The incest deterrence systems is a normative in all humans and justifiable via the sciences, it is scientifically objective [FSERC]; when inputted into a moral FSERC, it an objective moral fact, thus supporting the state, moral is objective.
Morality vs Ethics
What is Morality [Pure] are moral elements [principles] evolved and inherent within human nature.
Ethics is 'Applied' i.e. how we apply [optimally] the inherent moral principles to fit into the varying conditions and circumstances of the individual[s] and humanity.
I agree with the above. I have regularly used incest [inbreeding avoidance] as an example of moral objectivity.Lorikeet wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:29 am Lorikeet: Moral behaviours are necessary, and are not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered.
They evolve - they are naturally selected because they offer an advantage or prevent a disadvantage.
For example, the immorality of incest is not based no human tastes but on the fact that incestual reproduction increases the probability of birth defects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance
At present, inbreeding avoidance is a scientific fact within Evolutionary Biology.
Inbreeding avoidance [incest deterrence] is a inhibitor [potential, functioning system] and as evolved is inherent in all humans; it is encoded in the DNA and represented by an algorithm supported by its physical neural correlates in the brain and body.
This will eventually [very possible] be confirmed by neuroscience as a neuroscientific fact via the science-neuroscience-FSERC.
True, many humans had and will commit incest at present, but that is due to brain damage or a weakness of the physical incest inhibitor-system. However, whilst damaged or weak, that does not obviate the existence of the actual physical objective incest inhibitor system in the brain.
Thus, I have argued the above incest inhibitor system is physical, it is objective in the scientific sense and since it is a moral element, therefore when inputted within the moral FSERC, it is moral objectivity.
Note my take on 'what is objectivity' - nothing to do with god and theism.
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. FSERC mind interdependent sense
2. Mind-independent sense.
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
The scientific FSERC will confirm the existence of the inherent incest avoidance function and inhibitor as scientific fact and re scientific objectivity
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707
When the above scientific fact of incest avoidance is inputted into the morality-proper FSERC, then it is a moral fact, thus morality is objective [as qualified].
As such, the inbreeding avoidance system is an inherent moral principle, i.e. "no human ought to commit incest" in alignment with what is physically inherent in all humans, DNA and neural algorithm wise. This moral principle [as a Pure] is not enforceable but merely a guide.
Tribes, groups of humans can then set their respective ethical rules [maxims] in accordance to the inherent universal moral principle.
Some may have ethical rules that forbid incest completely or forbid directly related close relatives, while for some first cousins marriage are allowable.
These are conditional rules but they do not diminish the inherent moral principle within all humans.
Because the moral principle is categorical [an impossible ideal], all must strive to align with it optimally while making attempts to change the conditions to eliminate incest as much as possible.
At this point, I am not claiming Morality is Objective but rather morality is objective [as qualified to incest avoidance] and argued above.
Morality cannot be taken -in-general as objective but must always be with reference to a set of objective moral elements which are justified to be conditioned to the moral-FSERC.
Discuss??
Views??