Philosophy Now Forum

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 intellectu...

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...

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...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 11:38 am 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?

the teleology of all living things is the drive of the will-to-survive to survival as long as possible till the inevitable, thus the preservation of the species. That species has gone extinct does not obviate the above drive and purposes. It just that those species that were extinct were not succes...

I defined evil = an adjective in relation to any act and belief that is negative [net] to the well-being [survival, flourishing] of the individual[s] and that of humanity. Killing is the most extreme evil act. see: The Concept of Evil https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/ ref: in the nar...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 10:44 am ...killing of humans by humans is evil...

Why?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 10:02 am I define morality & ethics as the management and modulation of evil to enable its related good.

How do you determine what is evil and what is good?

Take the case of empathy which is one very critical element of morality. I don't think that empathy has anything to do with morality. The critical element of morality is judgement about what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong. This is applied to actions, happenings, events. On...

... the scientific FSRC as the gold standard... I don't think that morality can find any ground on science, because science doesn't say anything about what is good and what is bad. Obviously, a morality that takes science into consideration is stronger than a morality that doesn't. I said "str...

... no one would deny it is objective to all humans. The fact that no one denies something doesn't mean so much. If no one denies that the planet earth is flat, this doesn't make the planet earth flat. I think the essential point is when you talk about frameworked objectivity. It means that you adm...

If breathing is universal to all humans, does that make it dictators as far as the need to breathe is concern? I think so, because, when we think of breathing, we cannot do it without being conditioned by our culture. This way, claiming our fundamental right to breathe becomes just an excuse to hid...

I am not insisting my view is absolutely perfect but rather it is the most realistic based on available evidences. Why should we be realistic and based on available evidences? Obviously, being not realistic and not based on evidence puts in danger our existence, so let's go on: why should we exist?...

What is objective must be universal and conditioned upon a human-based FSK. I see that you mean "objective" in a non absolute way. As a consequence, I guess the same applies when you talk about moral realists in your opening post. But this way you consider your own perspective exclusively...

"My personal ideas are the right ones" This is more like Moral/Ethical Subjectivism. I am not sure that Hitler's way of thinking "My personal ideas are the right ones" has to be considered moral/ethical subjectivism. Rather, what I meant was the following concept: my personal id...