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: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:52 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:10 am
You are missing a lot of my premises.

I have stated many times, humans are programmed with the 'ought-not_ness' to kill humans and that is a biological and psychological reality represented by physical referents.
It is this same biological 'ought-not_ness' to kill humans that is duplicated within a moral FSK as a moral reality and thus used as a moral standard.
No, the biological programming (if it exists) is morally 'neutral'. So the 'oughtness' you refer to is purely mechanical. You're saying that we ought to conform to our programming, whatever that makes us do.

But adopting a moral standard or principle or value is a matter of choice, and is therefore subjective. Nothing forces us to adopt a standard.

So your argument is contradictory: morality is about doing what we're programmed to do; and morality is about choosing a moral standard.
Do you choose to breathe?
Humans are "programmed" with the oughtness to breathe.
Actually 'ought' is less intense modal verb, it is actually a 'must' or 'imperative' to breathe.

Similarly [not in exact intensity] humans are also "programmed" with the 'ought-not_ness to kill humans'.
Do you choose not to kill humans? or is it something natural and spontaneous that is sustained by some real organic machinery in your brain?
'Humans must breathe or they die; therefore humans ought to breathe.' That conclusion doesn't follow from that premise.

'Humans are programmed not to kill humans; therefore humans ought not to kill humans. That conclusion doesn't follow from that premise.

And anyway, your equation between the two premises is false. 'Not killing humans' isn't a physiological necessity like breathing.

At what point will the absurdity of your arguments embarrass you into abandoning them?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:52 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:04 am
No, the biological programming (if it exists) is morally 'neutral'. So the 'oughtness' you refer to is purely mechanical. You're saying that we ought to conform to our programming, whatever that makes us do.

But adopting a moral standard or principle or value is a matter of choice, and is therefore subjective. Nothing forces us to adopt a standard.

So your argument is contradictory: morality is about doing what we're programmed to do; and morality is about choosing a moral standard.
Do you choose to breathe?
Humans are "programmed" with the oughtness to breathe.
Actually 'ought' is less intense modal verb, it is actually a 'must' or 'imperative' to breathe.

Similarly [not in exact intensity] humans are also "programmed" with the 'ought-not_ness to kill humans'.
Do you choose not to kill humans? or is it something natural and spontaneous that is sustained by some real organic machinery in your brain?
'Humans must breathe or they die; therefore humans ought to breathe.' That conclusion doesn't follow from that premise.

'Humans are programmed not to kill humans; therefore humans ought not to kill humans. That conclusion doesn't follow from that premise.

And anyway, your equation between the two premises is false. 'Not killing humans' isn't a physiological necessity like breathing.

At what point will the absurdity of your arguments embarrass you into abandoning them?
We have gone tru this before.
You are really trapped and lost in your bastardized philosophies as influenced by the LPs and CAPs.

Note the meaning of ought; So as a human being one ought [is necessary, correct,] or rather must or imperatively need, to breathe.

It is the same with the moral ougth_ness, "no humans ought to kill humans" which is generated by real physical things which is biological and moral within the moral FSK.

Note you are merely arguing with bare abstracted 'facts' [generic bones] but not in terms of the reality [flesh, organs, minds and the living person within reality] which I had not fully presented.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:00 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:52 am
Do you choose to breathe?
Humans are "programmed" with the oughtness to breathe.
Actually 'ought' is less intense modal verb, it is actually a 'must' or 'imperative' to breathe.

Similarly [not in exact intensity] humans are also "programmed" with the 'ought-not_ness to kill humans'.
Do you choose not to kill humans? or is it something natural and spontaneous that is sustained by some real organic machinery in your brain?
'Humans must breathe or they die; therefore humans ought to breathe.' That conclusion doesn't follow from that premise.

'Humans are programmed not to kill humans; therefore humans ought not to kill humans. That conclusion doesn't follow from that premise.

And anyway, your equation between the two premises is false. 'Not killing humans' isn't a physiological necessity like breathing.

At what point will the absurdity of your arguments embarrass you into abandoning them?
We have gone tru this before.
You are really trapped and lost in your bastardized philosophies as influenced by the LPs and CAPs.

Note the meaning of ought; So as a human being one ought [is necessary, correct,] or rather must or imperatively need, to breathe.

It is the same with the moral ougth_ness, "no humans ought to kill humans" which is generated by real physical things which is biological and moral within the moral FSK.

Note you are merely arguing with bare abstracted 'facts' [generic bones] but not in terms of the reality [flesh, organs, minds and the living person within reality] which I had not fully presented.
You merely restate my point: the 'ought' of physical necessity is not the 'ought' of moral obligation.

So your equation of 'people ought to (must) breathe or they die' with 'people ought not to kill people' is false.

Do you think that repeating an idiocy in any way counters its exposure as an idiocy?
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 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:00 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:02 am
'Humans must breathe or they die; therefore humans ought to breathe.' That conclusion doesn't follow from that premise.

'Humans are programmed not to kill humans; therefore humans ought not to kill humans. That conclusion doesn't follow from that premise.

And anyway, your equation between the two premises is false. 'Not killing humans' isn't a physiological necessity like breathing.

At what point will the absurdity of your arguments embarrass you into abandoning them?
We have gone tru this before.
You are really trapped and lost in your bastardized philosophies as influenced by the LPs and CAPs.

Note the meaning of ought; So as a human being one ought [is necessary, correct,] or rather must or imperatively need, to breathe.

It is the same with the moral ougth_ness, "no humans ought to kill humans" which is generated by real physical things which is biological and moral within the moral FSK.

Note you are merely arguing with bare abstracted 'facts' [generic bones] but not in terms of the reality [flesh, organs, minds and the living person within reality] which I had not fully presented.
You merely restate my point: the 'ought' of physical necessity is not the 'ought' of moral obligation.

So your equation of 'people ought to (must) breathe or they die' with 'people ought not to kill people' is false.

Do you think that repeating an idiocy in any way counters its exposure as an idiocy?
And I've already explained to him that "ought" in the sense of a "prerequisite for x" or "precondition for x" doesn't work anyway, because while it's certainly the case that there are prerequisites or preconditions for consequent states to obtain, there's no objective prescription for a particular consequent state.

So "One ought to breathe if one is to remain alive" is true, with "ought" in the prerequisite sense, but equally true is "One ought NOT to breathe if one is to die of asphyxiation," as that's just as much the case as a prerequisite for a consequent state. The objective world couldn't care less if you live or die. So the objective world makes no prescriptions there. Only things with minds care about stuff like that.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:53 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:00 am
We have gone tru this before.
You are really trapped and lost in your bastardized philosophies as influenced by the LPs and CAPs.

Note the meaning of ought; So as a human being one ought [is necessary, correct,] or rather must or imperatively need, to breathe.

It is the same with the moral ougth_ness, "no humans ought to kill humans" which is generated by real physical things which is biological and moral within the moral FSK.

Note you are merely arguing with bare abstracted 'facts' [generic bones] but not in terms of the reality [flesh, organs, minds and the living person within reality] which I had not fully presented.
You merely restate my point: the 'ought' of physical necessity is not the 'ought' of moral obligation.

So your equation of 'people ought to (must) breathe or they die' with 'people ought not to kill people' is false.

Do you think that repeating an idiocy in any way counters its exposure as an idiocy?
And I've already explained to him that "ought" in the sense of a "prerequisite for x" or "precondition for x" doesn't work anyway, because while it's certainly the case that there are prerequisites or preconditions for consequent states to obtain, there's no objective prescription for a particular consequent state.

So "One ought to breathe if one is to remain alive" is true, with "ought" in the prerequisite sense, but equally true is "One ought NOT to breathe if one is to die of asphyxiation," as that's just as much the case as a prerequisite for a consequent state. The objective world couldn't care less if you live or die. So the objective world makes no prescriptions there. Only things with minds care about stuff like that.
Spot on. I wonder if this will nudge the penny off the edge. Pigs may fly.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:00 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:02 am
'Humans must breathe or they die; therefore humans ought to breathe.' That conclusion doesn't follow from that premise.

'Humans are programmed not to kill humans; therefore humans ought not to kill humans. That conclusion doesn't follow from that premise.

And anyway, your equation between the two premises is false. 'Not killing humans' isn't a physiological necessity like breathing.

At what point will the absurdity of your arguments embarrass you into abandoning them?
We have gone tru this before.
You are really trapped and lost in your bastardized philosophies as influenced by the LPs and CAPs.

Note the meaning of ought; So as a human being one ought [is necessary, correct,] or rather must or imperatively need, to breathe.

It is the same with the moral ougth_ness, "no humans ought to kill humans" which is generated by real physical things which is biological and moral within the moral FSK.

Note you are merely arguing with bare abstracted 'facts' [generic bones] but not in terms of the reality [flesh, organs, minds and the living person within reality] which I had not fully presented.
You merely restate my point: the 'ought' of physical necessity is not the 'ought' of moral obligation.

So your equation of 'people ought to (must) breathe or they die' with 'people ought not to kill people' is false.

Do you think that repeating an idiocy in any way counters its exposure as an idiocy?
You are merely making noises and is rhetorical again, so the idiocy is in you.

Note: Why do you change a moral oughtness [modal verb -ought] to moral obligation [modal verb - must] if not trying to deceive?

Also you are missing a lot of my other supporting arguments why that 'oughtness' i.e. inhibition, is related to morality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:53 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:00 am
We have gone tru this before.
You are really trapped and lost in your bastardized philosophies as influenced by the LPs and CAPs.

Note the meaning of ought; So as a human being one ought [is necessary, correct,] or rather must or imperatively need, to breathe.

It is the same with the moral ougth_ness, "no humans ought to kill humans" which is generated by real physical things which is biological and moral within the moral FSK.

Note you are merely arguing with bare abstracted 'facts' [generic bones] but not in terms of the reality [flesh, organs, minds and the living person within reality] which I had not fully presented.
You merely restate my point: the 'ought' of physical necessity is not the 'ought' of moral obligation.

So your equation of 'people ought to (must) breathe or they die' with 'people ought not to kill people' is false.

Do you think that repeating an idiocy in any way counters its exposure as an idiocy?
And I've already explained to him that "ought" in the sense of a "prerequisite for x" or "precondition for x" doesn't work anyway, because while it's certainly the case that there are prerequisites or preconditions for consequent states to obtain, there's no objective prescription for a particular consequent state.

So "One ought to breathe if one is to remain alive" is true, with "ought" in the prerequisite sense, but equally true is "One ought NOT to breathe if one is to die of asphyxiation," as that's just as much the case as a prerequisite for a consequent state.
The objective world couldn't care less if you live or die.
So the objective world makes no prescriptions there.
Only things with minds care about stuff like that.
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.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:44 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:53 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:34 am

You merely restate my point: the 'ought' of physical necessity is not the 'ought' of moral obligation.

So your equation of 'people ought to (must) breathe or they die' with 'people ought not to kill people' is false.

Do you think that repeating an idiocy in any way counters its exposure as an idiocy?
And I've already explained to him that "ought" in the sense of a "prerequisite for x" or "precondition for x" doesn't work anyway, because while it's certainly the case that there are prerequisites or preconditions for consequent states to obtain, there's no objective prescription for a particular consequent state.

So "One ought to breathe if one is to remain alive" is true, with "ought" in the prerequisite sense, but equally true is "One ought NOT to breathe if one is to die of asphyxiation," as that's just as much the case as a prerequisite for a consequent state.
The objective world couldn't care less if you live or die.
So the objective world makes no prescriptions there.
Only things with minds care about stuff like that.
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 there's no physical reality independent from human beings. But there's a real physical moral oughtness in human brains. Sorted.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:44 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:53 pm

And I've already explained to him that "ought" in the sense of a "prerequisite for x" or "precondition for x" doesn't work anyway, because while it's certainly the case that there are prerequisites or preconditions for consequent states to obtain, there's no objective prescription for a particular consequent state.

So "One ought to breathe if one is to remain alive" is true, with "ought" in the prerequisite sense, but equally true is "One ought NOT to breathe if one is to die of asphyxiation," as that's just as much the case as a prerequisite for a consequent state.
The objective world couldn't care less if you live or die.
So the objective world makes no prescriptions there.
Only things with minds care about stuff like that.
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 there's no physical reality independent from human beings. But there's a real physical moral oughtness in human brains. Sorted.
Kerching!
Next, please!
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: Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:44 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:53 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:34 am

You merely restate my point: the 'ought' of physical necessity is not the 'ought' of moral obligation.

So your equation of 'people ought to (must) breathe or they die' with 'people ought not to kill people' is false.

Do you think that repeating an idiocy in any way counters its exposure as an idiocy?
And I've already explained to him that "ought" in the sense of a "prerequisite for x" or "precondition for x" doesn't work anyway, because while it's certainly the case that there are prerequisites or preconditions for consequent states to obtain, there's no objective prescription for a particular consequent state.

So "One ought to breathe if one is to remain alive" is true, with "ought" in the prerequisite sense, but equally true is "One ought NOT to breathe if one is to die of asphyxiation," as that's just as much the case as a prerequisite for a consequent state.
The objective world couldn't care less if you live or die.
So the objective world makes no prescriptions there.
Only things with minds care about stuff like that.
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.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

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.)
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:44 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:53 pm

And I've already explained to him that "ought" in the sense of a "prerequisite for x" or "precondition for x" doesn't work anyway, because while it's certainly the case that there are prerequisites or preconditions for consequent states to obtain, there's no objective prescription for a particular consequent state.

So "One ought to breathe if one is to remain alive" is true, with "ought" in the prerequisite sense, but equally true is "One ought NOT to breathe if one is to die of asphyxiation," as that's just as much the case as a prerequisite for a consequent state.
The objective world couldn't care less if you live or die.
So the objective world makes no prescriptions there.
Only things with minds care about stuff like that.
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'.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:44 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:53 pm

And I've already explained to him that "ought" in the sense of a "prerequisite for x" or "precondition for x" doesn't work anyway, because while it's certainly the case that there are prerequisites or preconditions for consequent states to obtain, there's no objective prescription for a particular consequent state.

So "One ought to breathe if one is to remain alive" is true, with "ought" in the prerequisite sense, but equally true is "One ought NOT to breathe if one is to die of asphyxiation," as that's just as much the case as a prerequisite for a consequent state.
The objective world couldn't care less if you live or die.
So the objective world makes no prescriptions there.
Only things with minds care about stuff like that.
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 there's no physical reality independent from human beings. But there's a real physical moral oughtness in human brains. Sorted.
What are you babbling about?
There is no physical reality independent of the human conditions.
There is real moral oughtness in the human brain that is not independent of the human conditions.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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.
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: Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:23 am 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'.
Your objective with all of this is to publish one day, no?

You're going to run into some problems if you present a theory that everybody with unconventional sexual desires is a robot with faulty firmware.

And the implicit assumption that morality, properly defined, is all about preservation of the species is easily diverted into 'race realism'. So good luck with that small audience of nazis that you will be your only readers.
Post Reply