to your child or your spouse that cauliflour tastes good. Line up the scientists, get out the biology journals, show them mice studies.....

And we should note that here VA's argument fails as far as universal morality. It doesn't come close to touching objective morality. There is no reason to assume that what is good for humans morally is Good. Even if the former, good for humans, could be ruled on. We might be the universe's parasites.

[Iwannaplato]

It is just a matter of fact [verifiable] that it is delicious and an innate propensity.

Nope, it's not a fact. See my first link in the post above.
But further even if all humans liked something, it would not make it objectively moral. It would just mean members of one species were in agreement about the tastiness or enjoyability of that thing. It doesn't make it Good, any more than if all intestinal worms liked something would make that objectively Good.

[Skepdick]

Nope, it's not a fact. See my first link in the post above.
But further even if all humans liked something, it would not make it objectively moral. It would just mean members of one species were in agreement about the tastiness or enjoyability of that thing. It doesn't make it Good, any more than if all intestinal worms liked something would make that objectively Good.

So what would make something "Good"? Sure sounds like are working with an unsatisfiable criterion.

To put it another way. You may be a wee bit of an intellectually dishonest cunt if you've placed goodness out of reach.

By your own logic it sure sounds like Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun even if all humans agree about it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

https://www.prima.co.uk/diet-and-health ... 22hater%22.
Here are some interesting facts from the above article;

It's a cliché for good reason: you really do either love or loathe Marmite.

And, no matter which side of the metaphorical toast you fall on, it looks like science may finally have found the reason why people react so strongly to the yeast spread: it's down to your genes.

A new study on more than 260 British adults has revealed that your preference for the delicious (in our opinion, anyway) breakfast staple could be linked to genetics, the Evening Standard reports.

After wondering why Marmite is so polarising, the brand decided to team up with DNAFit, one of the UK's biggest genetic testing centres, to try and work out why in The Marmite Gene Project.

And they found 15 genes linked to either loving or hating Marmite...

Chatting about the results, principal investigator Thomas Roos from DNAFit said: 'Our research indicates that Marmite taste preference can in large parts be attributed to our genetic blueprint, which shows that each of us is born with a tendency to be either a "lover" or a "hater".

'Our data reveals that there are multiple genes that contribute towards this, and it is a really exciting discovery.'

However, don't despair if you're still hoping your other half or child will acquire a taste for the sticky stuff, because Roos says a person's genes don't dictate everything...

'Like anything in genetics, taste preference is dictated by both nature and nurture. Our environment can impact our taste preference as much as the genes we are born with.'

FRANCESCA RICE

Hume's argument is that morality is purely feelings and has not basis of a matter-of-fact.

The above article prove that there are facts that are grounding human preferences, feelings of likes and dislikes.
With this fact we cannot claimed morality is purely based on feelings and merely relationship of ideas and not a matter of fact.

There is already some clues that morality is related to mirror neurons and there are loads of possibility that morality is grounded in other neurons, DNA and genes.
What is pathetic is people like Peter Holmes keep insisting Dogmatically he is 100% certain moral can NEVER be objective!

[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.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I can't stand marmite. Vegemite is objectively tastier.

[Skepdick]

I can't stand marmite. Vegemite is objectively tastier.

Can you even tell the difference on a double-blind test?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I can't stand marmite. Vegemite is objectively tastier.

Can you even tell the difference on a double-blind test?

Well I don't like the taste of marmite so it wouldn't make any difference if I was blindfolded or not