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: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:28 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:46 am A Lucubration Down the Rabbit Hole

1 We humans co-create the reality of which we are part.

2 Therefore, we humans co-create ourselves.

3 Then who creates or co-creates the 'us' (the humans) who do the co-creating?

4 It must be some sui generis thing. Ah - it must be a god.

(5 Btw, why do we need to empirically demonstrate the existence of things we co-created? And we must have co-created the perceptions that supposedly constitute empirical knowledge in the first place. So what price empirical verification?)

(6 Russell: what matters about philosophy is asking questions - not finding answers.)
I have also explained the above a "1000" times.
Note spontaneous emergence without reference to any prior existence.
A Response to a Lucubration Down the Rabbit Hole

1 We humans co-created the reality of which we are part.

2 But we humans emerged spontaneously, uncreated, from the reality we co-created, of which we are part.

3 Sorted.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:28 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:46 am A Lucubration Down the Rabbit Hole

1 We humans co-create the reality of which we are part.

2 Therefore, we humans co-create ourselves.

3 Then who creates or co-creates the 'us' (the humans) who do the co-creating?

4 It must be some sui generis thing. Ah - it must be a god.

(5 Btw, why do we need to empirically demonstrate the existence of things we co-created? And we must have co-created the perceptions that supposedly constitute empirical knowledge in the first place. So what price empirical verification?)

(6 Russell: what matters about philosophy is asking questions - not finding answers.)
I have also explained the above a "1000" times.
Note spontaneous emergence without reference to any prior existence.
1000 turds is just more shit than 1 turd.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:23 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:44 am
Note your last point, humans are the ones with a higher mind [relative to others species] that is why humans care about stuff like that [morality-proper].

Note there is NO "objective world" in your sense that wouldn't care less if you live or die.
In this case, your sense of "objective world" is related to philosophical realism which I had argued is not realistic and true.

Note the following and many other similar threads on this issue I have raised; Another point, yes, the majority of people would not bother if those unrelated to them live or die.
But there is no denial there exists the real physical moral oughtness - the "ought-not-to kill humans" that is "pre-programmed" in ALL humans' brain.
As such moral realism is objective and true.
So a couple points. One, if one believes that there is no extramental or person-independent world, whatever terms we use for that, then one would certainly think that there's no extramental or person-independent morality. So in this, you'd actually turn out to be agreeing with what we've been arguing all along.

Two, you'd have to better explain how someone who has no problem with killing other people has "ought not to kill humans" programmed into their brain.

Three, you'd need to better explain what the significance of other people having "ought not to kill humans" programmed into their brains has for someone who doesn't have that programmed into his/her brain, OR you'd need to better explain, for someone having that programmed into their brain, while they consciously feel that it's okay to kill some other humans, just what the significance of the programming would be.
Again I have explained the above a "1000" times.
Note the case of the psychopaths who had damaged "ought not to kill humans" program in the brain and others who has a weak program.
E.g. All humans are "programmed" with the sexual functions but for some are asexual in behaviors due to damage to the 'program'.
Again, READ. You'd need to BETTER EXPLAIN.

You've explained it "1000 times." You need to better explain it, because your "explanation" so far, that you've repeated/cited 1000 times, isn't at all sufficient for what you're being asked.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Note your last point, humans are the ones with a higher mind [relative to others species] that is why humans care about stuff like that [morality-proper].
Within which frame of belief lies the claim "humans are the ones with the higher mind" ?(my italics)

As regards inherent information among humans "Do not kill other humans" the dominant frame of scientific knowledge includes that humans evolve via the cultural, fast track, line. Much less so or hardly at all via the genetic line
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:28 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:46 am A Lucubration Down the Rabbit Hole

1 We humans co-create the reality of which we are part.

2 Therefore, we humans co-create ourselves.

3 Then who creates or co-creates the 'us' (the humans) who do the co-creating?

4 It must be some sui generis thing. Ah - it must be a god.

(5 Btw, why do we need to empirically demonstrate the existence of things we co-created? And we must have co-created the perceptions that supposedly constitute empirical knowledge in the first place. So what price empirical verification?)

(6 Russell: what matters about philosophy is asking questions - not finding answers.)
I have also explained the above a "1000" times.
Note spontaneous emergence without reference to any prior existence.
A Response to a Lucubration Down the Rabbit Hole

1 We humans co-created the reality of which we are part.

2 But we humans emerged spontaneously, uncreated, from the reality we co-created, of which we are part.

3 Sorted.
I am taking a break from discussing morality unless something new crops up.
After a 5-days water fast, the psyche and body reset and find discussions with your gang [especially Pantflasher] sort of attitude too unpleasant to participate.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:51 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Note your last point, humans are the ones with a higher mind [relative to others species] that is why humans care about stuff like that [morality-proper].
Within which frame of belief lies the claim "humans are the ones with the higher mind" ?(my italics)

As regards inherent information among humans "Do not kill other humans" the dominant frame of scientific knowledge includes that humans evolve via the cultural, fast track, line. Much less so or hardly at all via the genetic line
What I am referring to are the innate intrinsic features embedded in the DNA of humans via evolution.

The "Do not kill other humans" innate program in the human brain is as basic as the 'will to survive' the hunger, sex, need to breathe' instinct and other primal instinct. The moral instinct is different in the sense, it is no so obvious as the others and it is unfolding slowly.
These are innate and intrinsic [nature] so has nothing to do with cultural or nurture.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:02 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 6:51 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Note your last point, humans are the ones with a higher mind [relative to others species] that is why humans care about stuff like that [morality-proper].
Within which frame of belief lies the claim "humans are the ones with the higher mind" ?(my italics)

As regards inherent information among humans "Do not kill other humans" the dominant frame of scientific knowledge includes that humans evolve via the cultural, fast track, line. Much less so or hardly at all via the genetic line
What I am referring to are the innate intrinsic features embedded in the DNA of humans via evolution.

The "Do not kill other humans" innate program in the human brain is as basic as the 'will to survive' the hunger, sex, need to breathe' instinct and other primal instinct. The moral instinct is different in the sense, it is no so obvious as the others and it is unfolding slowly.
These are innate and intrinsic [nature] so has nothing to do with cultural or nurture.
We know what the breathing instinct/programming/driver is. It's the mechanism that makes us breathe.

We know what the sex instinct/programming/driver is. It's the mechanism that makes us behave sexually.

So what is the supposed moral instinct/programming/driver? What does it make us do?

Your equation of this supposed moral programming with, say, 'sex' programming is false.

Why call programming not to to kill humans 'moral programming'? If it just means 'morally significant programming', what makes not killing humans morally significant? Why is it a moral matter - any more than having sex is?

The moral/immoral bit comes separately from the programming and the behaviour. It's a judgement about the programming and behaviour: 'this programming and behaviour is morally significant'.

Reminder: you think morality has nothing to do with judgements about rightness and wrongness, or good and evil.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
What I am referring to are the innate intrinsic features embedded in the DNA of humans via evolution.

The "Do not kill other humans" innate program in the human brain is as basic as the 'will to survive' the hunger, sex, need to breathe' instinct and other primal instinct. The moral instinct is different in the sense, it is no so obvious as the others and it is unfolding slowly.
These are innate and intrinsic [nature] so has nothing to do with cultural or nurture.
To flesh out your claim, for instance our being vertebrate mammals is "innate and intrinsic [nature] so has nothing to do with cultural or nurture".

Looking at other vertebrate mammals we see other vertebrate mammals besides man are genetically programmed to have transmissible cultures . These are largely transmitted via individual animal mothers to their young. It is therefore probable that humans too are genetically programmed to have some transmissible culture of belief and practice. There must therefore be the genetic possibility of some non specific cultural pattern for animal mothers to teach their offspring what to do and what not to do whilst the said offspring are puppies, kittens or cubs.

There are unusual happenings among vertebrates where adults learn from others and may be said to have acquired a novel cultural pattern. Chaffinches change their songs according to what surrounding chaffinches are singing. Parrots, starlings and mynahs too can do this too. So some cultural specifics are plastic .

Where your thinking on the matter is incorrect is that vertebrate mammalian species' non=specific cultural ability and function is the same as specific cultural codes. Man alone has specific cultural codes. The items of those are commonly enshrined in religious codes such as Leviticus and popular belief systems such as are today personalised by popular celebrities who include among their ranks singers, politicians, actors, royal personages, and even criminals.

For all intents and purposes only man alone has a history of ideas. "Must not kill other humans" is an item, a detail within a specific cultural code or set of cultural codes; it is not itself genetic but cultural. History of ideas can be picked up from a proper study of history as an academic discipline.

The notion "Must not kill other humans" is genetically programmed is dangerous. We are at a most dangerous time and "Must not kill other humans" is a civilised injunction which is itself in danger. We must not rely on genetic programming to save us from disaster.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 10:55 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:
What I am referring to are the innate intrinsic features embedded in the DNA of humans via evolution.

The "Do not kill other humans" innate program in the human brain is as basic as the 'will to survive' the hunger, sex, need to breathe' instinct and other primal instinct. The moral instinct is different in the sense, it is no so obvious as the others and it is unfolding slowly.
These are innate and intrinsic [nature] so has nothing to do with cultural or nurture.
To flesh out your claim, for instance our being vertebrate mammals is "innate and intrinsic [nature] so has nothing to do with cultural or nurture".

Looking at other vertebrate mammals we see other vertebrate mammals besides man are genetically programmed to have transmissible cultures . These are largely transmitted via individual animal mothers to their young. It is therefore probable that humans too are genetically programmed to have some transmissible culture of belief and practice. There must therefore be the genetic possibility of some non specific cultural pattern for animal mothers to teach their offspring what to do and what not to do whilst the said offspring are puppies, kittens or cubs.

There are unusual happenings among vertebrates where adults learn from others and may be said to have acquired a novel cultural pattern. Chaffinches change their songs according to what surrounding chaffinches are singing. Parrots, starlings and mynahs too can do this too. So some cultural specifics are plastic .

Where your thinking on the matter is incorrect is that vertebrate mammalian species' non=specific cultural ability and function is the same as specific cultural codes. Man alone has specific cultural codes. The items of those are commonly enshrined in religious codes such as Leviticus and popular belief systems such as are today personalised by popular celebrities who include among their ranks singers, politicians, actors, royal personages, and even criminals.

For all intents and purposes only man alone has a history of ideas. "Must not kill other humans" is an item, a detail within a specific cultural code or set of cultural codes; it is not itself genetic but cultural. History of ideas can be picked up from a proper study of history as an academic discipline.

The notion "Must not kill other humans" is genetically programmed is dangerous. We are at a most dangerous time and "Must not kill other humans" is a civilised injunction which is itself in danger. We must not rely on genetic programming to save us from disaster.
I largely agree with this analysis.

I thnk we're evolutionarily programmed to defend the group, even at the cost of self-sacrifice. And 'defending the group' doesn't mean 'defending all humans', 'defending all species' or 'defending the earth'.

So locating so-called moral objectivity in human programming is a loser's game.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 10:55 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:
What I am referring to are the innate intrinsic features embedded in the DNA of humans via evolution.

The "Do not kill other humans" innate program in the human brain is as basic as the 'will to survive' the hunger, sex, need to breathe' instinct and other primal instinct. The moral instinct is different in the sense, it is no so obvious as the others and it is unfolding slowly.
These are innate and intrinsic [nature] so has nothing to do with cultural or nurture.
To flesh out your claim, for instance our being vertebrate mammals is "innate and intrinsic [nature] so has nothing to do with cultural or nurture".

Looking at other vertebrate mammals we see other vertebrate mammals besides man are genetically programmed to have transmissible cultures . These are largely transmitted via individual animal mothers to their young. It is therefore probable that humans too are genetically programmed to have some transmissible culture of belief and practice. There must therefore be the genetic possibility of some non specific cultural pattern for animal mothers to teach their offspring what to do and what not to do whilst the said offspring are puppies, kittens or cubs.

There are unusual happenings among vertebrates where adults learn from others and may be said to have acquired a novel cultural pattern. Chaffinches change their songs according to what surrounding chaffinches are singing. Parrots, starlings and mynahs too can do this too. So some cultural specifics are plastic .

Where your thinking on the matter is incorrect is that vertebrate mammalian species' non=specific cultural ability and function is the same as specific cultural codes. Man alone has specific cultural codes. The items of those are commonly enshrined in religious codes such as Leviticus and popular belief systems such as are today personalised by popular celebrities who include among their ranks singers, politicians, actors, royal personages, and even criminals.

For all intents and purposes only man alone has a history of ideas. "Must not kill other humans" is an item, a detail within a specific cultural code or set of cultural codes; it is not itself genetic but cultural. History of ideas can be picked up from a proper study of history as an academic discipline.

The notion "Must not kill other humans" is genetically programmed is dangerous. We are at a most dangerous time and "Must not kill other humans" is a civilised injunction which is itself in danger. We must not rely on genetic programming to save us from disaster.
You got it wrong, there is no genetically program for 'culture'.
  • Culture (/ˈkʌltʃər/) is an umbrella term which encompasses the social behavior and norms found in human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups.[1]
    Humans acquire culture through the learning processes of enculturation and socialization, which is shown by the diversity of cultures across societies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture
Culture is nurture, what is nature [innate] underlying culture is the innate striving to know and learning program.

You got it wrong that ' "Must not kill other humans" is a civilised injunction.'
It is not any civilized injunction but an innate feature of all humans.
It is not something that is to be imposed but something that must be developed in the long run to unfold and allow to express itself spontaneously so that humans will be naturally be non-killers of humans.

Since "Must not kill other humans" is not something that is to be imposed, there will be inevitably human killings humans at present, but humanity must strive toward this moral ideal so that more and more humans will not have any inclinations to kill humans.
This striving has been going on for eons - this is why there is so much hoo hahs whenever there are killing of humans [note the recent Armenian Genocide recognition]. The success is low but it is nevertheless within a positive trend of relative reduction.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:18 am
Belinda wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 10:55 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:
What I am referring to are the innate intrinsic features embedded in the DNA of humans via evolution.

The "Do not kill other humans" innate program in the human brain is as basic as the 'will to survive' the hunger, sex, need to breathe' instinct and other primal instinct. The moral instinct is different in the sense, it is no so obvious as the others and it is unfolding slowly.
These are innate and intrinsic [nature] so has nothing to do with cultural or nurture.
To flesh out your claim, for instance our being vertebrate mammals is "innate and intrinsic [nature] so has nothing to do with cultural or nurture".

Looking at other vertebrate mammals we see other vertebrate mammals besides man are genetically programmed to have transmissible cultures . These are largely transmitted via individual animal mothers to their young. It is therefore probable that humans too are genetically programmed to have some transmissible culture of belief and practice. There must therefore be the genetic possibility of some non specific cultural pattern for animal mothers to teach their offspring what to do and what not to do whilst the said offspring are puppies, kittens or cubs.

There are unusual happenings among vertebrates where adults learn from others and may be said to have acquired a novel cultural pattern. Chaffinches change their songs according to what surrounding chaffinches are singing. Parrots, starlings and mynahs too can do this too. So some cultural specifics are plastic .

Where your thinking on the matter is incorrect is that vertebrate mammalian species' non=specific cultural ability and function is the same as specific cultural codes. Man alone has specific cultural codes. The items of those are commonly enshrined in religious codes such as Leviticus and popular belief systems such as are today personalised by popular celebrities who include among their ranks singers, politicians, actors, royal personages, and even criminals.

For all intents and purposes only man alone has a history of ideas. "Must not kill other humans" is an item, a detail within a specific cultural code or set of cultural codes; it is not itself genetic but cultural. History of ideas can be picked up from a proper study of history as an academic discipline.

The notion "Must not kill other humans" is genetically programmed is dangerous. We are at a most dangerous time and "Must not kill other humans" is a civilised injunction which is itself in danger. We must not rely on genetic programming to save us from disaster.
You got it wrong, there is no genetically program for 'culture'.
  • Culture (/ˈkʌltʃər/) is an umbrella term which encompasses the social behavior and norms found in human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups.[1]
    Humans acquire culture through the learning processes of enculturation and socialization, which is shown by the diversity of cultures across societies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture
Culture is nurture, what is nature [innate] underlying culture is the innate striving to know and learning program.

You got it wrong that ' "Must not kill other humans" is a civilised injunction.'
It is not any civilized injunction but an innate feature of all humans.
It is not something that is to be imposed but something that must be developed in the long run to unfold and allow to express itself spontaneously so that humans will be naturally be non-killers of humans.

Since "Must not kill other humans" is not something that is to be imposed, there will be inevitably human killings humans at present, but humanity must strive toward this moral ideal so that more and more humans will not have any inclinations to kill humans.
This striving has been going on for eons - this is why there is so much hoo hahs whenever there are killing of humans [note the recent Armenian Genocide recognition]. The success is low but it is nevertheless within a positive trend of relative reduction.
Whether our moral beliefs come from nature or nurture, or both, may be interesting. But their source has no bearing on their status.

For example, suppose programming not to kill humans is hard-baked into our brains - a 'nature' argument. That wouldn't make it a fact that killing humans is wrong. It wouldn't make morality objective. And nor would a universal social taboo against killing humans - a 'nurture' argument.

Moral objectivists are flies stuck inside the window pane.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 6:48 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:18 am You got it wrong, there is no genetically program for 'culture'.
  • Culture (/ˈkʌltʃər/) is an umbrella term which encompasses the social behavior and norms found in human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups.[1]
    Humans acquire culture through the learning processes of enculturation and socialization, which is shown by the diversity of cultures across societies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture
Culture is nurture, what is nature [innate] underlying culture is the innate striving to know and learning program.

You got it wrong that ' "Must not kill other humans" is a civilised injunction.'
It is not any civilized injunction but an innate feature of all humans.
It is not something that is to be imposed but something that must be developed in the long run to unfold and allow to express itself spontaneously so that humans will be naturally be non-killers of humans.

Since "Must not kill other humans" is not something that is to be imposed, there will be inevitably human killings humans at present, but humanity must strive toward this moral ideal so that more and more humans will not have any inclinations to kill humans.
This striving has been going on for eons - this is why there is so much hoo hahs whenever there are killing of humans [note the recent Armenian Genocide recognition]. The success is low but it is nevertheless within a positive trend of relative reduction.
Whether our moral beliefs come from nature or nurture, or both, may be interesting. But their source has no bearing on their status.

For example, suppose programming not to kill humans is hard-baked into our brains - a 'nature' argument. That wouldn't make it a fact that killing humans is wrong. It wouldn't make morality objective. And nor would a universal social taboo against killing humans - a 'nurture' argument.

Moral objectivists are flies stuck inside the window pane.
As stated I am taking a break re morality.
Suggest you reflect more deeper philosophically on the above.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:47 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 6:48 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 5:18 am You got it wrong, there is no genetically program for 'culture'.
  • Culture (/ˈkʌltʃər/) is an umbrella term which encompasses the social behavior and norms found in human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups.[1]
    Humans acquire culture through the learning processes of enculturation and socialization, which is shown by the diversity of cultures across societies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture
Culture is nurture, what is nature [innate] underlying culture is the innate striving to know and learning program.

You got it wrong that ' "Must not kill other humans" is a civilised injunction.'
It is not any civilized injunction but an innate feature of all humans.
It is not something that is to be imposed but something that must be developed in the long run to unfold and allow to express itself spontaneously so that humans will be naturally be non-killers of humans.

Since "Must not kill other humans" is not something that is to be imposed, there will be inevitably human killings humans at present, but humanity must strive toward this moral ideal so that more and more humans will not have any inclinations to kill humans.
This striving has been going on for eons - this is why there is so much hoo hahs whenever there are killing of humans [note the recent Armenian Genocide recognition]. The success is low but it is nevertheless within a positive trend of relative reduction.
Whether our moral beliefs come from nature or nurture, or both, may be interesting. But their source has no bearing on their status.

For example, suppose programming not to kill humans is hard-baked into our brains - a 'nature' argument. That wouldn't make it a fact that killing humans is wrong. It wouldn't make morality objective. And nor would a universal social taboo against killing humans - a 'nurture' argument.

Moral objectivists are flies stuck inside the window pane.
As stated I am taking a break re morality.
Suggest you reflect more deeper philosophically on the above.
Fine. I suggest you have a really hard think about your argument.

An 'is' - a fact of any kind, including a fact about human nature - can never entail an 'ought' - a moral assertion about what should or ought to be the case. Your argument that there are 'oughts' that are themselves facts - for example, human neural programming not to kill humans - is fallacious.

There is no 'ought' in physical causation - no coherence to the claim that a cause ought to cause an effect. It just does or doesn't cause the effect.

I also suggest you have a really hard think about your epistemology - how you've painted yourself into a ridiculous corner - claiming that everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe exists only if and because humans exist - and how that supposedly helps the argument for moral objectivity.

Your empiricist skepticism - which Kant tried to reform but only recycled, and that Russell re-invigorated with his table - has rotted your understanding. Strip it all down and challenge every claim. The most plausible are often the most misleading.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:47 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 6:48 am

Whether our moral beliefs come from nature or nurture, or both, may be interesting. But their source has no bearing on their status.

For example, suppose programming not to kill humans is hard-baked into our brains - a 'nature' argument. That wouldn't make it a fact that killing humans is wrong. It wouldn't make morality objective. And nor would a universal social taboo against killing humans - a 'nurture' argument.

Moral objectivists are flies stuck inside the window pane.
As stated I am taking a break re morality.
Suggest you reflect more deeper philosophically on the above.
Fine. I suggest you have a really hard think about your argument.

An 'is' - a fact of any kind, including a fact about human nature - can never entail an 'ought' - a moral assertion about what should or ought to be the case. Your argument that there are 'oughts' that are themselves facts - for example, human neural programming not to kill humans - is fallacious.

There is no 'ought' in physical causation - no coherence to the claim that a cause ought to cause an effect. It just does or doesn't cause the effect.

I also suggest you have a really hard think about your epistemology - how you've painted yourself into a ridiculous corner - claiming that everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe exists only if and because humans exist - and how that supposedly helps the argument for moral objectivity.

Your empiricist skepticism - which Kant tried to reform but only recycled, and that Russell re-invigorated with his table - has rotted your understanding. Strip it all down and challenge every claim. The most plausible are often the most misleading.
I am not going to waste time.
Whatever the issue on morality you raised above is answered within this thread and others.

As for Russell's table [you condemned], I have raised as specific thread for you to deal with it, but you evaded it;
Russell: "Perhaps There is No Table At ALL?"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32814&start=30

I suggest you address the issue with Russell's table in the above thread instead of repeating the same over and over again without providing argument against it.

Russell claimed humans are only acquainted with sense-data from some supposedly-real-object.
The question is how can you know [not of absolute but with high certainty] the supposedly-real-external-object when there is an eternal reality gap?

Don't be a coward, address that thread.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
You got it wrong that ' "Must not kill other humans" is a civilised injunction.'
It is not any civilized injunction but an innate feature of all humans.
It is not something that is to be imposed but something that must be developed in the long run to unfold and allow to express itself spontaneously so that humans will be naturally be non-killers of humans.
"Must not kill other humans" ,insofar as it is definitive of human nature, is not aboslute but relative to whether or not the prevailing culture is tribal or universal. Absolute "Must not kill other humans" is impossible in this world of fear and suffering, and we must be content with relative "Must not kill other humans".

"Must not kill other humans" is a good ethic a civilised ethic however it is an ethic that for it to be acted upon needs constant, positive, and energetic action.It is an ethic that will never occur spontaneously and to think it can occur spontaneously is impossibly Romantic.
Post Reply