The "OughtNess to Kill"

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have discussed the topic of the "OughtNess to Kill" in all [if not most] living species including humans in PH's thread and elsewhere many times, but it is often forgotten.
This thread re The "OughtNess to Kill" is for easy reference to the issue.

Elsewhere, VA says this:

'...[not] killing your own kind' is embedded as a physical algorithm [thus an objective fact] in ALL species and especially the existing species. Theoretically, Rationally and in principle, 'oughtness not-to-kill-own-kind' has to be inherent in all individuals, else, a species will be in a self-destruction mode.'

1 As Iwannaplato has repeatedly pointed out, programming to kill - including your own species - is also 'embedded' in many species. So the 'facts' are, as it were, morally neutral. Oughtness-to-kill is just as 'factual' as oughtness-not-to-kill.

Ignorance is no defence.
I have already responded to the above in this thread;
viewtopic.php?p=618621#p618621

Generally,
1. The primary ought of all living things is the 'oughtness to survive' as long as possible till the inevitable. This is a biological fact [FSK].

2. the 'ought-to-kill' is a critical to fulfil the 'Food' in the 4Fs to facilitate basic survival -1. This is a biological fact [FSK].

3. This 'ought-to-kill' is directed at non-humans so that humans can kill them for food -2. This is a biological fact [FSK].

4. But being humans there is a possibility [due to various reasons - tribalism, self-defense, etc.] that if such 'ought to kill' is directed at other humans without control, it would theoretical exterminate the species which would contradict 1. There must a control to ensure 1 is sustained. This is a biological and psychological fact [FSK].

5. To ensure objective 1 is sustain, evolution has programmed via adaption the 'oughtness not to kill one's kind' as a control. Despite humans have been killing each other due to Tribalism and other reasons, 'oughtness not to kill one's kind' still prevails. This evident in all the species that survive to the present.
This is the advent of the biological and moral function within all humans.
Most the species that had died out and become extinct was due to natural Catastrophe and natural events.
Which species went extinct because all were killed by their own kind?

6. Per the Moral FSK, since morality is eliminating evil to enable its related good, and since killing another human is an evil act, the 'oughtness not to kill humans' is a biological and moral issue.
Since this 'oughtness not to kill humans' is sustained by physical biological neural correlates, it is an objective moral fact via the human-based moral FSK.

7. 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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note 1:

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 6:50 am
The "Oughtness-to-kill" is just as 'factual' as oughtness-not-to-kill.

So you admit both the above are facts, i.e. human-based-science-biology-FSK facts.

As explained above the "Oughtness-to-kill" is a biological fact and not a moral fact per se or directly.

The "oughtness-not-to-kill-humans" is a biological fact and because killing humans is related to morality-proper, then, the biological fact "oughtness-not-to-kill-humans" can be subsumed within the human-based-moral-FSK as an objective moral facts.

............................
Note 2,
1. Morality, good and evil are concepts, and
2. in order to have concepts there must be thought,
3. in order to have thoughts, there must be .......??

4. Yeah, there must be the underlying biological processes, [neuroscience, neuro-biology]
5. in order to have biological processes, there must be its specific set of neural correlates in interaction with the whole body, one present and past experiences, within an environment, [neuro-psychology]
6. in order to have neural correlates, there must be the physical neurons,
7. in order to have physical neurons, there must be the Genes, DNA, quarks, particles,.

Thus it is very critical we must pay attention to the biological processes and its complex set of variables in order to have effective concepts that can manage evil to enable moral progress.

Take for example, the malignant psychopath who has very strong urge to kill.
Per OP, the oughtness to kill is inherent in ALL humans; for the majority, this impulse is reasonably managed, modulated and inhibited by the 'oughtness not to kill human'.

In the malignant psychopath's case, his 'oughtness not to kill human' [biological processes re neural brakes and inhibitor] exists objectively, but it is not in good working order due to various reasons, thus his loosened 'ought to kill' is directed at humans and he killed humans.

Now if we can understand the biological processes* of the malignant psychopath, this will give humanity the opportunity to prevent the malignancy via the basis of the neurons, genes, DNA and so on.
[*Note the analogy of the difference between a typical car-ignorant driver and one who knows the inside out in every aspects of a car; pari-passu, the latter will be a better driver and in managing the condition of his car.]

When this is possible in the future [.. I am very optimistic - in 75, 100 or > years] then there will no more malignant psychopaths bent on a killing spree to kill humans.

The above is applicable to all other evil acts.
We would then have achieved the highest level of moral progress with the ability to sustain it from thereon.
From the above points, morality is objective emerging from a human based moral*-FSK.
* i.e. based on morality-proper not pseudo-morality.

Practice deep reflective thinking for humanity sake.
..........................

[Dontaskme]

If this is about food which is needed to survive, then life is killing itself in order to survive, there's nothing more simple than that, no need to make what is simple complicated.

[Dontaskme]

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 6:50 am
The "Oughtness-to-kill" is just as 'factual' as oughtness-not-to-kill.

So you admit both the above are facts, i.e. human-based-science-biology-FSK facts.

As explained above the "Oughtness-to-kill" is a biological fact and not a moral fact per se or directly.

The "oughtness-not-to-kill-humans" is a biological fact and because killing humans is related to morality-proper, then, the biological fact "oughtness-not-to-kill-humans" can be subsumed within the human-based-moral-FSK as an objective moral facts.

It 's a fact that to be human is to know you will die.

Humans tend not to kill other humans simply because they know that killing another human would feel as though they have killed themself. And just as non-human animals do not generally commit suicide, a human being will have the will for survival more than the will to commit suicide. So that's about it in a nutshell, this is not rocket science, even a child can understand this. As a human observer, I know that when I harm another, I am only harming myself, if I have anything that resembles a conscience.

Most humans have a conscience, and those who do not, have not due to some biological brain disfunction that's all, it's not the humans fault that it's brain is wired faulty.

No human being ever made it's own brain...nor can a human make it's brain work to a specific command. There's just what's happening in the immediate moment, that does not operate to a time machine basis.

[Iwannaplato]

I have discussed the topic of the "OughtNess to Kill" in all [if not most] living species including humans in PH's thread and elsewhere many times, but it is often forgotten.
This thread re The "OughtNess to Kill" is for easy reference to the issue.

Elsewhere, VA says this:

'...[not] killing your own kind' is embedded as a physical algorithm [thus an objective fact] in ALL species and especially the existing species. Theoretically, Rationally and in principle, 'oughtness not-to-kill-own-kind' has to be inherent in all individuals, else, a species will be in a self-destruction mode.'

1 As Iwannaplato has repeatedly pointed out, programming to kill - including your own species - is also 'embedded' in many species. So the 'facts' are, as it were, morally neutral. Oughtness-to-kill is just as 'factual' as oughtness-not-to-kill.

Ignorance is no defence.
I have already responded to the above in this thread;
viewtopic.php?p=618621#p618621

Generally,
1. The primary ought of all living things is the 'oughtness to survive' as long as possible till the inevitable. This is a biological fact [FSK].

2. the 'ought-to-kill' is a critical to fulfil the 'Food' in the 4Fs to facilitate basic survival -1. This is a biological fact [FSK].

3. This 'ought-to-kill' is directed at non-humans so that humans can kill them for food -2. This is a biological fact [FSK].

4. But being humans there is a possibility [due to various reasons - tribalism, self-defense, etc.] that if such 'ought to kill' is directed at other humans without control, it would theoretical exterminate the species which would contradict 1. There must a control to ensure 1 is sustained. This is a biological and psychological fact [FSK].

5. To ensure objective 1 is sustain, evolution has programmed via adaption the 'oughtness not to kill one's kind' as a control. Despite humans have been killing each other due to Tribalism and other reasons, 'oughtness not to kill one's kind' still prevails. This evident in all the species that survive to the present.
This is the advent of the biological and moral function within all humans.
Most the species that had died out and become extinct was due to natural Catastrophe and natural events.
Which species went extinct because all were killed by their own kind?

6. Per the Moral FSK, since morality is eliminating evil to enable its related good, and since killing another human is an evil act, the 'oughtness not to kill humans' is a biological and moral issue.
Since this 'oughtness not to kill humans' is sustained by physical biological neural correlates, it is an objective moral fact via the human-based moral FSK.

7. 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.

I certainly know that VA has mentioned the oughtness to kill. I have a number of times mentioned that he has mentioned this. That's not the problem. And I see an added problem above. It is NOT just an oughtness to kill in survival situations. Many species murder members of their own species for a variety of reasons, some related to the spread of their own genes (male lions killing the young of other males), some related to getting mates, some related to territory (which can be related to survival but this will happen with well fed members of the species in times of plenty, some related to simply have a great deal of aggression, sometimes it seems to have to do with mere whim, sometimes with dominance in-group, sometimes)

But the main problem with VA's objective moral facts is he looks at human brains sees oughtness to kill neurons and oughtness not to kill and decides that the latter is the one to be enhanced. He does not talk about enhancing both. He will only enhance one. So, his moral preference was not caused by finding oughtness not to kill neurons, he already had that moral outlook. So, what he is calling an objective moral fact is based on a preference NOT supported in any way by science.

The next problem is that GIVEN that humans have both oughtnesses and there are other species do not - like hares or whales - that if oughtness neurons in the brain are the evidence of objective moral facts, then homo sapien objective moral facts include the oughtness to murder.

It is in fact VA's own premise (which he is not consistant about) which is hopeless in relation to murder, because we should then accept that aggression leading to violence including murder is an objective moral attitude/behavior. For us, but not for the species that do not murder.

Someone like PH, who does not use oughtness neurons to generate objective moral facts is NOT bound to thinking aggession, including murder, is an objective moral fact for humans.

I go into other problems and in different ways here....
viewtopic.php?p=634904#p634904
and in earlier posts in that thread.

I don't think he has ever addressed the problem of him constantly talking about things like LUCU, the BIG BANG, neurons, the primordial soup, etc., which should not exist when not being looked at. IOW he is an ontological realist when it suits him and his arguments, but not otherwise.

Nor has he addressed the his antirealism in general, but realism in relation to morals.

VA never responds to my posts, and perhaps does not read them, or rarely does. Anyone reading mine...if you feel like responding to me, feel free to quote from mine, since I think he has me on foe (ignore).

I really can't image I was ever harsher than a number of people he responds to have been. But this is how it is.

[Harbal]

I have discussed the topic of the "OughtNess to Kill" in all [if not most] living species

The presence of something in all eliminates the possibility of it only being present in most.

6. Per the Moral FSK, since morality is eliminating evil to enable its related good, and since killing another human is an evil act, the 'oughtness not to kill humans' is a biological and moral issue.
Since this 'oughtness not to kill humans' is sustained by physical biological neural correlates, it is an objective moral fact via the human-based moral FSK.

Morality, good and evil are concepts, and in order to have concepts there must be thought. Biological processes do not, and cannot, think.

[Flannel Jesus]

Per the Moral FSK

Odd to imply that there is some sort of singular moral fsk, The Moral FSK. There's relatively singular scientific FSKs (with little branches at the end), for example chemistry or relativity, which are 99% singular (almost all experts agree with almost all aspects of the mainstream FSK) with little disagreements between experts at the frontier of study - but morality has no such uniformity that I'm aware of. So, I don't think the phrase "the moral fsk" makes much sense. I don't even know what it refers to.

[Dontaskme]

VA never responds to my posts, and perhaps does not read them, or rarely does. Anyone reading mine...if you feel like responding to me, feel free to quote from mine, since I think he has me on foe (ignore).

I really can't image I was ever harsher than a number of people he responds to have been. But this is how it is.

I don't know about you, but I happen to think that people who post their own threads should be held responsible for it by engaging in the effort someone has made contributing their say in relation to the discussion.

Those who ignore other peoples responses, either by putting them on ignore list or just plain ghosting them are the most stupid egotistical ignoramuses and do not deserve the luxury of using a free unfettered platform that is this philosophy now forum.

Even a simple one line sentence in response, would suffice as just common courtesy, if that is humanly possible. Ignoring people is stupid, because everyone who is a philosopher has their own part of the bigger picture, and each piece of the puzzle is needed fot the whole picture to be completed.

[Dontaskme]

I have discussed the topic of the "OughtNess to Kill" in all [if not most] living species

The presence of something in all eliminates the possibility of it only being present in most.

6. Per the Moral FSK, since morality is eliminating evil to enable its related good, and since killing another human is an evil act, the 'oughtness not to kill humans' is a biological and moral issue.
Since this 'oughtness not to kill humans' is sustained by physical biological neural correlates, it is an objective moral fact via the human-based moral FSK.

Morality, good and evil are concepts, and in order to have concepts there must be thought. Biological processes do not, and cannot, think.

Brilliantly said Harbal

[Harbal]

Per the Moral FSK

I don't think the phrase "the moral fsk" makes much sense. I don't even know what it refers to.

Tread carefully; he reacts very badly to having his FSKs taken away from him.

[Flannel Jesus]

Those who ignore other peoples responses, either by putting them on ignore list or just plain ghosting them are the most stupid egotistical ignoramuses and do not deserve the luxury of using a free unfettered platform that is this philosophy now forum.

Even a simple one line sentence in response, would suffice as just common courtesy, if that is humanly possible. Ignoring people is stupid, because everyone who is a philosopher has their own part of the bigger picture, and each piece of the puzzle is needed fot the whole picture to be completed.

Some people are absolutely worth ignoring. Not because of their ideas, usually, but because of their vitriol. I wouldn't put iwannaplato in this box, but imagine someone who you actually philosophically agree with on like 90% of things, but every time you think something they don't agree with, they become the most nasty dispicable person towards you. "I can't believe you think this thing, you must be a complete fucking retard. Choke on a cock and die."

I'm not here to read the temper tantrums of philosophical toddlers, so I definitely don't agree with you here that nobody is worth blocking, that everyone is worth responding to.

[Harbal]

Brilliantly said Harbal

Thank you.

I was just thinking the same about you:

I don't know about you, but I happen to think that people who post their own threads should be held responsible for it by engaging in the effort someone has made contributing their say in relation to the discussion.

Those who ignore other peoples responses, either by putting them on ignore list or just plain ghosting them are the most stupid egotistical ignoramuses and do not deserve the luxury of using a free unfettered platform that is this philosophy now forum.

Even a simple one line sentence in response, would suffice as just common courtesy, if that is humanly possible. Ignoring people is stupid, because everyone who is a philosopher has their own part of the bigger picture, and each piece of the puzzle is needed fot the whole picture to be completed.

[Dontaskme]

Brilliantly said Harbal

Thank you.

I was just thinking the same about you:

I don't know about you, but I happen to think that people who post their own threads should be held responsible for it by engaging in the effort someone has made contributing their say in relation to the discussion.

Those who ignore other peoples responses, either by putting them on ignore list or just plain ghosting them are the most stupid egotistical ignoramuses and do not deserve the luxury of using a free unfettered platform that is this philosophy now forum.

Even a simple one line sentence in response, would suffice as just common courtesy, if that is humanly possible. Ignoring people is stupid, because everyone who is a philosopher has their own part of the bigger picture, and each piece of the puzzle is needed fot the whole picture to be completed.

The feeling is mutual.

[Dontaskme]

Those who ignore other peoples responses, either by putting them on ignore list or just plain ghosting them are the most stupid egotistical ignoramuses and do not deserve the luxury of using a free unfettered platform that is this philosophy now forum.

Even a simple one line sentence in response, would suffice as just common courtesy, if that is humanly possible. Ignoring people is stupid, because everyone who is a philosopher has their own part of the bigger picture, and each piece of the puzzle is needed fot the whole picture to be completed.

Some people are absolutely worth ignoring. Not because of their ideas, usually, but because of their vitriol. I wouldn't put iwannaplato in this box, but imagine someone who you actually philosophically agree with on like 90% of things, but every time you think something they don't agree with, they become the most nasty dispicable person towards you. "I can't believe you think this thing, you must be a complete fucking retard. Choke on a cock and die."

I'm not here to read the temper tantrums of philosophical toddlers, so I definitely don't agree with you here that nobody is worth blocking, that everyone is worth responding to.

I'm not sure FJ
I'm just as guilty of enjoying a good romp in the mud with all the other pigs, I am still learning not to take other people's comments personally, but it's harder to reconcile when we shut others out.

I think most people if they are truely honest, love choking on their own and others cock and philosophical bull stories.

Just for the fun of it, however, in real life, of course one would simply have to bite the tongue, or even swallow that which spouts cock and bull stories.



I just can't help myself but make fun of myself...but I understand, some people are a bit more sensitive to that sort of fun.

[Dontaskme]

I'm not here to read the temper tantrums of philosophical toddlers, so I definitely don't agree with you here that nobody is worth blocking, that everyone is worth responding to.

Also worth noting, figuratively speaking, is that a mother or father of a child throwing a tantrum does not abandon the child because of the temper tantrum. The wise parent will happily look on at the trantrum with detachment until the trantrum is over. Then, once the trantrum has passed, everyone can carry on with their lives where they left off prior to the tantrum. . usually, is when a happiness and harmony is restored.

We do not have to respond to philosophical discussion if the content is already known to be of a temper trantrum nature, we can ignore the message. But to ignore the person is like the abandonment issue, and no one likes to think it is being abandoned. Dislike the behaviour, not the child. Dislike the message, not the messenger...metaphorically speaking.

Reasoning with what seems unreasonale is futile, like fighting fire with fire. Just leave what is seen as disruptive to simmer down, then add some more fuel in the form of wisdom when necessary, if necessary. Whatever you decide to add, can only be rejected or resonated with. And no one need get harmed in the process. One can simply try to add something of value, or just walk away from the discussion if it's not of any use or value to you..