What could make morality objective?

[henry quirk]

Reason-blind: the bulk of you, yes

moronic: the bulk of you, yes

And dangerous: you are, yes

[Atla]

1 What you're saying is that what humans are programmed to do is morally right, and what we're programmed not to do is morally wrong. For example, if we're programmed to kill human outsiders - as we have done for much of human history - then killing human outsiders is morally right. So that's what your argument for moral objectivity amounts to.

What's more, I'm fairly sure that revenge killing is a programmed instinct for most humans. X kills someone they love, they kill X in return.
Also, rape is also definitely morally right, for many people, because they are programmed with it.

Oh wait, it gets even funnier than that, if we interview Sigmund Freud on the issue. He says children are programmed with a sexual desire towards the opposite-sex parent. Therefore it's a fact that it's morally right to..

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope!
Point is whatever ALL humans are "programmed" with will depend on context.
Where the "program" is "ought-not-to" e.g. kill humans, then killing humans would be morally wrong.
Where the "program" is "ought-to" e.g. co-operate with others, then non-cooperation would be morally wrong.

Morally and DNA-wise ALL [universally] humans are "programmed" with the ought_ness of ougth-not-to kill humans which is overriding. [note 'overriding']
However humans are also programmed with 'to kill' [non-humans] for food to survive but this 'killing for food' is not overriding since humans can obtain food without killing non-humans.

It is a fact of human nature, i.e. no humans are "programmed" to kill humans. If that is not an inherent nature, we would not have 7 billion humans on Earth and present. Humans would have been extinct long ago if humans were universally programmed to kill humans.

Because humans are endowed with the ability to kill non-humans for food, SOME humans will abuse that ability "to kill no human" in killing other humans for various reasons. But note this sort of "killing" is not overriding, thus the overriding 'ought-not-to-kill-human' force will kick in to modulate the killings.

The above is evident by the facts of history where the incidents of 'killing other humans' is much less than 'humans not killing humans' due to the inherent 'ought-not-to kill human' impulse.
Surely you cannot dispute this?
In addition, throughout human history, the trend as driven by the 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' inhibitions is progressing with less wars and the attention to reduce various types of killings of humans.

So the killing of humans which has happened and will happen is never morally right since it is against the overriding moral fact of 'ought-not-to-kill-humans'.

What is objective is the moral fact, 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' is verifiable, falsifiable and justifiable within a Moral FSK which is independent of any individual's opinion and beliefs, thus qualify to be objective.

Nope. The only thing that is empirically verifiable or falsifiable is whether we're programmed not to kill humans. And that may be the case. But the moral judgement as to whether killing humans is right or wrong is a separate issue. And what makes that clear is that, if we were programmed to kill humans, that fact would not mean that killing humans is morally right. But that's precisely the conclusion of your argument.

If it's a fact that killing humans is morally wrong, then our programming - and facts about our history - are completely irrelevant. Your argument destroys itself in contradiction.

I believe you totally missed my points.

My focus is not on the moral judgment whether killing humans is right or wrong by individuals or groups.
Individuals and groups can argue the above till the cows come home, but that do not have any impact on the inherent moral fact within human nature that,
"ALL humans ought not to kill humans"
which is represent by a neural algorithm,
which is verifiable, justifiable, falsifiable, testable and repeatable.

The fact "all humans ought not to kill humans" is a physical, biological, psychological, neurological fact within their respective FSK.
When the above fact is considered within a Moral FSK with other elements, then we have the emergence of a Moral Fact.

The above moral fact is independent of the subjective moral judgments whether killing human is moral right or wrong.

However if any human were to kill humans, then there is the moral judgment that that act is morally wrong against the moral fact as a the moral standard.
Note a moral judgment is confined within an individual only.
This is why there is the psychological fact of the conscience which is also another moral fact.

Any 'moral' judgment imposed by groups are pseudo-morality, e.g. theistic morality or other sorts of 'morality', e.g. social, custom, tribal, gangs, etc.

The 'ought-not-kill-humans' [fact] is intuited [not justified fully] and established as wrong within politics, but that is criminally wrong within the legal-politico FSK.

So, where is the contradiction in this case?

[Veritas Aequitas]

"We are programmed----". wrote Peter. What or who programmed?

If somebody or something programmed you ought you to resist this indoctrination at least until you reflect?

I always used " " i.e. "programmed" but Peter lazily omitted the " ".

There is no programmer in terms of an agent.
Humans has loads of "program" within themselves via evolution.
A simple program code is like,
"if X then do Y."

Examples,
if low on nutrition, then trigger hunger,
if hungry, then hunt for food,
if cold, then trigger shivering
there would likely be 100 of thousands maybe in millions of 'if- then' codes either singularly or in combinations.

Surely you are not disputing the above and as such the term "programmed" in " " is very appropriate because the "program" is already embedded in humans since millions years ago.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This topic drones on and on.
The same arguments are recycled.
The answer is simple enough.

The only way you can make morality objective is to demand a set of strict criteria. Since it is not possible to create any criteria that are not hopelessly personally, culturally and historically SUBJECTIVE, we would be forced to create an "objective" moral system which is static, unpresponsive and culturally and historically biased. Such a scheme would soon become hopelessly out of date.

There is a very good reason why morals differ from country to country, and through history. So-called "objective" moral systems are common enough, they are called the law.
Times change, people change and morals have had to change - sometimes clinging with fingernails to the past and ruining the lives of millions, until the law finally gets changed and people can breath again until the next moral fascist wants to impose their morality onto others.

Can anyone tell me what the objective of morality is? Since there seems no clear answer to that question which is time proof, the prospect of trying to create an objectively moral framework can only result in the desolation and suffering of millions

I believe you are ignorant of what is morality-proper and moral realism.

I have justified there are moral facts within a Moral FSK.
As I had emphasized above, morality-proper is confined to the individual's activation, unfoldment and development of his the moral potential inherent inherent within the individual.
Morality-proper is not associated with groups, cultures, tribes, etc.

The moral fact as justified is merely a standard to guide the individual's personal moral development which the individual can only do within himself with assistance from society.

If 'normal' every individual on Earth gradually increase his moral competency to as close as possible to the moral standard 'no killing of humans' isn't this a very positive state for humanity?

[Veritas Aequitas]

This topic drones on and on.
The same arguments are recycled.
The answer is simple enough.

The only way you can make morality objective is to demand a set of strict criteria. Since it is not possible to create any criteria that are not hopelessly personally, culturally and historically SUBJECTIVE, we would be forced to create an "objective" moral system which is static, unpresponsive and culturally and historically biased. Such a scheme would soon become hopelessly out of date.

There is a very good reason why morals differ from country to country, and through history. So-called "objective" moral systems are common enough, they are called the law.
Times change, people change and morals have had to change - sometimes clinging with fingernails to the past and ruining the lives of millions, until the law finally gets changed and people can breath again until the next moral fascist wants to impose their morality onto others.

Can anyone tell me what the objective of morality is? Since there seems no clear answer to that question which is time proof, the prospect of trying to create an objectively moral framework can only result in the desolation and suffering of millions

Sorry. This business of showing moral objectivists why they're wrong has a lurid fascination for me. VA is obviously a special case, but they're all strangely addicted to - and dazzled by - the idea that there are moral facts which, unsurprisingly, happen to be their own moral opinions made manifest. I feel that ignoring them and their delusion would be like ignoring Nazis and US Republicans. They're just too dangerous.

How come you are SO stupid and missed the glaring facts I stated. You are just like the US 'Left' who ignore truths and rationality.

My point is there are moral facts inherent within the human system, e.g.
'no human ought to kill humans'
which is to be recognized as a moral standard by ALL human individuals.
If any human were kill humans that would be morally wrong within their own conscience thus corrective actions are necessary by the individuals.

How can what I proposed, i.e. to prevent killing of human to ZERO can be dangerous.

On the other hand your counter to mine, i.e. your moral standard,
'humans ought to kill humans' or 'human can kill humans'
obviously leaves room for genocides like that of the Nazis and ANTIFA of the US Left.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This business of showing moral objectivists why they're wrong has a lurid fascination for me...they're all strangely addicted to - and dazzled by - the idea that there are moral facts

you're luridly fascinated; we're addicted and dazzled

we all got our crosses to bear


They're just too dangerous.

that's what we say about you anti-realists

To be specific it is anti-moral-realists.
Anti-realists in other philosophical perspectives and contexts are not dangerous.

In your case as a moral realist within moral intuitionism, you accept the moral fact and standard , i.e. "no human ought to enslave humans" [re chattel slavery].

On the other hand, Peter Holmes and Sculptor stand are,
"humans can enslave humans"

Now we can see who are the ones who are a danger to humanity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sorry. This business of showing moral objectivists why they're wrong has a lurid fascination for me. VA is obviously a special case, but they're all strangely addicted to - and dazzled by - the idea that there are moral facts which, unsurprisingly, happen to be their own moral opinions made manifest. I feel that ignoring them and their delusion would be like ignoring Nazis and US Republicans. They're just too dangerous.

Yes like the black beasts of the church, they will end up giving themselves license to burn people at the stake, on purely, objective and unavoidably "true" grounds.

How come you are SO stupid?

What I recognized is the moral fact inherent within all humans,
"no human ought to kill humans"
an advocated this as a standard for all individuals to strive for via self-development of their moral competence.

How can the above recommendations end up giving license to burn [kill] people at the stake.

On the other hand your relative moral standard will motivate SOME will prone to kill people on the stake.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 What you're saying is that what humans are programmed to do is morally right, and what we're programmed not to do is morally wrong. For example, if we're programmed to kill human outsiders - as we have done for much of human history - then killing human outsiders is morally right. So that's what your argument for moral objectivity amounts to.

What's more, I'm fairly sure that revenge killing is a programmed instinct for most humans. X kills someone they love, they kill X in return.
Also, rape is also definitely morally right, for many people, because they are programmed with it.

Oh wait, it gets even funnier than that, if we interview Sigmund Freud on the issue. He says children are programmed with a sexual desire towards the opposite-sex parent. Therefore it's a fact that it's morally right to..

Stupid!

Read my response to the above;
viewtopic.php?p=480735#p480735

Is Sigmund Freud your grandfather?
such that you are blindly agreeing to whatever he hypothesized.

[Atla]

Stupid!

Read my response to the above;
viewtopic.php?p=480735#p480735

Is Sigmund Freud your grandfather?
such that you are blindly agreeing to whatever he hypothesized.

We are still here because humans are tribal and typically didn't kill their own, the need to survive together was overriding. They often killed humans from other tribes however, because the struggle for resources was overriding. And they usually did revenge killing too, because the need for justice, or the need to kill a dangerous murderer, was overriding. Even today many countries have the death sentence, a lawful form of revenge killing.

You have to feign a total ignorance about history and human nature, to make your evil system of morality work, huh?

I also didn't say whether or not I agree with Freud btw, retard. But let's say he's right, so maybe according to you, we should help children make sexual advances towards their opposite-sex parent. And maybe we should teach parents to be more open to pedophilia.

[Peter Holmes]

Nope!
Point is whatever ALL humans are "programmed" with will depend on context.
Where the "program" is "ought-not-to" e.g. kill humans, then killing humans would be morally wrong.
Where the "program" is "ought-to" e.g. co-operate with others, then non-cooperation would be morally wrong.

Morally and DNA-wise ALL [universally] humans are "programmed" with the ought_ness of ougth-not-to kill humans which is overriding. [note 'overriding']
However humans are also programmed with 'to kill' [non-humans] for food to survive but this 'killing for food' is not overriding since humans can obtain food without killing non-humans.

It is a fact of human nature, i.e. no humans are "programmed" to kill humans. If that is not an inherent nature, we would not have 7 billion humans on Earth and present. Humans would have been extinct long ago if humans were universally programmed to kill humans.

Because humans are endowed with the ability to kill non-humans for food, SOME humans will abuse that ability "to kill no human" in killing other humans for various reasons. But note this sort of "killing" is not overriding, thus the overriding 'ought-not-to-kill-human' force will kick in to modulate the killings.

The above is evident by the facts of history where the incidents of 'killing other humans' is much less than 'humans not killing humans' due to the inherent 'ought-not-to kill human' impulse.
Surely you cannot dispute this?
In addition, throughout human history, the trend as driven by the 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' inhibitions is progressing with less wars and the attention to reduce various types of killings of humans.

So the killing of humans which has happened and will happen is never morally right since it is against the overriding moral fact of 'ought-not-to-kill-humans'.

What is objective is the moral fact, 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' is verifiable, falsifiable and justifiable within a Moral FSK which is independent of any individual's opinion and beliefs, thus qualify to be objective.

Nope. The only thing that is empirically verifiable or falsifiable is whether we're programmed not to kill humans. And that may be the case. But the moral judgement as to whether killing humans is right or wrong is a separate issue. And what makes that clear is that, if we were programmed to kill humans, that fact would not mean that killing humans is morally right. But that's precisely the conclusion of your argument.

If it's a fact that killing humans is morally wrong, then our programming - and facts about our history - are completely irrelevant. Your argument destroys itself in contradiction.

I believe you totally missed my points.

My focus is not on the moral judgment whether killing humans is right or wrong by individuals or groups.
Individuals and groups can argue the above till the cows come home, but that do not have any impact on the inherent moral fact within human nature that,
"ALL humans ought not to kill humans"
which is represent by a neural algorithm,
which is verifiable, justifiable, falsifiable, testable and repeatable.

The fact "all humans ought not to kill humans" is a physical, biological, psychological, neurological fact within their respective FSK.
When the above fact is considered within a Moral FSK with other elements, then we have the emergence of a Moral Fact.

The above moral fact is independent of the subjective moral judgments whether killing human is moral right or wrong.

This is incoherent. Morality deals with judgements about the propriety of behaviour: is an action 'proper' or 'improper'? Moral 'rightness' is deemed proper, and moral 'wrongness' is deemed improper. Your claim that what you call a moral fact, such as 'no human ought to kill another' is not a matter of moral judgement makes no sense. Why ought no human to kill another? Because it's improper to do so? And why is it improper to do so? There is no moral fact at the bottom of - and independent from - a moral judgement.

And, how ever often you repeat it, the programming claim - that 'ought not to kill' is part of our nature - does not mean that 'no human ought to kill another' is a moral fact. If we're so programmed by our neurology, all that means is that we're programmed not to kill. That would be the only fact of the matter. And it has no moral implication. Just as, if we were programmed to kill, that wouldn't mean killing is morally right. Moral judgements about human behaviour are different from - and not determined by - facts about human nature.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe you totally missed my points.

My focus is not on the moral judgment whether killing humans is right or wrong by individuals or groups.
Individuals and groups can argue the above till the cows come home, but that do not have any impact on the inherent moral fact within human nature that,
"ALL humans ought not to kill humans"
which is represent by a neural algorithm,
which is verifiable, justifiable, falsifiable, testable and repeatable.

The fact "all humans ought not to kill humans" is a physical, biological, psychological, neurological fact within their respective FSK.
When the above fact is considered within a Moral FSK with other elements, then we have the emergence of a Moral Fact.

The above moral fact is independent of the subjective moral judgments whether killing human is moral right or wrong.

This is incoherent. Morality deals with judgements about the propriety of behaviour: is an action 'proper' or 'improper'? Moral 'rightness' is deemed proper, and moral 'wrongness' is deemed improper. Your claim that what you call a moral fact, such as 'no human ought to kill another' is not a matter of moral judgement makes no sense. Why ought no human to kill another? Because it's improper to do so? And why is it improper to do so? There is no moral fact at the bottom of - and independent from - a moral judgement.

And, how ever often you repeat it, the programming claim - that 'ought not to kill' is part of our nature - does not mean that 'no human ought to kill another' is a moral fact. If we're so programmed by our neurology, all that means is that we're programmed not to kill. That would be the only fact of the matter. And it has no moral implication. Just as, if we were programmed to kill, that wouldn't mean killing is morally right. Moral judgements about human behaviour are different from - and not determined by - facts about human nature.

Nope, morality is not PRIMARILY about judgment regarding the right or wrong of human behavior.

Morality is about how human ought to act which will contribute to the objectives of the well being of the individuals and that of humanity.

As such how one ought to act must be in alignment with "what in fact" ought to be acted upon to meet the above objectives.
The determination of "what in fact" is recognized and realized within a Moral Framework and System.
In the deeper sense cognition is based on judgment but this is not moral judgment by rather epistemological and natural judgment.

Your claim that what you call a moral fact, such as 'no human ought to kill another' is not a matter of moral judgement makes no sense.

Moral judgment only arises when one make a decision to act in relation to some moral elements and whilst disputing certain moral standards.
You may insist as a moral judgment "humans can kill humans" is morally right, but I insist it is morally wrong and not a moral fact.
I will then proceed to verified and justified 'ought-not-to-kill humans' is a fact, i.e. a moral fact within a Moral Framework.
[Note in Philosophy such a process is also a form of 'judgment' but it is not a moral judgement per se.]

Therefore 'no human ought to kill another' is not a moral judgment, but a confirmation that it is a moral fact which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. This is not a process of moral judgment.

What you referred to as moral judgments are individual opinions and beliefs on moral matters and they are independent of the justified true moral facts qualified to a moral framework.

Moral judgements about human behaviour are different from - and not determined by - facts about human nature.

Rather,
"Moral judgements about human behaviour are different from - and not determined by - moral facts of human nature."

The moral fact exists within a moral framework which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable.

Morality is thus about how humans naturally ought to act in alignment with the ought-not-to or ought-to of these inherent moral facts.

Take for example the moral fact within the moral framework,
'no human should enslave humans' [say chattel].
this is a natural moral fact within the human DNA, brain/mind and the whole human psyche.

Humans can made all sorts of moral judgments and moral disputes surrounding the issue of slavery.
But the intrinsic inherent moral fact [state of ought-not-to] will unfold its potential as it has been doing over >50,000 or more regardless of what humans' moral judgment about slavery.
Note the trend of evident progress in slavery over the last 50,000 years within humanity.

The processes of verification, justification, testing, repeating the tests empirically and philosophically are merely to recognize and realize the existence of the intrinsic moral fact of human nature for the related knowledge and potential to expedite the processes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Stupid!

Read my response to the above;
viewtopic.php?p=480735#p480735

Is Sigmund Freud your grandfather?
such that you are blindly agreeing to whatever he hypothesized.

We are still here because humans are tribal and typically didn't kill their own, the need to survive together was overriding. They often killed humans from other tribes however, because the struggle for resources was overriding. And they usually did revenge killing too, because the need for justice, or the need to kill a dangerous murderer, was overriding. Even today many countries have the death sentence, a lawful form of revenge killing.

We are still here because the core 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' is overriding over the exceptional cases of human being killed.

You have to feign a total ignorance about history and human nature, to make your evil system of morality work, huh?

You are blatantly stupid.
You are philosophically bankrupt and lack intellectual integrity and honesty.
As usual you make accusations without justifications.
How can my moral system be evil when I keep insisting there are moral fact of good which all humans must strive for.

I also didn't say whether or not I agree with Freud btw, retard. But let's say he's right, so maybe according to you, we should help children make sexual advances towards their opposite-sex parent. And maybe we should teach parents to be more open to pedophilia.

There goes your big IF, LET's SAY, MAYBE.
Maybe you apply the IF, LET's SAY, MAYBE to yourself to permit you to have sex with parents and children.

Are you aware of this biological and moral fact which is overriding;

Inbreeding avoidance, or the inbreeding avoidance hypothesis, is a concept in evolutionary biology that refers to the prevention of the deleterious effects of inbreeding. The inbreeding avoidance hypothesis posits that certain mechanisms develop within a species, or within a given population of a species, as a result of assortative mating, natural and sexual selection in order to prevent breeding among related individuals in that species or population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance

Yours are stupid counters, suggest you don't respond to my posts.

[Peter Holmes]

I believe you totally missed my points.

My focus is not on the moral judgment whether killing humans is right or wrong by individuals or groups.
Individuals and groups can argue the above till the cows come home, but that do not have any impact on the inherent moral fact within human nature that,
"ALL humans ought not to kill humans"
which is represent by a neural algorithm,
which is verifiable, justifiable, falsifiable, testable and repeatable.

The fact "all humans ought not to kill humans" is a physical, biological, psychological, neurological fact within their respective FSK.
When the above fact is considered within a Moral FSK with other elements, then we have the emergence of a Moral Fact.

The above moral fact is independent of the subjective moral judgments whether killing human is moral right or wrong.

This is incoherent. Morality deals with judgements about the propriety of behaviour: is an action 'proper' or 'improper'? Moral 'rightness' is deemed proper, and moral 'wrongness' is deemed improper. Your claim that what you call a moral fact, such as 'no human ought to kill another' is not a matter of moral judgement makes no sense. Why ought no human to kill another? Because it's improper to do so? And why is it improper to do so? There is no moral fact at the bottom of - and independent from - a moral judgement.

And, how ever often you repeat it, the programming claim - that 'ought not to kill' is part of our nature - does not mean that 'no human ought to kill another' is a moral fact. If we're so programmed by our neurology, all that means is that we're programmed not to kill. That would be the only fact of the matter. And it has no moral implication. Just as, if we were programmed to kill, that wouldn't mean killing is morally right. Moral judgements about human behaviour are different from - and not determined by - facts about human nature.

Nope, morality is not PRIMARILY about judgment regarding the right or wrong of human behavior.

Morality is about how human ought to act which will contribute to the objectives of the well being of the individuals and that of humanity.

As such how one ought to act must be in alignment with "what in fact" ought to be acted upon to meet the above objectives.
The determination of "what in fact" is recognized and realized within a Moral Framework and System.
In the deeper sense cognition is based on judgment but this is not moral judgment by rather epistemological and natural judgment.

Your claim that what you call a moral fact, such as 'no human ought to kill another' is not a matter of moral judgement makes no sense.

Moral judgment only arises when one make a decision to act in relation to some moral elements and whilst disputing certain moral standards.
You may insist as a moral judgment "humans can kill humans" is morally right, but I insist it is morally wrong and not a moral fact.
I will then proceed to verified and justified 'ought-not-to-kill humans' is a fact, i.e. a moral fact within a Moral Framework.
[Note in Philosophy such a process is also a form of 'judgment' but it is not a moral judgement per se.]

Therefore 'no human ought to kill another' is not a moral judgment, but a confirmation that it is a moral fact which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. This is not a process of moral judgment.

What you referred to as moral judgments are individual opinions and beliefs on moral matters and they are independent of the justified true moral facts qualified to a moral framework.

Moral judgements about human behaviour are different from - and not determined by - facts about human nature.

Rather,
"Moral judgements about human behaviour are different from - and not determined by - moral facts of human nature."

The moral fact exists within a moral framework which is verifiable, justifiable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable.

Morality is thus about how humans naturally ought to act in alignment with the ought-not-to or ought-to of these inherent moral facts.

Take for example the moral fact within the moral framework,
'no human should enslave humans' [say chattel].
this is a natural moral fact within the human DNA, brain/mind and the whole human psyche.

Humans can made all sorts of moral judgments and moral disputes surrounding the issue of slavery.
But the intrinsic inherent moral fact [state of ought-not-to] will unfold its potential as it has been doing over >50,000 or more regardless of what humans' moral judgment about slavery.
Note the trend of evident progress in slavery over the last 50,000 years within humanity.

The processes of verification, justification, testing, repeating the tests empirically and philosophically are merely to recognize and realize the existence of the intrinsic moral fact of human nature for the related knowledge and potential to expedite the processes.

1 The choice of goal - say, well-being - is subjective. It's not a fact that we should pursue well-being.

2 What ultimately constitutes well-being is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective.

3 That an action is consistent with a goal can be a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective.

4 That a moral assertion is consistent with a goal does not confer factual status on the moral assertion.

I hope that's all from me. Enough said. More than.

[Atla]

We are still here because the core 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' is overriding over the exceptional cases of human being killed.

Tribes killing each other was more the rule than the exception. We are here because the planet is big enough for many tribes.
You fucking idiot. You can't base morality solely on what's programmed into us.

You are blatantly stupid.
You are philosophically bankrupt and lack intellectual integrity and honesty.
As usual you make accusations without justifications.
How can my moral system be evil when I keep insisting there are moral fact of good which all humans must strive for.

You are evil subhuman scum, always been. That's the whole point, moral objectivism is evil. We can only build good systems of morality if we acknowledge the truth that there are no objective moral facts. So the burden is on us to create the best moral systems we can.

There goes your big IF, LET's SAY, MAYBE.
Maybe you apply the IF, LET's SAY, MAYBE to yourself to permit you to have sex with parents and children.

Are you aware of this biological and moral fact which is overriding;
Inbreeding avoidance, or the inbreeding avoidance hypothesis, is a concept in evolutionary biology that refers to the prevention of the deleterious effects of inbreeding. The inbreeding avoidance hypothesis posits that certain mechanisms develop within a species, or within a given population of a species, as a result of assortative mating, natural and sexual selection in order to prevent breeding among related individuals in that species or population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance
Yours are stupid counters, suggest you don't respond to my posts.

You stupid idiot don't even know that young children can't breed. And there are other ways to fulfill sexual desires too.