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 »

henry quirk wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 7:13 pm Mama owns herself: yep.

The baby owns himself: yep.

It's wrong for mama to have sex of her own accord then, becuz the natural product of that sex is inconvenient, rub him out.

It's also wrong to ask mama to carry the natural product of rape.

It's also wrong to ask mama to sacrifice her life (that is, die) so that natural product might be born.

And, just to be clear & up to date: fuck *you.

*edit: better when it's vanilla
Nope. A woman owns anything in her body, just as you own anything in yours. And it's for her to decide what happens, just as it's for you to decide what happens to you. So fuck you and your sexist hypocrisy.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=573015 time=1652639209 user_id=15099]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=573012 time=1652638382 user_id=472]
Mama owns herself: yep.

The baby owns himself: yep.

It's wrong for mama to have sex of her own accord then, becuz the natural product of that sex is [i]inconvenient[/i], rub him out.

It's also wrong to ask mama to carry the natural product of rape.

It's also wrong to ask mama to sacrifice her life (that is, [i]die[/i]) so that natural product might be born.

And, just to be clear & up to date: fuck [i]*you[/i].

*edit: better when it's vanilla
[/quote]
Nope. A woman owns anything in her body, just as you own anything in yours. And it's for her to decide what happens, just as it's for you to decide what happens to you. So fuck you and your sexist hypocrisy.
[/quote]

You may as well say the fetus owns anything surrounding its body. And a charge of being sexist in a scenario that might just as easily have included a female fetus is entirely disingenuous.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Advocate wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:26 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 7:26 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 7:13 pm Mama owns herself: yep.

The baby owns himself: yep.

It's wrong for mama to have sex of her own accord then, becuz the natural product of that sex is inconvenient, rub him out.

It's also wrong to ask mama to carry the natural product of rape.

It's also wrong to ask mama to sacrifice her life (that is, die) so that natural product might be born.

And, just to be clear & up to date: fuck *you.

*edit: better when it's vanilla
Nope. A woman owns anything in her body, just as you own anything in yours. And it's for her to decide what happens, just as it's for you to decide what happens to you. So fuck you and your sexist hypocrisy.
You may as well say the fetus owns anything surrounding its body. And a charge of being sexist in a scenario that might just as easily have included a female fetus is entirely disingenuous.
You and Henry are attributing quite a lot of properties to a zygote there. A little clump of cells with no nervous system doesn't own anything.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Advocate »

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=573019 time=1652643366 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=573017 time=1652642819 user_id=15238]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=573015 time=1652639209 user_id=15099]

Nope. A woman owns anything in her body, just as you own anything in yours. And it's for her to decide what happens, just as it's for you to decide what happens to you. So fuck you and your sexist hypocrisy.
[/quote]

You may as well say the fetus owns anything surrounding its body. And a charge of being sexist in a scenario that might just as easily have included a female fetus is entirely disingenuous.
[/quote]
You and Henry are attributing quite a lot of properties to a zygote there. A little clump of cells with no nervous system doesn't own anything.
[/quote]

I am agnostic as to when personhood begins except that it's definitely in relation to a working brain.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Advocate wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:47 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:36 pm
Advocate wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:26 pm

You may as well say the fetus owns anything surrounding its body. And a charge of being sexist in a scenario that might just as easily have included a female fetus is entirely disingenuous.
You and Henry are attributing quite a lot of properties to a zygote there. A little clump of cells with no nervous system doesn't own anything.
I am agnostic as to when personhood begins except that it's definitely in relation to a working brain.
That contradicts your reply to Pete. A clump of cells with no brain, not being a person, definitely doesn't own the person surrounding it. And I suspect you didn't quite interpret his remark about sexism correctly because that had nothing to do with the chromosomes in the microscopic blob of meat.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

A woman owns anything in her body, just as you own anything in yours.
A woman belongs to herself; the baby in her womb belongs to himself.

Neither, without just cause, has a claim on the other.
So fuck you and your sexist hypocrisy.
Eat shit, you dumb, whipped motherfucker.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

henry quirk wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 1:00 am
A woman owns anything in her body, just as you own anything in yours.
A woman belongs to herself; the baby in her womb belongs to himself.
Neither, without just cause, has a claim on the other.
You are right in principle with the above but I would not agree with your views and 'approach' to abortion.

Morally, no woman ought to abort the 'potential' human, period!
At the moment of conception there emerge a 'potential' human and no one should be permitted to 'kill' such a potential-human.
This a verified and justified moral fact within a credible moral FSK BUT it can only be used as a STANDARD & guide and NEVER to be imposed on any woman. [1]

Given the current psychological state of the majority driven by naturally driven sexual lusts and lack of impulse control and such wide variety of circumstances, it is optimal that abortion of early-fetus can be permitted. [2]

But then, the existence of 1 and 2 will generate a moral gap which is only natural for any rational moral person to narrow the moral gap.
To reduce the moral gap, the most rational approach is to facilitate all humans or the majority for the start to develop self-control and modulate their animal-like sexual lusts plus the ability to practice efficient contraception.

The achievement of sexual self control will not happen at this present phase of human evolution, thus the banning of abortion is not an effective approach.
What humanity need is to cultivate is sexual self-control and this can only be improved gradually [if we start now] from the present till some future time [>50, 100, or more years].

In the meantime, abortion can be legalized and permitted but with the awareness we are way off the objective moral standard with a large moral gap. At the same time, humanity must take steps to develop sexual self-control and other impulse control to avoid unplanned conception. I am optimistic this can be done in the future [not now].

As such, with the above practical approach, abortion is permitted in cases of rapes, and other cases where it is optimally warranted. However, humanity must track the root causes of this problems and solved them at the root level, e.g. in the future no one will have the drive to rape anyone.

Fundamentally, re humans, the core trend is the 'good' will always prevails over 'evil'.
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 May 15, 2022 1:29 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 11:54 am
Pete in that quote is basically a democrat, presenting a rosy view of a future in which everyone participates in some moral improvement project. You criticise him for not being in charge of it, not being the captain of as ship. You completely miss his somewhat flowery point. You do this moral fact thing only because you want to hand out orders for the rest of humanity. Pete and others recognise that moral change comes through persuasion not your brand of dictatorial domination.
Thanks, Flash. Sort of. Rosy and flowery? If we want equal well-being for everyone - and I think we should - we have to overcome the things that get in the way - including the supposed need for economic inequality - which is just capitalist ideology at work: there must be richer and poorer people, and we all get what we deserve in life. Which is patent bollocks.

I think all the other shit we're indoctrinated with - religion, sexism, nationalism and racism - is designed to divide and rule us, so that the rich and powerful can keep their wealth and power. Conservatism is, roughly, wanting to keep things as they are. So if things are unjust and unequal - which they are - conservatives want to maintain injustice and inequality. And that's immoral. And I think we need to call it out.

I'm not rosy about it. But yes, it's about real democracy - not the sham that keeps things as they are - and persuasion.
You went off tangent rather than address my counter,
viewtopic.php?p=572952#p572952
that you are rudderless with regard to dealing with morality.
You stated "I think we should .." "should" on what grounds?

Here is the point again;

Only in your dreams!
How can you achieve the above if you have not set or verify and justify any objective moral standards within a credible moral FSK [near credibility to the scientific FSK].
You are steering a ship in a storm near the shore full of rocks without any reference to a lighthouse.

In the above everyone and every group will insist their moral standard is the objective one and everyone else must comply with their moral objective.
Do you ever think - pari-passu - theists especially like Muslim [or even Christians] (4 billion of them and more with others of the likes) will ever give up their 'moral' standard for yours or any others?

Explain your methodology and strategies how are you going to achieve your dreams and wishful thinking?

OTOH,
I am referring to objective moral facts as the fact of the matter or the matter of fact with reference to the precise physical referent in terms of neural correlates of moral potentials in the brain.
Where my moral facts can be verified, justified, tested with repeated results, it will facilitate acceptance and conversion to my moral principles and practices.

You are ignorant of the following;
As present we are on a positive trend of exponential expansion of knowledge and technology [especially re neurosciences, etc.] that we will have the potential IN FUTURE to expedite the activeness of the moral potential [matter of fact] to facilitate the moral progress of every individuals thus that of humanity.
It is already very evident there is the positive TREND of moral potential of the average person has gradually unfold and is activated since 10,000 years ago to the present.

You must get rid of the constipated shit within you that morality is merely about subjective moral opinions and beliefs.
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 May 16, 2022 5:47 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 1:29 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 11:54 am
Pete in that quote is basically a democrat, presenting a rosy view of a future in which everyone participates in some moral improvement project. You criticise him for not being in charge of it, not being the captain of as ship. You completely miss his somewhat flowery point. You do this moral fact thing only because you want to hand out orders for the rest of humanity. Pete and others recognise that moral change comes through persuasion not your brand of dictatorial domination.
Thanks, Flash. Sort of. Rosy and flowery? If we want equal well-being for everyone - and I think we should - we have to overcome the things that get in the way - including the supposed need for economic inequality - which is just capitalist ideology at work: there must be richer and poorer people, and we all get what we deserve in life. Which is patent bollocks.

I think all the other shit we're indoctrinated with - religion, sexism, nationalism and racism - is designed to divide and rule us, so that the rich and powerful can keep their wealth and power. Conservatism is, roughly, wanting to keep things as they are. So if things are unjust and unequal - which they are - conservatives want to maintain injustice and inequality. And that's immoral. And I think we need to call it out.

I'm not rosy about it. But yes, it's about real democracy - not the sham that keeps things as they are - and persuasion.
You went off tangent rather than address my counter,
viewtopic.php?p=572952#p572952
that you are rudderless with regard to dealing with morality.
You stated "I think we should .." "should" on what grounds?

Here is the point again;

Only in your dreams!
How can you achieve the above if you have not set or verify and justify any objective moral standards within a credible moral FSK [near credibility to the scientific FSK].
You are steering a ship in a storm near the shore full of rocks without any reference to a lighthouse.

In the above everyone and every group will insist their moral standard is the objective one and everyone else must comply with their moral objective.
Do you ever think - pari-passu - theists especially like Muslim [or even Christians] (4 billion of them and more with others of the likes) will ever give up their 'moral' standard for yours or any others?

Explain your methodology and strategies how are you going to achieve your dreams and wishful thinking?

OTOH,
I am referring to objective moral facts as the fact of the matter or the matter of fact with reference to the precise physical referent in terms of neural correlates of moral potentials in the brain.
Where my moral facts can be verified, justified, tested with repeated results, it will facilitate acceptance and conversion to my moral principles and practices.

You are ignorant of the following;
As present we are on a positive trend of exponential expansion of knowledge and technology [especially re neurosciences, etc.] that we will have the potential IN FUTURE to expedite the activeness of the moral potential [matter of fact] to facilitate the moral progress of every individuals thus that of humanity.
It is already very evident there is the positive TREND of moral potential of the average person has gradually unfold and is activated since 10,000 years ago to the present.

You must get rid of the constipated shit within you that morality is merely about subjective moral opinions and beliefs.
You merely repeat the same mistake over and over again.

You say it's a fact that humans are 'programmed' (with the potential) to do X and not to do Y. And you now deny that you're saying this means X is morally right and Y is morally wrong. You deny that that's your conclusion - that our 'programming' has any moral implication. And yet you call our programming a moral fact. And that's a contradiction. I'll set this out below.

1 If we're 'programmed' (with the potential) to behave in certain ways - to do X and not do Y - then that's a fact about human nature.

2 A factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion. So the 'programming' premise can't entail a moral conclusion, such as 'therefore, X is morally right and Y is morally wrong'. That conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. It's a non sequitur fallacy.

3 Merely calling the 'programming' premise a moral fact proves nothing and begs the question. What makes it a moral fact?

Since there are no moral facts - since the very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent - we're left with our moral beliefs, judgements or opinions, which can be individual or collective. We can and do cite facts to explain or justify our moral opinions - perhaps to persuade others - but they remain opinions.

And moaning about the non-existence of a 'foundation' for our opinions is pointless. It's like saying there's no such thing as absolute truth, so there's no such thing as what we call truth. The existence of exactly what is being denied?
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: Mon May 16, 2022 5:47 am In the above everyone and every group will insist their moral standard is the objective one and everyone else must comply with their moral objective.
Do you ever think - pari-passu - theists especially like Muslim [or even Christians] (4 billion of them and more with others of the likes) will ever give up their 'moral' standard for yours or any others?
Nothing in your plan changes that. You "morality-FSK" is only the Vegetable-Ambulance-Morality-FSK. It's a game where you made up the rules and you like it a lot, but anyone else can make up their own game with their own rules and they will have their own private-morality-FSK.

There's no reason at all why your FSK is the source of facts that cannot be denied, so there's nothing to stop competing FSKs that say your own is false using your own methodology. To call your thing "facts" at all you had to give up on that connot-be-denied thing for facts. That was what Skepdick was helping you to do, the thing I said was probably a bad idea but you went for it anyway.... Now you have to live with it. It ENTAILS that most of what you are promising Pete there is explicitly beyond your capacity to deliver.
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 May 16, 2022 7:59 am You merely repeat the same mistake over and over again.

You say it's a fact that humans are 'programmed' (with the potential) to do X and not to do Y. And you now deny that you're saying this means X is morally right and Y is morally wrong. You deny that that's your conclusion - that our 'programming' has any moral implication. And yet you call our programming a moral fact. And that's a contradiction. I'll set this out below.

1 If we're 'programmed' (with the potential) to behave in certain ways - to do X and not do Y - then that's a fact about human nature.
Strawman again.

I had stated all humans are "programmed" with an inherent moral potential [of various degree of activeness] of ought-ness and ought-not-ness.
In terms of morality, all humans are "programmed" with an inherent moral potential of ought-not-ness to kill humans.

The "programming" itself is in fact a biological fact, but not a moral fact.
The moral fact is the "programmed moral potential" that is a matter of fact represented by a physical referent of neural correlates in the brain and body.
Because this is dealt within a moral FSK, it is a moral fact.

I gave you an analogy earlier, all humans are programmed with the "puberty potential" represented by physical reference of DNA codes, neural correlates, other. What is physically real and a matter of fact is the programmed 'potential'. Where the resultant of puberty may not up to 'expectations' e.g. transgenderism does not obviate the real existence that real physical potential.
This is the same with the programmed moral potential as a physical referent and matter of fact.

Btw, all humans are also "programmed" with the inherent potential to kill humans but this is not essentially a moral fact but rather a biological and evil fact.
2 A factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion. So the 'programming' premise can't entail a moral conclusion, such as 'therefore, X is morally right and Y is morally wrong'. That conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. It's a non sequitur fallacy.
You are going on the wrong path again in the direction of your dogmatic paradigm.

My paradigm do not focus on your sort of 'therefore, X is morally right and Y is morally wrong'.

What we have is a physical moral fact of a moral potential within the brain which should be self developed to unfold so that the person will spontaneously and naturally progress to be more morally competent.
If you have the capacity and ability to develop your own 'inactive moral potential within' you will progress to be a more moral competent person. There is no question of you being morally right or wrong from the moral perspective I am proposing.
It is only the ignoramus who insist on the question of morally right or wrong as influenced by the current debates on morality and ethics.

The conclusion of the moral potential is verified and justified to exists within the mind, brain and body of each individual person.

3 Merely calling the 'programming' premise a moral fact proves nothing and begs the question. What makes it a moral fact?
This arise from your strawmanning.
Note my explanation above.
The moral fact is the "programmed moral potential" that is a matter of fact represented by a physical referent of neural correlates in the brain and body.
Because this is dealt within a moral FSK, it is a moral fact.
Since there are no moral facts - since the very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent - we're left with our moral beliefs, judgements or opinions, which can be individual or collective. We can and do cite facts to explain or justify our moral opinions - perhaps to persuade others - but they remain opinions.

And moaning about the non-existence of a 'foundation' for our opinions is pointless. It's like saying there's no such thing as absolute truth, so there's no such thing as what we call truth. The existence of exactly what is being denied?
Strawmanning again.

You need to get out of your dogmatic paradigm to understand [not necessary agree] what I am proposing within my moral paradigm.

What I am arguing is, the moral fact is the "programmed moral potential" that is a matter of fact represented by a physical referent of neural correlates in the brain and body. Because this is dealt within a moral FSK, it is a moral fact.
This [matter of neuroscience] is why Hume was ignorant of during his time and thus set people like you blindly following Hume down the wrong path.

I am asking again, what is the grounding of your 'what is fact'? So far you are making groundless claims.

OTOH, my grounding is heavily relied upon the scientific FSK, i.e. verified and justified scientific facts being inputted into the moral FSK.
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 May 16, 2022 10:01 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 7:59 am You merely repeat the same mistake over and over again.

You say it's a fact that humans are 'programmed' (with the potential) to do X and not to do Y. And you now deny that you're saying this means X is morally right and Y is morally wrong. You deny that that's your conclusion - that our 'programming' has any moral implication. And yet you call our programming a moral fact. And that's a contradiction. I'll set this out below.

1 If we're 'programmed' (with the potential) to behave in certain ways - to do X and not do Y - then that's a fact about human nature.
Strawman again.

I had stated all humans are "programmed" with an inherent moral potential [of various degree of activeness] of ought-ness and ought-not-ness.
In terms of morality, all humans are "programmed" with an inherent moral potential of ought-not-ness to kill humans.

The "programming" itself is in fact a biological fact, but not a moral fact.
The moral fact is the "programmed moral potential" that is a matter of fact represented by a physical referent of neural correlates in the brain and body.
Because this is dealt within a moral FSK, it is a moral fact.

I gave you an analogy earlier, all humans are programmed with the "puberty potential" represented by physical reference of DNA codes, neural correlates, other. What is physically real and a matter of fact is the programmed 'potential'. Where the resultant of puberty may not up to 'expectations' e.g. transgenderism does not obviate the real existence that real physical potential.
This is the same with the programmed moral potential as a physical referent and matter of fact.

Btw, all humans are also "programmed" with the inherent potential to kill humans but this is not essentially a moral fact but rather a biological and evil fact.
2 A factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion. So the 'programming' premise can't entail a moral conclusion, such as 'therefore, X is morally right and Y is morally wrong'. That conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. It's a non sequitur fallacy.
You are going on the wrong path again in the direction of your dogmatic paradigm.

My paradigm do not focus on your sort of 'therefore, X is morally right and Y is morally wrong'.

What we have is a physical moral fact of a moral potential within the brain which should be self developed to unfold so that the person will spontaneously and naturally progress to be more morally competent.
If you have the capacity and ability to develop your own 'inactive moral potential within' you will progress to be a more moral competent person. There is no question of you being morally right or wrong from the moral perspective I am proposing.
It is only the ignoramus who insist on the question of morally right or wrong as influenced by the current debates on morality and ethics.

The conclusion of the moral potential is verified and justified to exists within the mind, brain and body of each individual person.

3 Merely calling the 'programming' premise a moral fact proves nothing and begs the question. What makes it a moral fact?
This arise from your strawmanning.
Note my explanation above.
The moral fact is the "programmed moral potential" that is a matter of fact represented by a physical referent of neural correlates in the brain and body.
Because this is dealt within a moral FSK, it is a moral fact.
Since there are no moral facts - since the very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent - we're left with our moral beliefs, judgements or opinions, which can be individual or collective. We can and do cite facts to explain or justify our moral opinions - perhaps to persuade others - but they remain opinions.

And moaning about the non-existence of a 'foundation' for our opinions is pointless. It's like saying there's no such thing as absolute truth, so there's no such thing as what we call truth. The existence of exactly what is being denied?
Strawmanning again.

You need to get out of your dogmatic paradigm to understand [not necessary agree] what I am proposing within my moral paradigm.

What I am arguing is, the moral fact is the "programmed moral potential" that is a matter of fact represented by a physical referent of neural correlates in the brain and body. Because this is dealt within a moral FSK, it is a moral fact.
This [matter of neuroscience] is why Hume was ignorant of during his time and thus set people like you blindly following Hume down the wrong path.

I am asking again, what is the grounding of your 'what is fact'? So far you are making groundless claims.

OTOH, my grounding is heavily relied upon the scientific FSK, i.e. verified and justified scientific facts being inputted into the moral FSK.
Wot.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:30 pm Murder is illegal because laws are for controlling people who would unless deterred would be very difficult to live and work with.
The desire to restrict the behaviour precedes the actual murder laws. They must have known it when they saw it in order to eventually outlaw it.

If murder is defined as a "wrongful killing" then surely the distinction between "right" and "wrong" must have existed before any particular killing was classified as being one or the other?

If all killing was right then why invent murder laws?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:36 pm You and Henry are attributing quite a lot of properties to a zygote there. A little clump of cells with no nervous system doesn't own anything.
Do you own anything? Do humans own anything? What determines ownership anyway?

If I can exercise partial or total control (against your will) over things you claim to own did you ever truly own them?

You don't even own your mind; or your body if I persuade you to do my bidding. Using rhetoric or persuasive beating.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by promethean75 »

"Sorry - I should have said up to Tormato, which I thought was mostly shite"

Shit I like Tormato too.

I don't think it's gonna work out between us, Peter, and I really think we should start talking to other people.
Post Reply