What is a Moral Framework and System?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am surprised there are people who deny the existence of moral systems within their respective framework.

I don't 'conflate' the chemistry FSK with the moral FSK.
THERE IS NO MORAL FSK.
And that's because there are no moral facts.

Yes, we can empirically test for behavioral consistency with a moral standard. But to call that subjectively chosen moral standard a 'justified moral fact' begs the whole question.

Justified True Moral facts are derivative from a Moral Framework and System just like scientific knowledge, facts & truths emerged from the scientific FSK.

The theistic moral approach is a theistic moral framework and system, e.g. Christianity, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.
So is the Platonist moralists with their Platonic moral FSK.
The other moral FSKs are that of the deontologists, the utilitarianists, the consequentialists, the tribal moralists, and any groups that has a set of moral principles.

So what is a moral system?

What is a Moral System?
http://sites.stedwards.edu/ursery/class ... al-system/

An moral system is a system of coherent, systematic, and reasonable principles, rules, ideals, and values which work to form one’s overall perspective.
Not just any rules, of course, but moral values?

Each one of you has a moral system to some extent although most probably do not have an ethical system.

In your justification or argumentative essay you are asked to choose an ethical system (for example, utilitarian ethics, Kantian ethics, etc.) and to use that system in your essay to defend your moral rule or system.

In order to satisfactory do this, you need to understand what a moral system is.
Your moral system is your morality.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that not all moral system are equally good any more than all opinions are equally good.

The following is a dialogue, carried on by two half-baked ethicists, concerning the nature of a moral system.
.....

Evolution and Construction of Moral Systems
A moral system is an adaptive system for conflict management based on prescriptive, internalized social rules.
We decompose moral systems into the sense of fairness, moral judgments, and rules at the aggregate level.
We explore how each of these levels is constructed, including how this process is influenced by cognitive and organizational constraints and social architecture.
We consider feedback across these levels as well as the implications of partial time-scale separation for reducing uncertainty about behavioral outcomes.
We suggest that an appropriate theoretical framework for treating these issues is an extended theory of niche construction.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -85436-4_7

Just google and there are loads of leads to 'what is a moral system' within its specific framework.

Adding the term 'framework' to a moral system makes it more encompassing with other relevant features which strengthen the moral system.

The Moral FSK is as credible as the scientific FSK which has the following features of credibility and reliability;
The Credibility and Reliability of the Scientific FSK,

Analogy and how moral facts emerge from inside a moral FSK,
When a scientific 'oughtness' [scientific fact] is input within a moral FSK, and after processing with other inputs, what emerges from inside the moral FSK is a moral fact.

An analogy is the legal FSK which get its input from scientific facts and other inputs to be processed via the legal FSK and the output is a legal fact, e.g.
X is convicted of the murder of Y and is sentenced to death.

ETA:
How is a Human-based Moral FSK Objective?
Reality, facts, truths, knowledge and Objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK.
The human-based scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective at present.
The human-based moral FSK has near equivalence objectivity to the scientific-FSK because almost all of its critical inputs are from the scientific FSK.
Thus the human-based moral FSK enables the realization and emergence of objective moral facts which is subsequently perceive, known and described, then applied as a guide only.
Therefore the human-based FSK morality is highly objective.

[Peter Holmes]

I am surprised there are people who deny the existence of moral systems within their respective framework.

I don't 'conflate' the chemistry FSK with the moral FSK.
THERE IS NO MORAL FSK.
And that's because there are no moral facts.

Yes, we can empirically test for behavioral consistency with a moral standard. But to call that subjectively chosen moral standard a 'justified moral fact' begs the whole question.

How come you are so ignorant?
Justified True Moral facts are derivative from a Moral Framework and System just like scientific knowledge, facts & truths emerged from the scientific FSK.

The theistic moral approach is a theistic moral framework and system, e.g. Christianity, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.
So is the Platonist moralists with their Platonic moral FSK.
The other moral FSK are that of the deontologists, the utilitarianist, the consequentialists, the tribal moralists, and any groups that has a set of moral principles.

So what is a moral system?

What is a Moral System?
http://sites.stedwards.edu/ursery/class ... al-system/

An moral system is a system of coherent, systematic, and reasonable principles, rules, ideals, and values which work to form one’s overall perspective.
Not just any rules, of course, but moral values?

Each one of you has a moral system to some extent although most probably do not have an ethical system.

In your justification or argumentative essay you are asked to choose an ethical system (for example, utilitarian ethics, Kantian ethics, etc.) and to use that system in your essay to defend your moral rule or system.

In order to satisfactory do this, you need to understand what a moral system is.
Your moral system is your morality.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that not all moral system are equally good any more than all opinions are equally good.

The following is a dialogue, carried on by two half-baked ethicists, concerning the nature of a moral system.
.....

Evolution and Construction of Moral Systems
A moral system is an adaptive system for conflict management based on prescriptive, internalized social rules.
We decompose moral systems into the sense of fairness, moral judgments, and rules at the aggregate level.
We explore how each of these levels is constructed, including how this process is influenced by cognitive and organizational constraints and social architecture.
We consider feedback across these levels as well as the implications of partial time-scale separation for reducing uncertainty about behavioral outcomes.
We suggest that an appropriate theoretical framework for treating these issues is an extended theory of niche construction.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -85436-4_7

Just google and there are loads of leads to 'what is a moral system' within its specific framework.

Adding the term 'framework' to a moral system makes it more encompassing with other relevant features which strengthen the moral system.

Notice this definition: 'A moral system is an adaptive system for conflict management based on prescriptive, internalized social rules.'

A system of rules is not a system of knowledge consisting of facts. It can be a fact that we adopt a system of moral rules, but that doesn't mean the rules are facts.

And, strangely, your OP doesn't mention knowledge. I said there is no moral framework and system of KNOWLEDGE, comparable to the physics FSK, the chemistry FSK, the law FSK, and so on. And that's because there are no moral facts to be known.

Nul point.

[Skepdick]

A system of rules is not a system of knowledge consisting of facts. It can be a fact that we adopt a system of moral rules, but that doesn't mean the rules are facts.

So road speed limits, stop signs and red traffic lights aren't factual to you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notice this definition: 'A moral system is an adaptive system for conflict management based on prescriptive, internalized social rules.'

A system of rules is not a system of knowledge consisting of facts. It can be a fact that we adopt a system of moral rules, but that doesn't mean the rules are facts.

And, strangely, your OP doesn't mention knowledge. I said there is no moral framework and system of KNOWLEDGE, comparable to the physics FSK, the chemistry FSK, the law FSK, and so on. And that's because there are no moral facts to be known.

Nul point.

Note my standard point,
Facts are specific to a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSK].
Thus when I state "moral system", it implied the above i.e. Moral FSK or FSR.

Note the general meaning of 'knowledge'.

• Knowledge = facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Philosophically, knowledge = JTB [Gettier noted and set aside]

All [Physics, Chemistry, Legal, Science, Economics, etc.] frameworks with systems share the same generic basic principles of what is a 'framework' and 'system'.
Note I pointed out "System Theory".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Re Framework, note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_framework

• A conceptual framework is an analytical tool with several variations and contexts. It can be applied in different categories of work where an overall picture is needed. It is used to make conceptual distinctions and organize ideas. Strong conceptual frameworks capture something real and do this in a way that is easy to remember and apply.

Note your ignorance of the above.

A system of rules is not a system of knowledge consisting of facts. It can be a fact that we adopt a system of moral rules, but that doesn't mean the rules are facts.

It is because of your dogmatism with moral theory that you display so much rigidity in your thinking.

The original point was you deny there are moral systems.
So my task was to show you there are 'moral systems' and had picked up what come first from a quickie google search.

Btw, my moral framework and system [of knowledge or of reality] comprised of moral standards as guides, not prescriptive rules to be complied.
All the moral standards are adopted from moral facts, i.e. Justified True Moral Beliefs which are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the conditions of the moral FSK.
As such there are moral facts related to the moral FSK.

Point is whatever is a fact must be justified and verified empirically and philosophically within a FSK. It can be moral standards, rules, principles etc. within a FSK.

[Peter Holmes]

Notice this definition: 'A moral system is an adaptive system for conflict management based on prescriptive, internalized social rules.'

A system of rules is not a system of knowledge consisting of facts. It can be a fact that we adopt a system of moral rules, but that doesn't mean the rules are facts.

And, strangely, your OP doesn't mention knowledge. I said there is no moral framework and system of KNOWLEDGE, comparable to the physics FSK, the chemistry FSK, the law FSK, and so on. And that's because there are no moral facts to be known.

Nul point.

Note my standard point,
Facts are specific to a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSK].
Thus when I state "moral system", it implied the above i.e. Moral FSK or FSR.

Note the general meaning of 'knowledge'.

• Knowledge = facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Philosophically, knowledge = JTB [Gettier noted and set aside]

All [Physics, Chemistry, Legal, Science, Economics, etc.] frameworks with systems share the same generic basic principles of what is a 'framework' and 'system'.
Note I pointed out "System Theory".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Re Framework, note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_framework

• A conceptual framework is an analytical tool with several variations and contexts. It can be applied in different categories of work where an overall picture is needed. It is used to make conceptual distinctions and organize ideas. Strong conceptual frameworks capture something real and do this in a way that is easy to remember and apply.

Note your ignorance of the above.

A system of rules is not a system of knowledge consisting of facts. It can be a fact that we adopt a system of moral rules, but that doesn't mean the rules are facts.

It is because of your dogmatism with moral theory that you display so much rigidity in your thinking.

The original point was you deny there are moral systems.
So my task was to show you there are 'moral systems' and had picked up what come first from a quickie google search.

Btw, my moral framework and system [of knowledge or of reality] comprised of moral standards as guides, not prescriptive rules to be complied.
All the moral standards are adopted from moral facts, i.e. Justified True Moral Beliefs which are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the conditions of the moral FSK.
As such there are moral facts related to the moral FSK.

Point is whatever is a fact must be justified and verified empirically and philosophically within a FSK. It can be moral standards, rules, principles etc. within a FSK.

I don't deny there are moral systems, you stupid twat. I deny there are moral facts. We can certainly call a moral system a 'conceptual framework' - but so what? Since there are no moral facts, a moral system is merely a derivation from moral premises or axioms - which we need not choose to adopt.

Your invented moral FSK is nothing more than moral axioms from which you derive moral assertions. There's nothing factual about it - apart from the fact that you or someone else chooses the axioms. End of story. Or, sadly, not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notice this definition: 'A moral system is an adaptive system for conflict management based on prescriptive, internalized social rules.'

A system of rules is not a system of knowledge consisting of facts. It can be a fact that we adopt a system of moral rules, but that doesn't mean the rules are facts.

And, strangely, your OP doesn't mention knowledge. I said there is no moral framework and system of KNOWLEDGE, comparable to the physics FSK, the chemistry FSK, the law FSK, and so on. And that's because there are no moral facts to be known.

Nul point.

Note my standard point,
Facts are specific to a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSK].
Thus when I state "moral system", it implied the above i.e. Moral FSK or FSR.

Note the general meaning of 'knowledge'.

• Knowledge = facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Philosophically, knowledge = JTB [Gettier noted and set aside]

All [Physics, Chemistry, Legal, Science, Economics, etc.] frameworks with systems share the same generic basic principles of what is a 'framework' and 'system'.
Note I pointed out "System Theory".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Re Framework, note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_framework

• A conceptual framework is an analytical tool with several variations and contexts. It can be applied in different categories of work where an overall picture is needed. It is used to make conceptual distinctions and organize ideas. Strong conceptual frameworks capture something real and do this in a way that is easy to remember and apply.

Note your ignorance of the above.

A system of rules is not a system of knowledge consisting of facts. It can be a fact that we adopt a system of moral rules, but that doesn't mean the rules are facts.

It is because of your dogmatism with moral theory that you display so much rigidity in your thinking.

The original point was you deny there are moral systems.
So my task was to show you there are 'moral systems' and had picked up what come first from a quickie google search.

Btw, my moral framework and system [of knowledge or of reality] comprised of moral standards as guides, not prescriptive rules to be complied.
All the moral standards are adopted from moral facts, i.e. Justified True Moral Beliefs which are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the conditions of the moral FSK.
As such there are moral facts related to the moral FSK.

Point is whatever is a fact must be justified and verified empirically and philosophically within a FSK. It can be moral standards, rules, principles etc. within a FSK.

I don't deny there are moral systems, you stupid twat. I deny there are moral facts. We can certainly call a moral system a 'conceptual framework' - but so what? Since there are no moral facts, a moral system is merely a derivation from moral premises or axioms - which we need not choose to adopt.

Your invented moral FSK is nothing more than moral axioms from which you derive moral assertions. There's nothing factual about it - apart from the fact that you or someone else chooses the axioms. End of story. Or, sadly, not.

You are the one who is the stupid twat making stupid statements without sound justifications.

You stated,
"there are no MORAL FSK.
FSK = framework and system of knowledge.
What is central with a FSK or FSR is the 'system'.
Thus when I refer to a moral system, it implied a moral FSK.

My point is
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
as verified and justified from within a moral FSK.

You insist there are no moral facts because what is fact to you is confined to merely linguistic facts which ultimately are merely illusions.
There are No Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591

You have not provided any solid to the above OPs and arguments therein.

You are really behind time, note ONE EXAMPLE among many, the following discussion re moral realism and moral facts within the Philosophical Community, from IEP;

The moral realist contends that there are moral facts, so moral realism is a thesis in ontology, the study of what is.
The ontological category “moral facts” includes both the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true of an individual, such as, “Sam is morally good,” and the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true for all individuals such as, “Lying for personal gain is wrong.”
A signature of the latter type of moral fact is that it not only describes an enduring condition of the world but also proscribes what ought to be the case (or what ought not to be the case) in terms of an individual’s behavior.
https://iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) (ISSN 2161-0002) was founded in 1995 to provide open access to detailed, scholarly, peer-reviewed information on key topics and philosophers in all areas of philosophy.

Also note the hint I given many times,
56% of philosophers [not tom, dick or harry] surveyed accept moral realism, thus moral facts and moral objectivity.

Your views has no credibility at all.
In addition you have not even posted one link or reference from any credible philosophical source to support your claims.

[Peter Holmes]

Note my standard point,
Facts are specific to a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSK].
Thus when I state "moral system", it implied the above i.e. Moral FSK or FSR.

Note the general meaning of 'knowledge'.

• Knowledge = facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Philosophically, knowledge = JTB [Gettier noted and set aside]

All [Physics, Chemistry, Legal, Science, Economics, etc.] frameworks with systems share the same generic basic principles of what is a 'framework' and 'system'.
Note I pointed out "System Theory".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Re Framework, note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_framework

• A conceptual framework is an analytical tool with several variations and contexts. It can be applied in different categories of work where an overall picture is needed. It is used to make conceptual distinctions and organize ideas. Strong conceptual frameworks capture something real and do this in a way that is easy to remember and apply.

Note your ignorance of the above.


It is because of your dogmatism with moral theory that you display so much rigidity in your thinking.

The original point was you deny there are moral systems.
So my task was to show you there are 'moral systems' and had picked up what come first from a quickie google search.

Btw, my moral framework and system [of knowledge or of reality] comprised of moral standards as guides, not prescriptive rules to be complied.
All the moral standards are adopted from moral facts, i.e. Justified True Moral Beliefs which are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the conditions of the moral FSK.
As such there are moral facts related to the moral FSK.

Point is whatever is a fact must be justified and verified empirically and philosophically within a FSK. It can be moral standards, rules, principles etc. within a FSK.

I don't deny there are moral systems, you stupid twat. I deny there are moral facts. We can certainly call a moral system a 'conceptual framework' - but so what? Since there are no moral facts, a moral system is merely a derivation from moral premises or axioms - which we need not choose to adopt.

Your invented moral FSK is nothing more than moral axioms from which you derive moral assertions. There's nothing factual about it - apart from the fact that you or someone else chooses the axioms. End of story. Or, sadly, not.

You are the one who is the stupid twat making stupid statements without sound justifications.

You stated,
"there are no MORAL FSK.
FSK = framework and system of knowledge.
What is central with a FSK or FSR is the 'system'.
Thus when I refer to a moral system, it implied a moral FSK.

My point is
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
as verified and justified from within a moral FSK.

You insist there are no moral facts because what is fact to you is confined to merely linguistic facts which ultimately are merely illusions.
There are No Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591

You have not provided any solid to the above OPs and arguments therein.

You are really behind time, note ONE EXAMPLE among many, the following discussion re moral realism and moral facts within the Philosophical Community, from IEP;

The moral realist contends that there are moral facts, so moral realism is a thesis in ontology, the study of what is.
The ontological category “moral facts” includes both the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true of an individual, such as, “Sam is morally good,” and the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true for all individuals such as, “Lying for personal gain is wrong.”
A signature of the latter type of moral fact is that it not only describes an enduring condition of the world but also proscribes what ought to be the case (or what ought not to be the case) in terms of an individual’s behavior.
https://iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) (ISSN 2161-0002) was founded in 1995 to provide open access to detailed, scholarly, peer-reviewed information on key topics and philosophers in all areas of philosophy.

Also note the hint I given many times,
56% of philosophers [not tom, dick or harry] surveyed accept moral realism, thus moral facts and moral objectivity.

Your views has no credibility at all.
In addition you have not even posted one link or reference from any credible philosophical source to support your claims.

I agree that moral realism is an ontological claim. But stating the claim does nothing to demonstrate its truth. And pending that demonstration, moral realism and objectivism are irrational. End of story.

[psycho]

My impression is that "truth" is the valuation of human concepts whose correspondence with reality can only be estimated to be less than 100%. I do not see how it would be possible to estimate an absolute correspondence between a concept and the reality that it tries to describe.

The rules of any moral system cannot be considered human confirmed truths.

One may consider that a particular rule has been useful under the circumstances in which it was applied. But that leaves pending the estimation of its value and effectiveness in all those possible circumstances in which it has not yet been applied.

In my view, humans only apply moral rules that restrict behaviors when those behaviors displease the most sensitive and aggressive majority of their social group.

Thus, one finds that the evolution of the sensitivity of each society results in changes in its moral rules.

Everything seems to suggest that morality is a product of biological evolution that favors the stability of human groups by creating rules that appease their most aggressive and sensitive members.

But this is just a quick opinion from lightly reading some of the comments.

This is a very interesting topic!

Regards.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't deny there are moral systems, you stupid twat. I deny there are moral facts. We can certainly call a moral system a 'conceptual framework' - but so what? Since there are no moral facts, a moral system is merely a derivation from moral premises or axioms - which we need not choose to adopt.

Your invented moral FSK is nothing more than moral axioms from which you derive moral assertions. There's nothing factual about it - apart from the fact that you or someone else chooses the axioms. End of story. Or, sadly, not.

You are the one who is the stupid twat making stupid statements without sound justifications.

You stated,
"there are no MORAL FSK.
FSK = framework and system of knowledge.
What is central with a FSK or FSR is the 'system'.
Thus when I refer to a moral system, it implied a moral FSK.

My point is
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
as verified and justified from within a moral FSK.

You insist there are no moral facts because what is fact to you is confined to merely linguistic facts which ultimately are merely illusions.
There are No Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591

You have not provided any solid to the above OPs and arguments therein.

You are really behind time, note ONE EXAMPLE among many, the following discussion re moral realism and moral facts within the Philosophical Community, from IEP;

The moral realist contends that there are moral facts, so moral realism is a thesis in ontology, the study of what is.
The ontological category “moral facts” includes both the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true of an individual, such as, “Sam is morally good,” and the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true for all individuals such as, “Lying for personal gain is wrong.”
A signature of the latter type of moral fact is that it not only describes an enduring condition of the world but also proscribes what ought to be the case (or what ought not to be the case) in terms of an individual’s behavior.
https://iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) (ISSN 2161-0002) was founded in 1995 to provide open access to detailed, scholarly, peer-reviewed information on key topics and philosophers in all areas of philosophy.

Also note the hint I given many times,
56% of philosophers [not tom, dick or harry] surveyed accept moral realism, thus moral facts and moral objectivity.

Your views has no credibility at all.
In addition you have not even posted one link or reference from any credible philosophical source to support your claims.

I agree that moral realism is an ontological claim. But stating the claim does nothing to demonstrate its truth. And pending that demonstration, moral realism and objectivism are irrational. End of story.

Nope, not in my case. That is applicable to the Platonic Moral Realism.

To me, moral realism is moral-empirical-realism which is an epistemological claim which must be justified empirically and philosophically to be true within the moral FSK.

[Peter Holmes]

I agree that moral realism is an ontological claim. But stating the claim does nothing to demonstrate its truth. And pending that demonstration, moral realism and objectivism are irrational. End of story.

Nope, not in my case. That is applicable to the Platonic Moral Realism.

To me, moral realism is moral-empirical-realism which is an epistemological claim which must be justified empirically and philosophically to be true within the moral FSK.

Ontology deals with what exists, and epistemology with belief and knowledge. They're supposed to be different disciplines. So empirical-realism is an unpleasant mash-up.

But, hey. What matters is showing that claims are true. And how ever many times you drone your mantra that moral facts must be empirically and philosophically justified - until you do it, this is nothing more than ritual blather.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree that moral realism is an ontological claim. But stating the claim does nothing to demonstrate its truth. And pending that demonstration, moral realism and objectivism are irrational. End of story.

Nope, not in my case. That is applicable to the Platonic Moral Realism.

To me, moral realism is moral-empirical-realism which is an epistemological claim which must be justified empirically and philosophically to be true within the moral FSK.

Ontology deals with what exists, and epistemology with belief and knowledge. They're supposed to be different disciplines. So empirical-realism is an unpleasant mash-up.

But, hey. What matters is showing that claims are true. And how ever many times you drone your mantra that moral facts must be empirically and philosophically justified - until you do it, this is nothing more than ritual blather.

viewtopic.php?p=487980#p487980

If you don't understand [not necessary agree with] the above i.e. fact-in-itself, then your knowledge tube is constipated, that is why you have so much problems with your dogmatism and bigotry.

You haven't produced evidence for the existence of even one moral fact, empirically and philosophically justified with 'the moral FSK'. So you haven't even done what you think has to be done. You just keep saying that a moral fact has to be ... etc.
Nul point.

Nah, I am not bothered with your noises.

You need to understand what is a fact-in-itself first then you will understand how I have justified moral facts within a moral FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My impression is that "truth" is the valuation of human concepts whose correspondence with reality can only be estimated to be less than 100%. I do not see how it would be possible to estimate an absolute correspondence between a concept and the reality that it tries to describe.

The rules of any moral system cannot be considered human confirmed truths.

One may consider that a particular rule has been useful under the circumstances in which it was applied. But that leaves pending the estimation of its value and effectiveness in all those possible circumstances in which it has not yet been applied.

In my view, humans only apply moral rules that restrict behaviors when those behaviors displease the most sensitive and aggressive majority of their social group.

Thus, one finds that the evolution of the sensitivity of each society results in changes in its moral rules.

Everything seems to suggest that morality is a product of biological evolution that favors the stability of human groups by creating rules that appease their most aggressive and sensitive members.

But this is just a quick opinion from lightly reading some of the comments.

This is a very interesting topic!

Regards.

There is no question of applying or imposing moral rules upon individuals within a moral system.

What is done is justified-true-moral-facts are merely adopted as moral standards to guide moral improvements within the individuals.

Everything seems to suggest that morality is a product of biological evolution that favors the stability of human groups ....

Agree with the above [without the other phrases], and to add, favor the stability of the human species.

If morality is a product of evolution - it must be empirical, thus it should be able to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible system.

So moral facts can only qualify as moral standards when they are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral system similar to the scientific framework and system.

[Peter Holmes]

Nope, not in my case. That is applicable to the Platonic Moral Realism.

To me, moral realism is moral-empirical-realism which is an epistemological claim which must be justified empirically and philosophically to be true within the moral FSK.

Ontology deals with what exists, and epistemology with belief and knowledge. They're supposed to be different disciplines. So empirical-realism is an unpleasant mash-up.

But, hey. What matters is showing that claims are true. And how ever many times you drone your mantra that moral facts must be empirically and philosophically justified - until you do it, this is nothing more than ritual blather.

viewtopic.php?p=487980#p487980

If you don't understand [not necessary agree with] the above i.e. fact-in-itself, then your knowledge tube is constipated, that is why you have so much problems with your dogmatism and bigotry.

You haven't produced evidence for the existence of even one moral fact, empirically and philosophically justified with 'the moral FSK'. So you haven't even done what you think has to be done. You just keep saying that a moral fact has to be ... etc.
Nul point.

Nah, I am not bothered with your noises.

You need to understand what is a fact-in-itself first then you will understand how I have justified moral facts within a moral FSK.

I'm not bothered with your noises - and neither should anyone else give a toss about your false claims and unsound argument. Nul point.

[psycho]

My impression is that "truth" is the valuation of human concepts whose correspondence with reality can only be estimated to be less than 100%. I do not see how it would be possible to estimate an absolute correspondence between a concept and the reality that it tries to describe.

The rules of any moral system cannot be considered human confirmed truths.

One may consider that a particular rule has been useful under the circumstances in which it was applied. But that leaves pending the estimation of its value and effectiveness in all those possible circumstances in which it has not yet been applied.

In my view, humans only apply moral rules that restrict behaviors when those behaviors displease the most sensitive and aggressive majority of their social group.

Thus, one finds that the evolution of the sensitivity of each society results in changes in its moral rules.

Everything seems to suggest that morality is a product of biological evolution that favors the stability of human groups by creating rules that appease their most aggressive and sensitive members.

But this is just a quick opinion from lightly reading some of the comments.

This is a very interesting topic!

Regards.

There is no question of applying or imposing moral rules upon individuals within a moral system.

What is done is justified-true-moral-facts are merely adopted as moral standards to guide moral improvements within the individuals.

Everything seems to suggest that morality is a product of biological evolution that favors the stability of human groups ....

Agree with the above [without the other phrases], and to add, favor the stability of the human species.

If morality is a product of evolution - it must be empirical, thus it should be able to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible system.

So moral facts can only qualify as moral standards when they are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral system similar to the scientific framework and system.

In my opinion, appeasing individuals with a low threshold of tolerance for disgust enables social cohesion. The group continues cooperative without much conflict.

These limits are culturally communicated and correspond to the particular sensitivity of that group. One may notice that the group only reacts negatively to behaviors that are considered disgusting, aggressively limiting them, and yet does not reinforce or encourage behaviors that produce pleasure. The latter have no rules.

"X should not be done" is not the same as "X should be done". The "X should be done" rules are only mandatory when the population does not like X not being done.

Thus, "You must love god" actually appeases those who find it offensive that their god is not loved.

In people, a combination of chemicals are generated by recognizing the actions of other individuals. The mechanism is modulated by the cultural constructions of the group.

It has recently been noticed that producing disgust (through unpleasant odors, for example) favors the individuals judge more harshly what they consider immoral.

If one were to modify the sensitivity of a certain group, it would be expected that moral judgments would vary respectively.

I get the impression that we are contemporaneous with the beginning of the disappearance of the "disgust" that homosexual relationships produce in some individuals. Until very recently the majority reacted with viceral disgust to imagine such relationships in intimacy and most people deemed them immoral.

But the continuous cultural friction with the subject is normalizing it and thus is wearing down its ability to displease the majority.

Homosexuality should never have been morally evaluated.

On the other hand, for most of human history, people used animals without the slightest ethical hesitation. This is changing.

Regards.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In my opinion, appeasing individuals with a low threshold of tolerance for disgust enables social cohesion. The group continues cooperative without much conflict.

These limits are culturally communicated and correspond to the particular sensitivity of that group. One may notice that the group only reacts negatively to behaviors that are considered disgusting, aggressively limiting them, and yet does not reinforce or encourage behaviors that produce pleasure. The latter have no rules.

"X should not be done" is not the same as "X should be done". The "X should be done" rules are only mandatory when the population does not like X not being done.

Thus, "You must love god" actually appeases those who find it offensive that their god is not loved.

In people, a combination of chemicals are generated by recognizing the actions of other individuals. The mechanism is modulated by the cultural constructions of the group.

It has recently been noticed that producing disgust (through unpleasant odors, for example) favors the individuals judge more harshly what they consider immoral.

If one were to modify the sensitivity of a certain group, it would be expected that moral judgments would vary respectively.

I get the impression that we are contemporaneous with the beginning of the disappearance of the "disgust" that homosexual relationships produce in some individuals. Until very recently the majority reacted with viceral disgust to imagine such relationships in intimacy and most people deemed them immoral.

But the continuous cultural friction with the subject is normalizing it and thus is wearing down its ability to displease the majority.

Homosexuality should never have been morally evaluated.

On the other hand, for most of human history, people used animals without the slightest ethical hesitation. This is changing.

Regards.

Disgust is an evolved adapted natural instinct that has survival values.
Besides prevent poisoning or dangers, disgust also has moral values.
Note the disgust for incest by the majority toward interbreeding deterrence which is a moral issue.

I believe the disgust for homosexuality is also instinctual rather than a learned attitude, thus inherently an evolved moral issue.
[THEORIZING]: What if for some abnormal event on Earth that ALL humans are born homosexuals with inhibited paternity or maternity instincts in the future?
Then the human species will be extinct in time.
There could be other possible abnormal reasons the majority could be homosexuals.
The above is the reason why there is an inherent disgust for homosexuality to ensure the human species do not go extinct.

In real life up to the current point in time, nature has insurance in terms of large numbers.
By the principles of Normal Distribution, all human variables are distributed within a continuum for one extreme to the other with the average in between.
As such in the case of sexuality, there will be homosexuality at one end of the extreme.
Thus at present, even if 10% of humans, i.e. 700 million are homosexuals, there is no threat to the human species.

Nevertheless, homosexuality is still an inherent moral issue [as insurance against the worst possibility as theorized above], but should not be condemned given it is no threat to humanity.