Is morality objective or subjective?

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

Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 10:08 am No, as always you slide from having and stating a goal to the moral rightness and wrongness of actions in relation to that goal. You do precisely what Hume pointed out: assuming an ought from an is.
There is no gap between the present and the future.
There is no gap between not having a goal in the present and attaining a goal in the future.

Time has no discontinuities.

Where does the "gap" between oughts and ises magically appear from?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 10:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:39 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:33 pm
1 The expression objective fact is a tautology or redundancy. There are no subjective facts.
Yes, that is seemingly tautological but it is critical as an reinforcement since 'objective' and 'fact' has different shade of meanings from different perspectives. In addition they can be very loose terms for different people, so we need to be more precise.

I would not hesitate to use the term 'real objective fact' where necessary.

fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
objective: based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings:

'Fact' is too general while objective-fact implied a process involved in asserting what is a fact, i.e. as I had stated "what is fact" must be conditioned to a Framework and System of Reality, e.g. what is a Scientific Fact entailed complex processes.

Theists will insist their God exists as a fact but that is based on faith, i.e. not on an objective-based process via empirical evidence and rational arguments.

There is no rule that must be imposed here. If you don't like it at all, just ignored one of the word.
2 An appeal to so-called human nature is always a last resort when evidence and argument fail.
You are too hasty on this.
Human nature is merely a general term used as a matter of convenience in this case.
When have I insisted, because it is human nature, it must be absolutely true?
However it is open for detailed deliberation to require evidence is needed be.
3 It's a fact that humans can be kind and/or cruel. Is that a moral fact?
You are lost here and your question above is based on ignorance.

First we have to define what we meant by 'what is moral'.
I define 'moral' in the negative sense, i.e. what is moral is "not-evil".
What is evil is any human act that is net-negative to the well being [with potential of fatality and injuries] of the individual and humanity.
In this case we have to present a near exhaustive lists [taxonomy] of human acts that are identified as 'evil'.

Being 'Kind' is not an evil act, thus cannot be a moral fact.

Being cruel with potential fatality to another human is an evil act and it has its degree of evilness, thus can be a moral fact. The higher the potential fatality, the higher degree of evilness.

Note your thinking to the above is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.
No, as always you slide from having and stating a goal to the moral rightness and wrongness of actions in relation to that goal. You do precisely what Hume pointed out: assuming an ought from an is.
Strawmaning as usual.
Do you even understand Hume's claim re No Ought From Is? Read Hume's Treatise carefully.

I have already stated a 'million' times, I do not engage in moral rightness nor moral wrongness.
Show me the evidence above why I stated such?
As usual you are forcing your own dogmatic views for me.
Your goal is this: to avoid 'net-negative' consequences for individuals and humanity. Others describe it as avoiding harming the wellbeing or welfare of people - or, positively, promoting their wellbeing or welfare.
Nope, strawmaning again!
An analogy of my view is like say Get Educated!
First one need to understand the importance of getting a good education.
To get a good education one has to develop one intellectual and cognitive powers to acquire and apply knowledge.
It is the same with one's own moral competence, where one must recognize the moral potential [the moral fact] within oneself and then develop that moral potential to be naturally morally competence rather than being threaten to act good.
But that we should or ought to have and act in line with this goal is merely assumed - as it has to be, because it doesn't follow from any factual (non-moral) premise.
Point is you are ignorant of your own internal moral potential as a moral fact.
As I have explained many times this moral potential is not assumed but rather a verifiable and justifiable moral fact within a credible moral FSK.
The fatal flaw of moral objectivism is the refusal to recognise the moral premise at the start - or at the bottom - of any moral argument. It's just not a fact that we ought to promote others' welfare, or at least avoid harming it. It can only ever be a moral belief, judgement or opinion. (One that I hold, as it happens.)
Your thinking to the above is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.
As I had stated many times, you are ignorant of the moral potential in ALL humans as represented by physical neural connectivity in the brain and self which is a verifiable and justifiable moral fact within a credible moral FSK.

Another point is, it is good for you if you are able to recognize the moral fact within but unfortunately you and all humans at present will not benefit from it greatly due to our current limited psychological state.
However the recognition of this moral fact will facilitate for humanity to expedite the moral progress of future generations.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 10:31 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 10:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:39 am
Yes, that is seemingly tautological but it is critical as an reinforcement since 'objective' and 'fact' has different shade of meanings from different perspectives. In addition they can be very loose terms for different people, so we need to be more precise.

I would not hesitate to use the term 'real objective fact' where necessary.

fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
objective: based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings:

'Fact' is too general while objective-fact implied a process involved in asserting what is a fact, i.e. as I had stated "what is fact" must be conditioned to a Framework and System of Reality, e.g. what is a Scientific Fact entailed complex processes.

Theists will insist their God exists as a fact but that is based on faith, i.e. not on an objective-based process via empirical evidence and rational arguments.

There is no rule that must be imposed here. If you don't like it at all, just ignored one of the word.


You are too hasty on this.
Human nature is merely a general term used as a matter of convenience in this case.
When have I insisted, because it is human nature, it must be absolutely true?
However it is open for detailed deliberation to require evidence is needed be.


You are lost here and your question above is based on ignorance.

First we have to define what we meant by 'what is moral'.
I define 'moral' in the negative sense, i.e. what is moral is "not-evil".
What is evil is any human act that is net-negative to the well being [with potential of fatality and injuries] of the individual and humanity.
In this case we have to present a near exhaustive lists [taxonomy] of human acts that are identified as 'evil'.

Being 'Kind' is not an evil act, thus cannot be a moral fact.

Being cruel with potential fatality to another human is an evil act and it has its degree of evilness, thus can be a moral fact. The higher the potential fatality, the higher degree of evilness.

Note your thinking to the above is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.
No, as always you slide from having and stating a goal to the moral rightness and wrongness of actions in relation to that goal. You do precisely what Hume pointed out: assuming an ought from an is.
Strawmaning as usual.
Do you even understand Hume's claim re No Ought From Is? Read Hume's Treatise carefully.

I have already stated a 'million' times, I do not engage in moral rightness nor moral wrongness.
Show me the evidence above why I stated such?
As usual you are forcing your own dogmatic views for me.
Your goal is this: to avoid 'net-negative' consequences for individuals and humanity. Others describe it as avoiding harming the wellbeing or welfare of people - or, positively, promoting their wellbeing or welfare.
Nope, strawmaning again!
An analogy of my view is like say Get Educated!
First one need to understand the importance of getting a good education.
To get a good education one has to develop one intellectual and cognitive powers to acquire and apply knowledge.
It is the same with one's own moral competence, where one must recognize the moral potential [the moral fact] within oneself and then develop that moral potential to be naturally morally competence rather than being threaten to act good.
But that we should or ought to have and act in line with this goal is merely assumed - as it has to be, because it doesn't follow from any factual (non-moral) premise.
Point is you are ignorant of your own internal moral potential as a moral fact.
As I have explained many times this moral potential is not assumed but rather a verifiable and justifiable moral fact within a credible moral FSK.
The fatal flaw of moral objectivism is the refusal to recognise the moral premise at the start - or at the bottom - of any moral argument. It's just not a fact that we ought to promote others' welfare, or at least avoid harming it. It can only ever be a moral belief, judgement or opinion. (One that I hold, as it happens.)
Your thinking to the above is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.
As I had stated many times, you are ignorant of the moral potential in ALL humans as represented by physical neural connectivity in the brain and self which is a verifiable and justifiable moral fact within a credible moral FSK.

Another point is, it is good for you if you are able to recognize the moral fact within but unfortunately you and all humans at present will not benefit from it greatly due to our current limited psychological state.
However the recognition of this moral fact will facilitate for humanity to expedite the moral progress of future generations.
Moral sensibility is taught at school, and most curriculums include subjects that promote moral learning.
It's necessary for moral development of child and adult that ordinary human kindness be promoted . Ordinary human kindness was what David Hume meant by "sympathy". You will have noted that much of today's information comes from reportage in the media. Reportage that's devoid of either sympathy or beauty is not influential in the sense that such observations of the world are part truths at best.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 10:43 am Moral sensibility is taught at school, and most curriculums include subjects that promote moral learning.
It's necessary for moral development of child and adult that ordinary human kindness be promoted . Ordinary human kindness was what David Hume meant by "sympathy". You will have noted that much of today's information comes from reportage in the media. Reportage that's devoid of either sympathy or beauty is not influential in the sense that such observations of the world are part truths at best.
Moral learning in schools will only have an effect where the child already have an active moral potential.

There could be exceptions, but if a child is born with brain damage to its moral potential, e.g. a psychopath or sociopath, the best moral education will not change much of his moral potential.
It is very common to hear of serial killers, murders, rapists and evil laden person from a good family background, good education, moral exposures but yet committing evil acts in the later parts of their life.

Hume linked morality with sympathy but was ignorant [due to his time in the 1700s] of its mechanics in the brain.
Now we understand empathy is linked somehow [not yet known with precision] with mirror neurons.
Mirror neurons are physical facts.
If mirror neurons are related to morality, then they are also in a way moral facts.
Btw, morality and its potential with the human brain is very complex and involves many parts of the human brain.

Point is humanity in the future [not now] has the potential to track all the neural pathways connected with morality [mirror neurons are only one aspect].
Thus there are opportunities to generate human brains [must be FOOLPROOF] with higher moral competency acting naturally - this is what moral facts are involved.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 11:13 am
Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 10:43 am Moral sensibility is taught at school, and most curriculums include subjects that promote moral learning.
It's necessary for moral development of child and adult that ordinary human kindness be promoted . Ordinary human kindness was what David Hume meant by "sympathy". You will have noted that much of today's information comes from reportage in the media. Reportage that's devoid of either sympathy or beauty is not influential in the sense that such observations of the world are part truths at best.
Moral learning in schools will only have an effect where the child already have an active moral potential.

There could be exceptions, but if a child is born with brain damage to its moral potential, e.g. a psychopath or sociopath, the best moral education will not change much of his moral potential.
It is very common to hear of serial killers, murders, rapists and evil laden person from a good family background, good education, moral exposures but yet committing evil acts in the later parts of their life.

Hume linked morality with sympathy but was ignorant [due to his time in the 1700s] of its mechanics in the brain.
Now we understand empathy is linked somehow [not yet known with precision] with mirror neurons.
Mirror neurons are physical facts.
If mirror neurons are related to morality, then they are also in a way moral facts.
Btw, morality and its potential with the human brain is very complex and involves many parts of the human brain.

Point is humanity in the future [not now] has the potential to track all the neural pathways connected with morality [mirror neurons are only one aspect].
Thus there are opportunities to generate human brains [must be FOOLPROOF] with higher moral competency acting naturally - this is what moral facts are involved.
I agree. I'd say it like this:"Some people are born with damaged learning capacity."

Is there time to wait for men's knowledge to offset their defective wisdom?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 11:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 11:13 am
Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 10:43 am Moral sensibility is taught at school, and most curriculums include subjects that promote moral learning.
It's necessary for moral development of child and adult that ordinary human kindness be promoted . Ordinary human kindness was what David Hume meant by "sympathy". You will have noted that much of today's information comes from reportage in the media. Reportage that's devoid of either sympathy or beauty is not influential in the sense that such observations of the world are part truths at best.
Moral learning in schools will only have an effect where the child already have an active moral potential.

There could be exceptions, but if a child is born with brain damage to its moral potential, e.g. a psychopath or sociopath, the best moral education will not change much of his moral potential.
It is very common to hear of serial killers, murders, rapists and evil laden person from a good family background, good education, moral exposures but yet committing evil acts in the later parts of their life.

Hume linked morality with sympathy but was ignorant [due to his time in the 1700s] of its mechanics in the brain.
Now we understand empathy is linked somehow [not yet known with precision] with mirror neurons.
Mirror neurons are physical facts.
If mirror neurons are related to morality, then they are also in a way moral facts.
Btw, morality and its potential with the human brain is very complex and involves many parts of the human brain.

Point is humanity in the future [not now] has the potential to track all the neural pathways connected with morality [mirror neurons are only one aspect].
Thus there are opportunities to generate human brains [must be FOOLPROOF] with higher moral competency acting naturally - this is what moral facts are involved.
I agree. I'd say it like this:"Some people are born with damaged learning capacity."

Is there time to wait for men's knowledge to offset their defective wisdom?
Point is, it took 3 billion years for the human brain and self to evolve to its current state [including state of wisdom] via natural selection from the 1st single cell living things.
Given the exponential increase in risk of potential of evilness within humans and an awareness galactical threats [rogue meteorites], humanity is faced with a great threat.
If humanity is to wait for natural selection time to deal with such threats, it is not likely we will be able to tune the current 'defective wisdom'.

Fortunately at present, there is also a trend of an exponential expansion of human cognition, knowledge and technology which is a potential for humanity to increase the average intelligence, wisdom, morality more expeditiously than waiting for natural selection.

But first we must understand the physical objective facts of morality within the human brain and self before we can proceed to improve its potential with latest and newer knowledge in the future for the future generation [not the present].
But note the very aggressive obstinate resistance [here and everywhere] to understand the existence of objective moral facts [not Hume's ought] within the human brain by the majority.

Note the current example of Covid 19 where scientists took merely an hour to understand the structure and workings of the Covid19 virus to model and developed a MRNA vaccine to mitigate the spread of the virus.
With the Covid19, there is an immediate sense of threat to the extinction of the human species, if not a very serious threat of massive deaths, thus the resorting to the new knowledge of developing a fast vaccine.
I understand the mRNA vaccine [lack of testing time] is controversial, but my point in this case is about the use of the latest knowledge we have gained so far arising from an aggressive drive to learn more.

The mRNA technology used for the Covid19 vaccine has the potential [in the future] to cure Cancer more effective via targeting specifically the malignant cancer cells.

I am optimistic this mRNA technology can be used with other advancing knowledge to expedite [based on facts] the wisdom and moral potential of the average person in the FUTURE [not now].
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:53 am
Belinda wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 11:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 11:13 am
Moral learning in schools will only have an effect where the child already have an active moral potential.

There could be exceptions, but if a child is born with brain damage to its moral potential, e.g. a psychopath or sociopath, the best moral education will not change much of his moral potential.
It is very common to hear of serial killers, murders, rapists and evil laden person from a good family background, good education, moral exposures but yet committing evil acts in the later parts of their life.

Hume linked morality with sympathy but was ignorant [due to his time in the 1700s] of its mechanics in the brain.
Now we understand empathy is linked somehow [not yet known with precision] with mirror neurons.
Mirror neurons are physical facts.
If mirror neurons are related to morality, then they are also in a way moral facts.
Btw, morality and its potential with the human brain is very complex and involves many parts of the human brain.

Point is humanity in the future [not now] has the potential to track all the neural pathways connected with morality [mirror neurons are only one aspect].
Thus there are opportunities to generate human brains [must be FOOLPROOF] with higher moral competency acting naturally - this is what moral facts are involved.
I agree. I'd say it like this:"Some people are born with damaged learning capacity."

Is there time to wait for men's knowledge to offset their defective wisdom?
Point is, it took 3 billion years for the human brain and self to evolve to its current state [including state of wisdom] via natural selection from the 1st single cell living things.
Given the exponential increase in risk of potential of evilness within humans and an awareness galactical threats [rogue meteorites], humanity is faced with a great threat.
If humanity is to wait for natural selection time to deal with such threats, it is not likely we will be able to tune the current 'defective wisdom'.

Fortunately at present, there is also a trend of an exponential expansion of human cognition, knowledge and technology which is a potential for humanity to increase the average intelligence, wisdom, morality more expeditiously than waiting for natural selection.

But first we must understand the physical objective facts of morality within the human brain and self before we can proceed to improve its potential with latest and newer knowledge in the future for the future generation [not the present].
But note the very aggressive obstinate resistance [here and everywhere] to understand the existence of objective moral facts [not Hume's ought] within the human brain by the majority.

Note the current example of Covid 19 where scientists took merely an hour to understand the structure and workings of the Covid19 virus to model and developed a MRNA vaccine to mitigate the spread of the virus.
With the Covid19, there is an immediate sense of threat to the extinction of the human species, if not a very serious threat of massive deaths, thus the resorting to the new knowledge of developing a fast vaccine.
I understand the mRNA vaccine [lack of testing time] is controversial, but my point in this case is about the use of the latest knowledge we have gained so far arising from an aggressive drive to learn more.

The mRNA technology used for the Covid19 vaccine has the potential [in the future] to cure Cancer more effective via targeting specifically the malignant cancer cells.

I am optimistic this mRNA technology can be used with other advancing knowledge to expedite [based on facts] the wisdom and moral potential of the average person in the FUTURE [not now].
I agree with most of what you say but it's clutching at a straw to expect moral intelligence to be biologically engineered like these clever people can do with viruses and RNA. Whereas intelligence, including emotional intelligence, is undoubtedly linked with physical matter I think that the development of human intelligence, including emotional intelligence, is not now biological but is cultural. COP27 failed and we must now seek and find other means to raise the speed of cultural progress.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:56 pm I agree with most of what you say but it's clutching at a straw to expect moral intelligence to be biologically engineered like these clever people can do with viruses and RNA. Whereas intelligence, including emotional intelligence, is undoubtedly linked with physical matter I think that the development of human intelligence, including emotional intelligence, is not now biological but is cultural. COP27 failed and we must now seek and find other means to raise the speed of cultural progress.
Having finished a course in BioChemistry, Genetics, Molecular Biology, Genomics and Rational Medicine, I am well aware of the potential we can engineer humans with higher moral intelligence and moral competence.
The potential is definitely there but to put it into practice is very complex issue.
Naturally with our current state of thinking, that sounds very frightening to most people or impossible for those not in the know.
We already have the technology, the question is how to go about it in a FOOLPROOF manner in the FUTURE [not now].

Here is where the potential was realized in 2018 albeit unethically,
The He Jiankui affair is a scientific and bioethical controversy concerning the use of genome editing following its first use on humans by Chinese scientist He Jiankui, who edited the genomes of human embryos in 2018.[1][2]
He became widely known on 26 November 2018[3] after he announced that he had created the first human genetically edited babies.
He was listed in the Time's 100 most influential people of 2019.[4]

The subjects were offered standard in vitro fertilisation services and in addition, use of CRISPR gene editing (CRISPR/Cas9), a technology for modifying DNA.
The embryos' genomes were edited to remove the CCR5 gene in an attempt to confer genetic resistance to HIV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Jiankui_affair
Because He Jiankui exploited the already available technology unethically he was shunned by the scientifically community and was jailed for 3 years.
However since the technology is already available, it is likely some scientists may be already doing it secretly.

My point is this available technology can be used to edit the human genomes in the FUTURE [next 50, 100 or > years??] in a FOOLPROOF manner to expedite the moral competency of the average person.

And to do so efficiently, we need to understand and recognize the physical objective moral facts [Moral Realism] underlying the whole process.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 10:06 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:56 pm I agree with most of what you say but it's clutching at a straw to expect moral intelligence to be biologically engineered like these clever people can do with viruses and RNA. Whereas intelligence, including emotional intelligence, is undoubtedly linked with physical matter I think that the development of human intelligence, including emotional intelligence, is not now biological but is cultural. COP27 failed and we must now seek and find other means to raise the speed of cultural progress.
Having finished a course in BioChemistry, Genetics, Molecular Biology, Genomics and Rational Medicine, I am well aware of the potential we can engineer humans with higher moral intelligence and moral competence.
The potential is definitely there but to put it into practice is very complex issue.
Naturally with our current state of thinking, that sounds very frightening to most people or impossible for those not in the know.
We already have the technology, the question is how to go about it in a FOOLPROOF manner in the FUTURE [not now].

Here is where the potential was realized in 2018 albeit unethically,
The He Jiankui affair is a scientific and bioethical controversy concerning the use of genome editing following its first use on humans by Chinese scientist He Jiankui, who edited the genomes of human embryos in 2018.[1][2]
He became widely known on 26 November 2018[3] after he announced that he had created the first human genetically edited babies.
He was listed in the Time's 100 most influential people of 2019.[4]

The subjects were offered standard in vitro fertilisation services and in addition, use of CRISPR gene editing (CRISPR/Cas9), a technology for modifying DNA.
The embryos' genomes were edited to remove the CCR5 gene in an attempt to confer genetic resistance to HIV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Jiankui_affair
Because He Jiankui exploited the already available technology unethically he was shunned by the scientifically community and was jailed for 3 years.
However since the technology is already available, it is likely some scientists may be already doing it secretly.

My point is this available technology can be used to edit the human genomes in the FUTURE [next 50, 100 or > years??] in a FOOLPROOF manner to expedite the moral competency of the average person.

And to do so efficiently, we need to understand and recognize the physical objective moral facts [Moral Realism] underlying the whole process.
I'm now better informed.
Did your academic course include developmental psychology, or at least extend a hand of friendship to psychology?
I can see that medical ethics formed part of your course or, if not, you have learned medical ethics elsewhere.

Does genetic engineering for human 'emotional intelligence' presume there is such a thing as human nature? To question the existence of human nature is to erect the main barrier to genetic engineering for 'emotional intelligence'.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 10:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 10:06 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:56 pm I agree with most of what you say but it's clutching at a straw to expect moral intelligence to be biologically engineered like these clever people can do with viruses and RNA. Whereas intelligence, including emotional intelligence, is undoubtedly linked with physical matter I think that the development of human intelligence, including emotional intelligence, is not now biological but is cultural. COP27 failed and we must now seek and find other means to raise the speed of cultural progress.
Having finished a course in BioChemistry, Genetics, Molecular Biology, Genomics and Rational Medicine, I am well aware of the potential we can engineer humans with higher moral intelligence and moral competence.
The potential is definitely there but to put it into practice is very complex issue.
Naturally with our current state of thinking, that sounds very frightening to most people or impossible for those not in the know.
We already have the technology, the question is how to go about it in a FOOLPROOF manner in the FUTURE [not now].

Here is where the potential was realized in 2018 albeit unethically,
The He Jiankui affair is a scientific and bioethical controversy concerning the use of genome editing following its first use on humans by Chinese scientist He Jiankui, who edited the genomes of human embryos in 2018.[1][2]
He became widely known on 26 November 2018[3] after he announced that he had created the first human genetically edited babies.
He was listed in the Time's 100 most influential people of 2019.[4]

The subjects were offered standard in vitro fertilisation services and in addition, use of CRISPR gene editing (CRISPR/Cas9), a technology for modifying DNA.
The embryos' genomes were edited to remove the CCR5 gene in an attempt to confer genetic resistance to HIV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Jiankui_affair
Because He Jiankui exploited the already available technology unethically he was shunned by the scientifically community and was jailed for 3 years.
However since the technology is already available, it is likely some scientists may be already doing it secretly.

My point is this available technology can be used to edit the human genomes in the FUTURE [next 50, 100 or > years??] in a FOOLPROOF manner to expedite the moral competency of the average person.

And to do so efficiently, we need to understand and recognize the physical objective moral facts [Moral Realism] underlying the whole process.
I'm now better informed.
Did your academic course include developmental psychology, or at least extend a hand of friendship to psychology?
I can see that medical ethics formed part of your course or, if not, you have learned medical ethics elsewhere.

Does genetic engineering for human 'emotional intelligence' presume there is such a thing as human nature? To question the existence of human nature is to erect the main barrier to genetic engineering for 'emotional intelligence'.
It does not cover development psychology, the focus is on Biology, i.e. biochemistry molecular biology, genetics, genomics directed at rational medicine, e.g. curing genetic diseases, cancer, various mutations of genes, etc.

We can easily infer from the above models and methodologies that it can be extended to effect any human functions, i.e. morality, emotional intelligence, etc.

My course did not cover medical ethics in detail but it is nevertheless mentioned, and the scientific community has established certain self-regulated rules that will not get involved in re-engineering the human genome especially the sex related genes [for now] as it can have consequences for future generations and humanity.
  • The ethical dilemma of designer babies | Paul Knoepfler
    Creating genetically modified children is no longer a science fiction fantasy; it's a likely future scenario.
    Biologist Paul Knoepfler estimates that within fifteen years, scientists could use the gene editing technology CRISPR to make certain "upgrades" to human embryos -- from altering physical appearances to eliminating the risk of auto-immune diseases. In this thought-provoking talk, Knoepfler readies us for the coming designer baby revolution and its very personal, and unforeseeable, consequences.
Countries are also beginning to enact laws to prevent restrict gene editing of human embryos.
  • Discussions and debates about the governance of human germline and heritable genome editing should be informed by a clear and accurate understanding of the global policy landscape. This policy survey of 106 countries yields significant new data. A large majority of countries (96 out of 106) surveyed have policy documents—legislation, regulations, guidelines, codes, and international treaties—relevant to the use of genome editing to modify early-stage human embryos, gametes, or their precursor cells. Most of these 96 countries do not have policies that specifically address the use of genetically modified in vitro embryos in laboratory research (germline genome editing); of those that do, 23 prohibit this research and 11 explicitly permit it. Seventy-five of the 96 countries prohibit the use of genetically modified in vitro embryos to initiate a pregnancy (heritable genome editing). Five of these 75 countries provide exceptions to their prohibitions. No country explicitly permits heritable human genome editing. These data contrast markedly with previously reported findings.
    Link
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3730
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

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.

2
To assert a fact is to express an opinion.
Therefore: there are no facts, but only opinions; to express any opinion can be to assert a fact; and if there are any facts, then there can be moral facts, and morality is objective.

3
A [my team's] god says X is morally right and Y is morally wrong.
Therefore, there are moral facts, 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.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:10 am Here are three arguments for moral objectivity.
What does any of this have to do with arguments? When you frame it in the language/culture/rituals of argumentation you've already set yourself up for failure.

What are the arguments for you having a head and two shoulders; or your name being Peter Holmes?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3730
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

What to do when your argument is exposed as trash?

Deny the importance of arguments. Simples.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by BigMike »

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.
Could 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?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

BigMike wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:29 pm
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.
Could 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?
I've helped you out with some colour coding.
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.
Post Reply