Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:05 pm
That's unsubstantiated opinion.
You've been propagandized.
Now if you apply that same opinion to Andrew Cuomo, you will be able to supply plenty of substantiation.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
That's unsubstantiated opinion.
If you look into that sound bite you'll find the truth of that Leftist propaganda, what was going on and how that came to be.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:10 pm
when you say ORANGE MAN is utterly morally disgusting you state it as fact
You've been propagandized. Suckered by anaesthetising right wing media. Fake news.Walker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:13 pmIf you look into that sound bite you'll find the truth of that Leftist propaganda, what was going on and how that came to be.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:10 pmPerhaps you think separating young children from their parents (for just one example) is morally acceptable. But I and many others think it's morally disgusting. Point is, there's no moral fact of the matter that can settle it. We just disagree.
Nope. I don't rely on sound bites, and I'm aware of the propaganda.
No...but only so long as you have no ambition at all to suggest anyone else should agree with you. The minute you suggest that even one person is even slightly morally obligated to join you in your opinion, you've departed "Subjectivist Island" and joined all the moral objectivists on the mainland.
Perhaps you think pedophiles and coyotes should have free access to children.
If we want others to share our moral opinion, then we can only be moral objectivists.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:42 pm No...but only so long as you have no ambition at all to suggest anyone else should agree with you. The minute you suggest that even one person is even slightly morally obligated to join you in your opinion, you've departed "Subjectivist Island" and joined all the moral objectivists on the mainland.
There are quite a few contenders to be inherent human behaviours. The only way to discover which are most probable is to study all anthropological records and note which behaviours are common to all known social communities. This would not be easy as some communities would overlap, howver kit is the only possible method.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:31 amI believe pro-hospitality is more Nurture than Nature. It has to battle to suppress the more inherent nature of tribalism, i.e. us versus them.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:56 amI think I get your general drift now.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:19 am
You missed my point.
I stated there is no generic system in human preparing food for consumption, but
there is a a generic human digestive system within all humans.
Surely you are not disputing the Human Digestive System is generic to ALL humans.
I am comparing the variations in preparing food to the different relative 'moral' systems, e.g. those confined to tribal groups, social groups, religions, which are merely pseudo-morality since their moral elements will differ between them.
The human digestive system consists of the gastrointestinal tract plus the accessory organs of digestion (the tongue, salivary glands, pancreas, liver, and gallbladder). Digestion involves the breakdown of food into smaller and smaller components, until they can be absorbed and assimilated into the body. The process of digestion has three stages.
BUT amongst all the different types of moral traditions and rules, there is a generic moral system within ALL humans just like the generic human digestive system.
One example is, while there are many different types of relative moral systems that cater to their respective conditions, all of them will not condone premeditated murder, as such this is one evidence of a generic element within a generic moral system.
This is because these relative moral systems intuitively are acting in accordance to the generic moral facts [no killing of humans] within all humans.
As such, regardless of how the relative moral systems operate within their respective conditions, there exist a generic moral system within them which they may not be consciously aware of.
At one time I'd hoped to find a human belief that was common to all societies. The belief I chose was not anti-murder but pro-hospitality to strangers. I still think the evidence favours generic pro-hospitality, but am willing to reconsider.
But murder is a more fundamental and serious issue of human nature.
I believe DNA wise, thus on the basis of NATURE, ALL humans are "programmed" with the basic 'ought-not-to-kill humans' or 'ought-not-to-murder'.As for murder being generically wrong, there is such a lot of evidence of private and judicial murder throughout history that there is no chance murder is generically wrong. In some USA states within a civilised highly developed nation they still do capital punishment!
However due to other necessary conditions, this program is not full activated and highly active. This is why there are still killings and murder still going on at present, BUT ...
But you should have noticed the rate and number of permitted killings and murders had been on a decreasing trend since >50 years ago.
More and more governments are abolishing capital punishments. The are more concerns in attempt to prevent wars, especially World-Wars. Even narcissistic Trump had declared not to start wars by the US and evidently he did not start any. [yet?]
Note this thread I raised,
Therein Steven Pinker has provided solid evidences to support his argument.
- Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
Read the thread to get an idea or read his book to get to the details.
The fact that evil, violence, killings and murder of human are on a decreasing trend since the past to the present is because of the gradual unfoldment of the inherent generic moral potential that was programmed within the human brain.
Note the analogy,
DNA wise, ALL humans are "programmed" inherently and intrinsically with the necessary sexual features and sex drive; it is dormant at birth till there about the early teens years, it only takes a small amount of the necessary hormones to trigger and activate the sexual mechanisms and sex drive during puberty.
The above analogy of dormancy and unfoldment is applicable to the "programmed" inherent and intrinsic moral mechanisms and moral drive within ALL humans as embedded in the DNA. The difference is this moral potential and its unfoldment is not that explicit in experiences.
I believe and is optimistic, given the current trend of the exponential and expansion of knowledge and technology, humanity will be able to expedite and accelerate the unfoldment of the inherent generic moral potential within humans.
Peter Holmes, Sculptor, PantFlasher and the likes prefer to be "ostriches" to inherent moral facts and they are complicit in being indifferent to the current level of evil [violence, etc.] as it is or worst condoning it.
Not quite: if we think there is any basis upon which we can convince others that they ought to share our moral opinion, then yes, we can only be moral objectivists.
To be more precise re OP,Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:53 am May I express your thesis as follows? Humans as social animals have specific inherent potentials. Among these inherent potentials is not killing other humans, nurturing their young for ten+ years, and taking care of needy humans from outwith the tribe.
These potentials will not be actualised until and unless the individual has been socialised into particular traditions or codes of conduct.
My claim is the same that there are scientific facts specific to the scientific FSK.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 12:26 pm1 Your claim that there are moral facts 'specific' to the moral FSK assumes there is a moral FSK within which there are moral facts, which begs the question. Waste of time.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:52 amWhere?
Don't be too hasty in blaming others when its is your doing.And I notice you've deleted my examples of question-begging arguments with moral conclusions. Care to explain why they're not fallacious? Or you could just keep on saying the same thing, making the same mistake, to the crack of doom. A Trump disciple, perhaps?
I picked your post and quoted it before you edited and added the last part.
Note my counter to that.
That is a cheap defense to the argument.
That you believe Trump is bad or evil is because you had been brainwashed and zombied by the bias media driven by tribalism and Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Objectively, I believe Trump, re his job appraisal taking into account the positives and negative, did a great job [net positive] relative to his terms of employment as a Government servant and employee.
Where is your sense of objectivity and rationality in relation to Trump and his contractual terms of employment?
Your views of Trump are very emotional and subjective as being brainwashed by the one-sided media driven by tribalism.2 As for Trump, that you support such an utterly morally disgusting man and his policies is a QED against moral objectivism, as far as I'm concerned.
Wrong. Since there are no moral facts, any moral assertion expresses an opinion which can't be factually verified or falsified. The linking verb 'is' has a different function in factual and non-factual assertions. Merely insisting that it doesn't begs the question.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 4:15 pmwhen you say ORANGE MAN is utterly morally disgusting you state it as fact
when you say ORANGE MAN, in my opinion, is utterly morally disgusting you offer opinion
the first, by your reckoning, is false
the second, by your reckoning, is all you have
quit tryin' to have it both ways
From human history and records, the murder of humans is a detestable evil act by the individuals and the community and still is at the present and will be in the future, because the 'ought-not-to-kill human' is inherent in all humans.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:13 am There are quite a few contenders to be inherent human behaviours. The only way to discover which are most probable is to study all anthropological records and note which behaviours are common to all known social communities. This would not be easy as some communities would overlap, howver kit is the only possible method.
One can believe all one likes , Veritas, but belief is not evidence. Human behaviour, whatever innate qualities it might have, advances or recedes by the cultural route not the generic route, unless some powerful mad dictator promotes eugenics.
Intuitively and from my personal assessments of whatever facts I am aware of I agree with Steven Pinker's hypothesis, Violent has Decreased, which he supported with a wide range of data, see here or read his book,It's absurd to claim violence has decreased. I wonder where you get your info.