What could make morality objective?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:01 am
I had already exposed and redirect your groundless 'farts as facts' to the very possible verifiable and justifiable empirical physical elements in terms of physical neurons in the brain as moral facts within a credible moral FSK.
This is a sufficient counter to your claim that there can be no objective moral facts to make morality objective re OP.
No, it's not a sufficient counter, never has been, and never will be.

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.
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 6:56 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:01 am
I had already exposed and redirect your groundless 'farts as facts' to the very possible verifiable and justifiable empirical physical elements in terms of physical neurons in the brain as moral facts within a credible moral FSK.
This is a sufficient counter to your claim that there can be no objective moral facts to make morality objective re OP.
No, it's not a sufficient counter, never has been, and never will be.

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.

The other is you are strawmaning as usual;
I never state the terms 'rightness' nor 'wrongness' which can be very misleading,
"that moral rightness and wrongness are features of reality that can be known"
what I am referring are the moral potentials [drives] represented by physical neurons in the brain [co-ordinated with the body] that will drive moral actions accordingly.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Genocide-is-good FSK:

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

Also, did you guys know that science can link genocidal behaviour to some neuronal activity in the brain, and even show that these people experience joy when committing genocide?

I mean, how much more objective justification could we hope for?
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: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:06 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:56 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:01 am
I had already exposed and redirect your groundless 'farts as facts' to the very possible verifiable and justifiable empirical physical elements in terms of physical neurons in the brain as moral facts within a credible moral FSK.
This is a sufficient counter to your claim that there can be no objective moral facts to make morality objective re OP.
No, it's not a sufficient counter, never has been, and never will be.

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.
It's false because a feature of physical reality just exists, existed and will exist regardless of human beings. We call water H2O, but we don't create or co-create the fact that water is H2O. You've been suckered by a stupid postmodern argument: reality is what we say it is.

A change in a paradigm or model is not a change in the thing being modelled.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:12 am Genocide-is-good FSK:

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

Also, did you guys know that science can link genocidal behaviour to some neuronal activity in the brain, and even show that these people experience joy when committing genocide?

I mean, how much more objective justification could we hope for?
That is why I stated your thinking is so shallow, narrow and unphilosophical [unwise].

All humans evolved originally with an inherent potentials, e.g. the 4Fs [fight, flight, food, fuck] which has the potential for evil, i.e. killing another human to the extreme of genocide as driven by the tribalism instinct.
Genocide is always considered to be evil on a universal basis, where the hell did you get the idea that genocide is good objectively and universally.

Morality is fundamentally promoting the good over evil.
Genocide is inherently evil thus cannot be covered within a ambit of a 'good' FSK which would be an oxymoron!

The 4Fs and other primal instincts are critically necessary for humans to evolve on a initial basis, but that is naturally followed by a more slower evolving and necessary moral potential to manage the evil potential to ensure the human species do not go extinct.

This is why humanity must recognized the objective moral FSK and its objective moral potential & moral facts so to expedite its unfoldment such that it will facilitate the management and modulation of the evil potential [evil FSK].
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 7:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:06 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:56 am
No, it's not a sufficient counter, never has been, and never will be.

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.
It's false because a feature of physical reality just exists, existed and will exist regardless of human beings. We call water H2O, but we don't create or co-create the fact that water is H2O. You've been suckered by a stupid postmodern argument: reality is what we say it is.

A change in a paradigm or model is not a change in the thing being modelled.
"just exists, existed and will exist regardless of human beings."
Prove the above is absolutely true?
The above is mere talk and speculation ending with an illusion of reality-in-itself.

Note 'co-create' as I had explained means 'inevitably entangled with the human conditions'.

You can borrow G E Moore proof of the independent external world which was a response to Kant's challenge that there is no reality-in-itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
But Wittgenstein demonstrate in his 'On Certainty' that Moore's argument is fallacious.
Ludwig Wittgenstein offered a subtle objection to Moore's argument in passage #554 of On Certainty (see below). Considering "I know..", he said "In its language-game it is not presumptuous ('nicht anmassend')," so that even if P implies Q, knowing P is true doesn't necessarily entail Q. Moore has displaced "I know.." from its language-game and derived a fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

Don't strawman postmodernism on me.
My counter is, reality is an emergent from the top-down approach based on the verification and justification of empirical evidence plus rational philosophical reasoning. This is fundamentally science plus rational philosophical reasoning.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:27 am
Atla wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:12 am Genocide-is-good FSK:

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

Also, did you guys know that science can link genocidal behaviour to some neuronal activity in the brain, and even show that these people experience joy when committing genocide?

I mean, how much more objective justification could we hope for?
That is why I stated your thinking is so shallow, narrow and unphilosophical [unwise].

All humans evolved originally with an inherent potentials, e.g. the 4Fs [fight, flight, food, fuck] which has the potential for evil, i.e. killing another human to the extreme of genocide as driven by the tribalism instinct.
Genocide is always considered to be evil on a universal basis, where the hell did you get the idea that genocide is good objectively and universally.

Morality is fundamentally promoting the good over evil.
Genocide is inherently evil thus cannot be covered within a ambit of a 'good' FSK which would be an oxymoron!

The 4Fs and other primal instincts are critically necessary for humans to evolve on a initial basis, but that is naturally followed by a more slower evolving and necessary moral potential to manage the evil potential to ensure the human species do not go extinct.

This is why humanity must recognized the objective moral FSK and its objective moral potential & moral facts so to expedite its unfoldment such that it will facilitate the management and modulation of the evil potential [evil FSK].
I didn't, you did. I used your argument to show that genocide is good.

What kind of mindnumbingly incompetent person wouldn't understand that the whole problem of morality is that there's no way to tell whether something is objectively and universally wrong.
Genocide is always considered to be evil on a universal basis
History was replete with genocides and many people today still want to commit genocides. For example the genocide of Gypsies in Europe today is an idea that many secretly wish for, in the name of the greater good. In Asia just a few years ago we had the Rohingya genocide.
etc. Having to type down something so obvious was pretty painful..
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:27 am
Atla wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:12 am Genocide-is-good FSK:

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

Also, did you guys know that science can link genocidal behaviour to some neuronal activity in the brain, and even show that these people experience joy when committing genocide?

I mean, how much more objective justification could we hope for?
That is why I stated your thinking is so shallow, narrow and unphilosophical [unwise].

All humans evolved originally with an inherent potentials, e.g. the 4Fs [fight, flight, food, fuck] which has the potential for evil, i.e. killing another human to the extreme of genocide as driven by the tribalism instinct.
Genocide is always considered to be evil on a universal basis, where the hell did you get the idea that genocide is good objectively and universally.

Morality is fundamentally promoting the good over evil.
Genocide is inherently evil thus cannot be covered within a ambit of a 'good' FSK which would be an oxymoron!

The 4Fs and other primal instincts are critically necessary for humans to evolve on a initial basis, but that is naturally followed by a more slower evolving and necessary moral potential to manage the evil potential to ensure the human species do not go extinct.

This is why humanity must recognized the objective moral FSK and its objective moral potential & moral facts so to expedite its unfoldment such that it will facilitate the management and modulation of the evil potential [evil FSK].
I didn't, you did. I used your argument to show that genocide is good.

What kind of mindnumbingly incompetent person wouldn't understand that the whole problem of morality is that there's no way to tell whether something is objectively and universally wrong.
Genocide is always considered to be evil on a universal basis
History was replete with genocides and many people today still want to commit genocides. For example the genocide of Gypsies in Europe today is an idea that many secretly wish for, in the name of the greater good. In Asia just a few years ago we had the Rohingya genocide.
etc. Having to type down something so obvious was pretty painful..
You are so desperate in strawmaning me that 'genocide is good'.
It is your jumping to conclusion that 'genocide is good'.
My syllogism do not point to 'genocide is good'.
Haha.. still dare to claim you are better than Kant?

Note the scientific FSK is the most credible, but its scientific facts has to potential for the evil to exterminate the human species via WMDs. But that is totally beside the point in this direction.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:04 am
Atla wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:27 am
That is why I stated your thinking is so shallow, narrow and unphilosophical [unwise].

All humans evolved originally with an inherent potentials, e.g. the 4Fs [fight, flight, food, fuck] which has the potential for evil, i.e. killing another human to the extreme of genocide as driven by the tribalism instinct.
Genocide is always considered to be evil on a universal basis, where the hell did you get the idea that genocide is good objectively and universally.

Morality is fundamentally promoting the good over evil.
Genocide is inherently evil thus cannot be covered within a ambit of a 'good' FSK which would be an oxymoron!

The 4Fs and other primal instincts are critically necessary for humans to evolve on a initial basis, but that is naturally followed by a more slower evolving and necessary moral potential to manage the evil potential to ensure the human species do not go extinct.

This is why humanity must recognized the objective moral FSK and its objective moral potential & moral facts so to expedite its unfoldment such that it will facilitate the management and modulation of the evil potential [evil FSK].
I didn't, you did. I used your argument to show that genocide is good.

What kind of mindnumbingly incompetent person wouldn't understand that the whole problem of morality is that there's no way to tell whether something is objectively and universally wrong.
Genocide is always considered to be evil on a universal basis
History was replete with genocides and many people today still want to commit genocides. For example the genocide of Gypsies in Europe today is an idea that many secretly wish for, in the name of the greater good. In Asia just a few years ago we had the Rohingya genocide.
etc. Having to type down something so obvious was pretty painful..
You are so desperate in strawmaning me that 'genocide is good'.
It is your jumping to conclusion that 'genocide is good'.
My syllogism do not point to 'genocide is good'.
Haha.. still dare to claim you are better than Kant?
Not better, I just know more with fairly good certainty, than he could have known in the 18th century.
Also, you didn't even make a case how Kant has to do with this.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:04 am
Atla wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:34 am
I didn't, you did. I used your argument to show that genocide is good.

What kind of mindnumbingly incompetent person wouldn't understand that the whole problem of morality is that there's no way to tell whether something is objectively and universally wrong.


History was replete with genocides and many people today still want to commit genocides. For example the genocide of Gypsies in Europe today is an idea that many secretly wish for, in the name of the greater good. In Asia just a few years ago we had the Rohingya genocide.
etc. Having to type down something so obvious was pretty painful..
You are so desperate in strawmaning me that 'genocide is good'.
It is your jumping to conclusion that 'genocide is good'.
My syllogism do not point to 'genocide is good'.
Haha.. still dare to claim you are better than Kant?
Not better, I just know more with fairly good certainty, than he could have known in the 18th century.
Also, you didn't even make a case how Kant has to do with this.
Just google 'Kant on radical evil'.

My point was in general, i.e. you are so wrong in interpreting my argument, so how can you claim to be better than the great Kant.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:16 am Just google 'Kant on radical evil'.

My point was in general, i.e. you are so wrong in interpreting my argument, so how can you claim to be better than the great Kant.
Now if you had paid any attention, you would know that if it's about something like this:
Radical evil (German: das radikal Böse) is a phrase used by German philosopher Immanuel Kant, one representing the Christian term, radix malorum. Kant believed that human beings naturally have a tendency to be evil. He explains radical evil as corruption that entirely takes over a human being and leads to desire's acting against the universal moral law. The outcome of one's natural tendency, or innate propensity, towards evil are actions or "deeds" that subordinate the moral law. According to Kant, these actions oppose the universally moral maxims and displayed from self-love and self conceit. By many authors, Kant's concept of radical evil is seen as a paradox and inconsistent through his development of moral theories.
your job is to show first that the universal moral law exists, and isn't just something that Kant made 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: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:06 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:56 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:01 am
I had already exposed and redirect your groundless 'farts as facts' to the very possible verifiable and justifiable empirical physical elements in terms of physical neurons in the brain as moral facts within a credible moral FSK.
This is a sufficient counter to your claim that there can be no objective moral facts to make morality objective re OP.
No, it's not a sufficient counter, never has been, and never will be.

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.

The other is you are strawmaning as usual;
I never state the terms 'rightness' nor 'wrongness' which can be very misleading,
"that moral rightness and wrongness are features of reality that can be known"
what I am referring are the moral potentials [drives] represented by physical neurons in the brain [co-ordinated with the body] that will drive moral actions accordingly.
What makes a potential a 'moral potential'? You just throw out these claims without justification. What is a 'moral action'? An action, or a potential to act in a certain way is NOT inherently a moral action or a moral potential. Those expressions are meaningless obfuscations. And since you deny that you're talking about moral rightness and wrongness - why tf are you talking about moral action or potential? What's moral about them if they're not morally right or wrong? Utter nonsense.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:27 am
Atla wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:12 am Genocide-is-good FSK:

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

Also, did you guys know that science can link genocidal behaviour to some neuronal activity in the brain, and even show that these people experience joy when committing genocide?

I mean, how much more objective justification could we hope for?
That is why I stated your thinking is so shallow, narrow and unphilosophical [unwise].

All humans evolved originally with an inherent potentials, e.g. the 4Fs [fight, flight, food, fuck] which has the potential for evil, i.e. killing another human to the extreme of genocide as driven by the tribalism instinct.
Genocide is always considered to be evil on a universal basis, where the hell did you get the idea that genocide is good objectively and universally.
Where did "objectively and universally" enter that syllogism?
It contains nothing that specifies these FSK things need either property.

Worse, nothing that his chump has written about objectivity indicates that he has ever considered universal applicability even desirable, let alone some sort of requirement.
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: 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.)

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.
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 9:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:06 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:56 am
No, it's not a sufficient counter, never has been, and never will be.

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.

The other is you are strawmaning as usual;
I never state the terms 'rightness' nor 'wrongness' which can be very misleading,
"that moral rightness and wrongness are features of reality that can be known"
what I am referring are the moral potentials [drives] represented by physical neurons in the brain [co-ordinated with the body] that will drive moral actions accordingly.
What makes a potential a 'moral potential'? You just throw out these claims without justification. What is a 'moral action'? An action, or a potential to act in a certain way is NOT inherently a moral action or a moral potential. Those expressions are meaningless obfuscations. And since you deny that you're talking about moral rightness and wrongness - why tf are you talking about moral action or potential? What's moral about them if they're not morally right or wrong? Utter nonsense.
Your dogmatism is very strong and rigid, thus I don't expect you to research and explore the above possibilities even when such knowledge is staring right in front of you. Note the 'not seeing the 500 pounds' "disease" you are infected with.

'Moral actions' are those actions [thoughts] that are classified a 'moral' in relation to morality as defined.
'Moral potential' is the potential that which drives moral actions and thoughts.

Analogy [explain many times]:
'Sexual actions' are those actions [thoughts] that are classified a 'sexual' in relation to sexuality as defined.
'Sexual potential' is the potential that which drives sexual actions and thought.

Beside 'sex' we can refer to "PUBERTY" 'intelligence' 'nutrition' creativity, etc.
These are all represent by the DNA, physical neural networks comprising neurons in the brain and body with other elements in the body in connection with its environment.

So why is the moral potential as with the above analogy not existing within all humans?
That the majority of people do not just go out and kill another human is due the moral potential generating the moral 'ought-not-ness to kill another human'.

Why must I talk about moral wrongness and moral rightness which are relatively kindergarten stuff and concerns with fears, threats, threat of hell, penalties, punishments, restriction of freedom, etc. Your thinking is too shallow and narrow without any optimism.
What I am talking about are about moral deviations from the moral facts as standards which are triggers for continual moral improvements.

All the above elements are moral facts when dealt within a credible moral FSK, just as e.g. legal element when dealt within a legal FSK enable the emergence of legal facts.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply