There are Moral Facts

[Belinda]

At one level that is an empirical fact and also a moral fact but at a deeper level we still need to justify why 'killing oneself' by jumping off buildings is wrong and not right.
I have presented empirical and philosophical reasoning why it is wrong to kill oneself, i.e. commit suicide.

Others justify suicide. Can one culture of belief be better than another? If so what is the criterion that includes every possible culture of belief?

This is leading to the debate between Moral Realism versus Moral Relativism.
I have been reading into the above debates recently and well verse with the pros and cons of both sides.

I am for Moral Realism but not of the Divine or Platonic Form types.

Due to the size of the Earth and varied variables, it is obvious there will be a diversity in cultures, traditions, etc. and note the diversity in gathering and production of food, preparing, cooking and eating of food. This diversity and relativity is indisputable.

BUT if we dig deeper the diversity in gathering and production of food, preparing, cooking and eating of food is reducible to one unique human digestion system and the need for the primary nutrients [carbohydrates, proteins, fats, minerals, vitamins] critical to ensure the basic necessity for survival.

Whilst some humans under different restricted conditions cannot have access to certain critical food, say certain essential nutrients, they may be able to survive for sometime, but NOT in the long run and they will all die. Thus that is the fact of human nutrition.

It is the same with the superficial moral diversity and relativism. Such moral diversity which are necessary upon its specific conditions, they are reducible to some common moral principles that are inherent within all humans.

Other than mental illness, some cultures may have to permit suicide or even kill the weaker ones due to resources constraints, but the principle [like the essentiality of basic nutrients] that the justified moral principle "no normal person ought to commit suicide" is a moral fact regardless of the cultural differences.

The logic is if there is no such inherent principle, then the human species could be extinct if and when the population is reduced below its critical mass to sustain itself.
Thus if the constraints are removed, no human tribe nor group will permit suicide in alignment with their inherent moral sense.

The cons of Moral Relativism is no one can judge cultures like Nazism and other evil ideologies, so morally no one can condemn what they want to do because there is no objective standard of right or wrong.

So Moral Realism is the better bet [some Moral standards is better than no Moral standard at all], provided the moral standards set are justified empirically and philosophically plus being fool proof.

I agree that the human environment including of course how the people get food, water, shelter, defence and so forth, largely determines cultures of belief and practice. Also I agree that environmental constraints affect all possible human societies and their peculiar cultures.

Now that the human geographical and cultural environment has changed out of all recognition by some hypothetical man who lived one or two hundred ]years ago we have to review attitudes to population sizes and to the individual's right to choose time and manner of dying.Therefore despite the justifiable claims human cultures are determined by habitats I choose situation ethics with regard to suicide

[KLewchuk]

Let's say that when people jump off buildings, they fall. Assuming they are human, they fall regardless of race, creed or culture (i.e. it is universally true). That humans fall when jumping off buildings is a factually true statement. However, it is not a "moral" statement.

The moral question would ask, "should humans desire to jump off buildings"? Assuming that we ought to desire that which is good for us, and jumping off buildings is bad for us, it is a morally true statement to say that humans ought not desire to jump off buildings.

This is a moral truth / fact.

At one level that is an empirical fact and also a moral fact but at a deeper level we still need to justify why 'killing oneself' by jumping off buildings is wrong and not right.
I have presented empirical and philosophical reasoning why it is wrong to kill oneself, i.e. commit suicide.

Others justify suicide. Can one culture of belief be better than another? If so what is the criterion that includes every possible culture of belief?

What do you mean by "moral". Let's assume a general consequentialist position, with a nod to Aristotle (i.e. eudaimonia / wellbeing). One of the criteria for wellbeing is being. Very difficult to have wellbeing without first having being. Generally, it will be hard for me to improve my wellbeing by destroying my being. To be fair, there will be those who may be better off without being (e.g. end of life issues, etc.) but generally ethics is about improving being not destroying being.

Can one culture of belief be better than another? Of course. Are there some cultures which enhance well-being better than others? Yes; therefore, some cultures are objectively more ethical than others.

[FlashDangerpants]

What do you mean by "moral". Let's assume a general consequentialist position

You can't even come close to a sound argument that "some cultures are objectively more ethical than others" if you have begged the question from the begining like that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Others justify suicide. Can one culture of belief be better than another? If so what is the criterion that includes every possible culture of belief?

This is leading to the debate between Moral Realism versus Moral Relativism.
I have been reading into the above debates recently and well verse with the pros and cons of both sides.

I am for Moral Realism but not of the Divine or Platonic Form types.

Due to the size of the Earth and varied variables, it is obvious there will be a diversity in cultures, traditions, etc. and note the diversity in gathering and production of food, preparing, cooking and eating of food. This diversity and relativity is indisputable.

BUT if we dig deeper the diversity in gathering and production of food, preparing, cooking and eating of food is reducible to one unique human digestion system and the need for the primary nutrients [carbohydrates, proteins, fats, minerals, vitamins] critical to ensure the basic necessity for survival.

Whilst some humans under different restricted conditions cannot have access to certain critical food, say certain essential nutrients, they may be able to survive for sometime, but NOT in the long run and they will all die. Thus that is the fact of human nutrition.

It is the same with the superficial moral diversity and relativism. Such moral diversity which are necessary upon its specific conditions, they are reducible to some common moral principles that are inherent within all humans.

Other than mental illness, some cultures may have to permit suicide or even kill the weaker ones due to resources constraints, but the principle [like the essentiality of basic nutrients] that the justified moral principle "no normal person ought to commit suicide" is a moral fact regardless of the cultural differences.

The logic is if there is no such inherent principle, then the human species could be extinct if and when the population is reduced below its critical mass to sustain itself.
Thus if the constraints are removed, no human tribe nor group will permit suicide in alignment with their inherent moral sense.

The cons of Moral Relativism is no one can judge cultures like Nazism and other evil ideologies, so morally no one can condemn what they want to do because there is no objective standard of right or wrong.

So Moral Realism is the better bet [some Moral standards is better than no Moral standard at all], provided the moral standards set are justified empirically and philosophically plus being fool proof.

I agree that the human environment including of course how the people get food, water, shelter, defence and so forth, largely determines cultures of belief and practice. Also I agree that environmental constraints affect all possible human societies and their peculiar cultures.

Now that the human geographical and cultural environment has changed out of all recognition by some hypothetical man who lived one or two hundred ]years ago we have to review attitudes to population sizes and to the individual's right to choose time and manner of dying.Therefore despite the justifiable claims human cultures are determined by habitats I choose situation ethics with regard to suicide

You seem to have missed my point entirely.

I stated above,

• the diversity in gathering and production of food, preparing, cooking and eating of food.

BUT,

• .. if we dig deeper [into] the diversity in gathering and production of food, preparing, cooking and eating of food [it] is reducible to one unique human digestion system and the need for the primary nutrients [carbohydrates, proteins, fats, minerals, vitamins] critical to ensure the basic necessity for survival.

The point here regardless of how "the human geographical and cultural environment has changed out of all recognition"
the one unique human digestion system and the need for the primary nutrients
have not changed at all. Read it up in Wiki..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_digestive_system
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.

There is no way the above human digestion system to produce the necessary nutrients has changed since homo-sapiens emerged.

Hope you get my intended point above.

I am transposing the above as an analogy to the Human Moral System within the brain and body. Some claim humans possess an inherent "Moral Organ" [mental not physical] which is unfolding progressively toward the future.

So despite whatever changes had taken place since 10,000 years to the present and the ethical climate has also changes but like the human digestive system, the basic processes of the Human moral system remained the same with its basic moral facts.
One of this fundamental moral facts of the Human Moral System is 'no human ought to kill another and themselves' thus including suicide.

You could personally choose situational ethics regarding suicide and no one can stop you but that is contravening the inherent moral fact, 'no human ought to commit suicide.'
I believe this fundamental moral fact which is relatively immutable [DNA wise] will prevail in the long run and humanity will naturally and progressively align with it in the future.

Note the example of the non-permissibility of 'chattel' slavery which is an inherent moral fact within the human moral system and note the progressive improvements in the elimination of 'chattel' slavery since more than 10,000 years to the present.

[Belinda]

This is leading to the debate between Moral Realism versus Moral Relativism.
I have been reading into the above debates recently and well verse with the pros and cons of both sides.

I am for Moral Realism but not of the Divine or Platonic Form types.

Due to the size of the Earth and varied variables, it is obvious there will be a diversity in cultures, traditions, etc. and note the diversity in gathering and production of food, preparing, cooking and eating of food. This diversity and relativity is indisputable.

BUT if we dig deeper the diversity in gathering and production of food, preparing, cooking and eating of food is reducible to one unique human digestion system and the need for the primary nutrients [carbohydrates, proteins, fats, minerals, vitamins] critical to ensure the basic necessity for survival.

Whilst some humans under different restricted conditions cannot have access to certain critical food, say certain essential nutrients, they may be able to survive for sometime, but NOT in the long run and they will all die. Thus that is the fact of human nutrition.

It is the same with the superficial moral diversity and relativism. Such moral diversity which are necessary upon its specific conditions, they are reducible to some common moral principles that are inherent within all humans.

Other than mental illness, some cultures may have to permit suicide or even kill the weaker ones due to resources constraints, but the principle [like the essentiality of basic nutrients] that the justified moral principle "no normal person ought to commit suicide" is a moral fact regardless of the cultural differences.

The logic is if there is no such inherent principle, then the human species could be extinct if and when the population is reduced below its critical mass to sustain itself.
Thus if the constraints are removed, no human tribe nor group will permit suicide in alignment with their inherent moral sense.

The cons of Moral Relativism is no one can judge cultures like Nazism and other evil ideologies, so morally no one can condemn what they want to do because there is no objective standard of right or wrong.

So Moral Realism is the better bet [some Moral standards is better than no Moral standard at all], provided the moral standards set are justified empirically and philosophically plus being fool proof.

I agree that the human environment including of course how the people get food, water, shelter, defence and so forth, largely determines cultures of belief and practice. Also I agree that environmental constraints affect all possible human societies and their peculiar cultures.

Now that the human geographical and cultural environment has changed out of all recognition by some hypothetical man who lived one or two hundred ]years ago we have to review attitudes to population sizes and to the individual's right to choose time and manner of dying.Therefore despite the justifiable claims human cultures are determined by habitats I choose situation ethics with regard to suicide

You seem to have missed my point entirely.

I stated above,

• the diversity in gathering and production of food, preparing, cooking and eating of food.

BUT,

• .. if we dig deeper [into] the diversity in gathering and production of food, preparing, cooking and eating of food [it] is reducible to one unique human digestion system and the need for the primary nutrients [carbohydrates, proteins, fats, minerals, vitamins] critical to ensure the basic necessity for survival.

The point here regardless of how "the human geographical and cultural environment has changed out of all recognition"
the one unique human digestion system and the need for the primary nutrients
have not changed at all. Read it up in Wiki..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_digestive_system
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.

There is no way the above human digestion system to produce the necessary nutrients has changed since homo-sapiens emerged.

Hope you get my intended point above.

I am transposing the above as an analogy to the Human Moral System within the brain and body. Some claim humans possess an inherent "Moral Organ" [mental not physical] which is unfolding progressively toward the future.

So despite whatever changes had taken place since 10,000 years to the present and the ethical climate has also changes but like the human digestive system, the basic processes of the Human moral system remained the same with its basic moral facts.
One of this fundamental moral facts of the Human Moral System is 'no human ought to kill another and themselves' thus including suicide.

You could personally choose situational ethics regarding suicide and no one can stop you but that is contravening the inherent moral fact, 'no human ought to commit suicide.'
I believe this fundamental moral fact which is relatively immutable [DNA wise] will prevail in the long run and humanity will naturally and progressively align with it in the future.

Note the example of the non-permissibility of 'chattel' slavery which is an inherent moral fact within the human moral system and note the progressive improvements in the elimination of 'chattel' slavery since more than 10,000 years to the present.

True of digestion as you say. Even simpler is what Shakespeare described as "this poor bare forked animal".(Lear)

It is true we ingest nutrients, and it is true we are bipedal, it's true we are mostly hairless, and it's true we are mammals.

It is because we are mammals that we need compassion. The human child is dependent for a long time. From the dependence of the human child emerge family structures then tribal structures So family and tribal structures are due to the dependence of the nubile female who was either lactating or pregnant. Fertility is terribly important to fragile small societies, as is illustrated by pagan incorporation, within four important annual herding festivals, of licensed promiscuity. Later in the story of man's past men formulated moral codes, and later still they wrote down those moral codes.

The detailed content of these moral codes depended upon the people's means of subsistence . Means of subsistence follow the diktat of geography, other species, threats from outgroups, climate, natural disaster, and so forth. Suicide would therefore be contrary to moral codes of smallish herding societies if the suicide was that of a nubile woman or a fighting man.

Where family honour was the primary concern suicide of a fighting man might be necessary in certain situations.

[KLewchuk]

What do you mean by "moral". Let's assume a general consequentialist position

You can't even come close to a sound argument that "some cultures are objectively more ethical than others" if you have begged the question from the begining like that.

Not at all, it is quite simple actually:

Actions which decrease well-being are unethical,
Suicide decreases well being,
Therefore, suicide is unethical.

With respect to cultures,
Suicide is unethical,
If we compare two cultures and, all else equal, culture A promotes suicide,
Culture A is less ethical than culture B.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

[KLewchuk]

I agree that the human environment including of course how the people get food, water, shelter, defence and so forth, largely determines cultures of belief and practice. Also I agree that environmental constraints affect all possible human societies and their peculiar cultures.

Now that the human geographical and cultural environment has changed out of all recognition by some hypothetical man who lived one or two hundred ]years ago we have to review attitudes to population sizes and to the individual's right to choose time and manner of dying.Therefore despite the justifiable claims human cultures are determined by habitats I choose situation ethics with regard to suicide

You seem to have missed my point entirely.

I stated above,

• the diversity in gathering and production of food, preparing, cooking and eating of food.

BUT,

• .. if we dig deeper [into] the diversity in gathering and production of food, preparing, cooking and eating of food [it] is reducible to one unique human digestion system and the need for the primary nutrients [carbohydrates, proteins, fats, minerals, vitamins] critical to ensure the basic necessity for survival.

The point here regardless of how "the human geographical and cultural environment has changed out of all recognition"
the one unique human digestion system and the need for the primary nutrients
have not changed at all. Read it up in Wiki..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_digestive_system
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.

There is no way the above human digestion system to produce the necessary nutrients has changed since homo-sapiens emerged.

Hope you get my intended point above.

I am transposing the above as an analogy to the Human Moral System within the brain and body. Some claim humans possess an inherent "Moral Organ" [mental not physical] which is unfolding progressively toward the future.

So despite whatever changes had taken place since 10,000 years to the present and the ethical climate has also changes but like the human digestive system, the basic processes of the Human moral system remained the same with its basic moral facts.
One of this fundamental moral facts of the Human Moral System is 'no human ought to kill another and themselves' thus including suicide.

You could personally choose situational ethics regarding suicide and no one can stop you but that is contravening the inherent moral fact, 'no human ought to commit suicide.'
I believe this fundamental moral fact which is relatively immutable [DNA wise] will prevail in the long run and humanity will naturally and progressively align with it in the future.

Note the example of the non-permissibility of 'chattel' slavery which is an inherent moral fact within the human moral system and note the progressive improvements in the elimination of 'chattel' slavery since more than 10,000 years to the present.

True of digestion as you say. Even simpler is what Shakespeare described as "this poor bare forked animal".(Lear)

It is true we ingest nutrients, and it is true we are bipedal, it's true we are mostly hairless, and it's true we are mammals.

It is because we are mammals that we need compassion. The human child is dependent for a long time. From the dependence of the human child emerge family structures then tribal structures So family and tribal structures are due to the dependence of the nubile female who was either lactating or pregnant. Fertility is terribly important to fragile small societies, as is illustrated by pagan incorporation, within four important annual herding festivals, of licensed promiscuity. Later in the story of man's past men formulated moral codes, and later still they wrote down those moral codes.

The detailed content of these moral codes depended upon the people's means of subsistence . Means of subsistence follow the diktat of geography, other species, threats from outgroups, climate, natural disaster, and so forth. Suicide would therefore be contrary to moral codes of smallish herding societies if the suicide was that of a nubile woman or a fighting man.

Where family honour was the primary concern suicide of a fighting man might be necessary in certain situations.

I think there is some confusion between matters of taste and matters of truth.

I should not, as a matter of morality, say that you ought eat vanilla ice cream rather than strawberry. It is difficult to argue that vanilla increases well being universally more than strawberry.

However, I can say as a matter of morality that you ought to drink water and not gasoline.

[Veritas Aequitas]

True of digestion as you say. Even simpler is what Shakespeare described as "this poor bare forked animal".(Lear)

It is true we ingest nutrients, and it is true we are bipedal, it's true we are mostly hairless, and it's true we are mammals.

Morally it is also true that 'all human' cannot commit suicide' as a default moral law [as justified] of humanity. I explain why below.

It is because we are mammals that we need compassion. The human child is dependent for a long time. From the dependence of the human child emerge family structures then tribal structures So family and tribal structures are due to the dependence of the nubile female who was either lactating or pregnant. Fertility is terribly important to fragile small societies, as is illustrated by pagan incorporation, within four important annual herding festivals, of licensed promiscuity. Later in the story of man's past men formulated moral codes, and later still they wrote down those moral codes.

The detailed content of these moral codes depended upon the people's means of subsistence . Means of subsistence follow the diktat of geography, other species, threats from outgroups, climate, natural disaster, and so forth. Suicide would therefore be contrary to moral codes of smallish herding societies if the suicide was that of a nubile woman or a fighting man.

Where family honour was the primary concern suicide of a fighting man might be necessary in certain situations.

The point is when men drew up or habituated certain 'moral codes' to align with their specific circumstances they are not aware [or knowledgeable] of the inherent and default generic moral codes within them as being human.

Thus when certain tribes and groups condone voluntary suicides to adapt to their specific conditions [e.g. due to lack of resources, the weaker ones has to go as with the Inuit Eskimos of the past and others].
But the point here is while, say, Inuit eskimos, were condoning suicide by the weaker ones as a practical & optimal necessity, they did it without awareness of the default that as human beings they are not supposed to commit suicide.

What is expected in morality-proper is, where condoning suicide is a necessity due to certain circumstances and constraints, those who have to condone suicide as a necessity must at the same time be aware of the default that they cannot commit suicide as an inherent moral law. In a way, whilst condoned, they must nevertheless realized they are committing a 'sin'.
We in modern times must strive towards such a standard.

The problem is those who indulged in relative/subjective moral codes [moral relativism] as a necessity by their unique conditions, when habituated tend to make such relative moral codes 'absolute' even when the original conditions have changed for the better.

Thus for example, the elderly and weaker Inuit Eskimos of the past will volunteer [or peer pressured] to commit suicide since resources and food are limited in the North Pole.
But now the Inuits are settled in modern environments where food is plenty and healthcare are reasonably available, but the suicide rates among the Eskimos are one of the highest.

Inuit suicide rates are among the highest in the world. Between 1999 and 2003, the rates in Inuit regions averaged 135 per 100 000, more than 10 times higher than the general Canadian rates.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4501584/

I believe the reason is due to the fact that for generations and thousands of years, voluntarily suicide was a cultural norm for the Inuits due to environment constraints to their group but unfortunately this sense of suicide is still prevailing within the psyche of the Inuits.

This is why, the understanding what is the inherent justified moral law within humanity i.e. 'no human ought to commit suicide' is so critical.
This is why it is so critical that one understand the default moral law and when one has no choice but to contravene it, one must always be mindful of it as strive to align with the default moral law when the constraints are removed.

You keep talking about moral codes that are necessary to adapt to one's unique conditions and circumstances but you do not bother to understand how these moral codes have deviated from the default moral laws that are inherent to all humans.

[Belinda]

True of digestion as you say. Even simpler is what Shakespeare described as "this poor bare forked animal".(Lear)

It is true we ingest nutrients, and it is true we are bipedal, it's true we are mostly hairless, and it's true we are mammals.

Morally it is also true that 'all human' cannot commit suicide' as a default moral law [as justified] of humanity. I explain why below.

It is because we are mammals that we need compassion. The human child is dependent for a long time. From the dependence of the human child emerge family structures then tribal structures So family and tribal structures are due to the dependence of the nubile female who was either lactating or pregnant. Fertility is terribly important to fragile small societies, as is illustrated by pagan incorporation, within four important annual herding festivals, of licensed promiscuity. Later in the story of man's past men formulated moral codes, and later still they wrote down those moral codes.

The detailed content of these moral codes depended upon the people's means of subsistence . Means of subsistence follow the diktat of geography, other species, threats from outgroups, climate, natural disaster, and so forth. Suicide would therefore be contrary to moral codes of smallish herding societies if the suicide was that of a nubile woman or a fighting man.

Where family honour was the primary concern suicide of a fighting man might be necessary in certain situations.

The point is when men drew up or habituated certain 'moral codes' to align with their specific circumstances they are not aware [or knowledgeable] of the inherent and default generic moral codes within them as being human.

Thus when certain tribes and groups condone voluntary suicides to adapt to their specific conditions [e.g. due to lack of resources, the weaker ones has to go as with the Inuit Eskimos of the past and others].
But the point here is while, say, Inuit eskimos, were condoning suicide by the weaker ones as a practical & optimal necessity, they did it without awareness of the default that as human beings they are not supposed to commit suicide.

What is expected in morality-proper is, where condoning suicide is a necessity due to certain circumstances and constraints, those who have to condone suicide as a necessity must at the same time be aware of the default that they cannot commit suicide as an inherent moral law. In a way, whilst condoned, they must nevertheless realized they are committing a 'sin'.
We in modern times must strive towards such a standard.

The problem is those who indulged in relative/subjective moral codes [moral relativism] as a necessity by their unique conditions, when habituated tend to make such relative moral codes 'absolute' even when the original conditions have changed for the better.

Thus for example, the elderly and weaker Inuit Eskimos of the past will volunteer [or peer pressured] to commit suicide since resources and food are limited in the North Pole.
But now the Inuits are settled in modern environments where food is plenty and healthcare are reasonably available, but the suicide rates among the Eskimos are one of the highest.

Inuit suicide rates are among the highest in the world. Between 1999 and 2003, the rates in Inuit regions averaged 135 per 100 000, more than 10 times higher than the general Canadian rates.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4501584/

I believe the reason is due to the fact that for generations and thousands of years, voluntarily suicide was a cultural norm for the Inuits due to environment constraints to their group but unfortunately this sense of suicide is still prevailing within the psyche of the Inuits.

This is why, the understanding what is the inherent justified moral law within humanity i.e. 'no human ought to commit suicide' is so critical.
This is why it is so critical that one understand the default moral law and when one has no choice but to contravene it, one must always be mindful of it as strive to align with the default moral law when the constraints are removed.

You keep talking about moral codes that are necessary to adapt to one's unique conditions and circumstances but you do not bother to understand how these moral codes have deviated from the default moral laws that are inherent to all humans.

But there was a time when morality was not codified. Your claim is that not only collaboration but also specific regulations aimed at collaboration are inherent.

[FlashDangerpants]

What do you mean by "moral". Let's assume a general consequentialist position

You can't even come close to a sound argument that "some cultures are objectively more ethical than others" if you have begged the question from the begining like that.

Not at all, it is quite simple actually:

Actions which decrease well-being are unethical,
Suicide decreases well being,
Therefore, suicide is unethical.

With respect to cultures,
Suicide is unethical,
If we compare two cultures and, all else equal, culture A promotes suicide,
Culture A is less ethical than culture B.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

Your argument is begging the question because it is demanding that consequentialist assumption up front. Deny that assumption and the conclusion is unsupported.

You cannot ever under any circumstance have a sound argument on the basis of assumed but contestable premises. Your claim to moral objectivity is therefore bankrupt.

You may stick that in your pipe and smoke it mister Holmes.

[KLewchuk]

You can't even come close to a sound argument that "some cultures are objectively more ethical than others" if you have begged the question from the begining like that.

Not at all, it is quite simple actually:

Actions which decrease well-being are unethical,
Suicide decreases well being,
Therefore, suicide is unethical.

With respect to cultures,
Suicide is unethical,
If we compare two cultures and, all else equal, culture A promotes suicide,
Culture A is less ethical than culture B.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

Your argument is begging the question because it is demanding that consequentialist assumption up front. Deny that assumption and the conclusion is unsupported.

You cannot ever under any circumstance have a sound argument on the basis of assumed but contestable premises. Your claim to moral objectivity is therefore bankrupt.

You may stick that in your pipe and smoke it mister Holmes.

That is not an assumption Mr Watson, it is a definition. So we could say that there are moral facts if you believe "ethics" are consequentialist in nature but there are no such moral facts if they are otherwise. Perhaps very true, but now we are asking a different question; specifically, what do we mean when we use the "word" "ethics"?

P.S. the sound you hear is my mic dropping to the floor

[FlashDangerpants]

That is not an assumption Mr Watson, it is a definition.

Ok then. Rejected.

P.S. the sound you hear is my mic dropping to the floor

Buh bye then.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is why, the understanding what is the inherent justified moral law within humanity i.e. 'no human ought to commit suicide' is so critical.
This is why it is so critical that one understand the default moral law and when one has no choice but to contravene it, one must always be mindful of it as strive to align with the default moral law when the constraints are removed.

You keep talking about moral codes that are necessary to adapt to one's unique conditions and circumstances but you do not bother to understand how these moral codes have deviated from the default moral laws that are inherent to all humans.

But there was a time when morality was not codified. Your claim is that not only collaboration but also specific regulations aimed at collaboration are inherent.

Not sure of your point.

My point is right from the beginning with the emergence of homo-sapiens the principles, laws and facts of morality were already embedded within the psyche of humans.
Note these inherent 'laws' are the natural laws and not the codified laws.

However as human evolved and expanded into different regions of the world, they began to adapt the above basic moral principles and laws to their specific conditions either by adding variations or they have to ignore some of the less critical default moral laws.
E.g. the Inuit Eskimos has to suppress and ignore the inherent 'no suicide moral law' due to the constraints they faced and they have to condone suicide which then over time the acceptance of suicide become a cultural tradition which are codified.

The Inuit Eskimos just do what is natural to them and do not discuss the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Now that we are discussing the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics, we need to understand the existence of two facts, i.e.

• 1. the default/inherent moral laws, principles and facts that are suppressed - e.g. no suicide.
  
  2. the existing codified traditional ethical/moral practices - suicide is accepted conditionally.

What I am saying is you and most people are merely focusing on 2 what is practiced currently but are ignorant of the moral facts as in 1 above.

For humanity to progress effectively into the future, we need to understand fully the natural and inherent moral laws, principles and facts that are suppressed or inhibited for various necessary reasons.

[Belinda]

This is why, the understanding what is the inherent justified moral law within humanity i.e. 'no human ought to commit suicide' is so critical.
This is why it is so critical that one understand the default moral law and when one has no choice but to contravene it, one must always be mindful of it as strive to align with the default moral law when the constraints are removed.

You keep talking about moral codes that are necessary to adapt to one's unique conditions and circumstances but you do not bother to understand how these moral codes have deviated from the default moral laws that are inherent to all humans.

But there was a time when morality was not codified. Your claim is that not only collaboration but also specific regulations aimed at collaboration are inherent.

Not sure of your point.

My point is right from the beginning with the emergence of homo-sapiens the principles, laws and facts of morality were already embedded within the psyche of humans.
Note these inherent 'laws' are the natural laws and not the codified laws.

However as human evolved and expanded into different regions of the world, they began to adapt the above basic moral principles and laws to their specific conditions either by adding variations or they have to ignore some of the less critical default moral laws.
E.g. the Inuit Eskimos has to suppress and ignore the inherent 'no suicide moral law' due to the constraints they faced and they have to condone suicide which then over time the acceptance of suicide become a cultural tradition which are codified.

The Inuit Eskimos just do what is natural to them and do not discuss the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Now that we are discussing the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics, we need to understand the existence of two facts, i.e.

• 1. the default/inherent moral laws, principles and facts that are suppressed - e.g. no suicide.
  
  2. the existing codified traditional ethical/moral practices - suicide is accepted conditionally.

What I am saying is you and most people are merely focusing on 2 what is practiced currently but are ignorant of the moral facts as in 1 above.

For humanity to progress effectively into the future, we need to understand fully the natural and inherent moral laws, principles and facts that are suppressed or inhibited for various necessary reasons.

What do you mean by "right from the beginning"? What and when was the beginning?
There are no inherent moral laws, any more than there are inherent ways to build shelters; why would there be?

True, we are mammals , mammals need to protect their young and that is probably inherent, otherwise the species could not thrive. To protect their young, sapiens individuals need to collaborate in getting food, protection, and shelter. Morality originates in need to collaborate, long ago and now.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But there was a time when morality was not codified. Your claim is that not only collaboration but also specific regulations aimed at collaboration are inherent.

Not sure of your point.

My point is right from the beginning with the emergence of homo-sapiens the principles, laws and facts of morality were already embedded within the psyche of humans.
Note these inherent 'laws' are the natural laws and not the codified laws.

However as human evolved and expanded into different regions of the world, they began to adapt the above basic moral principles and laws to their specific conditions either by adding variations or they have to ignore some of the less critical default moral laws.
E.g. the Inuit Eskimos has to suppress and ignore the inherent 'no suicide moral law' due to the constraints they faced and they have to condone suicide which then over time the acceptance of suicide become a cultural tradition which are codified.

The Inuit Eskimos just do what is natural to them and do not discuss the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Now that we are discussing the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics, we need to understand the existence of two facts, i.e.

• 1. the default/inherent moral laws, principles and facts that are suppressed - e.g. no suicide.
  
  2. the existing codified traditional ethical/moral practices - suicide is accepted conditionally.

What I am saying is you and most people are merely focusing on 2 what is practiced currently but are ignorant of the moral facts as in 1 above.

For humanity to progress effectively into the future, we need to understand fully the natural and inherent moral laws, principles and facts that are suppressed or inhibited for various necessary reasons.

What do you mean by "right from the beginning"? What and when was the beginning?
There are no inherent moral laws, any more than there are inherent ways to build shelters; why would there be?

True, we are mammals , mammals need to protect their young and that is probably inherent, otherwise the species could not thrive. To protect their young, sapiens individuals need to collaborate in getting food, protection, and shelter. Morality originates in need to collaborate, long ago and now.

Note the term I used, i.e. emergence.
My point is right from the beginning with the emergence of homo-sapiens ...
There is no fixed time in this case, but the 'beginning' refer to the phase whence 'archaic humans' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans were recognizable as modern human sapiens.

You stated
"Morality originates in need to collaborate, long ago and now"
Homo sapiens emerged and appeared somewhere around 300,000 years ago.
Thus your 'long ago' is likely referring to around 300,000 years ago.
So the impulse of morality [collaboration] emerged around 300,000 and given the length of time of evolving, this impulse is embedded in the human DNA/RNA thus 'inherent'.

So there is the generic inherent moral fact of 'collaboration' which originated 300,000 years which is embedded in the human DNA/RNA.
This is the inherent moral laws and principles of the impulse of collaboration.
Btw, this is a natural law evolved via human nature, they are not legislature laws made by men deliberately.
Do you agree with this 'inherent' factor?

It is this generic moral fact/law/principle of collaboration that enable humans to generate different ways of collaboration to suit their environment and these are codified as moral/ethical codes within specific groups. Surely the ways human collaborate 300,000 years ago and in between would be different from way we do it at present, but the fundamental/generic principle from 300,000 remained the same.

So can you see there are two aspects to the above, i.e.

• 1. the inherent moral fact/law/principle of the need to collaborate from since 300,000 years ago.
  2. the current adaptive moral precepts/codes of collaboration developed by different groups.

Point 1 above is the inherent moral principle, while point 2 are the different practices.
You are always focusing on 2 and you conflate 2 and 1. My point is the above two factors must be noted at all times and should not be conflated in this discussion.

It is the same with the moral ought re suicide.
There are two perspectives to the moral ought re suicide, there is the inherent moral principle re suicide, and there are the variable options of suicide adopted by different cultures and groups due to various constraints.

In the case of morality, the fundamental will always prevail and there is good justification why humanity need to strive for less suicides rather than be indifferent to it.
For example the depressed are often suicidal, so instead of accepting it humanity will need to strive to resolve the problem of depression and thus there will be no more suicide via depression.
If we get rid of Islam, there will be no more Islamic-based suicide bombers.
Thus re the moral issue of 'no suicide' we should tackle the root causes of suicide rather than be indifferent and accept suicide as a norm.

As for all moral issues we must trace them to the roots to as far back to 300,000 years ago and I would say it is necessary to trace it back to 4 billion years ago when the first one-cell living things emerged.