You seem to agree that there is a moral duty to "make sure our closest relatives survive and are healthy" genetically programmed in us. In fact, you said it was "factual statements about the state of the world (observable, demonstrable... is or is not sort of stuff)".FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:17 amI've helped you out with some colour coding.BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:29 pmCould it not be said that humans and other mammals have genes that instruct them to ensure the survival of their offspring? And if that's the case, isn't one's desire or sense of duty to make sure our closest relatives survive and are healthy also genetically programmed in us? If so, is it too much of a stretch to say that there is a universal moral principle that says we should help people who can't take care of themselves meet their basic needs, as long as doing so doesn't put our own basic needs at risk? And lastly, if that's the case, doesn't that show moral objectivity?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:10 am Here are three arguments for moral objectivity.
1
Action X is morally right and action Y is morally wrong (as defined).
Humans are programmed/could be genetically manipulated/can be encouraged to do X and not to do Y.
Therefore, there are moral facts about human nature, and morality is objective.
[...]
Those who peddle these arguments seem to be convinced by them. But I hope everyone else can see how silly they are.
The stuff in red is factual statememts about the state of the world (observable, demonstrable... is or is not sort of stuff)
The stuff in blue is normative evaluation (where on man's meat is another's poison... ought and ought not, desirable versus ugly, that sort of stuff)
That means that the meagre bit of black text between the two is an attempt to bring about the copulation of propositions of the is sort the ought sort without the introduction of any additional features of either that can explain this mysterious conversion of types let alone how the one can act as a foundation for the other.
The moves that Hume observed in this game always border on imperceptible, the whole point of the is ought problem (and if you get this particular point, we have 20 idiots who need assistance, so weight in) is that imperceptible movement between is and ought is sleight of hand, if it can be done, then the is ought thing should be bridged openly and explicitly using some novel logical connection between facts and values.
That brings up the question of how close our closest relatives have to be for your assessment to be valid. You are implying that distant relatives don't deserve moral support as much, which has some genetic basis. But when does that moral principle stop being applicable, not even a little bit?