What could make morality objective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Peter Holmes
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:39 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:47 am
As stated I am taking a break re morality.
Suggest you reflect more deeper philosophically on the above.
Fine. I suggest you have a really hard think about your argument.

An 'is' - a fact of any kind, including a fact about human nature - can never entail an 'ought' - a moral assertion about what should or ought to be the case. Your argument that there are 'oughts' that are themselves facts - for example, human neural programming not to kill humans - is fallacious.

There is no 'ought' in physical causation - no coherence to the claim that a cause ought to cause an effect. It just does or doesn't cause the effect.

I also suggest you have a really hard think about your epistemology - how you've painted yourself into a ridiculous corner - claiming that everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe exists only if and because humans exist - and how that supposedly helps the argument for moral objectivity.

Your empiricist skepticism - which Kant tried to reform but only recycled, and that Russell re-invigorated with his table - has rotted your understanding. Strip it all down and challenge every claim. The most plausible are often the most misleading.
I am not going to waste time.
Whatever the issue on morality you raised above is answered within this thread and others.

As for Russell's table [you condemned], I have raised as specific thread for you to deal with it, but you evaded it;
Russell: "Perhaps There is No Table At ALL?"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32814&start=30

I suggest you address the issue with Russell's table in the above thread instead of repeating the same over and over again without providing argument against it.

Russell claimed humans are only acquainted with sense-data from some supposedly-real-object.
The question is how can you know [not of absolute but with high certainty] the supposedly-real-external-object when there is an eternal reality gap?

Don't be a coward, address that thread.
I am not going to waste time explaining to you why empiricist skepticism - Kant's, Russell's, or anyone elses's - is a mistake.

What you have to explain is why empiricist skepticism helps to establish moral objectivity.

Why does the idea that there may be no table at all mean that there are moral facts?

Does the stupid idea that we co-create the table mean that we co-create everything that we call a fact - so that we can and do co-create moral facts? Is the argument really that fatuous?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6491
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:50 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:39 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:47 am

Fine. I suggest you have a really hard think about your argument.

An 'is' - a fact of any kind, including a fact about human nature - can never entail an 'ought' - a moral assertion about what should or ought to be the case. Your argument that there are 'oughts' that are themselves facts - for example, human neural programming not to kill humans - is fallacious.

There is no 'ought' in physical causation - no coherence to the claim that a cause ought to cause an effect. It just does or doesn't cause the effect.

I also suggest you have a really hard think about your epistemology - how you've painted yourself into a ridiculous corner - claiming that everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe exists only if and because humans exist - and how that supposedly helps the argument for moral objectivity.

Your empiricist skepticism - which Kant tried to reform but only recycled, and that Russell re-invigorated with his table - has rotted your understanding. Strip it all down and challenge every claim. The most plausible are often the most misleading.
I am not going to waste time.
Whatever the issue on morality you raised above is answered within this thread and others.

As for Russell's table [you condemned], I have raised as specific thread for you to deal with it, but you evaded it;
Russell: "Perhaps There is No Table At ALL?"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32814&start=30

I suggest you address the issue with Russell's table in the above thread instead of repeating the same over and over again without providing argument against it.

Russell claimed humans are only acquainted with sense-data from some supposedly-real-object.
The question is how can you know [not of absolute but with high certainty] the supposedly-real-external-object when there is an eternal reality gap?

Don't be a coward, address that thread.
I am not going to waste time explaining to you why empiricist skepticism - Kant's, Russell's, or anyone elses's - is a mistake.
I believe you are incapable of doing so.
Even if you try, they would be at best noises.
What you have to explain is why empiricist skepticism helps to establish moral objectivity.

Why does the idea that there may be no table at all mean that there are moral facts?
I don't believe in empirical skepticism because I have empirical realism [Kantian].

That there is no table-in-itself mean there are no fact-in-itself [your bastardized fact].
As such there are no moral fact-in-itself [your bastardized moral fact] which is illusory.
Thus you are denying an illusion which is a non-starter in the first place.

What I refer to as 'fact' [..I am avoiding this for the moment] refer to real physical things.
I have justified there are real moral things in the brain in reference to morality proper.
I am not going to repeat this which I have explained a "1000" times over the various threads and posts.
Does the stupid idea that we co-create the table mean that we co-create everything that we call a fact - so that we can and do co-create moral facts? Is the argument really that fatuous?
This is beyond your ken and as usual [triggered by a desperate defense mechanism within] you are merely making noises above.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:33 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:50 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:39 am
I am not going to waste time.
Whatever the issue on morality you raised above is answered within this thread and others.

As for Russell's table [you condemned], I have raised as specific thread for you to deal with it, but you evaded it;
Russell: "Perhaps There is No Table At ALL?"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32814&start=30

I suggest you address the issue with Russell's table in the above thread instead of repeating the same over and over again without providing argument against it.

Russell claimed humans are only acquainted with sense-data from some supposedly-real-object.
The question is how can you know [not of absolute but with high certainty] the supposedly-real-external-object when there is an eternal reality gap?

Don't be a coward, address that thread.
I am not going to waste time explaining to you why empiricist skepticism - Kant's, Russell's, or anyone elses's - is a mistake.
I believe you are incapable of doing so.
Even if you try, they would be at best noises.
What you have to explain is why empiricist skepticism helps to establish moral objectivity.

Why does the idea that there may be no table at all mean that there are moral facts?
I don't believe in empirical skepticism because I have empirical realism [Kantian].

That there is no table-in-itself mean there are no fact-in-itself [your bastardized fact].
As such there are no moral fact-in-itself [your bastardized moral fact] which is illusory.
Thus you are denying an illusion which is a non-starter in the first place.

What I refer to as 'fact' [..I am avoiding this for the moment] refer to real physical things.
I have justified there are real moral things in the brain in reference to morality proper.
I am not going to repeat this which I have explained a "1000" times over the various threads and posts.
Does the stupid idea that we co-create the table mean that we co-create everything that we call a fact - so that we can and do co-create moral facts? Is the argument really that fatuous?
This is beyond your ken and as usual [triggered by a desperate defense mechanism within] you are merely making noises above.
1 The empiricist claim 'there is no table-in-itself' is, precisely, the denial of an illusion, as is the claim 'there is no fact-in-itself'. The non-existence of noumena is right at the heart of empiricist skepticism. And, anyway, realism is the claim that there is indeed a table - which you accept. Bit of a conceptual mess, n'est-ce pas?

2 The real things in the brain are not moral things. Programming to do or not do something is not 'moral' programming, any more than doing or not doing something is 'moral'. The expression 'moral action' is as meaningless as the expression 'moral programming'.

3 May I suggest a longer break from morality, and deeper reflection on the conceptual mess you're in?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3792
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:49 am
2 The real things in the brain are not moral things. Programming to do or not do something is not 'moral' programming, any more than doing or not doing something is 'moral'. The expression 'moral action' is as meaningless as the expression 'moral programming'.

Aside from issues with the word "real," the above is again something I don't agree with. "Moral things" are moral judgments that individuals make--that's what morality is in a nutshell. Those judgments are identical to brain states.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:49 am
2 The real things in the brain are not moral things. Programming to do or not do something is not 'moral' programming, any more than doing or not doing something is 'moral'. The expression 'moral action' is as meaningless as the expression 'moral programming'.

Aside from issues with the word "real," the above is again something I don't agree with. "Moral things" are moral judgments that individuals make--that's what morality is in a nutshell. Those judgments are identical to brain states.
Perhaps how we use the word 'real' really is the issue.

The 'real things in the brain' that VA calls 'moral things' are in fact nothing more than brain-states or processes. The modifier 'moral' is a misattribution in that case. There's nothing moral about physical things and events. They just do or don't exist.

The mentalist talk you favour easily leads to VA's confusion: making a judgement is a physical process in the brain; and we make moral judgements; so moral judgements are 'things that exist in the brain'; so moral judgements are moral things.

I think the claim that aeronautical judgements are aeronautical things that exist in the brain is nonsense. But we're not going to agree about this.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3792
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:33 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:49 am
2 The real things in the brain are not moral things. Programming to do or not do something is not 'moral' programming, any more than doing or not doing something is 'moral'. The expression 'moral action' is as meaningless as the expression 'moral programming'.

Aside from issues with the word "real," the above is again something I don't agree with. "Moral things" are moral judgments that individuals make--that's what morality is in a nutshell. Those judgments are identical to brain states.
Perhaps how we use the word 'real' really is the issue.

The 'real things in the brain' that VA calls 'moral things' are in fact nothing more than brain-states or processes. The modifier 'moral' is a misattribution in that case. There's nothing moral about physical things and events. They just do or don't exist.

The mentalist talk you favour easily leads to VA's confusion: making a judgement is a physical process in the brain; and we make moral judgements; so moral judgements are 'things that exist in the brain'; so moral judgements are moral things.

I think the claim that aeronautical judgements are aeronautical things that exist in the brain is nonsense. But we're not going to agree about this.
With morality, the issue is that the entirety of what moral things are is judgments that we make.

It's not the case with aeronautical things that the entirety of them is thoughts about aeronautical things.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:27 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:33 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:42 am

Aside from issues with the word "real," the above is again something I don't agree with. "Moral things" are moral judgments that individuals make--that's what morality is in a nutshell. Those judgments are identical to brain states.
Perhaps how we use the word 'real' really is the issue.

The 'real things in the brain' that VA calls 'moral things' are in fact nothing more than brain-states or processes. The modifier 'moral' is a misattribution in that case. There's nothing moral about physical things and events. They just do or don't exist.

The mentalist talk you favour easily leads to VA's confusion: making a judgement is a physical process in the brain; and we make moral judgements; so moral judgements are 'things that exist in the brain'; so moral judgements are moral things.

I think the claim that aeronautical judgements are aeronautical things that exist in the brain is nonsense. But we're not going to agree about this.
With morality, the issue is that the entirety of what moral things are is judgments that we make.

It's not the case with aeronautical things that the entirety of them is thoughts about aeronautical things.
I see what you mean, and it does make sense.

But do you think thoughts about aeronautical things are aeronautical things going on in the brain? Does that way of putting it make sense to you?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3792
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:20 pm I see what you mean, and it does make sense.

But do you think thoughts about aeronautical things are aeronautical things going on in the brain? Does that way of putting it make sense to you?
Yes, in a sense/in a manner of speaking, but it's completely that (no need for qualifications) in a case where the phenomenon in question is ONLY a brain phenomenon.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:58 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:20 pm I see what you mean, and it does make sense.

But do you think thoughts about aeronautical things are aeronautical things going on in the brain? Does that way of putting it make sense to you?
Yes, in a sense/in a manner of speaking, but it's completely that (no need for qualifications) in a case where the phenomenon in question is ONLY a brain phenomenon.
Okay. I think the problem with the 'in a sense/in a manner of speaking' qualification is that there are definitely no aeronautical things or moral things going on in our brains when we think or make judgements about aeronautics or morality.

I understand your location-criterion - where does this thing exist or occur? - and of course thinking and making judgements only occurs in brains. But I find the function-criterion for assertions - factual/non-factual - is a clearer way to distinguish objectivity from subjectivity, and therefore show why morality can't be objective.

I want to dig deeper, because I think there's more to say. But thanks.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3792
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:34 pm Okay. I think the problem with the 'in a sense/in a manner of speaking' qualification is that there are definitely no aeronautical things or moral things going on in our brains when we think or make judgements about aeronautics or morality.
Again, with morality, it is NOT just a manner of speaking. It's all that morality is. The sum totality of what morality is is stuff that's going on in brains--namely, judgments/dispositions about interpersonal behavior that one finds acceptable/unacceptable, etc.
But I find the function-criterion for assertions - factual/non-factual - is a clearer way to distinguish objectivity from subjectivity, and therefore show why morality can't be objective.

I want to dig deeper, because I think there's more to say. But thanks.
That's fine, I suppose, and then we'd just note that "x is morally wrong" is not a factual assertion stated that way. There can only be facts in the vein of "Joe feels that x is morally wrong."
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6491
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:33 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:49 am
2 The real things in the brain are not moral things. Programming to do or not do something is not 'moral' programming, any more than doing or not doing something is 'moral'. The expression 'moral action' is as meaningless as the expression 'moral programming'.

Aside from issues with the word "real," the above is again something I don't agree with. "Moral things" are moral judgments that individuals make--that's what morality is in a nutshell. Those judgments are identical to brain states.
Perhaps how we use the word 'real' really is the issue.

The 'real things in the brain' that VA calls 'moral things' are in fact nothing more than brain-states or processes. The modifier 'moral' is a misattribution in that case. There's nothing moral about physical things and events. They just do or don't exist.

The mentalist talk you favour easily leads to VA's confusion: making a judgement is a physical process in the brain; and we make moral judgements; so moral judgements are 'things that exist in the brain'; so moral judgements are moral things.

I think the claim that aeronautical judgements are aeronautical things that exist in the brain is nonsense. But we're not going to agree about this.
The more you defend your position, you are exposing more of your dumbness and ignorance.

I have already stated and insisted a "million" times, moral judgments are not moral things per se.

Other than the autonomic responses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_nervous_system#
almost all human behaviors are connected to specific parts of the brain.

Examples,
Broca's area, or the Broca area is a region in the frontal lobe of the dominant hemisphere, usually the left, of the brain[5] with functions linked to speech production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca%27s_area
Thus we can label this part of the brain as the speech part of the brain.

Wernicke's area also called Wernicke's speech area, is one of the two parts of the cerebral cortex that are linked to speech, the other being Broca's area. It is involved in the comprehension of written and spoken language, in contrast to Broca's area, which is involved in the production of language.
It is traditionally thought to reside in Brodmann area 22, which is located in the superior temporal gyrus in the dominant cerebral hemisphere, which is the left hemisphere in about 95% of right-handed individuals and 70% of left-handed individuals.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke%27s_area
Thus we can label this part of the brain as the language part of the brain.

There are many patterns of behaviors that are identified to specific areas [thinking, rationalizing, inferencing, judgment, emotions, senses, etc.] in the brain.

Thus moral [as defined] behaviors are identifiable to specific physical areas in the brain.. These can be categorized as 'moral' and I prefer morality-proper.

All judgments [including 'supposing moral', aeronautical, whatever ] are traceable to the specific judgment function in the brain and not to moral parts of the brain. This judgment function draws input from different parts of the brain including those from the moral parts.
When these judgments are expressed they involved the Broca Area [speech] and Wenicke Area [language] and other necessary relevant parts.

There are loads more to morality-proper that I have not discussed.
The more you condemn my views the more you expose your ignorance.
My taking a break from morality is saving you from more embarrassments.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:11 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:33 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:42 am

Aside from issues with the word "real," the above is again something I don't agree with. "Moral things" are moral judgments that individuals make--that's what morality is in a nutshell. Those judgments are identical to brain states.
Perhaps how we use the word 'real' really is the issue.

The 'real things in the brain' that VA calls 'moral things' are in fact nothing more than brain-states or processes. The modifier 'moral' is a misattribution in that case. There's nothing moral about physical things and events. They just do or don't exist.

The mentalist talk you favour easily leads to VA's confusion: making a judgement is a physical process in the brain; and we make moral judgements; so moral judgements are 'things that exist in the brain'; so moral judgements are moral things.

I think the claim that aeronautical judgements are aeronautical things that exist in the brain is nonsense. But we're not going to agree about this.
The more you defend your position, you are exposing more of your dumbness and ignorance.

I have already stated and insisted a "million" times, moral judgments are not moral things per se.

Other than the autonomic responses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_nervous_system#
almost all human behaviors are connected to specific parts of the brain.

Examples,
Broca's area, or the Broca area is a region in the frontal lobe of the dominant hemisphere, usually the left, of the brain[5] with functions linked to speech production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca%27s_area
Thus we can label this part of the brain as the speech part of the brain.

Wernicke's area also called Wernicke's speech area, is one of the two parts of the cerebral cortex that are linked to speech, the other being Broca's area. It is involved in the comprehension of written and spoken language, in contrast to Broca's area, which is involved in the production of language.
It is traditionally thought to reside in Brodmann area 22, which is located in the superior temporal gyrus in the dominant cerebral hemisphere, which is the left hemisphere in about 95% of right-handed individuals and 70% of left-handed individuals.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke%27s_area
Thus we can label this part of the brain as the language part of the brain.

There are many patterns of behaviors that are identified to specific areas [thinking, rationalizing, inferencing, judgment, emotions, senses, etc.] in the brain.

Thus moral [as defined] behaviors are identifiable to specific physical areas in the brain.. These can be categorized as 'moral' and I prefer morality-proper.

All judgments [including 'supposing moral', aeronautical, whatever ] are traceable to the specific judgment function in the brain and not to moral parts of the brain. This judgment function draws input from different parts of the brain including those from the moral parts.
When these judgments are expressed they involved the Broca Area [speech] and Wenicke Area [language] and other necessary relevant parts.

There are loads more to morality-proper that I have not discussed.
The more you condemn my views the more you expose your ignorance.
My taking a break from morality is saving you from more embarrassments.
So different parts of the brain control different aspects of our experience and behaviour. We've known this for a long time.

Now, what experience or behaviour does the so-called 'moral' part of the brain control? Please be specific.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6491
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:11 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:33 am
Perhaps how we use the word 'real' really is the issue.

The 'real things in the brain' that VA calls 'moral things' are in fact nothing more than brain-states or processes. The modifier 'moral' is a misattribution in that case. There's nothing moral about physical things and events. They just do or don't exist.

The mentalist talk you favour easily leads to VA's confusion: making a judgement is a physical process in the brain; and we make moral judgements; so moral judgements are 'things that exist in the brain'; so moral judgements are moral things.

I think the claim that aeronautical judgements are aeronautical things that exist in the brain is nonsense. But we're not going to agree about this.
The more you defend your position, you are exposing more of your dumbness and ignorance.

I have already stated and insisted a "million" times, moral judgments are not moral things per se.

Other than the autonomic responses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_nervous_system#
almost all human behaviors are connected to specific parts of the brain.

Examples,
Broca's area, or the Broca area is a region in the frontal lobe of the dominant hemisphere, usually the left, of the brain[5] with functions linked to speech production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca%27s_area
Thus we can label this part of the brain as the speech part of the brain.

Wernicke's area also called Wernicke's speech area, is one of the two parts of the cerebral cortex that are linked to speech, the other being Broca's area. It is involved in the comprehension of written and spoken language, in contrast to Broca's area, which is involved in the production of language.
It is traditionally thought to reside in Brodmann area 22, which is located in the superior temporal gyrus in the dominant cerebral hemisphere, which is the left hemisphere in about 95% of right-handed individuals and 70% of left-handed individuals.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke%27s_area
Thus we can label this part of the brain as the language part of the brain.

There are many patterns of behaviors that are identified to specific areas [thinking, rationalizing, inferencing, judgment, emotions, senses, etc.] in the brain.

Thus moral [as defined] behaviors are identifiable to specific physical areas in the brain.. These can be categorized as 'moral' and I prefer morality-proper.

All judgments [including 'supposing moral', aeronautical, whatever ] are traceable to the specific judgment function in the brain and not to moral parts of the brain. This judgment function draws input from different parts of the brain including those from the moral parts.
When these judgments are expressed they involved the Broca Area [speech] and Wenicke Area [language] and other necessary relevant parts.

There are loads more to morality-proper that I have not discussed.
The more you condemn my views the more you expose your ignorance.
My taking a break from morality is saving you from more embarrassments.
So different parts of the brain control different aspects of our experience and behaviour. We've known this for a long time.

Now, what experience or behaviour does the so-called 'moral' part of the brain control? Please be specific.
I have explained that before and have given sufficient clues, you do the further explorations yourself.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:11 am
The more you defend your position, you are exposing more of your dumbness and ignorance.

I have already stated and insisted a "million" times, moral judgments are not moral things per se.

Other than the autonomic responses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_nervous_system#
almost all human behaviors are connected to specific parts of the brain.

Examples,
Broca's area, or the Broca area is a region in the frontal lobe of the dominant hemisphere, usually the left, of the brain[5] with functions linked to speech production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca%27s_area
Thus we can label this part of the brain as the speech part of the brain.

Wernicke's area also called Wernicke's speech area, is one of the two parts of the cerebral cortex that are linked to speech, the other being Broca's area. It is involved in the comprehension of written and spoken language, in contrast to Broca's area, which is involved in the production of language.
It is traditionally thought to reside in Brodmann area 22, which is located in the superior temporal gyrus in the dominant cerebral hemisphere, which is the left hemisphere in about 95% of right-handed individuals and 70% of left-handed individuals.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernicke%27s_area
Thus we can label this part of the brain as the language part of the brain.

There are many patterns of behaviors that are identified to specific areas [thinking, rationalizing, inferencing, judgment, emotions, senses, etc.] in the brain.

Thus moral [as defined] behaviors are identifiable to specific physical areas in the brain.. These can be categorized as 'moral' and I prefer morality-proper.

All judgments [including 'supposing moral', aeronautical, whatever ] are traceable to the specific judgment function in the brain and not to moral parts of the brain. This judgment function draws input from different parts of the brain including those from the moral parts.
When these judgments are expressed they involved the Broca Area [speech] and Wenicke Area [language] and other necessary relevant parts.

There are loads more to morality-proper that I have not discussed.
The more you condemn my views the more you expose your ignorance.
My taking a break from morality is saving you from more embarrassments.
So different parts of the brain control different aspects of our experience and behaviour. We've known this for a long time.

Now, what experience or behaviour does the so-called 'moral' part of the brain control? Please be specific.
I have explained that before and have given sufficient clues, you do the further explorations yourself.
The speech part of the brain controls speech. The movement part of the brain controls movement. So what does the morality part of the brain control?

If it controls our behaviour-towards-others, what has that got to do with morality?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:17 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:53 am

So different parts of the brain control different aspects of our experience and behaviour. We've known this for a long time.

Now, what experience or behaviour does the so-called 'moral' part of the brain control? Please be specific.
I have explained that before and have given sufficient clues, you do the further explorations yourself.
The speech part of the brain controls speech. The movement part of the brain controls movement. So what does the morality part of the brain control?

If it controls our behaviour-towards-others, what has that got to do with morality?

My point is this: you think morality has nothing to do with judgements about the rightness and wrongness of behaviour. (You think another part of the brain controls judgements.) So why call a part of the brain that controls our behaviour the 'morality part of the brain'? That seems to be a misnomer.
Post Reply