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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:13 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:06 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:56 am
You invented the fiction of 'a moral FSK', which begs the question, because it assumes moral cognitivism - that moral rightness and wrongness are features of reality that can be known. Fallacy.

And you ignore the fact that what makes any FSK credible is evidence from the reality that you agree exists outside any descriptive context. And from false premises, your conclusion is useless. Here it is.

P1 We 'co-create' facts through FSKs.
P2 Any FSK can 'produce' facts.
C Therefore, a moral FSK can produce moral facts.

That you don't understand why this is an appallingly bad argument - that you vainly think that rweaking it with conditions can rectify it - demonstrates a deep problem in your reasoning.
Explain precisely why P1 is false when that is precisely how objective scientific facts emerge from the scientific FSK.
I didn't comment on a revealing feature of VA's reaction to my syllogism above, setting out his argument.

Notice that he wants to defend P1, which is easy to falsify. (We don't co-create the fact that water is H2O. It just is H2O.)
Not sure who you are talking to above.
Note your strawmaning as usual changing 'co-create' with '.." to co-create [no ' '].
Prove to me that 'water is H2O' has no entanglement with the human conditions?
But also notice he presumably thinks P2 is unarguable: any FSK can 'produce' facts - because it's a framework and system of knowledge, which must therefore be knowledge of something. So there are astrology facts, because there's an astrology FSK.

Ah, but then the condition of credibility comes in by way of special pleading. It's not any FSK that can 'produce' facts; it has to be a credible FSK.

Ah, but then what makes an FSK credible? An appeal to empirical evidence is useless, because P1 precludes that: if we co-create facts through FSKs, we can't use those facts to establish the credibility of FSKs. So the whole argument collapses.

VA either won't understand this refutation, or will ignore it and mantra-mumble as usual.
It is empirical evident that scientific facts [astronomy] from the scientific FSK are more credible that say 'astrological facts' from the astrology FSK.
I have also mentioned a 'million' times why the scientific FSK is the most credible thus used as the standard for other FSKs to be compared with.

Why Scientific Knowledge is the Most Credible & Trustworthy
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34157
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338

The nine main characteristics of science are as follows:
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/scie ... ined/35060
  • 1. Objectivity
    2. Verifiability
    3. Ethical Neutrality
    4. Systematic Exploration
    5. Reliability
    6. Precision
    7. Accuracy
    8. Abstractness
    9. Predictability.
The point is the more you resist with your rigid dogmatism and kindergartenish knowledge, the more you are insulting your own intelligence. [perhaps your brain areas (relevant to the issues) are already atrophied, thus too late].
Suggest you do more research into philosophy and the other advancing modern knowledge, especially neuroscience and the modern view of 'what is morality' so that you can produce more references from the 'giants' of the knowledge concerned.

You should have noticed how shallow and empty your points are when you are merely making noises from your own mind without any references to credible sources.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:07 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:13 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:06 am
Explain precisely why P1 is false when that is precisely how objective scientific facts emerge from the scientific FSK.
I didn't comment on a revealing feature of VA's reaction to my syllogism above, setting out his argument.

Notice that he wants to defend P1, which is easy to falsify. (We don't co-create the fact that water is H2O. It just is H2O.)
Not sure who you are talking to above.
Note your strawmaning as usual changing 'co-create' with '.." to co-create [no ' '].
Prove to me that 'water is H2O' has no entanglement with the human conditions?
But also notice he presumably thinks P2 is unarguable: any FSK can 'produce' facts - because it's a framework and system of knowledge, which must therefore be knowledge of something. So there are astrology facts, because there's an astrology FSK.

Ah, but then the condition of credibility comes in by way of special pleading. It's not any FSK that can 'produce' facts; it has to be a credible FSK.

Ah, but then what makes an FSK credible? An appeal to empirical evidence is useless, because P1 precludes that: if we co-create facts through FSKs, we can't use those facts to establish the credibility of FSKs. So the whole argument collapses.

VA either won't understand this refutation, or will ignore it and mantra-mumble as usual.
It is empirical evident that scientific facts [astronomy] from the scientific FSK are more credible that say 'astrological facts' from the astrology FSK.
I have also mentioned a 'million' times why the scientific FSK is the most credible thus used as the standard for other FSKs to be compared with.

Why Scientific Knowledge is the Most Credible & Trustworthy
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34157
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338

The nine main characteristics of science are as follows:
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/scie ... ined/35060
  • 1. Objectivity
    2. Verifiability
    3. Ethical Neutrality
    4. Systematic Exploration
    5. Reliability
    6. Precision
    7. Accuracy
    8. Abstractness
    9. Predictability.
The point is the more you resist with your rigid dogmatism and kindergartenish knowledge, the more you are insulting your own intelligence. [perhaps your brain areas (relevant to the issues) are already atrophied, thus too late].
Suggest you do more research into philosophy and the other advancing modern knowledge, especially neuroscience and the modern view of 'what is morality' so that you can produce more references from the 'giants' of the knowledge concerned.

You should have noticed how shallow and empty your points are when you are merely making noises from your own mind without any references to credible sources.
As I guessed, you don't understand this refutation of your argument.

What makes an FSK credible is empirical evidence. But if your P1 is true - We 'co-create' facts through FSKs - we co-create that empirical evidence (those facts) through an FSK. So your argument is that the credibility of an FSK comes from an FSK, whose credibility comes from an FSK - and so on in a circle, or an infinite regress.

You want to insert empirical evidence as a condition - the one that makes sciences the most credible - but your P1 denies the independence of empirical evidence. Nul point.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 12:30 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:07 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:13 pm
I didn't comment on a revealing feature of VA's reaction to my syllogism above, setting out his argument.

Notice that he wants to defend P1, which is easy to falsify. (We don't co-create the fact that water is H2O. It just is H2O.)
Not sure who you are talking to above.
Note your strawmaning as usual changing 'co-create' with '.." to co-create [no ' '].
Prove to me that 'water is H2O' has no entanglement with the human conditions?
But also notice he presumably thinks P2 is unarguable: any FSK can 'produce' facts - because it's a framework and system of knowledge, which must therefore be knowledge of something. So there are astrology facts, because there's an astrology FSK.

Ah, but then the condition of credibility comes in by way of special pleading. It's not any FSK that can 'produce' facts; it has to be a credible FSK.

Ah, but then what makes an FSK credible? An appeal to empirical evidence is useless, because P1 precludes that: if we co-create facts through FSKs, we can't use those facts to establish the credibility of FSKs. So the whole argument collapses.

VA either won't understand this refutation, or will ignore it and mantra-mumble as usual.
It is empirical evident that scientific facts [astronomy] from the scientific FSK are more credible that say 'astrological facts' from the astrology FSK.
I have also mentioned a 'million' times why the scientific FSK is the most credible thus used as the standard for other FSKs to be compared with.

Why Scientific Knowledge is the Most Credible & Trustworthy
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34157
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338

The nine main characteristics of science are as follows:
https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/scie ... ined/35060
  • 1. Objectivity
    2. Verifiability
    3. Ethical Neutrality
    4. Systematic Exploration
    5. Reliability
    6. Precision
    7. Accuracy
    8. Abstractness
    9. Predictability.
The point is the more you resist with your rigid dogmatism and kindergartenish knowledge, the more you are insulting your own intelligence. [perhaps your brain areas (relevant to the issues) are already atrophied, thus too late].
Suggest you do more research into philosophy and the other advancing modern knowledge, especially neuroscience and the modern view of 'what is morality' so that you can produce more references from the 'giants' of the knowledge concerned.

You should have noticed how shallow and empty your points are when you are merely making noises from your own mind without any references to credible sources.
As I guessed, you don't understand this refutation of your argument.

What makes an FSK credible is empirical evidence. But if your P1 is true - We 'co-create' facts through FSKs - we co-create that empirical evidence (those facts) through an FSK. So your argument is that the credibility of an FSK comes from an FSK, whose credibility comes from an FSK - and so on in a circle, or an infinite regress.

You want to insert empirical evidence as a condition - the one that makes sciences the most credible - but your P1 denies the independence of empirical evidence. Nul point.
Do scientists or those who have trust in science question the FSK that assess the credibility and reliability of the scientific FSK.
The final test of the credibility of the scientific FSK is based on the confidence it generate for the individual[s] to rely on it and to use it based on the results it promises.

Are you implying those who insist there is an infinite regress in its approach should reject all scientific facts from the scientific FSK?

PH: "your P1 denies the independence of empirical evidence"
Btw, I have never claimed for the absolute independence of empirical evidence.
The main essence of P1 is 'all facts emerging via a credible FSK are entangled with the human conditions.'

The empirical evidence of the credibility of the scientific FSK is that of empirical evidences of people repeating the same results every time they repeat the test of any scientific facts. This is the empirical evidences of a credibility FSK that support the credibility of the scientific FSK.

It is very philosophical immature to bank on the idea of infinite regress to argue your point.
As I had stated the most realistic approach is the top-down approach and the credibility of any factual claim is based as far as the empirical evidence can go with support by rational philosophical reasonings.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:56 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 12:30 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:07 am
Not sure who you are talking to above.
Note your strawmaning as usual changing 'co-create' with '.." to co-create [no ' '].
Prove to me that 'water is H2O' has no entanglement with the human conditions?


It is empirical evident that scientific facts [astronomy] from the scientific FSK are more credible that say 'astrological facts' from the astrology FSK.
I have also mentioned a 'million' times why the scientific FSK is the most credible thus used as the standard for other FSKs to be compared with.

Why Scientific Knowledge is the Most Credible & Trustworthy
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34157



The point is the more you resist with your rigid dogmatism and kindergartenish knowledge, the more you are insulting your own intelligence. [perhaps your brain areas (relevant to the issues) are already atrophied, thus too late].
Suggest you do more research into philosophy and the other advancing modern knowledge, especially neuroscience and the modern view of 'what is morality' so that you can produce more references from the 'giants' of the knowledge concerned.

You should have noticed how shallow and empty your points are when you are merely making noises from your own mind without any references to credible sources.
As I guessed, you don't understand this refutation of your argument.

What makes an FSK credible is empirical evidence. But if your P1 is true - We 'co-create' facts through FSKs - we co-create that empirical evidence (those facts) through an FSK. So your argument is that the credibility of an FSK comes from an FSK, whose credibility comes from an FSK - and so on in a circle, or an infinite regress.

You want to insert empirical evidence as a condition - the one that makes sciences the most credible - but your P1 denies the independence of empirical evidence. Nul point.
Do scientists or those who have trust in science question the FSK that assess the credibility and reliability of the scientific FSK.
The final test of the credibility of the scientific FSK is based on the confidence it generate for the individual[s] to rely on it and to use it based on the results it promises.

Are you implying those who insist there is an infinite regress in its approach should reject all scientific facts from the scientific FSK?

PH: "your P1 denies the independence of empirical evidence"
Btw, I have never claimed for the absolute independence of empirical evidence.
The main essence of P1 is 'all facts emerging via a credible FSK are entangled with the human conditions.'

The empirical evidence of the credibility of the scientific FSK is that of empirical evidences of people repeating the same results every time they repeat the test of any scientific facts. This is the empirical evidences of a credibility FSK that support the credibility of the scientific FSK.

It is very philosophical immature to bank on the idea of infinite regress to argue your point.
As I had stated the most realistic approach is the top-down approach and the credibility of any factual claim is based as far as the empirical evidence can go with support by rational philosophical reasonings.
P1 We 'co-create' facts through FSKs.
False. We invented the discourse of chemistry, but the fact that water is H2O has nothing to do with us. It's just a feature of reality.

P2 Any FSK can 'produce' facts.
False. Empirical evidence is needed. That's why there are no astrological facts. We can't name or describe a thing into or out of existence.

C Therefore, a moral FSK can produce moral facts.
False, because both premises are false. Plus, the expression 'moral fact' is incoherent anyway.

Invented or created facts can't make a description credible. And a moral assertion isn't a factual description anyway. The assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' isn't a factual description with a truth-value.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 5:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:56 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 12:30 pm

As I guessed, you don't understand this refutation of your argument.

What makes an FSK credible is empirical evidence. But if your P1 is true - We 'co-create' facts through FSKs - we co-create that empirical evidence (those facts) through an FSK. So your argument is that the credibility of an FSK comes from an FSK, whose credibility comes from an FSK - and so on in a circle, or an infinite regress.

You want to insert empirical evidence as a condition - the one that makes sciences the most credible - but your P1 denies the independence of empirical evidence. Nul point.
Do scientists or those who have trust in science question the FSK that assess the credibility and reliability of the scientific FSK.
The final test of the credibility of the scientific FSK is based on the confidence it generate for the individual[s] to rely on it and to use it based on the results it promises.

Are you implying those who insist there is an infinite regress in its approach should reject all scientific facts from the scientific FSK?

PH: "your P1 denies the independence of empirical evidence"
Btw, I have never claimed for the absolute independence of empirical evidence.
The main essence of P1 is 'all facts emerging via a credible FSK are entangled with the human conditions.'

The empirical evidence of the credibility of the scientific FSK is that of empirical evidences of people repeating the same results every time they repeat the test of any scientific facts. This is the empirical evidences of a credibility FSK that support the credibility of the scientific FSK.

It is very philosophical immature to bank on the idea of infinite regress to argue your point.
As I had stated the most realistic approach is the top-down approach and the credibility of any factual claim is based as far as the empirical evidence can go with support by rational philosophical reasonings.
P1 We 'co-create' facts through FSKs.
False. We invented the discourse of chemistry, but the fact that water is H2O has nothing to do with us. It's just a feature of reality.
What you are asserting is common sense [which I agree] but that is blind when deliberated at a higher level of philosophy which is at issue here.
You just don't realize it but you are infected with this zombie-parasite that keep deluding you on the level of finer philosophy, note Kant;
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397
Note this thread;
Emergence, Realization of Reality & Description of It.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35153

I have challenged you to 'prove' and justify,
"the existence of feature of reality that has nothing to do with us"
when that feature of reality [all there is] where "us" [humans] are intricately part and parcel of that reality that comprised your feature of reality.
P2 Any FSK can 'produce' facts.
False. Empirical evidence is needed. That's why there are no astrological facts. We can't name or describe a thing into or out of existence.
But the problem is you are relying on 'farts' as 'facts' which is very limited.
Your facts are merely 'words' and groundless.

I have already show you what are the real facts, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
which is conditioned upon a reliable FSK as in 1 above.
C Therefore, a moral FSK can produce moral facts.
False, because both premises are false. Plus, the expression 'moral fact' is incoherent anyway.
Based on justified premises above, my conclusion follows.
Invented or created facts can't make a description credible. And a moral assertion isn't a factual description anyway. The assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' isn't a factual description with a truth-value.
Strawmaning as usual.
I don't agree with the term morally "wrong" or "right" as both terms are too loose.
None of the above "invented" "created" are relevant to my claims.

What I am focusing on is the moral deviation from the objective moral facts as standards.
I mentioned 'co-created' in ' ' but not to be taken literally.
The essence of my point is,
all facts emerging from a FSK or FSR are entangled with the human conditions.
Moral facts from a credible moral FSK are represented by physical neurons in a neural network as a matter of fact.

You never deal with the points I presented but rather keep on strawmaning what I presented.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 7:09 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 5:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:56 am
Do scientists or those who have trust in science question the FSK that assess the credibility and reliability of the scientific FSK.
The final test of the credibility of the scientific FSK is based on the confidence it generate for the individual[s] to rely on it and to use it based on the results it promises.

Are you implying those who insist there is an infinite regress in its approach should reject all scientific facts from the scientific FSK?

PH: "your P1 denies the independence of empirical evidence"
Btw, I have never claimed for the absolute independence of empirical evidence.
The main essence of P1 is 'all facts emerging via a credible FSK are entangled with the human conditions.'

The empirical evidence of the credibility of the scientific FSK is that of empirical evidences of people repeating the same results every time they repeat the test of any scientific facts. This is the empirical evidences of a credibility FSK that support the credibility of the scientific FSK.

It is very philosophical immature to bank on the idea of infinite regress to argue your point.
As I had stated the most realistic approach is the top-down approach and the credibility of any factual claim is based as far as the empirical evidence can go with support by rational philosophical reasonings.
P1 We 'co-create' facts through FSKs.
False. We invented the discourse of chemistry, but the fact that water is H2O has nothing to do with us. It's just a feature of reality.
What you are asserting is common sense [which I agree] but that is blind when deliberated at a higher level of philosophy which is at issue here.
You just don't realize it but you are infected with this zombie-parasite that keep deluding you on the level of finer philosophy, note Kant;
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397
Note this thread;
Emergence, Realization of Reality & Description of It.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35153

I have challenged you to 'prove' and justify,
"the existence of feature of reality that has nothing to do with us"
when that feature of reality [all there is] where "us" [humans] are intricately part and parcel of that reality that comprised your feature of reality.
P2 Any FSK can 'produce' facts.
False. Empirical evidence is needed. That's why there are no astrological facts. We can't name or describe a thing into or out of existence.
But the problem is you are relying on 'farts' as 'facts' which is very limited.
Your facts are merely 'words' and groundless.

I have already show you what are the real facts, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
which is conditioned upon a reliable FSK as in 1 above.
C Therefore, a moral FSK can produce moral facts.
False, because both premises are false. Plus, the expression 'moral fact' is incoherent anyway.
Based on justified premises above, my conclusion follows.
Invented or created facts can't make a description credible. And a moral assertion isn't a factual description anyway. The assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' isn't a factual description with a truth-value.
Strawmaning as usual.
I don't agree with the term morally "wrong" or "right" as both terms are too loose.
None of the above "invented" "created" are relevant to my claims.

What I am focusing on is the moral deviation from the objective moral facts as standards.
I mentioned 'co-created' in ' ' but not to be taken literally.
The essence of my point is,
all facts emerging from a FSK or FSR are entangled with the human conditions.
Moral facts from a credible moral FSK are represented by physical neurons in a neural network as a matter of fact.

You never deal with the points I presented but rather keep on strawmaning what I presented.
What makes a factual description credible is physical evidence. And there is physical evidence for the existence of mirror neurons in our brains. The fact that they exist has nothing to do with the way we describe them. And their existence has no moral implication.

Your claim that morality is nothing to do with the moral rightness or wrongness of behaviour is flatly false. That is precisely and simply what morality is about.

Your claim that there are moral facts is false - and incoherent anyway. And your argument for moral objectivity is unsound. Repeating the claim and the argument won't change this. You just waste your and everyone else's time.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Phil8659 »

You serious?

How many names do you have for one and the same thing? As a mind is only responsible for the production of life supporting behavior, how do you slice and dice that single fact into multiple names so that you can play a shell game with words?

As a thing is defined as a relative contained by correlatives, which can also be said as "a standard of behavior" Standard is to correlative as behavior is to the relative, it means that every thing is a binary construct, and that the Universe itself is the product of binary recursion, just like every possible system of grammar.

So, ask your computer, which shows you exactly the same thing, when is a computer ethical? When is it moral? When is it religious, and when is it scientific? When is it pragmatic? When is it subjective? When is it objective? or countless other words you have for a relative.

And why would anyone attempt to answer a question, or even ask one, when their own computer is telling them they are clearly illiterate?

Tell me what it tells you.

Personally, I like to keep things simple, you have either judged a behavior in accordance with the truth of things, or you made a mistake in reasoning.
You acted right or wrong.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 10:06 am What makes a factual description credible is physical evidence. And there is physical evidence for the existence of mirror neurons in our brains.
The fact that they exist has nothing to do with the way we describe them.
And their existence has no moral implication.
There are tons of research on mirror neurons and these mirror neurons has a lot of functions.
One of these function is mirror neurons are related to empathy.
It is well recognized that empathy has a lot to do with morality, since the ancients, to Hume, to Schopenhauer and the modern philosophers.

Note: mirror neurons and empathy are ONLY a part of the moral facts from a moral FSK. There are many other critical elements re moral facts.

Analogy to moral facts:
There are physical fact on human emotions as below;
.. we found evidence that is consistent with a psychological constructionist approach to the mind: a set of interacting brain regions commonly involved in basic psychological operations of both an emotional and non-emotional nature are active during emotion experience and perception across a range of discrete emotion categories.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4329228/
The critical point is, what is 'fact' in relation to 'emotion' is the specific sets and network of neurons in the brain [universal for all humans] that are responsible in triggering the emotional feelings.
These physical set of neurons are what we can label as 'facts of emotions' within an Emotion FSK [a sub of the scientific FSK].

Note the emotional feelings arising from these physical facts of emotions are secondary in this case.

So just as the physical neural sets re emotions are taken as 'physical facts' emerging from an emotion-FSK,
the physical neural sets re morality [empathy] are also taken a 'physical facts or morality', thus objective moral facts emerging from a moral FSK.

Also, the moral sentiments arising from the 'physical facts or morality' are secondary.

Your claim that morality is nothing to do with the moral rightness or wrongness of behaviour is flatly false. That is precisely and simply what morality is about.
It is very common for moral rightness and wrongness to be associated with "Morality" which can be all sort of subjective-morality and leading to a mess.
I had stated 'rightness' and 'wrongness' are terms that are too loose and are VERY subjective.

Thus I prefer to refer to Morality-proper as defined which avoid the terms 'rightness' and 'wrongness' which yet will still drive moral competence and moral progress for individual[s] and humanity towards 'perpetual peace'.
Your claim that there are moral facts is false - and incoherent anyway. And your argument for moral objectivity is unsound. Repeating the claim and the argument won't change this. You just waste your and everyone else's time.
I have given my arguments above.
Demonstrate they are false?

OTOH, it is your claim which is typical of the majority i.e. clinging to dogmatic archaic ideas of 'what is morality' that is not in accord with the natural 'what is morality' inherent within all humans.
You are merely stuck with 'traditions' and bad meme that 'non-moral premises cannot generate moral conclusions' re Hume, the logical positivists, dead Ordinary Language Philosophy and the current mob of ignorant philosophers re morality.

As I had stated, analogically, you are still stuck with Newtonian Physics as the final truths of Physics while being ignorant and dismissive of Einstein's and QM.
Wake-up!!!
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:38 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 10:06 am What makes a factual description credible is physical evidence. And there is physical evidence for the existence of mirror neurons in our brains.
The fact that they exist has nothing to do with the way we describe them.
And their existence has no moral implication.
There are tons of research on mirror neurons and these mirror neurons has a lot of functions.
One of these function is mirror neurons are related to empathy.
It is well recognized that empathy has a lot to do with morality, since the ancients, to Hume, to Schopenhauer and the modern philosophers.

Note: mirror neurons and empathy are ONLY a part of the moral facts from a moral FSK. There are many other critical elements re moral facts.

Analogy to moral facts:
There are physical fact on human emotions as below;
.. we found evidence that is consistent with a psychological constructionist approach to the mind: a set of interacting brain regions commonly involved in basic psychological operations of both an emotional and non-emotional nature are active during emotion experience and perception across a range of discrete emotion categories.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4329228/
The critical point is, what is 'fact' in relation to 'emotion' is the specific sets and network of neurons in the brain [universal for all humans] that are responsible in triggering the emotional feelings.
These physical set of neurons are what we can label as 'facts of emotions' within an Emotion FSK [a sub of the scientific FSK].

Note the emotional feelings arising from these physical facts of emotions are secondary in this case.

So just as the physical neural sets re emotions are taken as 'physical facts' emerging from an emotion-FSK,
the physical neural sets re morality [empathy] are also taken a 'physical facts or morality', thus objective moral facts emerging from a moral FSK.

Also, the moral sentiments arising from the 'physical facts or morality' are secondary.

Your claim that morality is nothing to do with the moral rightness or wrongness of behaviour is flatly false. That is precisely and simply what morality is about.
It is very common for moral rightness and wrongness to be associated with "Morality" which can be all sort of subjective-morality and leading to a mess.
I had stated 'rightness' and 'wrongness' are terms that are too loose and are VERY subjective.

Thus I prefer to refer to Morality-proper as defined which avoid the terms 'rightness' and 'wrongness' which yet will still drive moral competence and moral progress for individual[s] and humanity towards 'perpetual peace'.
Your claim that there are moral facts is false - and incoherent anyway. And your argument for moral objectivity is unsound. Repeating the claim and the argument won't change this. You just waste your and everyone else's time.
I have given my arguments above.
Demonstrate they are false?

OTOH, it is your claim which is typical of the majority i.e. clinging to dogmatic archaic ideas of 'what is morality' that is not in accord with the natural 'what is morality' inherent within all humans.
You are merely stuck with 'traditions' and bad meme that 'non-moral premises cannot generate moral conclusions' re Hume, the logical positivists, dead Ordinary Language Philosophy and the current mob of ignorant philosophers re morality.

As I had stated, analogically, you are still stuck with Newtonian Physics as the final truths of Physics while being ignorant and dismissive of Einstein's and QM.
Wake-up!!!
A non-moral premise or premises can't entail a moral conclusion. So this stuff about emotions and mirror neurons has no moral significance or implication. That we should behave empathetically is a matter of opinion, which is necessarily subjective.

What makes a description credible is physical, empirical evidence of features of reality. So your appeal to a 'credible moral 'FSK' is pointless unless and until you provide physical, empirical evidence of moral features of reality. And there are no such things. Mirror neurons and emotions are not moral features of reality. You just say they are, over and over again.

And the paradigm shift from the Newtonian to the relativity and quantum mechanical models was not a change in the thing being modelled - and, besides, is irrelevant in this discussion. You merely wheel it on as a vague distraction, like your other useless toys.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Unable to produce even one example of a so-called moral fact, some objectivists and realists - VA included - try the get-out of moving the goal posts. And this can be called the goal-consistency argument. Here's how it goes.

In the expression 'if we want to drive safely, we ought not to jump the lights' - the word 'ought' has no moral significance. The conclusion has nothing to do with the moral rightness or wrongness of jumping the lights. It just states a fact about consistency with a goal.

Now, the moral goal-consistency argument is that the words 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'bad', 'ought' and 'should', used in moral assertions, are merely factual or instrumental, asserting an objectively measurable consistency with a goal, such as promoting well-being or happiness, and so on. And in this way, morality is or can be objective.

But notice the sleight-of-hand: morality is objective, as long as we're no longer talking about morality - the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. The get-out is a blind alley. And VA's go-to example demonstrates the fallacy:

Factual premise: mirror neurons programme us with (the potential for) empathy; so that we're programmed with 'ought-not-to-kill-humans'.
Conclusion: we ought not to kill humans.

VA calls this a moral fact, derived from a physical fact. But he denies that the 'ought' in the conclusion is about the moral wrongness of killing humans. And this is equivocation on the words 'ought' and 'moral'.

As always, VA either won't understand or will ignore this refutation. But I hope others will understand it - and please come back with rebuttals if you think I'm getting this (non-morally) wrong.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:38 am It is very common for moral rightness and wrongness to be associated with "Morality" which can be all sort of subjective-morality and leading to a mess.
I had stated 'rightness' and 'wrongness' are terms that are too loose and are VERY subjective.
That's the game over quote right there.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 7:15 am A non-moral premise or premises can't entail a moral conclusion. So this stuff about emotions and mirror neurons has no moral significance or implication. That we should behave empathetically is a matter of opinion, which is necessarily subjective.
Note my reference to emotions is merely an analogy to how a FSK on emotion is analogous to a FSK on Morality.

All the functions in the brain, i.e. need to breathe, hunger, basic sexuality, puberty, various instincts, primary emotions, fairness and other primal functions can be analogous to the empathy function.

There are two basic elements [the objective and the subject] to the above primal functions of the brain, i.e.
1. the fundamental generic, universal and objective elements in all humans
2. the different ways the fundamental impulses are express in different human conditions as a matter of opinions, beliefs or choices which are subjective.

All these functions at their fundamental levels [1] are NOT a matter of opinions, beliefs nor are subjective; they are generic to all humans, thus universal and objective. Do you deny this?

It is only the further and subsequent expressions [2] of the fundamental objective impulses that would be some sort of opinions, i.e. the various ways one can breathe, what food to eat, who and how to fuck or self-pleasure, blocking of puberty, different ways of expressing one's anger, etc.

As you will note, you are ignorant of the two perspectives re the primal brain functions.

The above primal functions [as potential] I listed are the active in the early stages of evolution to facilitate survival at a gross level.
However in human and primates, there is already pre-existing mirror neurons where one of its primal function is empathy which is a Johnny-come-lately in term of being active.
Since the empathy function is a primal function, it also has two elements i.e. the objective and the subjective.

You need to research more on 'what is empathy', its neural correlates and its mechanisms and operations.

When the empathy function and impulse is triggered subliminally [note this] that is the objective aspect which is a fact as represented by its neural correlates and function.
Empathy is only considered subjective and an opinion when the person responds to the subliminal empathic impulse based on his subjective conditions and environment.

Empathy is fundamental to what is morality, where I'd mentioned Hume, Schopenhauer, and the empathy is so commonly associated with morality in most of the articles and books I have read.
How come you are so ignorant of this point?

Now if the primal functions e.g. the need to breathe, hunger, basic sexuality, puberty, various instincts, primary emotions, fairness and other primal functions have their facts conditioned upon their specific FSK or FSR, why not the specific empathy function which is physical be moral facts within the specific moral FSK?

What makes a description credible is physical, empirical evidence of features of reality. So your appeal to a 'credible moral 'FSK' is pointless unless and until you provide physical, empirical evidence of moral features of reality. And there are no such things. Mirror neurons and emotions are not moral features of reality. You just say they are, over and over again.
Note again, I am not relating emotion-in-general to morality per se in this case.
My reference is only to mirror-neurons and empathy as related to morality.

You are wrong in claiming, Mirror neurons which can be verified and justified scientifically are not features of reality.
Mirror neurons are definitely features of reality, i.e. objective facts and since they entail moral elements, then, they are objective moral facts conditioned upon a moral FSK. QED.
And the paradigm shift from the Newtonian to the relativity and quantum mechanical models was not a change in the thing being modelled - and, besides, is irrelevant in this discussion. You merely wheel it on as a vague distraction, like your other useless toys.
It is very relevant in exposing your ignorance and dogmatism.

You keep referring to that 'the thing' when there is no such thing as 'thing-in-itself' independent of human conditions and the relevant FSK.

Show me "proof" that there is such a real "thing" that is being modelled by Physicists?
You are ignorant science merely ASSUME as a convenience that there is such a 'thing' that they are modelling upon.
Many QM Physicists do not make such as ASSUMPTION.
What is the real thing is that which emerges with the model that is verified and justified as real within the credible Physics FSK.

Note I mentioned this a "million" times already but you are so blind to it;
WIKI wrote:Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1]

It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.

It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
WIKI
You are still chasing for that elusive 'true reality' the 'thing-in-itself' that is being modelled.

Ever since the emergence of humans, humans had failed to identify what is that thing-in-itself that is independent of the human conditions.
Logically it seem logical there must be some thing-in-itself, but it is only logic [half-truths]driven psychologically and it is not true substantially.
As such you need to heed Wittgenstein's advice,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
What W intended was "SHUT the F UP!" about that 'thing'.

As such you have to suspend your belief in a fact-in-itself, make an effort to overcome the cognitive dissonances, and rely on the more credible fact-in-FSK where scientific facts are the most credible and the moral fact justified as near equivalents.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:06 am Unable to produce even one example of a so-called moral fact, some objectivists and realists - VA included - try the get-out of moving the goal posts. And this can be called the goal-consistency argument. Here's how it goes.

In the expression 'if we want to drive safely, we ought not to jump the lights' - the word 'ought' has no moral significance. The conclusion has nothing to do with the moral rightness or wrongness of jumping the lights. It just states a fact about consistency with a goal.

Now, the moral goal-consistency argument is that the words 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'bad', 'ought' and 'should', used in moral assertions, are merely factual or instrumental, asserting an objectively measurable consistency with a goal, such as promoting well-being or happiness, and so on. And in this way, morality is or can be objective.

But notice the sleight-of-hand: morality is objective, as long as we're no longer talking about morality - the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. The get-out is a blind alley. And VA's go-to example demonstrates the fallacy:

Factual premise: mirror neurons programme us with (the potential for) empathy; so that we're programmed with 'ought-not-to-kill-humans'.
Conclusion: we ought not to kill humans.

VA calls this a moral fact, derived from a physical fact. But he denies that the 'ought' in the conclusion is about the moral wrongness of killing humans. And this is equivocation on the words 'ought' and 'moral'.

As always, VA either won't understand or will ignore this refutation. But I hope others will understand it - and please come back with rebuttals if you think I'm getting this (non-morally) wrong.
Note there are tons of perspectives, views, theories, etc. to "what is morality" throughout the history of mankind in the discussion of morality.

Point is there is an essence to 'morality' else humans would not have continue and persist to discuss the topic so actively, note the highly contentious issues of abortion, slavery, religious evil and violence, etc.

There are many who ignore the term 'rightness' and 'wrongness' in relation to morality as that would lead to "one's man meat is another man's poison".
This is so subjective that no side will accept their 'ought' of 'right' is 'wrong' and vice versa, so they continue to kill and commit all sorts of evil acts which is so evident.

What I have done is to trace morality to the physical neurons in the brain and body representing the moral potentials of 'ought-not-ness' or 'ought-ness' not merely arbitrary 'ought' without any verifiable and justifiable grounds.

Analogously, there is the neural potential of 'ought-ness' to breathe and drive one to breathe regardless of his opinion and beliefs, which in this case is a biological fact.
Similarly we have physical moral potentials of moral related oughtness and ought-not-ness as moral facts within a moral FSK.

Btw, I don't expect you in your ignorance and dogmatism to accept the above but merely to recognize there are counters [with evidence and sound arguments] to your views.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:20 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:06 am Unable to produce even one example of a so-called moral fact, some objectivists and realists - VA included - try the get-out of moving the goal posts. And this can be called the goal-consistency argument. Here's how it goes.

In the expression 'if we want to drive safely, we ought not to jump the lights' - the word 'ought' has no moral significance. The conclusion has nothing to do with the moral rightness or wrongness of jumping the lights. It just states a fact about consistency with a goal.

Now, the moral goal-consistency argument is that the words 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'bad', 'ought' and 'should', used in moral assertions, are merely factual or instrumental, asserting an objectively measurable consistency with a goal, such as promoting well-being or happiness, and so on. And in this way, morality is or can be objective.

But notice the sleight-of-hand: morality is objective, as long as we're no longer talking about morality - the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. The get-out is a blind alley. And VA's go-to example demonstrates the fallacy:

Factual premise: mirror neurons programme us with (the potential for) empathy; so that we're programmed with 'ought-not-to-kill-humans'.
Conclusion: we ought not to kill humans.

VA calls this a moral fact, derived from a physical fact. But he denies that the 'ought' in the conclusion is about the moral wrongness of killing humans. And this is equivocation on the words 'ought' and 'moral'.

As always, VA either won't understand or will ignore this refutation. But I hope others will understand it - and please come back with rebuttals if you think I'm getting this (non-morally) wrong.
Note there are tons of perspectives, views, theories, etc. to "what is morality" throughout the history of mankind in the discussion of morality.

Point is there is an essence to 'morality' else humans would not have continue and persist to discuss the topic so actively, note the highly contentious issues of abortion, slavery, religious evil and violence, etc.

There are many who ignore the term 'rightness' and 'wrongness' in relation to morality as that would lead to "one's man meat is another man's poison".
This is so subjective that no side will accept their 'ought' of 'right' is 'wrong' and vice versa, so they continue to kill and commit all sorts of evil acts which is so evident.

What I have done is to trace morality to the physical neurons in the brain and body representing the moral potentials of 'ought-not-ness' or 'ought-ness' not merely arbitrary 'ought' without any verifiable and justifiable grounds.

Analogously, there is the neural potential of 'ought-ness' to breathe and drive one to breathe regardless of his opinion and beliefs, which in this case is a biological fact.
Similarly we have physical moral potentials of moral related oughtness and ought-not-ness as moral facts within a moral FSK.

Btw, I don't expect you in your ignorance and dogmatism to accept the above but merely to recognize there are counters [with evidence and sound arguments] to your views.
As usual, you ignore the point: if 'ought' has no moral meaning, then the assertion containing it isn't a moral assertion at all.

Premise: Humans must breathe or they die.

Conclusion: Therefore, humans ought to breathe.

Question: Does this mean that it's morally wrong not to breathe? If not, why 'ought' humans to breathe? What is the meaning of the word 'ought' in the conclusion?

Blather about 'processing through a credible moral FSK' explains absolutely nothing. It's just whistling in the dark.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:01 am What is the meaning of the word 'ought' in the conclusion?
If use is meaning; and meaning is use then how is this question useful?
Post Reply