Moral Relativists Should Tolerate Moral Realism

[Veritas Aequitas]

in my definition of morality, it is only applicable to humans and never to animals

What is a scientific definition of the difference between humans and animals that makes a difference about morality? Or, in a scientific perspective, why does morality apply to humans only?

My morality is conditioned upon a human-based moral Framework and System.
Human-based mean we humans can set the boundaries in this case.

It is not a case of scientific definition.
If we include animals into the framework, then we will have an issue with veganism and at present humans still has to kill animals and various living things for food.
Some might even insist it is immoral to kill all living things including bacteria and viruses. What about the inevitable and necessary killing of billions of good and bad bacteria inside and outside the human body.
Note how ridiculous the Jains are in wearing masks all the time [>500 BCE -till now], sweeping the path in front of them, to ensure they do not kill insects.

To avoid entangling with the above impossibilities [mess], I kept animals and living things out of the scope, so we can focus on what I defined as morality [which itself is a very complex subject].
We can deal with animals and living things from other perspectives but not morality.

[Angelo Cannata]

My morality is conditioned upon a human-based moral Framework and System.
Human-based mean we humans can set the boundaries in this case.

It is not a case of scientific definition.

Isn’t there a contradiction between saying “It is not a case of scientific definition” and wanting to find foundations of morality in science?

[FlashDangerpants]

To avoid entangling with the above impossibilities [mess], I kept animals and living things out of the scope, so we can focus on what I defined as morality [which itself is a very complex subject].

That admission proves what everybody already knew, that you are making this "morality-proper" up as you go along just to suit yourself and elevate your own opinions into some supposed fact that you think everybody else ought to use as their "guide" to being an obedient follower of yours (which is what you actually mean by a good person)

Also, that makes it a brand of moral-relativism, not realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My morality is conditioned upon a human-based moral Framework and System.
Human-based mean we humans can set the boundaries in this case.

It is not a case of scientific definition.

Isn’t there a contradiction between saying “It is not a case of scientific definition” and wanting to find foundations of morality in science?

Nope.

VA: It is not a case of scientific definition.
If we include animals into the framework, then we will have an issue with veganism and at present humans still has to kill animals and various living things for food.

It meant, it is not the case of scientific definition that morality is confined to humans only, i.e. non-humans are to be excluded for consideration of morality based on the reasons given.

Animals are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms in the biological kingdom Animalia. With few exceptions, animals consume organic material, breathe oxygen, have myocytes and are able to move, can reproduce sexually, and grow from a hollow sphere of cells, the blastula, during embryonic development. Animals form a single clade.

Over 1.5 million living animal species have been described—of which around 1.05 million are insects, over 85,000 are molluscs, and around 65,000 are vertebrates.
It has been estimated there are as many as 7.77 million animal species on Earth.
Animal body lengths range from 8.5 μm (0.00033 in) to 33.6 m (110 ft). They have complex ecologies and interactions with each other and their environments, forming intricate food webs. The scientific study of animals is known as zoology, and the study of animal behaviors is known as ethology.
-WIKI

It would be too messy and not pragmatic to stick to scientific definition in dealing with morality, given there are "over 1.5 million living animal species have been described" and possibly[?] "7.77 million animal species on Earth".

Thus within the morality-proper FSRC, morality is confined to human-beings only.
One critical moral element is 'no human ought to kill humans' grounded on an oughtnot_ness to kill humans inherent within all humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To avoid entangling with the above impossibilities [mess], I kept animals and living things out of the scope, so we can focus on what I defined as morality [which itself is a very complex subject].

That admission proves what everybody already knew, that you are making this "morality-proper" up as you go along just to suit yourself and elevate your own opinions into some supposed fact that you think everybody else ought to use as their "guide" to being an obedient follower of yours (which is what you actually mean by a good person)

Also, that makes it a brand of moral-relativism, not realism.

Moral realists argued there are universal objective moral facts inherent in humans grounded on intersubjectivity - i.e. a collective of subjects.
The basis of the above is relative epistemologically but not morally.

[Iwannaplato]

To avoid entangling with the above impossibilities [mess], I kept animals and living things out of the scope, so we can focus on what I defined as morality [which itself is a very complex subject].

That admission proves what everybody already knew, that you are making this "morality-proper" up as you go along just to suit yourself and elevate your own opinions into some supposed fact that you think everybody else ought to use as their "guide" to being an obedient follower of yours (which is what you actually mean by a good person)

Also, that makes it a brand of moral-relativism, not realism.

Moral realists argued there are universal objective moral facts inherent in humans grounded on intersubjectivity - i.e. a collective of subjects.
The basis of the above is relative epistemologically but not morally.

The core point you did not respond to....

That admission proves what everybody already knew, that you are making this "morality-proper" up as you go along just to suit yourself and elevate your own opinions into some supposed fact that you think everybody else ought to use as their "guide" to being an obedient follower of yours (which is what you actually mean by a good person)

Further if you called it intersubjective instead of objective, it would be 1) not changing anything, since you say that it is here. 2) problematic for you since you do not have a majority or even significant minority who agrees with your postion 3) clear.

And to be clear regarding 2. If intersubjectivity is the determiner, you are neither being objective nor are you intersubjectively supported. Maybe in some utoptian future, but right now most of your ideas are extreme minority positions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That admission proves what everybody already knew, that you are making this "morality-proper" up as you go along just to suit yourself and elevate your own opinions into some supposed fact that you think everybody else ought to use as their "guide" to being an obedient follower of yours (which is what you actually mean by a good person)

Also, that makes it a brand of moral-relativism, not realism.

Moral realists argued there are universal objective moral facts inherent in humans grounded on intersubjectivity - i.e. a collective of subjects.
The basis of the above is relative epistemologically but not morally.

The core point you did not respond to....

That admission proves what everybody already knew, that you are making this "morality-proper" up as you go along just to suit yourself and elevate your own opinions into some supposed fact that you think everybody else ought to use as their "guide" to being an obedient follower of yours (which is what you actually mean by a good person)

I could not be bothered with this point, to me it is childish.

Popper stated all scientific facts at best are polished conjectures, and that applied to the continual polishing of my theory.

Further if you called it intersubjective instead of objective, it would be 1) not changing anything, since you say that it is here. 2) problematic for you since you do not have a majority or even significant minority who agrees with your postion 3) clear.

It is the argument that counts not the majority like the once majority agreed Geocentric Theory.

And to be clear regarding 2. If intersubjectivity is the determiner, you are neither being objective nor are you intersubjectively supported. Maybe in some utoptian future, but right now most of your ideas are extreme minority positions.

Whether it is now or future, the principle and basis of the theory is intersubjective - via a collective of subjects [even a minority but at least more than one subject within a FSRC], not from God nor somewhere absolutely independent of humans.

What I am proposing is already in practice in some crude forms where mine will be more sound and effective.

It is already happening implicitly as with the progress of the inherent moral potential related to slavery since 10,000 years ago and other moral elements.

[Iwannaplato]

I could not be bothered with this point, to me it is childish.

Nope.

Popper stated all scientific facts at best are polished conjectures, and that applied to the continual polishing of my theory.

That was a bizarre appeal to authority.

It is the argument that counts not the majority like the once majority agreed Geocentric Theory.

Agreed, but you have said objectivity is intersubjectivity. Further, when it is pointed out that you keep referring to THE morality proper, you have said that in the future it will be generally accepted. IOW when it is pointed out that by your own definitions it is not objective, you support your case by saying that in the future is will be widely accepted intersubjectively. Which is a hilariously hypocritical argument for an ontological antirealist to take. Further, it is not falsifiable - you know, if you're going to use Popper randomly, well, I'll use him appropriately.

Whether it is now or future, the principle and basis of the theory is intersubjective - via a collective of subjects [even a minority but at least more than one subject within a FSRC], not from God nor somewhere absolutely independent of humans.

And there you go, appealing to the existence of something that no mind can directly contact.

What I am proposing is already in practice in some crude forms where mine will be more sound and effective.

Everything you say here confirms PRECISELY what FDP said. It is your morality being dressed up as objective and demonstrated to the case in the future.

It is already happening implicitly as with the progress of the inherent moral potential related to slavery since 10,000 years ago and other moral elements.

What you are calling inherent moral potential, leaving out all the vast array of changes in technology, literacy, medicine, agriculture, science related to race, communication (iow awareness of what slavery is like for people, more images, testimony from slaves that people come in contact with giving more for mirror neurons to react to), and so on.

You wear your confirmation bias on your sleeve.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is the argument that counts not the majority like the once majority agreed Geocentric Theory.

Agreed, but you have said objectivity is intersubjectivity. Further, when it is pointed out that you keep referring to THE morality proper, you have said that in the future it will be generally accepted. IOW when it is pointed out that by your own definitions it is not objective, you support your case by saying that in the future is will be widely accepted intersubjectively. Which is a hilariously hypocritical argument for an ontological antirealist to take. Further, it is not falsifiable - you know, if you're going to use Popper randomly, well, I'll use him appropriately.

The above is a strawman.

As stated above, regardless of whether it is now or future;
the principle of my moral FSRC is fundamentally intersubjective, i.e. grounded on a collective of subjects [so, it is objective] and not dependent on one subject.

The moral potential is already inherent within all humans and unfolding slowly.
The purpose of my FSRC is [inherently intersubjective] will facilitate to expedite the unfoldment where then more people will be conscious of it, thus accept it with conscious awareness.

Popper highlighted the 'polishing' point, regardless, there is a continual improvement in every aspects of human activities.

Whether it is now or future, the principle and basis of the theory is intersubjective - via a collective of subjects [even a minority but at least more than one subject within a FSRC], not from God nor somewhere absolutely independent of humans.

And there you go, appealing to the existence of something that no mind can directly contact.

What nonsense are you talking about.
I have defined my FSRC as contingent upon an embodied human based Framework and System.
If it is human-based, how it 'something that no mind can directly contact'.

[Angelo Cannata]

It would be too messy and not pragmatic to stick to scientific definition in dealing with morality, given there are "over 1.5 million living animal species have been described" and possibly[?] "7.77 million animal species on Earth".

Thus within the morality-proper FSRC, morality is confined to human-beings only.
One critical moral element is 'no human ought to kill humans' grounded on an oughtnot_ness to kill humans inherent within all humans.

So you want to find the scientific foundation of a morality that you want to be valid for humans exclusively, but, at the same time, you state that you have no idea why it applies to humans exclusively.
History has a lot of examples of scientific theories that applied exclusively to black people, or to women, or to Hebrews, or to homosexual people, excepting the minor detail that they had no idea why these theories had to be supposed as applying exclusively to those people.
With this methodology you can find a scientific foundation for everything, including the idea that the planet earth is flat, or that certain people are possessed by the devil: about all the non scientific elements that are in those theories, it's easy to say that "it would be too messy and not pragmatic to stick to scientific definition in dealing" with those non scientific elements.

[FlashDangerpants]

To avoid entangling with the above impossibilities [mess], I kept animals and living things out of the scope, so we can focus on what I defined as morality [which itself is a very complex subject].

That admission proves what everybody already knew, that you are making this "morality-proper" up as you go along just to suit yourself and elevate your own opinions into some supposed fact that you think everybody else ought to use as their "guide" to being an obedient follower of yours (which is what you actually mean by a good person)

Also, that makes it a brand of moral-relativism, not realism.

Moral realists argued there are universal objective moral facts inherent in humans grounded on intersubjectivity - i.e. a collective of subjects.
The basis of the above is relative epistemologically but not morally.

There is no intersubjectivity for morality-proper. We've covered this, you are entirely on your own there. Even by your own definition of these things it is still subjective. And you are making up your own rules for a game of arranging lists which nobody except you is playing.

That's why you get to randomly assert that something is too inconvenient to be a moral issue. Because it doesn't matter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It would be too messy and not pragmatic to stick to scientific definition in dealing with morality, given there are "over 1.5 million living animal species have been described" and possibly[?] "7.77 million animal species on Earth".

Thus within the morality-proper FSRC, morality is confined to human-beings only.
One critical moral element is 'no human ought to kill humans' grounded on an oughtnot_ness to kill humans inherent within all humans.

So you want to find the scientific foundation of a morality that you want to be valid for humans exclusively, but, at the same time, you state that you have no idea why it applies to humans exclusively.

Idea??
I have already given pragmatic reasons why morality should be confined to all-humans only so it is more efficient and productive.

History has a lot of examples of scientific theories that applied exclusively to black people, or to women, or to Hebrews, or to homosexual people, excepting the minor detail that they had no idea why these theories had to be supposed as applying exclusively to those people.
With this methodology you can find a scientific foundation for everything, including the idea that the planet earth is flat, or that certain people are possessed by the devil: about all the non scientific elements that are in those theories, it's easy to say that "it would be too messy and not pragmatic to stick to scientific definition in dealing" with those non scientific elements.

My proposals refer universally to ALL humans.
e.g. all humans need to breathe, eat, be moral without exceptions.

Your above do not relate universally to all humans. e.g. only to black people, or to women, or to Hebrews, or to homosexual people.
As such your point in this case is not applicable to my morality being confined to ALL humans without exceptions.

[Angelo Cannata]

I have already given pragmatic reasons

What you call "pragmatic reasons" are, more honestly, "no explanations": you haven't given any explanation why your morality applies to humans only, while, at the same time, it is supposed to have scientific foundations.
It's not intellectually honests to hide the flaws of your reasoning under the mask of pragmatism, so I have to abandon this discussion.

My proposals refer universally to ALL humans.
e.g. all humans need to breathe, eat, be moral without exceptions.

Your above do not relate universally to all humans. e.g. only to black people, or to women, or to Hebrews, or to homosexual people.
As such your point in this case is not applicable to my morality being confined to ALL humans without exceptions.

After you admitted that you have no idea why your morality applies to humans only, there is no point in defending the fact that you apply it to all humans instead of specific groups. Once you claimed your right to keep such an arbitrary point under the mask of pragmatism, anything arbitrary is allowed in your theory and I have not to waste my time with it.

[Skepdick]

...killing of humans by humans is evil...

Why?

Why not? Soon as you start imposing limits on what others can and can't think; can and can't say - you are acting out/enforcing a moral frame.

Such as the moral frame of justification. Why do you presuppose that beliefs require justification? What if they don't?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have already given pragmatic reasons

What you call "pragmatic reasons" are, more honestly, "no explanations": you haven't given any explanation why your morality applies to humans only, while, at the same time, it is supposed to have scientific foundations.
It's not intellectually honests to hide the flaws of your reasoning under the mask of pragmatism, so I have to abandon this discussion.

I have countered your original ideas of morality.
If you were to revert to your original and do not qualify a limitation i.e. confine morality to humans only, you will be involved a very messy problem and contradictions, thus bogged down and progress is hindered.

I don't see how why pragmatic reasons are not explanation for the reasons why I limit morality to humans only.

Do you understand science is merely a tool [a double sided sword] and it is to one or group to use it intelligently, rationally and wisely.

Note the valid and popular Philosophy of Pragmatism;

Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that views language and thought as tools for prediction, problem solving, and action, rather than describing, representing, or mirroring reality. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

What is your justification to condemn pragmatism for being intellectually dishonest?

so I have to abandon this discussion.

You have the absolute freedom to exercise your discretion.

My proposals refer universally to ALL humans.
e.g. all humans need to breathe, eat, be moral without exceptions.

Your above do not relate universally to all humans. e.g. only to black people, or to women, or to Hebrews, or to homosexual people.
As such your point in this case is not applicable to my morality being confined to ALL humans without exceptions.

After you admitted that you have no idea why your morality applies to humans only, there is no point in defending the fact that you apply it to all humans instead of specific groups. Once you claimed your right to keep such an arbitrary point under the mask of pragmatism, anything arbitrary is allowed in your theory and I have not to waste my time with it.

Note my explanation above.

You have the absolute freedom to exercise your discretion not to waste time.