'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

DPMartin wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 4:40 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 7:33 am


It is already evident there is an inherent moral function within each individual that is slowly unfolding.

Note morality impulses within babies;
  • The Moral Life of Babies
    Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
    Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.
Slavery is a moral issue.
Since the prevalence of slavery 10,000 years ago and the condoning of slavery even by God [Christianity, Islam, etc.], the natural inherent moral progress has reach a point where ALL sovereign nations now has legally banned slavery.
Christianity and Islam with their immutable doctrines and holy texts are in principle still condoning slavery.

There is also a general trend in the decrease of violence and evil since 10,000 to 5,000 to 50 to the present which is due to the inherent moral function within all humans.


You are obviously ignorant with morality and animals.
Animals comprised a wide range of evolving living entities with humans at the apex.

Morality has been evolving within evolution where it is very notable within humans.
As such there would definitely be evidence of low grade morality with the higher animals like the primates and the likes.
See the below;
your professor, does he find and proves, or does he argue as you say, also universities these days don't get grants and support for research unless special interests are paying the bill.
There are possibilities to what you are thinking may happened.

However in this case, it is very easy for anyone to repeat the testing and experiments to get the same results, thus objective. So far no one has done the same experiment to get contrasting results.
also anyone can redefine instincts for morals if they want to. instincts are inherent to the species and not the same throughout living things in the earth. if morals were inherent then they would be the same always. where as in the real world morals require an agreement that is ether kept or broken or renegotiated.
NOPE.
First you have to define what is morality.
There are various definition of what is morality see:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737

But there is only one morality proper which is generic to all humans, i.e.
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799

Note for example, one of the moral fact, i.e. "no human ought to kill humans" is universal to all humans which is most glaring even in non-violent religions, e.g. Christianity and others.
back in the day there were those societies that require sacrificing children in fire, or in roman days it was normal, what the society agrees as ok, moral, to give your child to a rich influential pedophile for advancement in society. they are what is known as morals. just as your example of slavery at one time societies seen it as a good part of their societies, and now its agreed in most societies it is not good. again you are proving my point.
Note my point re the generic definition of what is morality above.
Sacrificing children, any killing of humans, slavery and other evil deeds cannot be categorized as moral.
all you are trying to do is say instincts are morals and they are not, nada, null, nix, no way jose.
Nope, you got it wrong.
As above, not all instincts are moral, but morality is an inherent and POTENTIAL primal function in all humans which is like an instinct.
Morality is an inherent primal function like to breathe, sex, hunger, security, to learn & intelligence, to reason, and the likes. The more primal functions which are most critical for survival are more active than say greater learning and intelligence.

But like reason and intelligence, the moral potential is unfolding its potential slowly in time as humans evolve and progress in the basic needs. This is why the question of morality is more prevalent in our modern times than the olden days.

FYI on Israelis back when using slavery, then they were tribal like many societies of the day therefore they had no prisons but if you stool and could not make restitution according to the law, then you made restitution via slavery for x amount of years. there's more to the adim of that but that's the jest of it. how that morphed into what it became in 1800's is just history. societies that had prisons to punish criminals had not real need for slavery except those who sot finical advantage, and they started to out law it.

i am sure there are more reasons for slavery back then but we weren't there.
Whatever the circumstances, slavery is ultimately immoral.
This is why when the moral potential unfolds, the more evil immoral acts are dealt with first, e.g. slavery and killing of humans.

That slavery is made immutable in the holy texts of Christianity, Islam and others is because theism and the holy texts are man-made and not from a real God; it is impossible for God to be a real entity.

God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 2:53 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 7:07 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:39 pm
Still not addressing what I'm asking you . . . Proper per what or whom?
I did address it but in an negative fashion, i.e.
"What is not proper would be that morality-as-defined is not in alignment with what is inherent within human nature and vice-versa."

Thus what is morality-proper is that proper-morality that is in alignment with [per] human nature and for the individual's moral progress.
So all you'd have to say is "proper per human nature." Simple, right?

But note that you're saying that a definition is "proper per human nature." How would a definition be proper per human nature? Humans typically will define the same term, where "morality" is a good example of this, in all sorts of different ways. So per human nature, there are a bunch of different definitions, some of them incompatible. Yet you cited just one definition and said it was the "proper" one. There is a problem with this.
Human nature is a concept that denotes the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally. The term is often used to denote the essence of humankind, or what it 'means' to be human.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature
Why do you ignore the basic and essentials but rather focus on the extreme fringes of human nature.

What is there to dispute re the physical characteristics of what it is to be human in the biological sense?
In the case, there is no dispute re the fundamental drives of humans, e.g. breathing, hunger, sex, need for security and the likes which are all represented by its relevant physical and processes referent.

Killing of humans is a moral issue.
Which normal person would want to be killed?
Intuitively and from the database of human history, there are evidences no normal person would want to be killed.*
* exceptions are the psychiatric mental cases.

The above re killing of humans must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK that it is an inherent human nature. I won't go into the details here.

The above example demonstrate morality [re killing of humans] is fundamentally an inherent and per human nature and for the individual's interests and therefrom to humanity.

Note, whatever that is claimed to be related to morality, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK that it is an inherent human nature. I won't go into the details here.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:10 am
Why do you ignore the basic and essentials but rather focus on the extreme fringes of human nature.
So you'd say there are things humans can do that aren't part of human nature? What do you consider an example?

You're not equating "human nature" with whatever happens to be statistically normal for humans, are you?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:10 am
Why do you ignore the basic and essentials but rather focus on the extreme fringes of human nature.
So you'd say there are things humans can do that aren't part of human nature? What do you consider an example?

You're not equating "human nature" with whatever happens to be statistically normal for humans, are you?
I have stated what is generally termed as human nature, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature
In a way, yes, what is "human nature' in this case is that which is statistically normal for humans.
Human nature in this case is more towards NATURE [DNA/RNA based] than NURTURE.

For example, torturing babies for pleasure surely is not recognized as 'human nature'?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Peter Holmes »

Here's a claim:

'It is already evident there is an inherent moral function within each individual that is slowly unfolding.' (VA)

And here's another claim:

'Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.' (Kant)

All we need is 'the moral reality around us', and the mystical delusion is complete.

But anyway - suppose we do really have 'an inherent moral function' or 'the moral law within'? That still wouldn't mean there are moral facts, just as the existence of 'a moral law without' - say dumped on us by a god - woudn't mean there are moral facts. The very idea of a moral fact - something that exists in reality, or is unarguably true - is simply and obviously incoherent.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:06 am Here's a claim:

'It is already evident there is an inherent moral function within each individual that is slowly unfolding.' (VA)

And here's another claim:

'Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.' (Kant)

All we need is 'the moral reality around us', and the mystical delusion is complete.

But anyway - suppose we do really have 'an inherent moral function' or 'the moral law within'? That still wouldn't mean there are moral facts, just as the existence of 'a moral law without' - say dumped on us by a god - woudn't mean there are moral facts. The very idea of a moral fact - something that exists in reality, or is unarguably true - is simply and obviously incoherent.
*yawn* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_o ... ontingents

It is inarguably true (beyond reasonable doubt), a fact, that there is going to be coffee on my desk in about 5 minutes.

I gonna make it!

If that's incoherent to you, the challenge is in your level of comprehension not in the coherence of my facts.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Skepdick »

Derrrrr! Look!

There is a coffee cup on my desk! EXACTLY as I predicted 5 minutes ago. NO! WAY! I am a fucking Nostradamus!

I solved a 2000 year old philosophical problem in 5 minutes. Give me all your money.

Q.E.D Peter Holmes struggles with the basic comprehension of facts.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:06 am Here's a claim:

'It is already evident there is an inherent moral function within each individual that is slowly unfolding.' (VA)

And here's another claim:

'Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.' (Kant)

All we need is 'the moral reality around us', and the mystical delusion is complete.

But anyway - suppose we do really have 'an inherent moral function' or 'the moral law within'? That still wouldn't mean there are moral facts, just as the existence of 'a moral law without' - say dumped on us by a god - woudn't mean there are moral facts. The very idea of a moral fact - something that exists in reality, or is unarguably true - is simply and obviously incoherent.
Point is whatever you claim as fact, state-of-affairs, reality and the likes are groundless, i.e. ultimately false and illusory.
As such you don't have any grounds of reality to insist there are no moral facts based on what you defined as facts [ which is groundless].

What I defined as fact, i.e. moral fact is;
  • What is morality-proper deal with moral facts that MUST be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSR/FSK which at near-credibility to the scientific FSK.
    Moral Facts as moral oughts are not to be imposed on any individual[s] or groups but merely to be used as moral standards to guide moral unfoldment and progress of the inherent moral functions within all humans.
Note what I termed as moral facts are in a way moral realities, moral objects/things that are real as justified.

You are so ignorant of even your own self.
(Assuming you are a normal person, not a closet pervert) - that you are not killing humans, raping kin and others, committing incest and other terrible evil, is so evident the inherent moral ought-not-to inhibitors are existing and quite active in your brain/mind.

If you take too much alcohol, drugs, has brain damage, brainwashed, etc. these moral inhibitors could be loosen or weakened and unleash the beast in you to commit the above evil acts. You can test the above yourself.

As I had stated many times, what you wrongly attribute to me such as personal moral opinions, beliefs, decisions and judgment, moral rightness, moral wrongness are not of 'morality-proper'. You are just shooting at straw-men.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 7:08 am In a way, yes, what is "human nature' in this case is that which is statistically normal for humans.
What would you say the utility or point is to limiting "human nature" to what's statistically normal? In other words, what's the significance of that (especially from a philosophical perspective)?
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by DPMartin »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:52 am

Note for example, one of the moral fact, i.e. "no human ought to kill humans" is universal to all humans which is most glaring even in non-violent religions, e.g. Christianity and others.


Note my point re the generic definition of what is morality above.
Sacrificing children, any killing of humans, slavery and other evil deeds cannot be categorized as moral.

no now that's your assessment, but if everyone in a society believes and agrees Sacrificing children, any killing of humans, slavery is good no matter the reason its moral to those who agree, another nation may see that as evil but that's according to what they agree. morals are relative to those in agreement.


Nope, you got it wrong.
As above, not all instincts are moral, but morality is an inherent and POTENTIAL primal function in all humans which is like an instinct.
Morality is an inherent primal function like to breathe, sex, hunger, security, to learn & intelligence, to reason, and the likes. The more primal functions which are most critical for survival are more active than say greater learning and intelligence.

But like reason and intelligence, the moral potential is unfolding its potential slowly in time as humans evolve and progress in the basic needs. This is why the question of morality is more prevalent in our modern times than the olden days.
LOL

maybe you believe that, but your assumption is simply, man is good inherently good, by nature alone and you are incorrect, you're not looking at what's there.

also man may be born into the world with the need for agreements with other men to coexist peaceably but that is because men are not inherently good. and through out man's history his nature has never changed, only what he agrees with his fellow man, in what is good and what is evil.


and instincts are not morals at all, and instincts have been defined quit some time ago.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:25 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 7:08 am In a way, yes, what is "human nature' in this case is that which is statistically normal for humans.
What would you say the utility or point is to limiting "human nature" to what's statistically normal? In other words, what's the significance of that (especially from a philosophical perspective)?
From a philosophical perspective, it is most effective to deal with what is generic, especially in morality where we need to derive moral principles that are universal [not Platonic] and thus applicable to all humans. These universal generic moral principles can then be adopted as moral standards to guide moral progress within each individual.

What is not statistically normal would then be dealt as variances from the norms where the focus can be made to deliberate whether the negative variances should be corrected to the normal or to be accepted.
Positives variances may give a clue that the standards need to be adjusted.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

DPMartin wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:08 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:52 am

Note for example, one of the moral fact, i.e. "no human ought to kill humans" is universal to all humans which is most glaring even in non-violent religions, e.g. Christianity and others.


Note my point re the generic definition of what is morality above.
Sacrificing children, any killing of humans, slavery and other evil deeds cannot be categorized as moral.
no now that's your assessment, but if everyone in a society believes and agrees Sacrificing children, any killing of humans, slavery is good no matter the reason its moral to those who agree, another nation may see that as evil but that's according to what they agree. morals are relative to those in agreement.
Even if ALL [not likely anyway] humans agree killing of humans, slavery and other evil is good, by the definition of what is morality, these terrible evil acts cannot be accepted as moral.
Note at one time, I believe 100% of all humans would have believed the 'earth is flat,' the Sun moves from one end of the Earth to the other end' i.e. based on common sense observations.

What is critical is what is really real must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system of reality [FSR].

It is the same with moral facts, regardless it is agree by the majority, what is a moral fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system of reality [FSR], i.e. a moral FSR or FSK.

Note, individual's or group's agreements are not moral facts or morality-proper.

Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
Nope, you got it wrong.
As above, not all instincts are moral, but morality is an inherent and POTENTIAL primal function in all humans which is like an instinct.
Morality is an inherent primal function like to breathe, sex, hunger, security, to learn & intelligence, to reason, and the likes. The more primal functions which are most critical for survival are more active than say greater learning and intelligence.

But like reason and intelligence, the moral potential is unfolding its potential slowly in time as humans evolve and progress in the basic needs. This is why the question of morality is more prevalent in our modern times than the olden days.
LOL

maybe you believe that, but your assumption is simply, man is good inherently good, by nature alone and you are incorrect, you're not looking at what's there.

also man may be born into the world with the need for agreements with other men to coexist peaceably but that is because men are not inherently good. and through out man's history his nature has never changed, only what he agrees with his fellow man, in what is good and what is evil.

and instincts are not morals at all, and instincts have been defined quit some time ago.
Note I stated,
morality is an inherent and POTENTIAL primal function in all humans,
which is like an instinct.
Note the term 'potential'.

therefore,
man has the POTENTIAL to be good,
to enable good to prevail, man must inhibit man's potential for evil,
this is where morality-proper is essential to unfold to inhibit the inherent evil forces within.

At present, the average man's potential morality is unfolding slowly in time since eons ago and there is a corresponding reduction in overall evil acts by man.

Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

I borrow this from Skepdick;
Homicides - Our World in Data 2021-01-29 00-00-38.png
Image
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Peter Holmes »

Claim: man has a potential to be (morally) good.

But what we count as 'being good' is a matter of opinion - even if we all agree on that opinion.

So morality is subjective.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:46 am
From a philosophical perspective, it is most effective to deal with what is generic, especially in morality where we need to derive moral principles that are universal [not Platonic] and thus applicable to all humans. These universal generic moral principles can then be adopted as moral standards to guide moral progress within each individual.
What's statistically normal is not universal. Why/per what justification would what's statistically normal be applicable to all?
What is not statistically normal would then be dealt as variances from the norms where the focus can be made to deliberate whether the negative variances should be corrected to the normal or to be accepted.
What could possibly be a justification for why they should be "corrected"? And you're not claiming that anything is correct simply because it's statistically normal, are you?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 11:56 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:46 am
From a philosophical perspective, it is most effective to deal with what is generic, especially in morality where we need to derive moral principles that are universal [not Platonic] and thus applicable to all humans. These universal generic moral principles can then be adopted as moral standards to guide moral progress within each individual.
1. What's statistically normal is not universal.
2. Why/per what justification would what's statistically normal be applicable to all?
What is statistically normal could be the mean [average] with 2 standard deviation thus do not cover up to 99% or even 100% of the human population. For example the normal height of males could be say between 5-6 feet for 80% of people but 20% are not within the 'normal range'. Human height is not a universal human feature.

Genetically it is normal for all humans to have a brain, body, 4 limbs, a digestive system, etc. where it is normal for 99% or even 100% for all humans. In these sense, such features would be universal. These are facts of human existence and human nature.
What is not statistically normal would then be dealt as variances from the norms where the focus can be made to deliberate whether the negative variances should be corrected to the normal or to be accepted.
What could possibly be a justification for why they should be "corrected"? And you're not claiming that anything is correct simply because it's statistically normal, are you?
Say, if a person is born without limbs or full blind,
in this case, there is an oughtness that all humans should be born with 4 limbs and with full eyesight in alignment with the universal qualities of human nature.

There is nothing that can be done [with present knowledge] to correct the person with 4 limbs and full eyesight.

But because the universal of human nature is an inherent standards, humanity will strive to ensure people are not born without limbs, blind or with deviations from the universal norms of human nature in the future.

While limbs, blindness and the likes are obvious examples of inherent universal features of human nature, the moral function which is not so obvious is also a universal of human nature which should be recognized as a moral standard.

As an example,
if your child has an abnormal heart, wouldn't you expect his heart ought to be corrected to what is verified and justified as a normal human heart?

This is why it is critical to establish what is universal and normal for a human being and if there are deviations they need to be corrected to normal standards.
If the correction cannot be done, then preventive steps need to taken for humans born in the future.
Post Reply