What is a right action?

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: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What is a right action?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 7:01 am
I have argued 'no human ought to kill humans' is a natural fact within the brains of all humans independent of anyone's opinion.
As such, "not killing humans" as a fact in your brain is the "right action" which you are adopting at present, i.e. at present, you don't have any intention of killing your wife or other humans? right?
Here's a moral principle: we should try not to harm some other animals (as defined). There are strong practical and ecological reasons for holding to this principle. And it means our moral concerns must not stop with ourselves. (So stuff your opinion.)

And you say this: 'I have argued 'no human ought to kill humans' is a natural fact within the brains of all humans independent of anyone's opinion.'

Nope - you've made this claim a thousand times, but you haven't produced a valid and sound argument to demonstrate its truth. And you've failed to address the following hypotheticals:

1 If humans were 'programmed' to kill some other humans, ought they to do so? Would that be the right action?

2 If human males were 'programmed' to rape females, ought they to do so? Would that be the right action?

Please answer these questions as simply and clearly as you can. Yes/no answers are possible.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Tue Mar 16, 2021 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is a right action?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:03 am 2 If humans males were 'programmed' to rape females, ought they to do so? Would that be the right action?
Obviously! If males were programmed to rape females, not only would you NOT be upset by your friend getting raped, you'd probably participate in the little get-together. If some rape is good, then gang-rape must be even better! Nothing like a good rape on your birthday!

In fact, you would be puzzled as to why your female friend could possibly frown upon this blessing that was the gang-rape rained upon her. How could she possibly refuse the godly gift of your majestic penis entering her without her consent?

But that's not the reality we exist in.

The very picture I have portrayed disgusts you to the core of your being (At least, I fucking hope it does)
It disgusts me.
It disgusts most of us.
We have such strong feelings about it we are willing to act collectively against such abhorrent behaviour!

And that's why rape is fucking immoral. And that's much more than "just" an opinion! That's the objective extent of morality and the polar opposite of indifference!
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is a right action?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 7:01 am That 'humans ought not to kill humans' is childish? -if you think it is, that's childish thinking.
Yes, very.
And that is not what biophilia is. Only a child would reduce it to that.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What is a right action?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Question: if human males were programmed to rape females, ought they to do so? Would it be the right action?

Answer: no.

Conclusion: the criterion for what humans ought to do is not conformity to programming.

Therefore, if they are, that humans are programmed not to kill humans does not mean that humans ought not to kill humans.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a right action?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 7:01 am
I have argued 'no human ought to kill humans' is a natural fact within the brains of all humans independent of anyone's opinion.
As such, "not killing humans" as a fact in your brain is the "right action" which you are adopting at present, i.e. at present, you don't have any intention of killing your wife or other humans? right?
Here's a moral principle: we should try not to harm some other animals (as defined). There are strong practical and ecological reasons for holding to this principle. And it means our moral concerns must not stop with ourselves. (So stuff your opinion.)
Your opinion is constipated.

I have stated MANY TIMES 'morality-proper' is confined to the human species only EXCEPT where it is optimal for the well being of humans to do so, e.g. be considerate to other living things and within the universe.

We don't kill pets because pets are recognized to contribute positively to the well-beings of individual[s]. However we may have to kill [put to sleep] dogs [pets or strays] if they happened at some specific time or location they are suddenly infected with a virulent dangerous rabies virus.

How come you did not take my above point into consideration?

And you say this: 'I have argued 'no human ought to kill humans' is a natural fact within the brains of all humans independent of anyone's opinion.'

Nope - you've made this claim a thousand times, but you haven't produced a valid and sound argument to demonstrate its truth.
I have already argued and justified my claims a 1000 times, I am not going to go through it again.
Very roughly you can confirm it within yourself that you have the inherent inhibition of 'ought_ness not to kill humans' which is active at present within you until that inhibiting mechanisms weakened or failed due to some reasons.
And you've failed to address the following hypotheticals:

1 If humans were 'programmed' to kill some other humans, ought they to do so? Would that be the right action?
Yes, if humans are "programmed" to kill some other humans, then they ought to kill humans.
But there is no evidence humans are specifically "programmed' to kill humans.
2 If human males were 'programmed' to rape females, ought they to do so? Would that be the right action?
Yes, if humans are 'programmed' to rape females, then they ought to do so.
But there are no evidence humans [males / females] are specifically 'programmed' to rape females or vice-versa.
Please answer these questions as simply and clearly as you can. Yes/no answers are possible.
This is not a court of law and you don't have the right to demand a yes or no answers. It is my discretion.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What is a right action?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:39 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 7:01 am
I have argued 'no human ought to kill humans' is a natural fact within the brains of all humans independent of anyone's opinion.
As such, "not killing humans" as a fact in your brain is the "right action" which you are adopting at present, i.e. at present, you don't have any intention of killing your wife or other humans? right?
Here's a moral principle: we should try not to harm some other animals (as defined). There are strong practical and ecological reasons for holding to this principle. And it means our moral concerns must not stop with ourselves. (So stuff your opinion.)
Your opinion is constipated.

I have stated MANY TIMES 'morality-proper' is confined to the human species only EXCEPT where it is optimal for the well being of humans to do so, e.g. be considerate to other living things and within the universe.

We don't kill pets because pets are recognized to contribute positively to the well-beings of individual[s]. However we may have to kill [put to sleep] dogs [pets or strays] if they happened at some specific time or location they are suddenly infected with a virulent dangerous rabies virus.

How come you did not take my above point into consideration?

And you say this: 'I have argued 'no human ought to kill humans' is a natural fact within the brains of all humans independent of anyone's opinion.'

Nope - you've made this claim a thousand times, but you haven't produced a valid and sound argument to demonstrate its truth.
I have already argued and justified my claims a 1000 times, I am not going to go through it again.
Very roughly you can confirm it within yourself that you have the inherent inhibition of 'ought_ness not to kill humans' which is active at present within you until that inhibiting mechanisms weakened or failed due to some reasons.
And you've failed to address the following hypotheticals:

1 If humans were 'programmed' to kill some other humans, ought they to do so? Would that be the right action?
Yes, if humans are "programmed" to kill some other humans, then they ought to kill humans.
But there is no evidence humans are specifically "programmed' to kill humans.
2 If human males were 'programmed' to rape females, ought they to do so? Would that be the right action?
Yes, if humans are 'programmed' to rape females, then they ought to do so.
But there are no evidence humans [males / females] are specifically 'programmed' to rape females or vice-versa.
Please answer these questions as simply and clearly as you can. Yes/no answers are possible.
This is not a court of law and you don't have the right to demand a yes or no answers. It is my discretion.
Of course it's your choice whether or not to answer questions challenging your position. But I'm glad to say you have answered my questions, and your answers are shockingly revealing. But first ...

1 The claim that morality should be confined only or even mainly to humans is a matter of opinion, not a fact.

2 Which animals should also be part of our moral concerns is a matter of opinion, not a fact.

3 Whether anyone feels or believes we ought not to kill humans is irrelevant. That we have such feelings is not in dispute. But our having those feelings doesn't make it a fact that we ought not to kill humans.

4 Your claim that human programming is the criterion for what we ought and ought not to do is morally degenerate. Here are your iniquitous claims:

Yes, if humans are "programmed" to kill some other humans, then they ought to kill humans.

Yes, if humans are 'programmed' to rape females, then they ought to do so.

These claims expose the bankruptcy of your argument for moral objectivity. If there were moral facts, it couldn't be the case that killing or raping are things we ought or ought not to do, merely to be consistent with our programming.

I hope everyone else is shocked and appalled by your claims. And I hope that, on reflection, you're as ashamed of your conclusions as you ought to be.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: What is a right action?

Post by Advocate »

>1 The claim that morality should be confined only or even mainly to humans is a matter of opinion, not a fact.

Morality IS confined to humans because there are no other beings capable of interacting with the concepts.

2 Which animals should also be part of our moral concerns is a matter of opinion, not a fact.

How to draw the lines between moral subject, object, agent, is a matter of contingency, not opinion. The terms have to do meaningful work. There is no solid place to draw the line so the question is to how and to what extent to treat animals differently, not whether they have moral importance.

3 Whether anyone feels or believes we ought not to kill humans is irrelevant. That we have such feelings is not in dispute. But our having those feelings doesn't make it a fact that we ought not to kill humans.

The fact of the matter is based in what morality is. It's a way of understanding our behavior in light of competing interests and priorities. If all our various interests align with respect to survival, then whatever is a prerequisite for survival is a necessary OUGHT; a moral fact.

4 Your claim that human programming is the criterion for what we ought and ought not to do is morally degenerate. Here are your iniquitous claims:

OUGHTs only exist in human minds. Human programming could not have evolved to accept murder because it would be a self-defeating strategy.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What is a right action?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Advocate wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:44 pm >1 The claim that morality should be confined only or even mainly to humans is a matter of opinion, not a fact.

Morality IS confined to humans because there are no other beings capable of interacting with the concepts.
Morality is about right and wrong behaviour towards others. Who or what those others are - the scope of our moral concerns - is a matter of opinion. This has nothing to do with interaction with concepts - whatever that means.

2 Which animals should also be part of our moral concerns is a matter of opinion, not a fact.

How to draw the lines between moral subject, object, agent, is a matter of contingency, not opinion. The terms have to do meaningful work. There is no solid place to draw the line so the question is to how and to what extent to treat animals differently, not whether they have moral importance.
Sorry, but this is just throwing around words that sound significant but don't do meaningful work.

3 Whether anyone feels or believes we ought not to kill humans is irrelevant. That we have such feelings is not in dispute. But our having those feelings doesn't make it a fact that we ought not to kill humans.

The fact of the matter is based in what morality is. It's a way of understanding our behavior in light of competing interests and priorities. If all our various interests align with respect to survival, then whatever is a prerequisite for survival is a necessary OUGHT; a moral fact.
Morality is about how we behave towards each other, not 'understanding our behaviour'. And the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness is not 'that which makes for human survival'. That's merely prejudice.

4 Your claim that human programming is the criterion for what we ought and ought not to do is morally degenerate. Here are your iniquitous claims:

OUGHTs only exist in human minds. Human programming could not have evolved to accept murder because it would be a self-defeating strategy.
False. Human group survival depended on killing/murdering outsiders and 'anti-social' insiders. And we're still doing it as cheerfully as ever.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a right action?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:39 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:03 am 1 If humans were 'programmed' to kill some other humans, ought they to do so? Would that be the right action?
Yes, if humans are "programmed" to kill some other humans, then they ought to kill humans.
But there is no evidence humans are specifically "programmed' to kill humans.
2 If human males were 'programmed' to rape females, ought they to do so? Would that be the right action?
Yes, if humans are 'programmed' to rape females, then they ought to do so.
But there are no evidence humans [males / females] are specifically 'programmed' to rape females or vice-versa.
Of course it's your choice whether or not to answer questions challenging your position. But I'm glad to say you have answered my questions, and your answers are shockingly revealing. But first ...

1 The claim that morality should be confined only or even mainly to humans is a matter of opinion, not a fact.

2 Which animals should also be part of our moral concerns is a matter of opinion, not a fact.

3 Whether anyone feels or believes we ought not to kill humans is irrelevant. That we have such feelings is not in dispute. But our having those feelings doesn't make it a fact that we ought not to kill humans.

4 Your claim that human programming is the criterion for what we ought and ought not to do is morally degenerate. Here are your iniquitous claims:

Yes, if humans are "programmed" to kill some other humans, then they ought to kill humans.

Yes, if humans are 'programmed' to rape females, then they ought to do so.

These claims expose the bankruptcy of your argument for moral objectivity. If there were moral facts, it couldn't be the case that killing or raping are things we ought or ought not to do, merely to be consistent with our programming.

I hope everyone else is shocked and appalled by your claims. And I hope that, on reflection, you're as ashamed of your conclusions as you ought to be.
I have to say you are very stupid [lack intelligence] re the above with your strawman.
Note in this case, I deliberately did not add any extra qualification to my 'YES' so that I can expose your stupidity and deception.
I hope everyone is shocked by your stupidity and deception.

That is why I stated you lack intellectual integrity if you ask for a yes/no answer and respond on that based on your ignorance.

You are indeed ignorant on,
there is no empirical evidence to support that;
1. humans [generically] are "programmed PRIMARILY to kill humans"
2. humans [generically] are "programmed PRIMARILY to rape humans"

Thus your "IF" condition is not realistic at all.

Btw, killing and raping are evil elements thus antithetical to morality-proper.

Thus even IF they are 'programmed' they are not moral facts within morality-proper.
They would be evil facts within an evil-FSK.
1 The claim that morality should be confined only or even mainly to humans is a matter of opinion, not a fact.
The principle as always is,
whatever is claimed as fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

There are sufficient empirical evidences to infer species self-interest is a priority from the scientific FSK, i.e. evolution, evolutionary psychology. I won't go into the details on this.
The above scientific facts can be specifically deliberated within the moral FSK as a moral fact.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What is a right action?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 6:23 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:39 am
Yes, if humans are "programmed" to kill some other humans, then they ought to kill humans.
But there is no evidence humans are specifically "programmed' to kill humans.


Yes, if humans are 'programmed' to rape females, then they ought to do so.
But there are no evidence humans [males / females] are specifically 'programmed' to rape females or vice-versa.
Of course it's your choice whether or not to answer questions challenging your position. But I'm glad to say you have answered my questions, and your answers are shockingly revealing. But first ...

1 The claim that morality should be confined only or even mainly to humans is a matter of opinion, not a fact.

2 Which animals should also be part of our moral concerns is a matter of opinion, not a fact.

3 Whether anyone feels or believes we ought not to kill humans is irrelevant. That we have such feelings is not in dispute. But our having those feelings doesn't make it a fact that we ought not to kill humans.

4 Your claim that human programming is the criterion for what we ought and ought not to do is morally degenerate. Here are your iniquitous claims:

Yes, if humans are "programmed" to kill some other humans, then they ought to kill humans.

Yes, if humans are 'programmed' to rape females, then they ought to do so.

These claims expose the bankruptcy of your argument for moral objectivity. If there were moral facts, it couldn't be the case that killing or raping are things we ought or ought not to do, merely to be consistent with our programming.

I hope everyone else is shocked and appalled by your claims. And I hope that, on reflection, you're as ashamed of your conclusions as you ought to be.
I have to say you are very stupid [lack intelligence] re the above with your strawman.
Note in this case, I deliberately did not add any extra qualification to my 'YES' so that I can expose your stupidity and deception.
I hope everyone is shocked by your stupidity and deception.

That is why I stated you lack intellectual integrity if you ask for a yes/no answer and respond on that based on your ignorance.

You are indeed ignorant on,
there is no empirical evidence to support that;
1. humans [generically] are "programmed PRIMARILY to kill humans"
2. humans [generically] are "programmed PRIMARILY to rape humans"

Thus your "IF" condition is not realistic at all.

Btw, killing and raping are evil elements thus antithetical to morality-proper.

Thus even IF they are 'programmed' they are not moral facts within morality-proper.
They would be evil facts within an evil-FSK.
1 The claim that morality should be confined only or even mainly to humans is a matter of opinion, not a fact.
The principle as always is,
whatever is claimed as fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

There are sufficient empirical evidences to infer species self-interest is a priority from the scientific FSK, i.e. evolution, evolutionary psychology. I won't go into the details on this.
The above scientific facts can be specifically deliberated within the moral FSK as a moral fact.
What evasive rubbish. You say that if we were programmed to kill and rape people, then we ought to do so - because the criterion for what we ought to do is consistency with our programming. Calling killing and raping 'evil' doesn't rescue this pernicious doctrine.

So much for moral objectivity - for the existence of moral facts supposedly empirically and philosophically verified and justified within a credible moral framework and system of knowledge... blah blah blah...mantra mumbling...back to tea and biscuits in the day room.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a right action?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 6:23 am I have to say you are very stupid [lack intelligence] re the above with your strawman.
Note in this case, I deliberately did not add any extra qualification to my 'YES' so that I can expose your stupidity and deception.
I hope everyone is shocked by your stupidity and deception.

That is why I stated you lack intellectual integrity if you ask for a yes/no answer and respond on that based on your ignorance.

You are indeed ignorant on,
there is no empirical evidence to support that;
1. humans [generically] are "programmed PRIMARILY to kill humans"
2. humans [generically] are "programmed PRIMARILY to rape humans"

Thus your "IF" condition is not realistic at all.

Btw, killing and raping are evil elements thus antithetical to morality-proper.

Thus even IF they are 'programmed' they are not moral facts within morality-proper.
They would be evil facts within an evil-FSK.
1 The claim that morality should be confined only or even mainly to humans is a matter of opinion, not a fact.
The principle as always is,
whatever is claimed as fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

There are sufficient empirical evidences to infer species self-interest is a priority from the scientific FSK, i.e. evolution, evolutionary psychology. I won't go into the details on this.
The above scientific facts can be specifically deliberated within the moral FSK as a moral fact.
What evasive rubbish. You say that if we were programmed to kill and rape people, then we ought to do so - because the criterion for what we ought to do is consistency with our programming. Calling killing and raping 'evil' doesn't rescue this pernicious doctrine.

So much for moral objectivity - for the existence of moral facts supposedly empirically and philosophically verified and justified within a credible moral framework and system of knowledge... blah blah blah...mantra mumbling...back to tea and biscuits in the day room.
When you resort to "IF' then anything goes.

How come you ignore my point,

You are indeed ignorant on,
there is no empirical evidence to support that;
1. humans [generically] are "programmed PRIMARILY to kill humans"
2. humans [generically] are "programmed PRIMARILY to rape humans"

You present to me an "IFs" conditions, but such IFs condition do not exists as real.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What is a right action?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:53 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 6:23 am I have to say you are very stupid [lack intelligence] re the above with your strawman.
Note in this case, I deliberately did not add any extra qualification to my 'YES' so that I can expose your stupidity and deception.
I hope everyone is shocked by your stupidity and deception.

That is why I stated you lack intellectual integrity if you ask for a yes/no answer and respond on that based on your ignorance.

You are indeed ignorant on,
there is no empirical evidence to support that;
1. humans [generically] are "programmed PRIMARILY to kill humans"
2. humans [generically] are "programmed PRIMARILY to rape humans"

Thus your "IF" condition is not realistic at all.

Btw, killing and raping are evil elements thus antithetical to morality-proper.

Thus even IF they are 'programmed' they are not moral facts within morality-proper.
They would be evil facts within an evil-FSK.


The principle as always is,
whatever is claimed as fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

There are sufficient empirical evidences to infer species self-interest is a priority from the scientific FSK, i.e. evolution, evolutionary psychology. I won't go into the details on this.
The above scientific facts can be specifically deliberated within the moral FSK as a moral fact.
What evasive rubbish. You say that if we were programmed to kill and rape people, then we ought to do so - because the criterion for what we ought to do is consistency with our programming. Calling killing and raping 'evil' doesn't rescue this pernicious doctrine.

So much for moral objectivity - for the existence of moral facts supposedly empirically and philosophically verified and justified within a credible moral framework and system of knowledge... blah blah blah...mantra mumbling...back to tea and biscuits in the day room.
When you resort to "IF' then anything goes.

How come you ignore my point,

You are indeed ignorant on,
there is no empirical evidence to support that;
1. humans [generically] are "programmed PRIMARILY to kill humans"
2. humans [generically] are "programmed PRIMARILY to rape humans"

You present to me an "IFs" conditions, but such IFs condition do not exists as real.
As I'm sure you damn well know, the point of the 'if' conditional is this.

The claim 'if we were programmed to kill humans, then we ought to do so' is obviously morally grotesque. So our programming can't be the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness.

So it follows that, if it exists, our programming not to kill humans doesn't mean we ought not to kill humans - because our programming, as we've just seen, can't be the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness.

I can't believe you need this spelt out.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a right action?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:26 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:53 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:29 am
What evasive rubbish. You say that if we were programmed to kill and rape people, then we ought to do so - because the criterion for what we ought to do is consistency with our programming. Calling killing and raping 'evil' doesn't rescue this pernicious doctrine.

So much for moral objectivity - for the existence of moral facts supposedly empirically and philosophically verified and justified within a credible moral framework and system of knowledge... blah blah blah...mantra mumbling...back to tea and biscuits in the day room.
When you resort to "IF' then anything goes.

How come you ignore my point,

You are indeed ignorant on,
there is no empirical evidence to support that;
1. humans [generically] are "programmed PRIMARILY to kill humans"
2. humans [generically] are "programmed PRIMARILY to rape humans"

You present to me an "IFs" conditions, but such IFs condition do not exists as real.
As I'm sure you damn well know, the point of the 'if' conditional is this.

The claim 'if we were programmed to kill humans, then we ought to do so' is obviously morally grotesque. So our programming can't be the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness.

So it follows that, if it exists, our programming not to kill humans doesn't mean we ought not to kill humans - because our programming, as we've just seen, can't be the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness.

I can't believe you need this spelt out.
Nah you got it wrong as always.

"IF humans were programmed to kill humans, then human ought to do so"
That is very logical and it follows, but not necessary real.
"IF humans were programmed to kill eat their own shit, then human ought to do so"

But the reality is humans are NOT "programmed" specifically to kill humans.
Because the inherent moral function with an oughtness of 'not to kill humans' within all human in their DNA/RNA.
How come you ignore reality and instead cling on to some hypothetical conditions as if they are real?

Answer yes or no,
Are ALL humans "programmed" specifically to kill humans?

The reality, as evident is,
As per human nature, ALL humans are "programmed" with an oughtness not to kill humans.

Therefore if humans are also programmed to kill humans, then that would be a contradiction to human nature.

Because it is a fact that ALL humans are programmed with an ought_ness of not to kill human, then humans ought not to kill humans.
Because killing of human is a mora element, i.e. an evil act,
the ought_ness of is a moral fact within a moral FSK as a moral standard, i.e.
'no human ought to kill humans'.

If anyone how demand how the above moral fact is verified and justified,
then we trace it backward through,
-the moral framework and system with its principles and processes, inputs, etc.
to the neurons and algorithm in the brain and person.
Post Reply