Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 7:37 am
Yeah. The particular focus on empathy-related brain facts as opposed to other ones doesn't seem to pass the criteria of "objective" to me. Objectivity was previously defined as "A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject." - this all seems very much centered in the bias of a particular sentient subject.
You missed my point.
In the above I was merely dealing with general principles and not specific issues related to empathy etc.
- In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
I have claimed that the highest objectivity of truths are scientific facts from the science-FSK. Example, contrast the degree of objectivity between 'oxygen exists as a gas' from science-chemistry-FSK against 'god exists as an entity' from theistic FSK.
In principle [without consideration of the specifics],
In my case, I am claiming the objectivity my human-based moral FSK is very close to that of the human-based scientific FSK because all of its major inputs are [scientific facts] from the science-FSK.
Note the
analogy;
In principle [without consideration of the specifics],
the objectivity a human-based Criminality FSK [court] is very close to that of the human-based scientific FSK because all of its major inputs are [scientific facts] from the science-FSK.
In this case, the requirement of this human-based Criminality FSK is every piece of evidence presented by the prosecutor must be supported as a scientific fact [DNA and other forensic evidences] without exception, i.e. never based on observations by witnesses.
Thus if a criminal is convicted as a murderer, the objectivity of this fact must have high objectivity in contrast to another a human-based Criminality FSK [court] that do not rely purely on scientific evidences.
It is based on these principles in the above analogy that I am applying the methodology and conditions to my human-based moral FSK.
Since it is based on merely principles, there is no need for me to produce specific examples like mirror-neurons, etc.
The principle is whatever input I introduced in the my human-based moral FSK, it must be a scientific fact that is verifiable and justifiable within the science-FSK.
I agree it would be clearer if I give examples to illustrate the workings of the principles, but at this point, relying in the principles are sufficient.
Note I am not banking on the concept of empathy and mirror neurons as the main point for my arguments, there are many elements [neural and others] of morality that can be justified via the scientific FSK.