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

User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:20 am What I have done is to trace morality to the physical neurons in the brain and body representing the moral potentials of 'ought-not-ness' or 'ought-ness' not merely arbitrary 'ought' without any verifiable and justifiable grounds.
Another game over quote.

You played a shell game where you substituted the thing you wanted to do but cannot, with any old shit you cold do instead and called it the first thing.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:01 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:20 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 11:06 am Unable to produce even one example of a so-called moral fact, some objectivists and realists - VA included - try the get-out of moving the goal posts. And this can be called the goal-consistency argument. Here's how it goes.

In the expression 'if we want to drive safely, we ought not to jump the lights' - the word 'ought' has no moral significance. The conclusion has nothing to do with the moral rightness or wrongness of jumping the lights. It just states a fact about consistency with a goal.

Now, the moral goal-consistency argument is that the words 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'bad', 'ought' and 'should', used in moral assertions, are merely factual or instrumental, asserting an objectively measurable consistency with a goal, such as promoting well-being or happiness, and so on. And in this way, morality is or can be objective.

But notice the sleight-of-hand: morality is objective, as long as we're no longer talking about morality - the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. The get-out is a blind alley. And VA's go-to example demonstrates the fallacy:

Factual premise: mirror neurons programme us with (the potential for) empathy; so that we're programmed with 'ought-not-to-kill-humans'.
Conclusion: we ought not to kill humans.

VA calls this a moral fact, derived from a physical fact. But he denies that the 'ought' in the conclusion is about the moral wrongness of killing humans. And this is equivocation on the words 'ought' and 'moral'.

As always, VA either won't understand or will ignore this refutation. But I hope others will understand it - and please come back with rebuttals if you think I'm getting this (non-morally) wrong.
Note there are tons of perspectives, views, theories, etc. to "what is morality" throughout the history of mankind in the discussion of morality.

Point is there is an essence to 'morality' else humans would not have continue and persist to discuss the topic so actively, note the highly contentious issues of abortion, slavery, religious evil and violence, etc.

There are many who ignore the term 'rightness' and 'wrongness' in relation to morality as that would lead to "one's man meat is another man's poison".
This is so subjective that no side will accept their 'ought' of 'right' is 'wrong' and vice versa, so they continue to kill and commit all sorts of evil acts which is so evident.

What I have done is to trace morality to the physical neurons in the brain and body representing the moral potentials of 'ought-not-ness' or 'ought-ness' not merely arbitrary 'ought' without any verifiable and justifiable grounds.

Analogously, there is the neural potential of 'ought-ness' to breathe and drive one to breathe regardless of his opinion and beliefs, which in this case is a biological fact.
Similarly we have physical moral potentials of moral related oughtness and ought-not-ness as moral facts within a moral FSK.

Btw, I don't expect you in your ignorance and dogmatism to accept the above but merely to recognize there are counters [with evidence and sound arguments] to your views.
As usual, you ignore the point: if 'ought' has no moral meaning, then the assertion containing it isn't a moral assertion at all.

Premise: Humans must breathe or they die.

Conclusion: Therefore, humans ought to breathe.

Question: Does this mean that it's morally wrong not to breathe? If not, why 'ought' humans to breathe? What is the meaning of the word 'ought' in the conclusion?

Blather about 'processing through a credible moral FSK' explains absolutely nothing. It's just whistling in the dark.
The impulse of empathy via the mirror neurons entails the potential of "ought-not-ness to kill humans" or do harm to other humans, which is represented by a physical fact and that is a subject within morality. [1]

It is evident this "ought-not-ness to kill humans" potential is reasonably active [as an inhibitor] in the majority where they do not arbitrarily kill anyone on sight.
With the Human Connectome Project [you are ignorant of] humanity will in the FUTURE [very possible] be able to identify the specific neural correlates and develop this neural inhibitor to be more effective in the majority or in all normal persons to the extent their inherent primal impulse to kill humans is effectively inhibited.

There are more to the above which you are ignorant of and it is pitiful you are so arrogant with your ignorance.

Do you even understand how the scientific FSK is established which comprised a complex set of principles, conditions, beliefs, assumptions, methods, processes, peer reviews, etc.

The moral FSK is established like that of the scientific FSK.
Thus when the scientific fact [1] is input within the establish moral FSK, it enable the emergence of a moral fact just like how a scientific fact emerge from a scientific FSK.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:32 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:01 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 5:20 am
Note there are tons of perspectives, views, theories, etc. to "what is morality" throughout the history of mankind in the discussion of morality.

Point is there is an essence to 'morality' else humans would not have continue and persist to discuss the topic so actively, note the highly contentious issues of abortion, slavery, religious evil and violence, etc.

There are many who ignore the term 'rightness' and 'wrongness' in relation to morality as that would lead to "one's man meat is another man's poison".
This is so subjective that no side will accept their 'ought' of 'right' is 'wrong' and vice versa, so they continue to kill and commit all sorts of evil acts which is so evident.

What I have done is to trace morality to the physical neurons in the brain and body representing the moral potentials of 'ought-not-ness' or 'ought-ness' not merely arbitrary 'ought' without any verifiable and justifiable grounds.

Analogously, there is the neural potential of 'ought-ness' to breathe and drive one to breathe regardless of his opinion and beliefs, which in this case is a biological fact.
Similarly we have physical moral potentials of moral related oughtness and ought-not-ness as moral facts within a moral FSK.

Btw, I don't expect you in your ignorance and dogmatism to accept the above but merely to recognize there are counters [with evidence and sound arguments] to your views.
As usual, you ignore the point: if 'ought' has no moral meaning, then the assertion containing it isn't a moral assertion at all.

Premise: Humans must breathe or they die.

Conclusion: Therefore, humans ought to breathe.

Question: Does this mean that it's morally wrong not to breathe? If not, why 'ought' humans to breathe? What is the meaning of the word 'ought' in the conclusion?

Blather about 'processing through a credible moral FSK' explains absolutely nothing. It's just whistling in the dark.
The impulse of empathy via the mirror neurons entails the potential of "ought-not-ness to kill humans" or do harm to other humans, which is represented by a physical fact and that is a subject within morality. [1]

It is evident this "ought-not-ness to kill humans" potential is reasonably active [as an inhibitor] in the majority where they do not arbitrarily kill anyone on sight.
With the Human Connectome Project [you are ignorant of] humanity will in the FUTURE [very possible] be able to identify the specific neural correlates and develop this neural inhibitor to be more effective in the majority or in all normal persons to the extent their inherent primal impulse to kill humans is effectively inhibited.

There are more to the above which you are ignorant of and it is pitiful you are so arrogant with your ignorance.

Do you even understand how the scientific FSK is established which comprised a complex set of principles, conditions, beliefs, assumptions, methods, processes, peer reviews, etc.

The moral FSK is established like that of the scientific FSK.
Thus when the scientific fact [1] is input within the establish moral FSK, it enable the emergence of a moral fact just like how a scientific fact emerge from a scientific FSK.
Rubbish. Neuroscience - like science in general - has nothing to say about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. And you don't address, let alone answer, my point about the moral and non-moral use of 'ought' and other related words - because it demolishes your case for the existence of moral facts. And because there are no moral facts, there is no moral FSK, which is your ridiculous invention.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:06 am your case for the existence of moral facts
I'm not sure I get what you are arguing with him for at this point? You already got him to write this ....
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:38 am 'rightness' and 'wrongness' are terms that are too loose and are VERY subjective.
It's a confession of the futility of his entire project.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:59 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:06 am your case for the existence of moral facts
I'm not sure I get what you are arguing with him for at this point? You already got him to write this ....
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:38 am 'rightness' and 'wrongness' are terms that are too loose and are VERY subjective.
It's a confession of the futility of his entire project.
Trouble is, he doesn't think it is. But fair enough - who cares? Why did any of us bother right from the start? Good questions.

Meanwhile, after 418 pages and 622,067 hits, I reckon that 672 pages and 1,000,000 hits is an insanely tremendous possibility. Never mind the quality - consider the magnificent uselessness of the endeavour.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:49 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:59 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:06 am your case for the existence of moral facts
I'm not sure I get what you are arguing with him for at this point? You already got him to write this ....
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 5:38 am 'rightness' and 'wrongness' are terms that are too loose and are VERY subjective.
It's a confession of the futility of his entire project.
Trouble is, he doesn't think it is. But fair enough - who cares? Why did any of us bother right from the start? Good questions.

Meanwhile, after 418 pages and 622,067 hits, I reckon that 672 pages and 1,000,000 hits is an insanely tremendous possibility. Never mind the quality - consider the magnificent uselessness of the endeavour.
restating the difficulty of proceeding deductively from one sort of reasoning in the premisses to a dissimilar brand of conclusion isn't working because he can't understand simple syllogisms, and he isn't going to improve.

what he can grasp, although he will obviously never admit it, is that he isn't doing morality for humans - which is about right and wrong - he's doing fake pseudo-morality, for robots. he can get that, and he's just told you that he knows the problem. seems to me you can get him to understand the follow up only if you can get him to understand the current topic, and this offers at least that advantage.

that hit count.... that's mostly bots doing the search indexing. I mean technically I suppose that only contributes to the magnificent pointlessness. and let's be fair, this site is primarily day care for nutjobs, so nothing needs to really work out for it to all sort of work out.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Phil8659 »

Let me see if I can wrap my little brain around this title.
Morality is recognition of right human behavior.
behavior is an objective fact.

So, are we asking what makes something objective objective, and if so, why in the hell would I ever not realize that a thing, or relation, is not different from itself unless I were testing how to dry hair with a microwave oven, or I am a psychopharmacologist who takes his own medicine with vigor?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:32 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:01 am

As usual, you ignore the point: if 'ought' has no moral meaning, then the assertion containing it isn't a moral assertion at all.

Premise: Humans must breathe or they die.

Conclusion: Therefore, humans ought to breathe.

Question: Does this mean that it's morally wrong not to breathe? If not, why 'ought' humans to breathe? What is the meaning of the word 'ought' in the conclusion?

Blather about 'processing through a credible moral FSK' explains absolutely nothing. It's just whistling in the dark.
The impulse of empathy via the mirror neurons entails the potential of "ought-not-ness to kill humans" or do harm to other humans, which is represented by a physical fact and that is a subject within morality. [1]

It is evident this "ought-not-ness to kill humans" potential is reasonably active [as an inhibitor] in the majority where they do not arbitrarily kill anyone on sight.
With the Human Connectome Project [you are ignorant of] humanity will in the FUTURE [very possible] be able to identify the specific neural correlates and develop this neural inhibitor to be more effective in the majority or in all normal persons to the extent their inherent primal impulse to kill humans is effectively inhibited.

There are more to the above which you are ignorant of and it is pitiful you are so arrogant with your ignorance.

Do you even understand how the scientific FSK is established which comprised a complex set of principles, conditions, beliefs, assumptions, methods, processes, peer reviews, etc.

The moral FSK is established like that of the scientific FSK.
Thus when the scientific fact [1] is input within the establish moral FSK, it enable the emergence of a moral fact just like how a scientific fact emerge from a scientific FSK.
Rubbish. Neuroscience - like science in general - has nothing to say about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. And you don't address, let alone answer, my point about the moral and non-moral use of 'ought' and other related words - because it demolishes your case for the existence of moral facts. And because there are no moral facts, there is no moral FSK, which is your ridiculous invention.
Your above is exposing your ignorance and lack of intelligence [literally your stupidity].
I have argued elsewhere, when you deny my view of moral facts emerging from moral FSK, you are denying the scientific FSK and its scientific facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

It is obvious science is science, mathematics is mathematics, neuroscience is neuroscience but whilst independent they are nevertheless complemented with various knowledge in enabling other subjects and the related facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Don't forget at one time, there were no classification of the specialized knowledge, all knowledge was just 'philosophy' [note the case of Physics separated from Philosophy].
Fundamentally there is no reason to view 'neuroscience' with 'morality' at the same time as generic knowledge and facts within one common FSK.

I have already explained how scientific facts [re DNA, forensic matters] are inputted into the legal FSK that enable legal facts to emerge. Example the legal fact, X was convicted as a Murderer beyond reasonable doubt - based on DNA evidences as the critical fact. Do you deny this?

So why it is not possible that scientific facts - in this case, the neuroscientific facts from the neuroscientific FSK - be conjoined in the Moral FSK to enable objective moral facts to emerge??

Btw, I do not agree with terms 'rightness' and 'wrongness' [because they are too loose] to be applied to morality-proper as defined.
What is Morality
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799

'Morality' [proper] is like say 'wisdom' or 'intelligence' where the focus in on the self-development and continual improvements of these internal potentials of the individual[s].

My definition of what is morality-proper and its FSK and objective moral facts are directed toward progress for the sake of the well beings of the individuals and that of humanity, i.e. perpetual peace in the future which in line with James' "cash-value";

“To understand truth, he [William James] argues, we must consider the pragmatic ‘cash-value’ of having true beliefs and the practical difference of having true ideas."[9] By using the term ‘cash-value,’ James refers to the practical consequences that come from discerning the truth behind arguments, through the pragmatic method, that should yield no desirable answer.
WIKI

OTOH, your ideas and views of morality [right or wrong] is too constipated without room for progress for the sake of the well beings of the individuals and that of humanity. Show me otherwise?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:41 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:32 am
The impulse of empathy via the mirror neurons entails the potential of "ought-not-ness to kill humans" or do harm to other humans, which is represented by a physical fact and that is a subject within morality. [1]

It is evident this "ought-not-ness to kill humans" potential is reasonably active [as an inhibitor] in the majority where they do not arbitrarily kill anyone on sight.
With the Human Connectome Project [you are ignorant of] humanity will in the FUTURE [very possible] be able to identify the specific neural correlates and develop this neural inhibitor to be more effective in the majority or in all normal persons to the extent their inherent primal impulse to kill humans is effectively inhibited.

There are more to the above which you are ignorant of and it is pitiful you are so arrogant with your ignorance.

Do you even understand how the scientific FSK is established which comprised a complex set of principles, conditions, beliefs, assumptions, methods, processes, peer reviews, etc.

The moral FSK is established like that of the scientific FSK.
Thus when the scientific fact [1] is input within the establish moral FSK, it enable the emergence of a moral fact just like how a scientific fact emerge from a scientific FSK.
Rubbish. Neuroscience - like science in general - has nothing to say about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. And you don't address, let alone answer, my point about the moral and non-moral use of 'ought' and other related words - because it demolishes your case for the existence of moral facts. And because there are no moral facts, there is no moral FSK, which is your ridiculous invention.
Your above is exposing your ignorance and lack of intelligence [literally your stupidity].
I have argued elsewhere, when you deny my view of moral facts emerging from moral FSK, you are denying the scientific FSK and its scientific facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

It is obvious science is science, mathematics is mathematics, neuroscience is neuroscience but whilst independent they are nevertheless complemented with various knowledge in enabling other subjects and the related facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Don't forget at one time, there were no classification of the specialized knowledge, all knowledge was just 'philosophy' [note the case of Physics separated from Philosophy].
Fundamentally there is no reason to view 'neuroscience' with 'morality' at the same time as generic knowledge and facts within one common FSK.

I have already explained how scientific facts [re DNA, forensic matters] are inputted into the legal FSK that enable legal facts to emerge. Example the legal fact, X was convicted as a Murderer beyond reasonable doubt - based on DNA evidences as the critical fact. Do you deny this?

So why it is not possible that scientific facts - in this case, the neuroscientific facts from the neuroscientific FSK - be conjoined in the Moral FSK to enable objective moral facts to emerge??

Btw, I do not agree with terms 'rightness' and 'wrongness' [because they are too loose] to be applied to morality-proper as defined.
What is Morality
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799

'Morality' [proper] is like say 'wisdom' or 'intelligence' where the focus in on the self-development and continual improvements of these internal potentials of the individual[s].

My definition of what is morality-proper and its FSK and objective moral facts are directed toward progress for the sake of the well beings of the individuals and that of humanity, i.e. perpetual peace in the future which in line with James' "cash-value";

“To understand truth, he [William James] argues, we must consider the pragmatic ‘cash-value’ of having true beliefs and the practical difference of having true ideas."[9] By using the term ‘cash-value,’ James refers to the practical consequences that come from discerning the truth behind arguments, through the pragmatic method, that should yield no desirable answer.
WIKI

OTOH, your ideas and views of morality [right or wrong] is too constipated without room for progress for the sake of the well beings of the individuals and that of humanity. Show me otherwise?
No, my view of morality is the standard, conventional one, set out in all the dictionary definitions I've ever come across, including one that you have repeatedly quoted.

You've invented 'morality-proper': ' 'Morality' [proper] is like say 'wisdom' or 'intelligence' where the focus in on the self-development and continual improvements of these internal potentials of the individual[s].' And all this means is that you think it's right (wise and intelligent) to focus on those goals. And that is a matter of opinion, which is, therefore, subjective - even if everyone holds that opinion.

Like all moral realists and objectivists, you have nothing but your opinion that your moral opinions are facts: 'this is morally right/wrong, because this is morally right/wrong.' And attempts to justify the claim that there are moral facts collapse in equivocation, question-begging, or some other kind of non sequitur fallacy. No evidence and no sound argument: the definition of irrationality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 7:48 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 2:41 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:06 am

Rubbish. Neuroscience - like science in general - has nothing to say about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. And you don't address, let alone answer, my point about the moral and non-moral use of 'ought' and other related words - because it demolishes your case for the existence of moral facts. And because there are no moral facts, there is no moral FSK, which is your ridiculous invention.
Your above is exposing your ignorance and lack of intelligence [literally your stupidity].
I have argued elsewhere, when you deny my view of moral facts emerging from moral FSK, you are denying the scientific FSK and its scientific facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

It is obvious science is science, mathematics is mathematics, neuroscience is neuroscience but whilst independent they are nevertheless complemented with various knowledge in enabling other subjects and the related facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Don't forget at one time, there were no classification of the specialized knowledge, all knowledge was just 'philosophy' [note the case of Physics separated from Philosophy].
Fundamentally there is no reason to view 'neuroscience' with 'morality' at the same time as generic knowledge and facts within one common FSK.

I have already explained how scientific facts [re DNA, forensic matters] are inputted into the legal FSK that enable legal facts to emerge. Example the legal fact, X was convicted as a Murderer beyond reasonable doubt - based on DNA evidences as the critical fact. Do you deny this?

So why it is not possible that scientific facts - in this case, the neuroscientific facts from the neuroscientific FSK - be conjoined in the Moral FSK to enable objective moral facts to emerge??

Btw, I do not agree with terms 'rightness' and 'wrongness' [because they are too loose] to be applied to morality-proper as defined.
What is Morality
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799

'Morality' [proper] is like say 'wisdom' or 'intelligence' where the focus in on the self-development and continual improvements of these internal potentials of the individual[s].

My definition of what is morality-proper and its FSK and objective moral facts are directed toward progress for the sake of the well beings of the individuals and that of humanity, i.e. perpetual peace in the future which in line with James' "cash-value";

“To understand truth, he [William James] argues, we must consider the pragmatic ‘cash-value’ of having true beliefs and the practical difference of having true ideas."[9] By using the term ‘cash-value,’ James refers to the practical consequences that come from discerning the truth behind arguments, through the pragmatic method, that should yield no desirable answer.
WIKI

OTOH, your ideas and views of morality [right or wrong] is too constipated without room for progress for the sake of the well beings of the individuals and that of humanity. Show me otherwise?
No, my view of morality is the standard, conventional one, set out in all the dictionary definitions I've ever come across, including one that you have repeatedly quoted.

You've invented 'morality-proper': ' 'Morality' [proper] is like say 'wisdom' or 'intelligence' where the focus in on the self-development and continual improvements of these internal potentials of the individual[s].' And all this means is that you think it's right (wise and intelligent) to focus on those goals. And that is a matter of opinion, which is, therefore, subjective - even if everyone holds that opinion.

Like all moral realists and objectivists, you have nothing but your opinion that your moral opinions are facts: 'this is morally right/wrong, because this is morally right/wrong.' And attempts to justify the claim that there are moral facts collapse in equivocation, question-begging, or some other kind of non sequitur fallacy. No evidence and no sound argument: the definition of irrationality.
I noted morality is commonly associated with 'rightness' and 'wrongness'.
But it is also noted that such associations had failed humanity and the essence within morality had not progress effectively as evident with the present state of evil acts.
In a way, I am proposing a Copernican Revolution that leverages morality within all humans.

It is also very evident that the focus on morality is to avoid evil acts, i.e. killing of humans, rape, violence and other crimes against humans and humanity.
Thus morality is leveraged on evil acts, i.e. to prevent evil acts.

Not all good acts are necessary related to morality.
Whatever are good acts, e.g. honesty, kind, and the likes are virtues and would be more effectively dealt within "virtues".

As I had stated, to leverage on 'right' or 'wrong' is very messy for morality [prevention of evil] because each party will claim the 'right' of others is 'wrong' and vice versa thus ending with stalemates which hinder forward progress.

'morality-proper': ' 'Morality' [proper] is like say 'wisdom' or 'intelligence' where the focus in on the self-development and continual improvements of these internal potentials of the individual[s].'
It is not an opinion nor belief.

I justified the above as true [avoid using 'right'] empirically via the existence of physical mirror neurons [scientific fact] inherent in all humans which are responsible for empathy which is a critical element of morality within the moral FSK.
As such it follows this fact is a moral fact.
Can you counter my claim?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Phil8659 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 12:55 am Let me see if I can wrap my little brain around this title.
Morality is recognition of right human behavior.
behavior is an objective fact.

So, are we asking what makes something objective objective, and if so, why in the hell would I ever not realize that a thing, or relation, is not different from itself unless I were testing how to dry hair with a microwave oven, or I am a psychopharmacologist who takes his own medicine with vigor?
No, moral discourse is about the rightness or wrongness - the propriety or impropriety - of behaviour. It's not 'recognition of right human behaviour' - as though there's no argument about that. That claim just begs the question.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Phil8659 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:08 am
Phil8659 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 12:55 am Let me see if I can wrap my little brain around this title.
Morality is recognition of right human behavior.
behavior is an objective fact.

So, are we asking what makes something objective objective, and if so, why in the hell would I ever not realize that a thing, or relation, is not different from itself unless I were testing how to dry hair with a microwave oven, or I am a psychopharmacologist who takes his own medicine with vigor?
No, moral discourse is about the rightness or wrongness - the propriety or impropriety - of behaviour. It's not 'recognition of right human behaviour' - as though there's no argument about that. That claim just begs the question.
So, tell me Obi Wan, which life support systems of any living organism can possible choose, the rightness of its own behavior, or by fact, is, as Socretes noted, as the Bible notes, judgment is not a choice, but derived from the correct use of grammar?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:56 am In a way, I am proposing a Copernican Revolution that leverages morality within all humans.
If Copernicus had done his trick only by persuading everyone that "goes-around" and "goes-around[proper]" were two opposite things, that wouldn't be such lunatic self-aggrandizing bullshit.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

I noted morality is commonly associated with 'rightness' and 'wrongness'.
But it is also noted that such associations had failed humanity and the essence within morality had not progress effectively as evident with the present state of evil acts.
In a way, I am proposing a Copernican Revolution that leverages morality within all humans.

It is also very evident that the focus on morality is to avoid evil acts, i.e. killing of humans, rape, violence and other crimes against humans and humanity.
Thus morality is leveraged on evil acts, i.e. to prevent evil acts. [my emphasis added]
We really are not moving into new turf if we shift from wrongness to evil. Avoiding evil is a pretty old idea in morality. Most of the 10 commandments are thou shalt not.

I don't think his fundamental idea is terrible. Hey, let's see if we can enhance some of the various tendencies in humans (generally for him, empathy) so that rather than telling people not to kill, we just train them so that killing people is not very appealing. Of course there are parenting and pedagogical approaches that have been doing this for a long time: asking the child to look at the other child and guess what they are feeling and so on.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:52 am I noted morality is commonly associated with 'rightness' and 'wrongness'.
But it is also noted that such associations had failed humanity and the essence within morality had not progress effectively as evident with the present state of evil acts.
In a way, I am proposing a Copernican Revolution that leverages morality within all humans.

It is also very evident that the focus on morality is to avoid evil acts, i.e. killing of humans, rape, violence and other crimes against humans and humanity.
Thus morality is leveraged on evil acts, i.e. to prevent evil acts. [my emphasis added]
We really are not moving into new turf if we shift from wrongness to evil. Avoiding evil is a pretty old idea in morality. Most of the 10 commandments are thou shalt not.

I don't think his fundamental idea is terrible. Hey, let's see if we can enhance some of the various tendencies in humans (generally for him, empathy) so that rather than telling people not to kill, we just train them so that killing people is not very appealing. Of course there are parenting and pedagogical approaches that have been doing this for a long time: asking the child to look at the other child and guess what they are feeling and so on.
Thing is, we're not arguing about moral opinions. I've no doubt most us of here - and most people- share many if not most moral opinions about what we count as right and wrong behaviour - and encouraging the one and discouraging the other.

The issue is: are there any moral facts - moral features of reality - that exist independently from opinion - so that moral assertions make factual claims with truth-value? And the answer is: no. And that's our moral predicament - which objectivists refuse to accept.
Post Reply