What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

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

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:47 am
  • 5i. Each and every good-that-is-not-evil claimed as a moral fact to be a moral standard must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
5i is verified and justified to the respective physical referents, i.e. the corresponding neural correlates.
Meanwhile, the mantra-mumbling goes on.

... Each and every good-that-is-not-evil claimed as a moral fact to be a moral standard is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral framework and system of knowledge to the respective physical referents, i.e. the corresponding neural correlates ...

Cut to the kind people in white coats bringing cocoa, biscuits and a nice warm blankie.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:47 am
  • 5i. Each and every good-that-is-not-evil claimed as a moral fact to be a moral standard must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
5i is verified and justified to the respective physical referents, i.e. the corresponding neural correlates.
No, it isn't. 5i, overall, is an imperative that something must be done contra possible alternatives. There's nothing in "corresponding neural correlates" that says that anything must be done contra possible alternatives (unless we're simply saying that a subset of brain states amount to someone thinking this imperative, but if so, that's what I'm talking about--this would merely be a disposition that an individual has).
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:02 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:47 am
  • 5i. Each and every good-that-is-not-evil claimed as a moral fact to be a moral standard must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
5i is verified and justified to the respective physical referents, i.e. the corresponding neural correlates.
No, it isn't. 5i, overall, is an imperative that something must be done contra possible alternatives. There's nothing in "corresponding neural correlates" that says that anything must be done contra possible alternatives (unless we're simply saying that a subset of brain states amount to someone thinking this imperative, but if so, that's what I'm talking about--this would merely be a disposition that an individual has).
Why not?
It is imperative all humans must breathe else the alternative is they die.
Therefore if an entity is a human being, then it ought to breathe, else it dies.
This imperative [must be done] is supported a specific set of neural correlates.

The above is obvious.
And similarly there are moral imperatives in the brain that are not so obvious to the layperson at present, that are supported a specific set of neural correlates.
E.g. the ought-not-to-kill-humans is imperative [categorically as a standard] morally, else the 'to kill' program if not inhibited by the moral imperative would be humans will be killed by humans willy-nilly.

It is the existence of 'the ought-not-to-kill-humans moral imperative' that is the critical factor that has enable the trend of the expansion of the human population since humans first emerged.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:21 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:02 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:47 am
  • 5i. Each and every good-that-is-not-evil claimed as a moral fact to be a moral standard must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
5i is verified and justified to the respective physical referents, i.e. the corresponding neural correlates.
No, it isn't. 5i, overall, is an imperative that something must be done contra possible alternatives. There's nothing in "corresponding neural correlates" that says that anything must be done contra possible alternatives (unless we're simply saying that a subset of brain states amount to someone thinking this imperative, but if so, that's what I'm talking about--this would merely be a disposition that an individual has).
Why not?
It is imperative all humans must breathe else the alternative is they die.
This is switching to talking about a precondition for something. You must breathe else you die. Just like you must NOT breathe if you're to die of suffocation. Both are just as much preconditions for a possible subsequent condition.

Your 5i, on the other hand, is a prescription for just one possibility, where the other possibilities are simply ignored. And then you're claiming that that exclusion isn't simply a personal disposition but somehow non-personally obtains. But that's not the case.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:35 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:21 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:02 pm

No, it isn't. 5i, overall, is an imperative that something must be done contra possible alternatives. There's nothing in "corresponding neural correlates" that says that anything must be done contra possible alternatives (unless we're simply saying that a subset of brain states amount to someone thinking this imperative, but if so, that's what I'm talking about--this would merely be a disposition that an individual has).
Why not?
It is imperative all humans must breathe else the alternative is they die.
This is switching to talking about a precondition for something. You must breathe else you die. Just like you must NOT breathe if you're to die of suffocation. Both are just as much preconditions for a possible subsequent condition.

Your 5i, on the other hand, is a prescription for just one possibility, where the other possibilities are simply ignored. And then you're claiming that that exclusion isn't simply a personal disposition but somehow non-personally obtains. But that's not the case.
As long as an entity is a human being, there is only one real and active precondition, your must breathe else you die.
Your alternative 'you ought not to breathe if you want to die' is merely theoretical and not an inherent real active precondition 'programmed' via evolution.

My 5i is an inherent moral standard [not a prescription per se] is one 'categorical' imperative upon birth. Actually there is no question of 'if' or 'possibility' because that oughtness is an inherent feature and act spontaneously which is of human existence.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:47 am As long as an entity is a human being, there is only one real and active precondition, your must breathe else you die.
So it's not true that you must not breathe if you're to die of suffocation?
Your alternative 'you ought not to breathe if you want to die' is merely theoretical and not an inherent real active precondition 'programmed' via evolution.
This smells of you buying teleology/purpose as something other than a way of thinking about things. You're thinking that your body has goals, has things it strives for, wants/desires, etc. where those goals, strivings, wants/desires are not conscious mental phenomena.

But this is wrong, and it's not supportable.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:43 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:47 am As long as an entity is a human being, there is only one real and active precondition, your must breathe else you die.
So it's not true that you must not breathe if you're to die of suffocation?
The above in theory is a logical truth.
But in reality, there is no oughtness that you must die of suffocation via evolution.

However there is an ought-not_ness not to kill humans within ALL humans as inherited via evolution.
Your alternative 'you ought not to breathe if you want to die' is merely theoretical and not an inherent real active precondition 'programmed' via evolution.
This smells of you buying teleology/purpose as something other than a way of thinking about things. You're thinking that your body has goals, has things it strives for, wants/desires, etc. where those goals, strivings, wants/desires are not conscious mental phenomena.

But this is wrong, and it's not supportable.
Rhetoric again.
Why bring in teleology, generally linked to theistic issues involving divine doctrines where the final purpose is eternal life in heaven or hell.

Point is this purpose I proposed can be verified empirically.
As I had stated "ALL humans are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable of mortality." That is human nature.
What is false about that "purpose"?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:26 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:43 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:47 am As long as an entity is a human being, there is only one real and active precondition, your must breathe else you die.
So it's not true that you must not breathe if you're to die of suffocation?
The above in theory is a logical truth.
But in reality, there is no oughtness that you must die of suffocation via evolution.

However there is an ought-not_ness not to kill humans within ALL humans as inherited via evolution.
Your alternative 'you ought not to breathe if you want to die' is merely theoretical and not an inherent real active precondition 'programmed' via evolution.
This smells of you buying teleology/purpose as something other than a way of thinking about things. You're thinking that your body has goals, has things it strives for, wants/desires, etc. where those goals, strivings, wants/desires are not conscious mental phenomena.

But this is wrong, and it's not supportable.
Rhetoric again.
Why bring in teleology, generally linked to theistic issues involving divine doctrines where the final purpose is eternal life in heaven or hell.

Point is this purpose I proposed can be verified empirically.
As I had stated "ALL humans are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable of mortality." That is human nature.
What is false about that "purpose"?
Same mistake.

Factual premise: Humans are programmed to live until they inevtably die.
Moral conclusion: Humans should live until they inevitably die.

Why should humans live as long as possible, or at all? Is it a fact that we should live as long as possible, or at all? What makes it a fact?

Have a go at really trying to answer those questions.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 7:51 am Same mistake.

....
What normative/theoretical pre-suppositions are you assuming to claim "mistakenness" ?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:26 am As I had stated "ALL humans are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable of mortality." That is human nature.
What is false about that "purpose"?
Is this just another way of saying that "human individuals survive until they die"?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:07 pm Is this just another way of saying that "human individuals survive until they die"?
When you ignore longevity (amongst other metrics), and you play a stupid-reductionist... sure.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:15 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:07 pm Is this just another way of saying that "human individuals survive until they die"?
When you ignore longevity (amongst other metrics), and you play a stupid-reductionist... sure.
If that's not what he's saying, he'd need to clarify what he's saying, and then under the clarification it's more than likely going to be the case that not all humans are "programmed to survive."

My suggestion was oriented towards what would have to be the case for his mantra to be true.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:17 pm If that's not what he's saying, he'd need to clarify what he's saying, and then it's more than likely going to be the case that not all humans are "programmed to survive."
That entirely depends on the boundary condition you impose.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:18 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:17 pm If that's not what he's saying, he'd need to clarify what he's saying, and then it's more than likely going to be the case that not all humans are "programmed to survive."
That entirely depends on the boundary condition you impose.
"boundary condition" of?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What Does "Objective" Mean With Respect to Morality?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:19 pm "boundary condition" of?
Of what separates those who "are programmed to survive" vs those who "are not".

Classification. Always.
Post Reply