What is a right action?

[Skepdick]

Then we're done with this.

We? Who the fuck appointed you to speak on my behalf?

WHAT implies that you keep looking for a needle that you don't believe is there?

If absence of evidence is evidence of absence, then the absence of an answer should speak volumes about your horseshit conception of how beliefs work.

[Advocate]

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=501342 time=1615411843 user_id=12582]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=501341 time=1615411556 user_id=17350]
What about it?
[/quote]
I already asked. What (or where) is it?

[quote]
I am simply pointing out that you have found no evidence for morality.
You haven't found evidence for no morality.
[/quote]

Huh? There's a ton of evidence of/for morality.

[quote]
You haven't examined the entire haystack, but you are claiming that there is no needle.
[/quote]
And that's evidence that there's no needle in a haystack. It's not PROOF that there's no needle in a haystack. No one is--or at least no one should be--talking about proof. Evidence of or against something is not [i]proof[/i] of it. It's a reason to believe something versus not believing it.
[/quote]

Because the term proof indicates an ultimate, or is only a placeholder. Proof cannot be ultimate, so the maximum useful definition is to be certain Enough for all intents and purposes. Anything more is unnecessary and anything less is Mere evidence, not necessarily proof.

[Sculptor]

You might be stupid enough to think that, yes.

You might be even stupider to think that I can read your mind.

But I don't care what you think.

You should. Because what I think, based on your obscurantism and avoidance, is that you are pro-genocide.

No, you do not understand.
I have never cared what you think.

My answer is comprensive.
Nothing I said implied that.

It's not what you said. It's what you didn't say...

What you didn't say is "Genocide is objectively wrong".

I do not have to.
That does not imply that I am pro-genocide, fuckwit.
It means that "i think" genocide is bad. And that is an OPINION.

I wonder why you are having trouble saying it... Maybe you are pro-genocide? Sure seems that way.

Because you are a moron?

[Skepdick]

You might be stupid enough to think that, yes.

You might be even stupider to think that I can read your mind.

But I don't care what you think.

You should. Because what I think, based on your obscurantism and avoidance, is that you are pro-genocide.

No, you do not understand.
I have never cared what you think.

My answer is comprensive.
Nothing I said implied that.

It's not what you said. It's what you didn't say...

What you didn't say is "Genocide is objectively wrong".

I do not have to.
That does not imply that I am pro-genocide, fuckwit.
It means that "i think" genocide is bad. And that is an OPINION.

I wonder why you are having trouble saying it... Maybe you are pro-genocide? Sure seems that way.

Because you are a moron?

Wow! That's way more words than "Genocide is objectively wrong.".

For somebody who's "against genocide", you sure are working overtime to avoid saying that genocide is objectively wrong.
Poor, misunderstood child. You are so profound and wise that everybody always misunderstands you!

Top Gear Top Tip. There's absolutely no room for being misunderstood had you just said "Genocide is objectively wrong".

[Sculptor]

You might be even stupider to think that I can read your mind.


You should. Because what I think, based on your obscurantism and avoidance, is that you are pro-genocide.

No, you do not understand.
I have never cared what you think.

It's not what you said. It's what you didn't say...

What you didn't say is "Genocide is objectively wrong".

I do not have to.
That does not imply that I am pro-genocide, fuckwit.
It means that "i think" genocide is bad. And that is an OPINION.

I wonder why you are having trouble saying it... Maybe you are pro-genocide? Sure seems that way.

Because you are a moron?

Wow! That's way more words than "Genocide is objectively wrong.".

For somebody who's "against genocide", you sure are working overtime to avoid saying that genocide is objectively wrong.
Poor, misunderstood child. You are so profound and wise that everybody always misunderstands you!

Top Gear Top Tip. There's absolutely no room for being misunderstood had you just said "Genocide is objectively wrong".

Nope.
What is so wrong about it??

[Skepdick]

Nope.
What is so wrong about it??

What a morally bankrupt question from somebody who proclaims to be "anti-genocide"!

[Sculptor]

Nope.
What is so wrong about it??

What a morally bankrupt question from somebody who proclaims to be "anti-genocide"!

I asked a question. You obviously do not know the answer.
What do you think is wrong with genocide?
Don't you know?

[bahman]

Nope.
What is so wrong about it??

What a morally bankrupt question from somebody who proclaims to be "anti-genocide"!

I asked a question. You obviously do not know the answer.
What do you think is wrong with genocide?
Don't you know?

Equality. Do you like to be in the same situation?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In my case what is morality-proper is supported by empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable moral facts within a credible moral framework and system.

That is what they all say, sweetie.
Hitler used archaeology and inheritance science to justify his genocide.

So you agree that anyone's with Hitler sort of justification can wipe off you and your whole family and relatives?
That is what the Islamic jihadists did, i.e. the justify their killing of non-believers based on divine science and because their God demand such evils.

Nazi theory has much in common with Steve Pinker's work.

No arguments as usual.
Words and statements are cheap, anyone can do use them without substantiation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So we can have the situation where:

(1) Genocide isn't objectively wrong.
(2) Whether genocide is morally wrong is relative to individual opinions.
(3) Out of 7 billion people, all 7 billion individuals feel that genocide is morally wrong.

In that situation, how does it make sense to say that "genocide is 'as moral' as non-genocide"?

You are very lost here.

What is crucial is we must define what is morality, i.e. morality-proper and not just tom, dick and harry's morality.

What is YOUR definition of morality?
It is because you did not provide a specific definition of what is morality that you are able to 'eel' and slide your way around.

I had defined "what is morality-proper" a "1000" times i.e. generally as morality-proper is about promoting 'good' and avoiding 'evil'. ['terms' as defined].

Genocide is a moral issue.
Genocide is evil and is to be avoid in accordance to the definition of morality-proper.

That 7+ billion think genocide is wrong is not necessary objective, e.g. once almost everyone thought the Earth was flat.
But such a high majority will give us a very strong abductive clue that there is a high possibility of 'objectivity' on such a moral issue.

What is "objective" must be a FSK-dependent-fact, e.g. a moral fact that is objective, i.e. independent of individual opinions and beliefs.
I have already argued a moral fact is one that is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK, i.e. the moral fact of inherent ought_ness and inhibition in the brain of ALL humans, i.e.
'no human ought to kill humans'.
thus
'no human ought to commit genocide.'

The above is how we differentiate genocide from the moral standard of no-genocide within a credible moral-FSK.
Note whatever is 'morality' must be qualified to a moral-FSK.

First, hasn't it been clear to you that I don't agree with a single sentence you type? Your views are a series of misconceived notions, misunderstood parrotings and incorrect conclusions that you repeat as infinitum in the manner of a telemarketing script, where you've shown time and time again that it's just not possible for you to go off-script. The simplest request to go off-script is met with befuddlement and condescension, and then you quickly go back on-script.

I DID NOT expect you to agree with what I type.
What counts is whether your have valid and sound arguments on whatever you counter.

Where I said something you find unpleasant, it is supported by evidences and justifications based on what you have posted not like your 'put downs'.

At any rate, morality consists of judgments/assessments/dispositions/etc. of interpersonal (where "a person towards themself" is a possibility), action-oriented behavior that the assessor considers more significant than etiquette.
The judgments/assessments in question are of the nature of behavior being acceptable/permissible versus unacceptable/impermissible, morally good versus morally bad, recommendable versus not recommendable, obligatory versus prohibitable, and so on.

etiquette = the customary code of polite behaviour in society or among members of a particular profession or group.

I have done extensive research on morality and read hundreds of definitions of what is morality,
On the Definition of Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737
Your definition of what is morality above is the worst definition I have come across in relation to what is morality as understood by the general public and academic.

Note for the Yakuza the Japanese mafia, what is more significant than etiquette is to cut off one's finger if one has committed one of their sins.
Your basis of morality as 'more significant than etiquette' is too loose.

The principle with etymology is any word can have any meaning as long as long as there are sufficient recognition by people, i.e. it is based on popularity. Note example the word 'gay' used to mean 'joyful' but now the popular use of 'gay' refer to homosexuality.

For intellectual integrity sake within a philosophical state, whatever meaning you have for a word should at least be grounded to a specific FSK with its principles, grounds and various means of justifications.
Your basis of morality as 'more significant than etiquette' in this case is too flimsy.

At most, what is more significant than etiquette is Organizational-based ethics [applied], e.g. medical ethics, etc. but that is not morality per-se [principles].

According to my survey, the very common terms associated with 'what is morality' are 'good' and 'evil' then 'right' & 'wrong.' I don't prefer the latter.
I believe 'good' and 'evil' are the most appropriate terms to be associated with morality-proper. I define 'good' as 'not-evil' and I then define 'what is evil' and it must be avoided. I provided the grounds why that is so. In addition I will have to provide an exhaustive list of what are evil acts.

Agreement doesn't make it more likely that we're talking about something objective, because agreement in itself doesn't suggest that we're talking about something that's other than a mental phenomenon.

Yes, agreement [unqualified] does not mean objective.

What is objective is agreement within a specific FSK, thus independent of individuals' opinions and belief but not independent of the FSK [collective of humans].

I had argued what "philosophical objectivity" meant.
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
7 Dimensions of Objectivity – Mathew Kramer
viewtopic.php?p=471122#p471122

Basically what is objectivity is intersubjectivity, i.e. intersubjective consensus within a specific FSK.

I don't agree with your sense of "objectivity" [you defined in one of your post] as things that are "external" and has nothing to do with the subject.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope.
What is so wrong about it??

What a morally bankrupt question from somebody who proclaims to be "anti-genocide"!

I asked a question. You obviously do not know the answer.
What do you think is wrong with genocide?
Don't you know?

What is wrong with genocide?
To even ask such a question is
You are definitely not a human being.

[Terrapin Station]

Note for the Yakuza the Japanese mafia, what is more significant than etiquette is to cut off one's finger if one has committed one of their sins.

The whole point is to capture, via analysis applied to observations, how the term is actually used functionally--so not a survey of how people define it, but a survey of how its used in a functional sense, and in a generalized sense so that it's both specific enough to be distinct but broad enough to not exclude any common functional usage, and so that the analysis results in something that's ontologically sound, whether this matches common beliefs about what's going on ontologically or not.

Thus if a definition excludes the functional usage of someone like mob/gang members, there's a problem with it, because it's not capturing the phenomenon in question well enough.

[Peter Holmes]

Of course there are moral facts. Of course X is morally wrong. Don't you think X is morally wrong? What are you - a monster?

X = the theft of surplus value from labour. Nah - that's just envious commie whingeing.
X = eating animals. No, that's not a moral fact. That's just an opinion.
X = capital punishment. No, that's not a moral fact. That's just an opinion. Perhaps it's justifiable sometimes.
X = abortion. Erm. Well, there are arguments on both sides. Opinions are strongly divided.
X = rape, slavery, genocide. No argument. It's a fact that those are morally wrong. Disagree? What sort of monster are you?

Of course there are moral facts. And I happen to know what they are.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note for the Yakuza the Japanese mafia, what is more significant than etiquette is to cut off one's finger if one has committed one of their sins.

The whole point is to capture, via analysis applied to observations, how the term is actually used functionally--so not a survey of how people define it, but a survey of how its used in a functional sense, and in a generalized sense so that it's both specific enough to be distinct but broad enough to not exclude any common functional usage, and so that the analysis results in something that's ontologically sound, whether this matches common beliefs about what's going on ontologically or not.

Most of the definitions of morality surveyed I noted are are based or implied upon functional usage, experiences and intuitions with reference to the more obvious acts of evil, e.g. killing, rape, torture, murders, etc.

Re ontological soundness, the platonic moral realist will refer to Platonic universals, the theists will insist there are divine moral facts from a God. I claim there are verified and justified moral facts from a credible moral fsk.
The moral relativists [anything goes] like yourself will not bother with ontological soundness.

Thus if a definition excludes the functional usage of someone like mob/gang members, there's a problem with it, because it's not capturing the phenomenon in question well enough.

I am simply using the Yakuza as one example [out of hundreds] and that to rely on the definition of what is morality as "more significant than etiquette is too flimsy"

[Skepdick]

I asked a question. You obviously do not know the answer.
What do you think is wrong with genocide?
Don't you know?

I do know. And I thought you knew too.

Genocide is objectively wrong.

AS it turns out, you are asking questions. I guess you don't know that genocide is wrong.