Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:32 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:01 am
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.
The impulse of empathy via the mirror neurons entails the potential of "ought-not-ness to kill humans" or do harm to other humans, which is represented by a physical fact and that is a subject within morality. [1]
It is evident this "ought-not-ness to kill humans" potential is reasonably active [as an inhibitor] in the majority where they do not arbitrarily kill anyone on sight.
With the
Human Connectome Project [you are ignorant of] humanity will in the FUTURE [very possible] be able to identify the specific neural correlates and develop this neural inhibitor to be more effective in the majority or in all normal persons to the extent their inherent primal impulse to kill humans is effectively inhibited.
There are more to the above which you are ignorant of and it is pitiful you are so arrogant with your ignorance.
Do you even understand how the scientific FSK is established which comprised a complex set of principles, conditions, beliefs, assumptions, methods, processes, peer reviews, etc.
The moral FSK is established like that of the scientific FSK.
Thus when the scientific fact [1] is input within the establish moral FSK, it enable the emergence of a moral fact just like how a scientific fact emerge from a scientific FSK.
Rubbish. Neuroscience - like science in general - has nothing to say about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. And you don't address, let alone answer, my point about the moral and non-moral use of 'ought' and other related words - because it demolishes your case for the existence of moral facts. And because there are no moral facts, there is no moral FSK, which is your ridiculous invention.
Your above is exposing your ignorance and lack of intelligence [literally your stupidity].
I have argued elsewhere, when you deny my view of moral facts emerging from moral FSK, you are denying the scientific FSK and its scientific facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
It is obvious science is science, mathematics is mathematics, neuroscience is neuroscience but whilst independent they are nevertheless complemented with various knowledge in enabling other subjects and the related facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Don't forget at one time, there were no classification of the specialized knowledge, all knowledge was just 'philosophy' [note the case of Physics separated from Philosophy].
Fundamentally there is no reason to view 'neuroscience' with 'morality' at the same time as generic knowledge and facts within one common FSK.
I have already explained how scientific facts [re DNA, forensic matters] are inputted into the
legal FSK that enable
legal facts to emerge. Example the legal fact, X was convicted as a Murderer beyond reasonable doubt - based on DNA evidences as the critical fact. Do you deny this?
So why it is not possible that scientific facts - in this case, the neuroscientific facts from the neuroscientific FSK - be conjoined in the Moral FSK to enable objective moral facts to emerge??
Btw, I do not agree with terms 'rightness' and 'wrongness' [because they are too loose] to be applied to morality-proper as defined.
What is Morality
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799
'Morality' [proper] is like say 'wisdom' or 'intelligence' where the focus in on the self-development and continual improvements of these internal potentials of the individual[s].
My definition of what is morality-proper and its FSK and objective moral facts are directed toward progress for the sake of the well beings of the individuals and that of humanity, i.e. perpetual peace in the future which in line with James' "cash-value";
“To understand truth, he [William James] argues, we must consider the pragmatic ‘
cash-value’ of having true beliefs and the practical difference of having true ideas."[9] By using the term ‘cash-value,’ James refers to the practical consequences that come from discerning the truth behind arguments, through the pragmatic method, that should yield no desirable answer.
WIKI
OTOH, your ideas and views of morality [right or wrong] is
too constipated without room for progress for the sake of the well beings of the individuals and that of humanity. Show me otherwise?