Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is all deflection. Produce a valid and sound argument for a moral conclusion from a factual premise or premises. And you can't use 'there are moral facts' as a premise, for obvious reasons. Spend a long time thinking about and formulating it - because you don't want to embarrass yourself yet again. Or waste everyone's time. Again.

I have provided all the necessary justification in the above, it is because you are too 'thick' to understand the point.
Again you are still insistence on your own definition of what is fact and factual which is ultimately fatuous and farts.

It is well understood a statement of fact that is descriptive-alone cannot follow to a conclusion of prescription.

But as I had argued above,
there are statement of facts that have both descriptive and prescription elements, i.e. those of thick concepts, constitutional facts and speech acts, thus,

• P1 Statements of thick concepts, constitutional facts and speech acts, have both descriptive and prescription elements.
  P2 Statement A is a speech act within a Moral FSK
  C1 Statement A is prescriptive [as constituted] within a Moral FSK.
  
  P3 All FSK produce facts.
  P4 Statement A is prescriptive [as constituted] within a Moral FSK. [C1]
  C2 Statement A is a moral fact.

1 This argument assumes morality constitutes an FSK - a system or framework that can produce knowledge - that moral rightness and wrongness are epistemological matters - which begs the question. So this argument is unsound.

What are you talking about?
Moral rightness and wrongness are moral matters.

Note here
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
where I argued why a fact is a moral fact when justified from a specific moral FSK.

2 Concepts are metaphysical fictions, so talk of thick and thin concepts is mired in mentalist delusion. What and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist?

You are talking nonsense!
Note 'concept' here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
Something is very wrong with you.
Concepts and abstract things are represented by algorithms in the mind which contribute to useful actions, in this case, moral actions.
A person who do not have a concept of murder, rape, violent and other acts will not take the trouble to deter such concepts, thus instead will allow them to fester.

3 Produce an example of each kind of factual assertion - thick concept, constitutional and speech act - that logically entails a moral conclusion. And I'll show you why it doesn't. I defy you to produce the goods. Stop defelcting.
[/quote]
Re 3 I have told you many times to refer to Searle's argument.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824
where he relied on speech acts and constitutional fact to justify his argument.

[Peter Holmes]

I have provided all the necessary justification in the above, it is because you are too 'thick' to understand the point.
Again you are still insistence on your own definition of what is fact and factual which is ultimately fatuous and farts.

It is well understood a statement of fact that is descriptive-alone cannot follow to a conclusion of prescription.

But as I had argued above,
there are statement of facts that have both descriptive and prescription elements, i.e. those of thick concepts, constitutional facts and speech acts, thus,

• P1 Statements of thick concepts, constitutional facts and speech acts, have both descriptive and prescription elements.
  P2 Statement A is a speech act within a Moral FSK
  C1 Statement A is prescriptive [as constituted] within a Moral FSK.
  
  P3 All FSK produce facts.
  P4 Statement A is prescriptive [as constituted] within a Moral FSK. [C1]
  C2 Statement A is a moral fact.

1 This argument assumes morality constitutes an FSK - a system or framework that can produce knowledge - that moral rightness and wrongness are epistemological matters - which begs the question. So this argument is unsound.

What are you talking about?
Moral rightness and wrongness are moral matters.

Note here
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
where I argued why a fact is a moral fact when justified from a specific moral FSK.

2 Concepts are metaphysical fictions, so talk of thick and thin concepts is mired in mentalist delusion. What and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist?

You are talking nonsense!
Note 'concept' here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
Something is very wrong with you.
Concepts and abstract things are represented by algorithms in the mind which contribute to useful actions, in this case, moral actions.
A person who do not have a concept of murder, rape, violent and other acts will not take the trouble to deter such concepts, thus instead will allow them to fester.

3 Produce an example of each kind of factual assertion - thick concept, constitutional and speech act - that logically entails a moral conclusion. And I'll show you why it doesn't. I defy you to produce the goods. Stop deflecting.

Re 3 I have told you many times to refer to Searle's argument.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824
where he relied on speech acts and constitutional fact to justify his argument.

'What are you talking about?
Moral rightness and wrongness are moral matters.'

Sigh. You claim that morality constitutes a system and framework of KNOWLEDGE, so that moral rightness and wrongness are things that can be KNOWN. And this means you think they're epistemological matters - objects of knowledge.

Next, 'Concepts and abstract things are represented by algorithms in the mind which contribute to useful actions, in this case, moral actions.'

Metaphors have their uses, but they can lead us astray. Here's a definition.

'In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm is a finite sequence of well-defined, computer-implementable instructions, typically to solve a class of problems or to perform a computation.[1][2] Algorithms are always unambiguous and are used as specifications for performing calculations, data processing, automated reasoning, and other tasks.'

Is an algorithm an abstract thing? And how does it represent a concept or other abstract thing? And what and where is the mind - another abstract thing? And how does it contain algorithms? And is the mind in the brain? And how does a real thing contain an abstract thing?

This is all metaphysical blather.

And don't deflect. All you have to do is produce one example of any kind of argument from a factual premise or premises to a moral conclusion. I expect you've been keeping your powder dry just to tease us. Time to let fly now. Give it both barrels: the killer that nails it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 This argument assumes morality constitutes an FSK - a system or framework that can produce knowledge - that moral rightness and wrongness are epistemological matters - which begs the question. So this argument is unsound.

What are you talking about?
Moral rightness and wrongness are moral matters.

Note here
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
where I argued why a fact is a moral fact when justified from a specific moral FSK.

2 Concepts are metaphysical fictions, so talk of thick and thin concepts is mired in mentalist delusion. What and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist?

You are talking nonsense!
Note 'concept' here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
Something is very wrong with you.
Concepts and abstract things are represented by algorithms in the mind which contribute to useful actions, in this case, moral actions.
A person who do not have a concept of murder, rape, violent and other acts will not take the trouble to deter such concepts, thus instead will allow them to fester.

3 Produce an example of each kind of factual assertion - thick concept, constitutional and speech act - that logically entails a moral conclusion. And I'll show you why it doesn't. I defy you to produce the goods. Stop deflecting.

Re 3 I have told you many times to refer to Searle's argument.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824
where he relied on speech acts and constitutional fact to justify his argument.

So, 'Concepts and abstract things are represented by algorithms in the mind which contribute to useful actions, in this case, moral actions.'

Metaphors have their uses, but they can lead us astray. Here's a definition.

'In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm is a finite sequence of well-defined, computer-implementable instructions, typically to solve a class of problems or to perform a computation.[1][2] Algorithms are always unambiguous and are used as specifications for performing calculations, data processing, automated reasoning, and other tasks.'

Is an algorithm an abstract thing? And how does it represent a concept or other abstract thing? And what and where is the mind - another abstract thing? And how does it contain algorithms? And is the mind in the brain? And how does a real thing contain an abstract thing?

This is all metaphysical blather.

And don't deflect. All you have to do is produce one example of any kind of argument from a factual premise or premises to a moral conclusion. I expect you've been keeping your powder dry just to tease us. Time to let fly now. Give it both barrels: the killer that nails it.

You are getting very sick.
I have repeated this a 'thousand' times re Searle's argument re how he argued from a factual premise to a moral conclusion.
viewtopic.php?p=465411#p465411

Re the above, I am not referring to 'metaphor'.

Concepts and abstract things will include the good and the evil.

Re Abstract things of no specific physical referent;

In metaphysics, abstract and concrete are classifications that denote whether the object that a term describes has physical referents. Abstract objects have no physical referents, whereas concrete objects do.
-wiki

The "potential to murder" an emergence is an abstract thing.
This potential to murder is represented by a neural algorithm comprising various neural elements in a state of tension awaiting to be unleashed.
The resultant of this abstract thing is very evident from the number of murders all over the world.

In contrast to the above abstract thing, there is the potential inhibition of ought-not [another neural algorithm], i.e. a moral function that inhibit one from murdering, albeit not working at times.

[Peter Holmes]

What are you talking about?
Moral rightness and wrongness are moral matters.

Note here
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
where I argued why a fact is a moral fact when justified from a specific moral FSK.


You are talking nonsense!
Note 'concept' here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
Something is very wrong with you.
Concepts and abstract things are represented by algorithms in the mind which contribute to useful actions, in this case, moral actions.
A person who do not have a concept of murder, rape, violent and other acts will not take the trouble to deter such concepts, thus instead will allow them to fester.
Re 3 I have told you many times to refer to Searle's argument.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824
where he relied on speech acts and constitutional fact to justify his argument.

So, 'Concepts and abstract things are represented by algorithms in the mind which contribute to useful actions, in this case, moral actions.'

Metaphors have their uses, but they can lead us astray. Here's a definition.

'In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm is a finite sequence of well-defined, computer-implementable instructions, typically to solve a class of problems or to perform a computation.[1][2] Algorithms are always unambiguous and are used as specifications for performing calculations, data processing, automated reasoning, and other tasks.'

Is an algorithm an abstract thing? And how does it represent a concept or other abstract thing? And what and where is the mind - another abstract thing? And how does it contain algorithms? And is the mind in the brain? And how does a real thing contain an abstract thing?

This is all metaphysical blather.

And don't deflect. All you have to do is produce one example of any kind of argument from a factual premise or premises to a moral conclusion. I expect you've been keeping your powder dry just to tease us. Time to let fly now. Give it both barrels: the killer that nails it.

You are getting very sick.
I have repeated this a 'thousand' times re Searle's argument re how he argued from a factual premise to a moral conclusion.
viewtopic.php?p=465411#p465411

Re the above, I am not referring to 'metaphor'.

Concepts and abstract things will include the good and the evil.

Re Abstract things of no specific physical referent;

In metaphysics, abstract and concrete are classifications that denote whether the object that a term describes has physical referents. Abstract objects have no physical referents, whereas concrete objects do.
-wiki

The "potential to murder" an emergence is an abstract thing.
This potential to murder is represented by a neural algorithm comprising various neural elements in a state of tension awaiting to be unleashed.
The resultant of this abstract thing is very evident from the number of murders all over the world.

In contrast to the above abstract thing, there is the potential inhibition of ought-not [another neural algorithm], i.e. a moral function that inhibit one from murdering, albeit not working at times.

The claim that human behaviour is determined by neural activity has nothing to do with morality - except inasmuch as it may influence our view of moral responsibility - and that's a matter of judgement.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, 'Concepts and abstract things are represented by algorithms in the mind which contribute to useful actions, in this case, moral actions.'

Metaphors have their uses, but they can lead us astray. Here's a definition.

'In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm is a finite sequence of well-defined, computer-implementable instructions, typically to solve a class of problems or to perform a computation.[1][2] Algorithms are always unambiguous and are used as specifications for performing calculations, data processing, automated reasoning, and other tasks.'

Is an algorithm an abstract thing? And how does it represent a concept or other abstract thing? And what and where is the mind - another abstract thing? And how does it contain algorithms? And is the mind in the brain? And how does a real thing contain an abstract thing?

This is all metaphysical blather.

And don't deflect. All you have to do is produce one example of any kind of argument from a factual premise or premises to a moral conclusion. I expect you've been keeping your powder dry just to tease us. Time to let fly now. Give it both barrels: the killer that nails it.

You are getting very sick.
I have repeated this a 'thousand' times re Searle's argument re how he argued from a factual premise to a moral conclusion.
viewtopic.php?p=465411#p465411

Re the above, I am not referring to 'metaphor'.

Concepts and abstract things will include the good and the evil.

Re Abstract things of no specific physical referent;

In metaphysics, abstract and concrete are classifications that denote whether the object that a term describes has physical referents. Abstract objects have no physical referents, whereas concrete objects do.
-wiki

The "potential to murder" an emergence is an abstract thing.
This potential to murder is represented by a neural algorithm comprising various neural elements in a state of tension awaiting to be unleashed.
The resultant of this abstract thing is very evident from the number of murders all over the world.

In contrast to the above abstract thing, there is the potential inhibition of ought-not [another neural algorithm], i.e. a moral function that inhibit one from murdering, albeit not working at times.

The claim that human behaviour is determined by neural activity has nothing to do with morality - except inasmuch as it may influence our view of moral responsibility - and that's a matter of judgement.

So you are claiming morality is objective in the Platonic form or otherwise from a God thus independent of the human brain.

Morality has everything to do with humans.
Whatever is done by humans involve the human brain and its neural activities,
Morality has everything to do with the human brain and neural activities.

The task of humanity is to identify which parts and neural sets are involved in morality so that we can target them to improve the individual's moral competence.

Don't forget this!
I have told you many times to refer to Searle's argument.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824
where he relied on speech acts and constitutional fact to justify his argument.

[Peter Holmes]

You are getting very sick.
I have repeated this a 'thousand' times re Searle's argument re how he argued from a factual premise to a moral conclusion.
viewtopic.php?p=465411#p465411

Re the above, I am not referring to 'metaphor'.

Concepts and abstract things will include the good and the evil.

Re Abstract things of no specific physical referent;



The "potential to murder" an emergence is an abstract thing.
This potential to murder is represented by a neural algorithm comprising various neural elements in a state of tension awaiting to be unleashed.
The resultant of this abstract thing is very evident from the number of murders all over the world.

In contrast to the above abstract thing, there is the potential inhibition of ought-not [another neural algorithm], i.e. a moral function that inhibit one from murdering, albeit not working at times.

The claim that human behaviour is determined by neural activity has nothing to do with morality - except inasmuch as it may influence our view of moral responsibility - and that's a matter of judgement.

So you are claiming morality is objective in the Platonic form or otherwise from a God thus independent of the human brain.

Morality has everything to do with humans.
Whatever is done by humans involve the human brain and its neural activities,
Morality has everything to do with the human brain and neural activities.

The task of humanity is to identify which parts and neural sets are involved in morality so that we can target them to improve the individual's moral competence.

Don't forget this!
I have told you many times to refer to Searle's argument.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824
where he relied on speech acts and constitutional fact to justify his argument.

1 Searle's argument is fallacious, so his conclusion is false or at least unjustified.

2 If human behaviour is causally determined by neural physiology, that is a physical/biological fact. The moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour - its 'morality' - is a completely separate and unrelated matter.

[Belinda]

The 'obvious generic standards' I mentioned above are very glaringly regarded as immoral in any reasonable sized groups or societies.

Where incest happened within a family it is very hidden and I don't think it is acceptable to all the family members or the victims. As such we cannot use the term 'normalized' in this case, it is more rightly a 'perversion' of human norms.

Generic human standards are not carved in stones thus there are exceptional circumstances that variations are justified whilst the standard still overrides ultimately.
If the members of tribe in the most remote jungle is reduced to a minimal, incest [given the risks] may be necessary but it will not be a norm.

It is the same with the other 'obvious generic standards' I mentioned where justified variations are acceptable but always subject to and overridden by the standards/maxims.

This is why humanity need to establish an effective Moral Framework and System [in the future, not possible immediately] to facilitate all humans spontaneously act in alignment with those generic standards as close as possible, thus maintaining peace, harmony, minimal sufferings & stress, etc.

I think of slum dwellers as people too. If a pubescent boy shares a bed with his older sister, do you not think he would have been into her several times? True, the caring priest in charge of a slum district would have told him he was risking his immortal soul, and incest would have been an everyday problem for the priest to deal with. If we have a deeply divided society with slum dwellers whose work makes them as badly off as slaves in the American cotton plantations we have a nation divided into two societies, two nations, two cultures. The poor are one nation with one culture and the middle classes are another nation wit another culture. So far history has seldom been written by slaves and slum dwellers. There is evidence, in the form of first person disinterested testimony, for incest among the very poor who are inadequately housed.These circumstances were not exceptional but at times and places were the rule. And there are still very poor people whose housing is inadequate so they are crammed together and have to share beds. It is a simple thing to understand, a simple cause and effect.

There are a lot of research going with "inbreeding avoidance" which a natural instinct within humans and many other animals, even in plants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance

Research has shown siblings who live together from childhood has an active instinct to avoid incest. This is why incest happened are common when siblings [& parent-child] are reunited after long separations.

However as with human beings, there are a percentage of outliers who are the exceptions and they don't happen in slums but can be anywhere even in the most elites of societies.

Who knows "the inherent nature of humans" ? Not the greatest minds past or present can fathom inherent human nature beyond the most obvious like what Shakespeare called a "poor bare forked animal" (King Lear).

That was Shakespear's time, a few hundreds years ago.
But not in 2020 when we are already on a trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge towards the future. Note the advances of the Human Genome Project, the Human Connectome Project and others where I am optimistic we will soon know more and more of human nature.

You may argue, VA, that slavery and cruel exploitation of free workers is wrong, as would I. However we need to produce our criterion for our claim.

My criterion is human freedom is a universal human right.

A corollary of that is to oppress others so much they have no choice but to work themselves to death for starvation wages is immoral.

Didn't you notice in all the posts here where I have provided arguments and justifications from a wide range of evidence on why Slavery is wrong?

But evidence is all very well however what's needed is a criterion by which to judge a moral tenet.A criterion of the form all Ps are Qs. Could you reword your criterion "human freedom is a universal human right" so it takes the form 'all Ps are Q's ' ?

Criteria for moral claims typically need more justification than criteria for empirical claims. This is because all moral and scientific claims are ultimately based upon the power of the claimant who may be a moralist or a scientist.

Scientists' criteria of excellence are paradigmatic, peer reviewed, and imply personal integrity of the individuals making the claim. Moral claims are like scientific claims as moral claims too are subject to paradigms (e.g. received wisdom ) , peer reviewed by competent moralists or competent dictators, and rely on personal integrity of the claimant. Personal integrity of all people with a claim to political or traditional or any social power at all social levels is carefully fostered by the claimants, e.g. royalty, presidents, popes, priests, doctors, lawyers, witch doctors, fortune tellers, electricians, car makers, cooks, and so forth .

We are no nearer establishing what human nature is than were the Elizabethans or the ancient Greeks. You have not understood the import of my quote from Shakespeare. DNA is not human nature which depends upon cultural factors at least as much as upon DNA.

With a criterion an argument takes the form of a syllogism.One of the premises is invariably 'All Ps are Qs' .

Research has shown siblings who live together from childhood has an active instinct to avoid incest. This is why incest happened are common when siblings [& parent-child] are reunited after long separations.

However as with human beings, there are a percentage of outliers who are the exceptions and they don't happen in slums but can be anywhere even in the most elites of societies.

That is true enough, however who is to be considered an "outlier" and who is not an "outlier" depends upon the say-so of more powerful men who consider themselves to be better than other men and have the power to enforce that claim. I expect you agree history is written by the winners.

[surreptitious57]

If human behaviour is causally determined by neural physiology that is physical / biological
The moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour - its morality - is completely separate

The question that has to be asked here is what is the relationship between the physical / biological and moral ?
Is it causal ? Correlative ? Coincidental ? And what factors determine the answer ? Is it nature ? Nuture ? Both ?

Is there any scientific / potentially falsifiable way that this can actually be demonstrated ?
And given how unique each personality is can it be applied generally to most / all humans ?

[Peter Holmes]

If human behaviour is causally determined by neural physiology that is physical / biological
The moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour - its morality - is completely separate

The question that has to be asked here is what is the relationship between the physical / biological and moral ?
Is it causal ? Correlative ? Coincidental ? And what factors determine the answer ? Is it nature ? Nuture ? Both ?

Is there any scientific / potentially falsifiable way that this can actually be demonstrated ?
And given how unique each personality is can it be applied generally to most / all humans ?

Erm. VA is arguing that human behaviour - and specifically what we call morally good behaviour - is determined by neuro-physical facts - so that there are moral facts, and morality is objective. And the misunderstanding is very deep-rooted.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The claim that human behaviour is determined by neural activity has nothing to do with morality - except inasmuch as it may influence our view of moral responsibility - and that's a matter of judgement.

So you are claiming morality is objective in the Platonic form or otherwise from a God thus independent of the human brain.

Morality has everything to do with humans.
Whatever is done by humans involve the human brain and its neural activities,
Morality has everything to do with the human brain and neural activities.

The task of humanity is to identify which parts and neural sets are involved in morality so that we can target them to improve the individual's moral competence.

Don't forget this!
I have told you many times to refer to Searle's argument.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824
where he relied on speech acts and constitutional fact to justify his argument.

1 Searle's argument is fallacious, so his conclusion is false or at least unjustified.

Noises as usual.
Where is your counter argument?

2 If human behaviour is causally determined by neural physiology, that is a physical/biological fact. The moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour - its 'morality' - is a completely separate and unrelated matter.

As we have agreed, biologically,
all human beings ought to breathe, else they die.
in this case, a biological "ought" is derived from a biological "is".

The question is, how can a moral ought be derived from a biological ought.
Morality with its specific FSK is about 'what ought and ought-not to be done' by all human beings in regard to what is deem to be moral actions to sustain the greatest good.
I have already explained how a Moral FSK through its specific moral mechanism generate moral facts from other facts in this case, from the biological fact.

Here is a new explanation.

Biological Fact:
"all human beings ought to breathe, so they don't die."


If they should not die prematurely, then,
from the perspective of a Moral FSK to ensure the greatest good.
the following moral maxim is a necessity, i.e. a moral fact.
"no human ought to stop any other human from breathing till they die."

The justification is;
if otherwise,
"all humans ought to stop other humans from breathing,"
then all humans will die.

This will then defeat the 'ought_ness' of the biological fact and the moral fact to sustain the greatest good.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Didn't you notice in all the posts here where I have provided arguments and justifications from a wide range of evidence on why Slavery is wrong?

But evidence is all very well however what's needed is a criterion by which to judge a moral tenet.A criterion of the form all Ps are Qs. Could you reword your criterion "human freedom is a universal human right" so it takes the form 'all Ps are Q's ' ?

Criteria for moral claims typically need more justification than criteria for empirical claims. This is because all moral and scientific claims are ultimately based upon the power of the claimant who may be a moralist or a scientist.

Scientists' criteria of excellence are paradigmatic, peer reviewed, and imply personal integrity of the individuals making the claim. Moral claims are like scientific claims as moral claims too are subject to paradigms (e.g. received wisdom ) , peer reviewed by competent moralists or competent dictators, and rely on personal integrity of the claimant. Personal integrity of all people with a claim to political or traditional or any social power at all social levels is carefully fostered by the claimants, e.g. royalty, presidents, popes, priests, doctors, lawyers, witch doctors, fortune tellers, electricians, car makers, cooks, and so forth .

We are no nearer establishing what human nature is than were the Elizabethans or the ancient Greeks. You have not understood the import of my quote from Shakespeare. DNA is not human nature which depends upon cultural factors at least as much as upon DNA.

With a criterion an argument takes the form of a syllogism.One of the premises is invariably 'All Ps are Qs' .

Note my argument in the above posts from,

Biological Fact:
"all human beings ought to breathe, so they don't die."
i.e. ALL Ps are Qs, no exception.

to the Moral Fact [from a specific Moral FSK]
"no human ought to stop any other human from breathing till they die."

The justification is;
if otherwise,
"all humans ought to stop other humans from breathing,"
then all humans will die.

Research has shown siblings who live together from childhood has an active instinct to avoid incest. This is why incest happened are common when siblings [& parent-child] are reunited after long separations.

That is true enough, however who is to be considered an "outlier" and who is not an "outlier" depends upon the say-so of more powerful men who consider themselves to be better than other men and have the power to enforce that claim. I expect you agree history is written by the winners.

I don't have actual facts, but who are the outliers can be inferred from the Principles of the Normal Distribution which is typical for most human variables.
In most case of human perversions, it is like only 1%++ who are the outliers.
Thus it is commonly stated 1% of humans are extreme psychopaths, presumably this is from the records of psychiatrists and psychologist throughout history.
Thus it is reasonable to say 1 in 100 have incestuous tendency, but intuitively it should be 1 in 1000 or more based on the evidence and fact of interbreeding avoidance.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If human behaviour is causally determined by neural physiology that is physical / biological
The moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour - its morality - is completely separate

The question that has to be asked here is what is the relationship between the physical / biological and moral ?
Is it causal ? Correlative ? Coincidental ? And what factors determine the answer ? Is it nature ? Nuture ? Both ?

Is there any scientific / potentially falsifiable way that this can actually be demonstrated ?
And given how unique each personality is can it be applied generally to most / all humans ?

Erm. VA is arguing that human behaviour - and specifically what we call morally good behaviour - is determined by neuro-physical facts - so that there are moral facts, and morality is objective. And the misunderstanding is very deep-rooted.

I have made that claim with justifications.

Here is one among many others;
-a rape happened when a neural algorithm [biological] is executed without impulse control.
i.e. this evil act is represented by neuro-physical facts.
-the "ought-not" to rape is also represented by neuro-physical facts, i.e. state of affairs, i.e. the presence of a neural algorithm [biological] related to impulse control.
-the 'ought-not to rape' is inherent within all human brains for the greater good, i.e. a moral purpose within the Moral FSK, thus a moral fact.

The above justification is merely one within a long list of other justifications which coherently reinforce and culminate into a solid justification.

[Peter Holmes]

Erm. VA is arguing that human behaviour - and specifically what we call morally good behaviour - is determined by neuro-physical facts - so that there are moral facts, and morality is objective. And the misunderstanding is very deep-rooted.

I have made that claim with justifications.

Here is one among many others;
-a rape happened when a neural algorithm [biological] is executed without impulse control.
i.e. this evil act is represented by neuro-physical facts.
-the "ought-not" to rape is also represented by neuro-physical facts, i.e. state of affairs, i.e. the presence of a neural algorithm [biological] related to impulse control.
-the 'ought-not to rape' is inherent within all human brains for the greater good, i.e. a moral purpose within the Moral FSK, thus a moral fact.

The above justification is merely one within a long list of other justifications which coherently reinforce and culminate into a solid justification.

Okay, here's your mistake in a nutshell. One of your premises is your conclusion: rape is morally wrong - an 'evil act'.

But you're trying to argue from neuro-physical facts about motivation and impulse control to the conclusion that rape is morally wrong - as follows.

'People are programmed not to rape; therefore rape is morally wrong.'

There's no connection whatsoever between those two assertions. That's why you have to insert the get-out premise that ought-not-to-rape is a fact in your fantasy moral FSK: people are programmed not to rape because rape is morally wrong. And that destroys your argument.

But what you say gives the game away: 'a moral purpose within the Moral FSK, thus a moral fact'.

It can be a fact that we subjectively adopt a moral purpose or principle; but that doesn't make the purpose or principle a fact.

Please think carefully about the preceding sentence, because I think your not understanding it may be at or near the root of your misunderstanding

I'm going to try to wait until you produce what looks like a valid and sound argument from genuinely factual premises that entail a moral conclusion. So I'll read what you write, but won't reply until that happens. And, btw, I respect your tenacity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Erm. VA is arguing that human behaviour - and specifically what we call morally good behaviour - is determined by neuro-physical facts - so that there are moral facts, and morality is objective. And the misunderstanding is very deep-rooted.

I have made that claim with justifications.

Here is one among many others;
-a rape happened when a neural algorithm [biological] is executed without impulse control.
i.e. this evil act is represented by neuro-physical facts.
-the "ought-not" to rape is also represented by neuro-physical facts, i.e. state of affairs, i.e. the presence of a neural algorithm [biological] related to impulse control.
-the 'ought-not to rape' is inherent within all human brains for the greater good, i.e. a moral purpose within the Moral FSK, thus a moral fact.

The above justification is merely one within a long list of other justifications which coherently reinforce and culminate into a solid justification.

Okay, here's your mistake in a nutshell. One of your premises is your conclusion: rape is morally wrong - an 'evil act'.

But you're trying to argue from neuro-physical facts about motivation and impulse control to the conclusion that rape is morally wrong - as follows.

'People are programmed not to rape; therefore rape is morally wrong.'

There's no connection whatsoever between those two assertions. That's why you have to insert the get-out premise that ought-not-to-rape is a fact in your fantasy moral FSK: people are programmed not to rape because rape is morally wrong. And that destroys your argument.

But what you say gives the game away: 'a moral purpose within the Moral FSK, thus a moral fact'.

It can be a fact that we subjectively adopt a moral purpose or principle; but that doesn't make the purpose or principle a fact.

Please think carefully about the preceding sentence, because I think your not understanding it may be at or near the root of your misunderstanding

I'm going to try to wait until you produce what looks like a valid and sound argument from genuinely factual premises that entail a moral conclusion. So I'll read what you write, but won't reply until that happens. And, btw, I respect your tenacity.

As I had stated, you are stuck with your definition of "fact" which is a fart and fatuous.

Note your;

• 'P1. People are programmed not to rape;
  C1. therefore rape is morally wrong.'

Looks like you are being desperate in short-circuiting my premises and the Moral FSK.
You are the one who being rhetorical and is jumping to conclusion as evident in the above.

Note;

• P0 There are specific FSK that generate their specific fact.
  You cannot deny this!
  
  P1 Within a Moral FSK what is evil is morally wrong.
  P2 Rape is an evil act
  C1 Therefore rape is morally wrong.
  
  Since C1 is derived from a Moral FSK, it is a moral fact -P0.
  
  All humans are 'programmed' to avoid evil to facilitate survival of the species - empirically evident
  Rape is an evil act -P2
  Therefore people are programmed not to rape.

How can you dispute the above?

Btw, where is your counter argument against Searle's argument.

I have so many fronts to justify my argument, thus my main thesis is coherent.

Where are yours?
So far you are merely making noises without any justification and worst no reference to any philosophy theories at all. If any they will fall back to the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists.

Tenacity??
It is intellectual integrity and sound justifications from reliable sources.
Since I started on this my New "Moral & Ethics Folder" now has 420 files in 16 Folders.
It is not easier for me to commit and collate all these which will easily drown your flimsy dogmatic stance.

[surreptitious57]

All humans are programmed to avoid evil to facilitate survival of the species
Rape is an evil
Therefore people are programmed not to rape

All humans are not programmed to avoid evil in order to facilitate survival of the species
Were this true then no human - including psychopaths - would be psychologically or physically capable of evil
Since this is demonstrably false then either humans are not programmed at all or not sufficiently programmed
Or only some of them are programmed to avoid evil - but definitely not all of them - as evidence demonstrates

Some humans are naturally evil such as psychopaths for example but not all rapists however are psychopaths
Even rapists who are non psychopathic will still commit rape even if they subsequently regret it [ as some do ]
These rapists may not be naturally evil from a psychological perspective but this does not mean that they are incapable of evil
Any one in fact is capable of it even if they do not have a natural inclination towards it and that is because they have free will