Incest Deterrence & Morality is Objectivity

[Sculptor]

Your thinking is so confined, pessimistic, bias an without hope.

Wonderful gaslighting.
THe complete reverse is the truth.
My moral philosophy is definitely inclusive and more understanding of the rich diversity of human culture.
Yours is utterly without hope of understanding.
And that is so obvious since you have failed to establish a single moral rule with your method, it is laughable

You misunderstood my objective moral system as a theological moral system where there is no exception, i.e. one must comply with the immutable God's moral commands, else there is the threat of hell.

core because the same consequences will happen to all humans who defy this objective standard within the human biological system.
This is not a subjective thing but exists objectively in all humans.

[accelafine]

The great white hope has laughed (four times). All heil the great white hope.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wonderful gaslighting.
THe complete reverse is the truth.
My moral philosophy is definitely inclusive and more understanding of the rich diversity of human culture.
Yours is utterly without hope of understanding.
And that is so obvious since you have failed to establish a single moral rule with your method, it is laughable

You misunderstood my objective moral system as a theological moral system where there is no exception, i.e. one must comply with the immutable God's moral commands, else there is the threat of hell.

core because the same consequences will happen to all humans who defy this objective standard within the human biological system.
This is not a subjective thing but exists objectively in all humans.

It is very evident and testable.
Any humans who is fed excess calories especially from carbs will turn out to be like these people.
It is also evident these people will suffer from one or a combination of the critical illness.
This is evident of objectivity, i.e. independent of any subject's opinion, beliefs and judgments.



There could be exceptions but that is because there are damage to their metabolic system.

[Sculptor]

You misunderstood my objective moral system as a theological moral system where there is no exception, i.e. one must comply with the immutable God's moral commands, else there is the threat of hell.

core because the same consequences will happen to all humans who defy this objective standard within the human biological system.
This is not a subjective thing but exists objectively in all humans.

It is very evident and testable.
Any humans who is fed excess calories especially from carbs will turn out to be like these people.
It is also evident these people will suffer from one or a combination of the critical illness.
This is evident of objectivity, i.e. independent of any subject's opinion, beliefs and judgments.



There could be exceptions but that is because there are damage to their metabolic system.

Once again are are confusing material facts with conceptual and emotional facts.
Morals cannot be reduced to calories.

Nonetheless you are STILL wrong. Your one size fits all approach is still steering you in the wrong direction.
Let me explain...
No two calories are the same. Carbohydrate, protein and fat calories have completely different effects on the body.,
...and when you understand types of each of these macro-nutrients you find that different proteins, fats and carbs have further differences in effects on the metabolism.

For example carbs that are processed or have high levels of readily available sugars will cause spikes in insulin. Insulin which is a storage hormone directs all serum fat to storage and directs blood sugar into the tissues. Over time this causes insulin resistance causing more insulin required to do its job. This means that sugar calories create more fat than actually eating fat which is satiating.

Fructose which forms 50% of all table sugar is worst still. It cannot be used directly by the body and goes into the liver where is is transformed into fat. It also downgrades ATP to ADP lowering the metabolic rates and over time causes Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Fats made from vegetables such as corn oil are significant inflammatory effects, and can lead to the creating of body fat that refuses to be released as energy , due to its high levels of omega-6. Omega -3 on the other hands has the opposite effect and is good at building tissues.
I could go on but you are not reading this anyway.
If you care to verify my information then I can give you a reading list.

But trust you to post a picture from the fascist DAILY MAIL

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is very evident and testable.
Any humans who is fed excess calories especially from carbs will turn out to be like these people.
It is also evident these people will suffer from one or a combination of the critical illness.
This is evident of objectivity, i.e. independent of any subject's opinion, beliefs and judgments.

There could be exceptions but that is because there are damage to their metabolic system.

Once again are are confusing material facts with conceptual and emotional facts.
Morals cannot be reduced to calories.

You missed my point.

I have differentiated what is 'emotional' from the 'material'.

I understand, a person's impulse in yearning and liking sugar for its sweetness, is emotional and based on feelings.

However, there is a physical process going that is driving that feeling of liking sugar which the majority are ignorant of.
This very strong and natural impulse to like or be crazy for sugar is driven by a neural algorithm that is supported by material and physical net of neurons in a specific process.
I am arguing this is the basis for the objectivity why humans naturally has the craving for sugar.

It is the same with morality.
I am not referring to the emotional subjective feelings that are related to impulses considered to be moral.
What I am referring to is the material and physical neural algorithm that support whatever is deemed to be moral, e.g. the oughtnot_ness to kill humans which is inherent in all humans but not fully active.

Nonetheless you are STILL wrong. Your one size fits all approach is still steering you in the wrong direction.
Let me explain...
No two calories are the same. Carbohydrate, protein and fat calories have completely different effects on the body.,
...and when you understand types of each of these macro-nutrients you find that different proteins, fats and carbs have further differences in effects on the metabolism.

For example carbs that are processed or have high levels of readily available sugars will cause spikes in insulin. Insulin which is a storage hormone directs all serum fat to storage and directs blood sugar into the tissues. Over time this causes insulin resistance causing more insulin required to do its job. This means that sugar calories create more fat than actually eating fat which is satiating.

Fructose which forms 50% of all table sugar is worst still. It cannot be used directly by the body and goes into the liver where is is transformed into fat. It also downgrades ATP to ADP lowering the metabolic rates and over time causes Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Fats made from vegetables such as corn oil are significant inflammatory effects, and can lead to the creating of body fat that refuses to be released as energy , due to its high levels of omega-6. Omega -3 on the other hands has the opposite effect and is good at building tissues.
I could go on but you are not reading this anyway.
If you care to verify my information then I can give you a reading list.

But trust you to post a picture from the fascist DAILY MAIL

I am familiar with all the above.
I took and pass a course and have certificate in Nutrition and Diseases.
Whatever emotional feelings that are directed toward nutritional elements, they are supported by material and physical facts which is objective.

[Sculptor]

It is very evident and testable.
Any humans who is fed excess calories especially from carbs will turn out to be like these people.
It is also evident these people will suffer from one or a combination of the critical illness.
This is evident of objectivity, i.e. independent of any subject's opinion, beliefs and judgments.

There could be exceptions but that is because there are damage to their metabolic system.

Once again are are confusing material facts with conceptual and emotional facts.
Morals cannot be reduced to calories.

You missed my point.

No I did not.
Stop gaslighting and read what people are telling you.
You are confused.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Once again are are confusing material facts with conceptual and emotional facts.
Morals cannot be reduced to calories.

You missed my point.

No I did not.
Stop gaslighting and read what people are telling you.
You are confused.

As usual that is your typical escape route when running out of argument.
This is a Philosophy Forum for discussion.
Where is your 'why' to the above?

[Sculptor]

You missed my point.

No I did not.
Stop gaslighting and read what people are telling you.
You are confused.

As usual that is your typical escape route when running out of argument.
This is a Philosophy Forum for discussion.
Where is your 'why' to the above?

And agin. until you address salient points, you are not really presenting what might be called an "argument".
What you are very good at doing is repeating, paraphrasing and regurtitatihg points that have been refusted time and again by myself and other on the forum.
WHy not have a love-in with Walker and Immanuel Can?

[Alexiev]

The problems with "objective morality" based on evolutionary factors are legion. They include:

1) Such theories often don't explain (or even address) cultural differences. Why, if morality is objective, do moral rules differ dramatically?

2) They involve the logical error of assuming the antecedent. Darwinian evolution suggests that if a trait improves descendant-leaving success, it will tend to spread. It is a logical error to assume that if a trait has spread, it must have improved descendant-leaving success.

3) As used by most naive proponents, such an explanation is not falsifiable. For example, you ignore my example of some cousin marriages being prohibited, while others are encouraged. This would seem to falsify the notion that incest rules are based on the biological risk of close relatives having children.

4) Finally, evolutionary psychology doesn't explain anything. LIke many reductionist approaches complex issues, it sounds scientific, but smells phony. The way to understand culture is by studying culture. Morals vary, and their variance is best studied by examining the history of moral rules in a culture, not by postulating broad generalizations about their biological impact. Effects are not causes. Even if (as is not the case) incestuous sex leads to deformed children (an effect), we cannot assume that such an effect is the cause of the rule. Once again, that constitutes the error of assuming the antecedent.

[Lorikeet]

The problems with "objective morality" based on evolutionary factors are legion. They include:

1) Such theories often don't explain (or even address) cultural differences. Why, if morality is objective, do moral rules differ dramatically?

No they don't.
They have similar moral principles because they all want to survive and to expand.
Cultures are also driven by the desire to survive and reproduce.
Where they differ is how to make this possible.
They differ in ideals or in what they consider an 'ideal man'.

2) They involve the logical error of assuming the antecedent. Darwinian evolution suggests that if a trait improves descendant-leaving success, it will tend to spread. It is a logical error to assume that if a trait has spread, it must have improved descendant-leaving success.

Reproduction proves adaptation to changing environments.

The error is yours.
A mutation, producing a trait, is either advantageous, neutral, or disadvantageous.
Good/Bad refer to this, relative to an objective, an ideal man.
All value-judgements are triangulations within an in different world, or within a manmade environment with an underlying objective/ideal.

3) As used by most naive proponents, such an explanation is not falsifiable. For example, you ignore my example of some cousin marriages being prohibited, while others are encouraged. This would seem to falsify the notion that incest rules are based on the biological risk of close relatives having children.

Here the probability of a mutation is in question.
Inbreeding is practiced by taking the risk of higher disadvantageous mutations arising.
In nature offspring do reproduce their parents playing the odds of survival by producing as many offspring as possible so that a few may survive.
Natural selection takes over.
But within manmade systems, where sheltering is present, such culling is absent so unfit mutations propagate and compound, until a type of individual arises which is entirely dependent on the collective and entirely unable to survive outside its protections.
That's when all sorts of strange mutations begin to manifest strange traits, sexual impulses, psyhcologies....etc.

Modern fArt represents this in such alternate universes as Marvel and DC....


4) Finally, evolutionary psychology doesn't explain anything. LIke many reductionist approaches complex issues, it sounds scientific, but smells phony. The way to understand culture is by studying culture. Morals vary, and their variance is best studied by examining the history of moral rules in a culture, not by postulating broad generalizations about their biological impact. Effects are not causes. Even if (as is not the case) incestuous sex leads to deformed children (an effect), we cannot assume that such an effect is the cause of the rule. Once again, that constitutes the error of assuming the antecedent.
[/quote]To understand culture you study the species that creates it.
Culture is the end product of centuries of specific populations interacting within specific environments.
Culture represents this relationship.
Past made present.

Cultures do not emerge out of nothing and nowhere.

Studying culture is like studying species' physical and mental traits as they interact with the world - behaviours.
Genes to Memes.
The body is a manifestation of an individual's entire past. Every individual life form is this past made present.
Nature = sum of all past nurturing.
Memory is a method of transmitting what has been proven to be advantageous - DNA.

Cultural memories are transmitted semiotically, promoting and valuing a specific kind of man. A specific kind of citizen.
If such a man is viable or not is determined by an indifferent factor: reality, or nature as it is called.
Nature is what determines if a cultural ideal is attainable or advantageous.

Nihilistic ideologies promote unrealistic ideals and so they must deceive - preaching what they are unable to practice, because this would lead to death.
So, many nihilistic ideologies have developed excuses or ways to justify why they cannot practice what they preach.
In Abrahamism one of the methods is through this idea of a 'fallen state' or 'sin',
As I've noted, nihilism inverts reality, remains theoretical because its ideals have no external referents, and they are all methods of mass control - political tools.

________________
"Reductionist" is what romantic idealists call anyone who brings concepts "down to earth" destroying their unsubstantiated claims.
Nihilistic idealists tend to build 'castles in their noetic skies' validating them colelctively.....
With no references outside their collective intersubjective psychosis they try to dismiss anything that reminds them of their naivete of being 'base' or 'unsophisticated'.....
Using this tactic any absurdity can be declared to be just as plausible as any other, as long as it maintains some self-referential cohesion, and is emotionally gratifying, i.e., popular.

It is a modern marketing ploy used to sell products and to sell candidates, exploiting human frailty, anxiety, and idiocy.
Metaphysics has become such a ploy.
Metaphysics completely detached form physis or contradicting experienced reality - seducing minds that desperately want to escape existence into an alternate reality.
Here collectivity is the rule.
Intersubjective delusions based on reciprocity, or the Goden Rule.
This is evident in the current Transexual madness.
Collectives are obligated to support an individual's delusions if they wish to be supported in their own.

No empiricism....no external standard is tolerated.
All must become a 'social construct'.

[Alexiev]

The problems with "objective morality" based on evolutionary factors are legion. They include:

1) Such theories often don't explain (or even address) cultural differences. Why, if morality is objective, do moral rules differ dramatically?

No they don't.
They have similar moral principles because they all want to survive and to expand.
Cultures are also driven by the desire to survive and reproduce.
Where they differ is how to make this possible.
They differ in ideals or in what they consider an 'ideal man'.

Who is the "they" that want to "survive and expand"? "Expand"? Does that mean get fatter?

Reproduction proves adaptation to changing environments.

The error is yours.
A mutation, producing a trait, is either advantageous, neutral, or disadvantageous.
Good/Bad refer to this, relative to an objective, an ideal man.
All value-judgements are triangulations within an in different world, or within a manmade environment with an underlying objective/ideal.

Reproduction proves nothing of the sort. Why would it?

Here the probability of a mutation is in question.
Inbreeding is practiced by taking the risk of higher disadvantageous mutations arising.
In nature offspring do reproduce their parents playing the odds of survival by producing as many offspring as possible so that a few may survive.
Natural selection takes over.
But within manmade systems, where sheltering is present, such culling is absent so unfit mutations propagate and compound, until a type of individual arises which is entirely dependent on the collective and entirely unable to survive outside its protections.
That's when all sorts of strange mutations begin to manifest strange traits, sexual impulses, psyhcologies....etc.

Modern fArt represents this in such alternate universes as Marvel and DC....

This is nonsense. Inbreeding increases the risk of recessive genetic traits manifesting themselves, but it does not increase the risk of mutations. You are obviously ignorant about basic biology.

To understand culture you study the species that creates it.
Culture is the end product of centuries of specific populations interacting within specific environments.
Culture represents this relationship.
Past made present.

Cultures do not emerge out of nothing and nowhere.

Studying culture is like studying species' physical and mental traits as they interact with the world - behaviours.
Genes to Memes.
The body is a manifestation of an individual's entire past. Every individual life form is this past made present.
Nature = sum of all past nurturing.
Memory is a method of transmitting what has been proven to be advantageous - DNA.

Cultural memories are transmitted semiotically, promoting and valuing a specific kind of man. A specific kind of citizen.
If such a man is viable or not is determined by an indifferent factor: reality, or nature as it is called.
Nature is what determines if a cultural ideal is attainable or advantageous.

Nihilistic ideologies promote unrealistic ideals and so they must deceive - preaching what they are unable to practice, because this would lead to death.
So, many nihilistic ideologies have developed excuses or ways to justify why they cannot practice what they preach.
In Abrahamism one of the methods is through this idea of a 'fallen state' or 'sin',
As I've noted, nihilism inverts reality, remains theoretical because its ideals have no external referents, and they are all methods of mass control - political tools.

________________
"Reductionist" is what romantic idealists call anyone who brings concepts "down to earth" destroying their unsubstantiated claims.
Nihilistic idealists tend to build 'castles in their noetic skies' validating them colelctively.....
With no references outside their collective intersubjective psychosis they try to dismiss anything that reminds them of their naivete of being 'base' or 'unsophisticated'.....
Using this tactic any absurdity can be declared to be just as plausible as any other, as long as it maintains some self-referential cohesion, and is emotionally gratifying, i.e., popular.

It is a modern marketing ploy used to sell products and to sell candidates, exploiting human frailty, anxiety, and idiocy.
Metaphysics has become such a ploy.
Metaphysics completely detached form physis or contradicting experienced reality - seducing minds that desperately want to escape existence into an alternate reality.
Here collectivity is the rule.
Intersubjective delusions based on reciprocity, or the Goden Rule.
This is evident in the current Transexual madness.
Collectives are obligated to support an individual's delusions if they wish to be supported in their own.

No empiricism....no external standard is tolerated.
All must become a 'social construct'.

"Current transexual madness"? Surely (based on your silly notions) there must be some objective advantage to the current acceptance of transexuality. If culture develops out of some Darwinian imperative, we can assume that acceptance of transexuality must be beneficial to the species. Or perhaps you're confused.

[Lorikeet]

Who is the "they" that want to "survive and expand"? "Expand"? Does that mean get fatter? Reproduction proves adaptation to changing environments.
Reproduction proves nothing of the sort. Why would it?

Fitness.
Those who manage to reproduce managed to survive long enough and managed to outperform their rivals.

Why am I even forced to explain this to you?

"Current transexual madness"? Surely (based on your silly notions) there must be some objective advantage to the current acceptance of transexuality. If culture develops out of some Darwinian imperative, we can assume that acceptance of transexuality must be beneficial to the species. Or perhaps you're confused.

Yeah.... I'm confused.
Now I know what you are.

Carry on.

[Alexiev]

Who is the "they" that want to "survive and expand"? "Expand"? Does that mean get fatter? Reproduction proves adaptation to changing environments.
Reproduction proves nothing of the sort. Why would it?

Fitness.
Those who manage to reproduce managed to survive long enough and managed to outperform their rivals.

Why am I even forced to explain this to you?

I've tried, unsuccessfully, to explain both logic and genetics to you. The gene, not the individual, is the unit that is passed on from one generation to the next. Childless celibate priests and homosexuals may be more "successful" than parents. A gay man with 12 nephews and nieces has seen more of his genes passed on than a straight man with three children but no nephews and nieces.

That's irrelevant to the issue, however. My question: if the prevalence of cross-cousin marriage fails to falsify the notion that the genetic disadvantages of incest are the primary reason for incest taboos, what would? If no data could falsify the theory, what credence can we ascribe to it?

In addition, why (especially given over population) should anyone assume that genetic "success" is morally admirable? And if they don't, what happens to the notion that morality is "objective"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

No I did not.
Stop gaslighting and read what people are telling you.
You are confused.

As usual that is your typical escape route when running out of argument.
This is a Philosophy Forum for discussion.
Where is your 'why' to the above?

And agin. until you address salient points, you are not really presenting what might be called an "argument".
What you are very good at doing is repeating, paraphrasing and regurtitatihg points that have been refusted time and again by myself and other on the forum.
WHy not have a love-in with Walker and Immanuel Can?

You are using the usual 'myself and others on the forum' hand waving escape route.

I have posted the following;

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
I have argued your sense of what is objectivity is grounded on an illusion which is why You are arguing there is no relevance of moral objectivity to inbreeding avoidance.

[Sculptor]

As usual that is your typical escape route when running out of argument.
This is a Philosophy Forum for discussion.
Where is your 'why' to the above?

And agin. until you address salient points, you are not really presenting what might be called an "argument".
What you are very good at doing is repeating, paraphrasing and regurtitatihg points that have been refusted time and again by myself and other on the forum.
WHy not have a love-in with Walker and Immanuel Can?

You are using the usual 'myself and others on the forum' hand waving escape route.

Please refer to the post I made sometime ago.