All Moral State-of-affairs are Facts

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality is people getting on as collectives. Humans live in families as the very smallest collective unit. Mammals' need to live collectively is genetic, not individual.

You missed my point.

I agree the collective is important.

Note in the case of team-building, say a basketball team.
The first and most important criteria for an effective team is the individual team members must be skillful in their respective role and at the same time a good team-player.
It is say the strength of any team is equivalent to the strength of its weakest member - analogy with the strength of a chain is the strength of its weakest link.
So the focus must be on the individual members first than the whole team.

It is the same with team-humanity in respect of morality.
What is critical is the self-development of the individuals' moral competence so that the overall moral state of humanity or specific groups are morally efficient.

Another point is, even if there is only one human left on Earth, as a human being she has an inherent moral function and thus naturally driven to act morally, e.g. not to commit suicide. If she is basically morally competent he will do it but live till the inevitable.
Perhaps she could get access to a sperm bank and impregnate herself to start a family.

That is true of teams and chains. It's not true of reproduction or property.

I did not intend to link the two point above in your sense.

What is true of teams and chains is to counter your point that the collective [team] is more critical, while I believe the focus on the individual members of the team should be primary. It is the same with morality within humanity, where the focus on the individual is critical.

[Belinda]

You missed my point.

I agree the collective is important.

Note in the case of team-building, say a basketball team.
The first and most important criteria for an effective team is the individual team members must be skillful in their respective role and at the same time a good team-player.
It is say the strength of any team is equivalent to the strength of its weakest member - analogy with the strength of a chain is the strength of its weakest link.
So the focus must be on the individual members first than the whole team.

It is the same with team-humanity in respect of morality.
What is critical is the self-development of the individuals' moral competence so that the overall moral state of humanity or specific groups are morally efficient.

Another point is, even if there is only one human left on Earth, as a human being she has an inherent moral function and thus naturally driven to act morally, e.g. not to commit suicide. If she is basically morally competent he will do it but live till the inevitable.
Perhaps she could get access to a sperm bank and impregnate herself to start a family.

That is true of teams and chains. It's not true of reproduction or property.

I did not intend to link the two point above in your sense.

What is true of teams and chains is to counter your point that the collective [team] is more critical, while I believe the focus on the individual members of the team should be primary. It is the same with morality within humanity, where the focus on the individual is critical.

But morality is very much to do with collaborating about reproduction rights and duties, and property rights and duties, besides other activities of hunting , mining, and farming. The hypothetical and fictional individual who lives alone not in any sort of collective, has no need to collaborate about property rights and duties or sexual right and duties. Therefore morality is bound up in the evolution of humanity as a social mammal which is to say insofar as morality is genetic it inheres in genes not individuals. There is no such thing as a truly solitary human individual.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is true of teams and chains. It's not true of reproduction or property.

I did not intend to link the two point above in your sense.

What is true of teams and chains is to counter your point that the collective [team] is more critical, while I believe the focus on the individual members of the team should be primary. It is the same with morality within humanity, where the focus on the individual is critical.

But morality is very much to do with collaborating about reproduction rights and duties, and property rights and duties, besides other activities of hunting , mining, and farming. The hypothetical and fictional individual who lives alone not in any sort of collective, has no need to collaborate about property rights and duties or sexual right and duties. Therefore morality is bound up in the evolution of humanity as a social mammal which is to say insofar as morality is genetic it inheres in genes not individuals. There is no such thing as a truly solitary human individual.

The above is the problem when we do not have consensus or at least qualified consensus on the term 'what is morality' and 'what is ethics'.
Note the points I raised here regarding a lack of definition of morality.
viewtopic.php?p=472078#p472078

Most of the time I had focused more on the principles [substantive] of morality while you would beat around the bush with the varied forms [contents] related to morality. On the basis of forms what is moral 'meat' to one is moral 'poison' to another. The only way to arrive at consensus is to understand the moral principles.

But morality is very much to do with collaborating about reproduction rights and duties, and property rights and duties, besides other activities of hunting , mining, and farming.

The above are the forms of morality but not the principles of morality.
Property rights and others are dealt within secular laws and justice; whatever the moral issues, they are secondary.

Other than reproduction can you show me the rest of the points you raised are discussed commonly within morality?
As for reproduction rights and the issue of abortion, the forms of it is covered by laws but there are deeper moral principles to whether abortion is morally right or wrong.

[Belinda]

I did not intend to link the two point above in your sense.

What is true of teams and chains is to counter your point that the collective [team] is more critical, while I believe the focus on the individual members of the team should be primary. It is the same with morality within humanity, where the focus on the individual is critical.

But morality is very much to do with collaborating about reproduction rights and duties, and property rights and duties, besides other activities of hunting , mining, and farming. The hypothetical and fictional individual who lives alone not in any sort of collective, has no need to collaborate about property rights and duties or sexual right and duties. Therefore morality is bound up in the evolution of humanity as a social mammal which is to say insofar as morality is genetic it inheres in genes not individuals. There is no such thing as a truly solitary human individual.

The above is the problem when we do not have consensus or at least qualified consensus on the term 'what is morality' and 'what is ethics'.
Note the points I raised here regarding a lack of definition of morality.
viewtopic.php?p=472078#p472078

Most of the time I had focused more on the principles [substantive] of morality while you would beat around the bush with the varied forms [contents] related to morality. On the basis of forms what is moral 'meat' to one is moral 'poison' to another. The only way to arrive at consensus is to understand the moral principles.

But morality is very much to do with collaborating about reproduction rights and duties, and property rights and duties, besides other activities of hunting , mining, and farming.

The above are the forms of morality but not the principles of morality.
Morality is confined primarily to the individual and secondary to the collective.
The individuals must each and first be morally competent spontaneously which will then effect the results of the collective via spontaneous co-operation by the individuals.

Other than reproduction can you show me the rest of the points you raised are discussed commonly within morality?
As for reproduction rights and the issue of abortion, the forms of it is covered by laws but there are deeper moral principles to whether abortion is morally right or wrong.

You wrote:

Morality is confined primarily to the individual and secondary to the collective.
The individuals must each and first be morally competent spontaneously which will then effect the results of the collective via spontaneous co-operation by the individuals.

It's literally impossible that men live individually outwith any societies of other individuals.
However with regard to age-related moral development there is the issue of moral competence. the law takes account of this fact by ruling that before a certain age children are not legally responsible.

As for reproduction rights and the issue of abortion, the forms of it is covered by laws but there are deeper moral principles to whether abortion is morally right or wrong.

What do you mean by "deeper" ?

Secular laws originate in religious laws, or other ideologies.

Other than reproduction can you show me the rest of the points you raised are discussed commonly within morality?

Yes, I can .Regarding property rights:

14 “You shall not commit adultery.

15 “You shall not steal.

16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality is confined primarily to the individual and secondary to the collective.
The individuals must each and first be morally competent spontaneously which will then effect the results of the collective via spontaneous co-operation by the individuals.

It's literally impossible that men live individually outwith any societies of other individuals.
However with regard to age-related moral development there is the issue of moral competence. the law takes account of this fact by ruling that before a certain age children are not legally responsible.

You missed my point. We have gone through this point before.
I understand the saying 'No man is an Island by himself'.

I don't think you bother to read my post properly.
I'll restate again,

Before society can progress morally as a group, we must first ensure each and every individual is morally competent.

As for reproduction rights and the issue of abortion, the forms of it is covered by laws but there are deeper moral principles to whether abortion is morally right or wrong.

What do you mean by "deeper" ?

Secular laws originate in religious laws, or other ideologies.

'Deeper' in the sense we must study what is going inside the the brain of those who hold the different views on abortion and much deeper on how they evolve to hold the different views.
This will take us into the subject of neural-morality and moral psychology.

[Belinda]

Morality is confined primarily to the individual and secondary to the collective.
The individuals must each and first be morally competent spontaneously which will then effect the results of the collective via spontaneous co-operation by the individuals.

It's literally impossible that men live individually outwith any societies of other individuals.
However with regard to age-related moral development there is the issue of moral competence. the law takes account of this fact by ruling that before a certain age children are not legally responsible.

You missed my point. We have gone through this point before.
I understand the saying 'No man is an Island by himself'.

I don't think you bother to read my post properly.
I'll restate again,

Before society can progress morally as a group, we must first ensure each and every individual is morally competent.

As for reproduction rights and the issue of abortion, the forms of it is covered by laws but there are deeper moral principles to whether abortion is morally right or wrong.

What do you mean by "deeper" ?

Secular laws originate in religious laws, or other ideologies.

'Deeper' in the sense we must study what is going inside the the brain of those who hold the different views on abortion and much deeper on how they evolve to hold the different views.
This will take us into the subject of neural-morality and moral psychology.

it is so unlikely that any view on abortion is an indicator of psychopathy that nobody will research that hypothesis.

Sorry about that. Sometimes I have to read something again and again once before it sinks in.

Before society can progress morally as a group, we must first ensure each and every individual is morally competent.

I agree. Excepting of course those who are immature and those who lack emotional intelligence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

'Deeper' in the sense we must study what is going inside the the brain of those who hold the different views on abortion and much deeper on how they evolve to hold the different views.
This will take us into the subject of neural-morality and moral psychology.

it is so unlikely that any view on abortion is an indicator of psychopathy that nobody will research that hypothesis.

Sorry about that. Sometimes I have to read something again and again once before it sinks in.

In the above I did not mean specifically psychopathy, whilst I do agree psychopaths would likely to agree with abortions given their lack of empathy and compassion for others.

The issue of abortion is a very complex issue involving a multitude of variables, the most common involving the minds of human beings thus naturally what is going inside their brains is critical and need to be taken into account.

[SpheresOfBalance]

• P1 All mental states are facts
  P2 All moral states are mental states
  C1 All moral states are facts, i.e. moral facts.

From the above, moral facts exist.

• P1 All mental states are facts
  P2 All IMAGINARY ANIMALS are mental states
  C1 All IMAGINARY ANIMALS are facts, i.e. UNICORN facts.

From the above, UNICORNS exist.

P1 A state of affairs is a way in which the actual world is.
P2 No human wants to be murdered.
P3 Morality is conformity with the rules of right conduct.
P4 What is right is good, proper and just.
P5 Fact is something that actually exists, is real and true.
P6 Premises 1 through 5 are facts and are states of affairs.
C1 Therefore to not murder is a moral state of affairs that is a fact for everyone.
C2 All states of affairs that meet premises 4 & 5, that doesn't deny what another human wants for themselves, are moral states of affairs that are facts, for those that want them for themselves.

So morals can either be subjective or objective dependent upon them applying to all of humanity or not.

And yes this accounts for unicorns and flying pink elephants, under the 'orange sunshine' in California in 1968.
Of course this doesn't cause them to exist, rather it allows them to exist, for those that sense that they do.

[Belinda]

'Deeper' in the sense we must study what is going inside the the brain of those who hold the different views on abortion and much deeper on how they evolve to hold the different views.
This will take us into the subject of neural-morality and moral psychology.

it is so unlikely that any view on abortion is an indicator of psychopathy that nobody will research that hypothesis.

Sorry about that. Sometimes I have to read something again and again once before it sinks in.

In the above I did not mean specifically psychopathy, whilst I do agree psychopaths would likely to agree with abortions given their lack of empathy and compassion for others.

The issue of abortion is a very complex issue involving a multitude of variables, the most common involving the minds of human beings thus naturally what is going inside their brains is critical and need to be taken into account.

No, you do not agree with me! If you do this tactic again I will cease discussions with you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

it is so unlikely that any view on abortion is an indicator of psychopathy that nobody will research that hypothesis.

Sorry about that. Sometimes I have to read something again and again once before it sinks in.

In the above I did not mean specifically psychopathy, whilst I do agree psychopaths would likely to agree with abortions given their lack of empathy and compassion for others.

The issue of abortion is a very complex issue involving a multitude of variables, the most common involving the minds of human beings thus naturally what is going inside their brains is critical and need to be taken into account.

No, you do not agree with me! If you do this tactic again I will cease discussions with you.

Threats are irrelevant.
Don't get the impression I cannot survive without you responding to my posts?
It has always been the case, it is one's discretion to response and post at any time.
Since you are so emotional, it is better for you cease discussion on my posts.

[Sculptor]

Therefore moral facts exist.
This is indisputable.

Views?

Fact: Veritas Aequitas is morally repugnant.
Fact: Veritas Aequitas does not have a clue.