The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

[Peter Holmes]

You are so ignorant and blinded when I have already answered your question plus with supporting; i.e.

The Samurai Bushido would likely have a 51/100 moral defectiveness in their program of not-to-kill-humans, thus will kill their enemies where there is a need to.
Note the my supporting explanations to the above.

This is not a practical answer.
No one could take this answer and understand where your all encompassing moral algorithm stood on this matter.
It looks like your moral system is not fit for purpose.

Why not practical?
It is a fact there are no more Samurai Bushido in modern Japan.

The tradition somehow crept into the Japanese Mafia where killing was rampant.
At present the Japanese Government has got rid of the Japanese Mafia and there is no more mafia killings and tortures.
This is evident the inherent moral drive [moral fact] had reduced the moral-defective in this aspect of the Japanese society.

This supposed 'inherent moral drive' is the same fiction dressed up with a different name. That we may be 'driven' or 'programmed' to behave in certain ways has no inherent or intrinsic moral significance - no 'good' or 'evil' implication. And that's why, if men were 'driven' or 'programmed' to rape out-group females, that wouldn't make it morally right or good to do so.

But - I forget. You can't handle the point of counter-factuals in exposing the fallacy of an argument. Ho hum.

[Terrapin Station]

That 'water is H20' is an objective truth had been peer reviewed within the Chemistry FSK and so far no one has disputed that scientific fact.

Not sure how your point is relevant to my point.

To have peer review, to have peers, where this isn't something you're imagining/fantasizing, you have to be able to observe peers and their peer review. That means that it has to be possible to observe something that's not yourself.

I still do not get your point from my perspective.

My point is;
What is peers-review is, whatever is claimed to be a theory is tested in accordance to the scientific method and reviewed by the qualified peers within the respective FSK.
If there is consensus then the theory is accepted as true as qualified to the specific FSK.

Note for example the main theories in QM were not accepted by Einstein et. al. but there was sufficient acceptance by a majority that QM is now officially recognized as a true representation of reality and generate loads of utilities for mankind.

The layman will then trust the reliability of the theory based on the credibility of the FSK and that those theories trusted can be repeatedly useful to them.

Thus I don't see how my point as above is related to your question above.

To get to peer review, there have to be peers, right?

[Sculptor]

Morality-proper is confined to humans only and to those things [living or otherwise] that humanity has a vested interests in for their well-being.
Foxes are not human beings therefore has no moral consideration except where the killing of foxes will effect the well-being of humans.

So what is your answer?
What about killing dophins, polar bears, and baby seals.
Surely your all emcompassing moral system has SOMETHING to say about this?

As I had stated the killing of living non-humans is outside the scope of morality-proper.

Then you system is bollocks.

[Sculptor]

You are so ignorant and blinded when I have already answered your question plus with supporting; i.e.

The Samurai Bushido would likely have a 51/100 moral defectiveness in their program of not-to-kill-humans, thus will kill their enemies where there is a need to.
Note the my supporting explanations to the above.

This is not a practical answer.
No one could take this answer and understand where your all encompassing moral algorithm stood on this matter.
It looks like your moral system is not fit for purpose.

Why not practical?
It is a fact there are no more Samurai Bushido in modern Japan.

The tradition somehow crept into the Japanese Mafia where killing was rampant.
At present the Japanese Government has got rid of the Japanese Mafia and there is no more mafia killings and tortures.
This is evident the inherent moral drive [moral fact] had reduced the moral-defective in this aspect of the Japanese society.

If you scheme is objective then time and culture would not make a difference.
But the fact is that all value-laden systems; which means ALL moral systems have to be SUBJECTIVE. Something you have denied
In this case historically and culturally subjective.
QED. You moral system is a failure.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is not a practical answer.
No one could take this answer and understand where your all encompassing moral algorithm stood on this matter.
It looks like your moral system is not fit for purpose.

Why not practical?
It is a fact there are no more Samurai Bushido in modern Japan.

The tradition somehow crept into the Japanese Mafia where killing was rampant.
At present the Japanese Government has got rid of the Japanese Mafia and there is no more mafia killings and tortures.
This is evident the inherent moral drive [moral fact] had reduced the moral-defective in this aspect of the Japanese society.

This supposed 'inherent moral drive' is the same fiction dressed up with a different name. That we may be 'driven' or 'programmed' to behave in certain ways has no inherent or intrinsic moral significance - no 'good' or 'evil' implication. And that's why, if men were 'driven' or 'programmed' to rape out-group females, that wouldn't make it morally right or good to do so.

But - I forget. You can't handle the point of counter-factuals in exposing the fallacy of an argument. Ho hum.

You are going off topic on the above about 'humans killing of humans.'

The ought-not-to-kill-humans is a feature of the inherent moral drive for good and to avoid evil for the well-being of the individual and humanity.
You should be above to rationalize it for yourself when you and most are not driven to kill humans when such potential to kill is inhibited by the moral fact, of the human ought-not_ness-to-kill-humans.

ALL human males are not 'programmed' to rape out-group females.
This can be easily verified and justified.
Contrast that to;
ALL humans are "programmed" to survive till the inevitability of mortality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To get to peer review, there have to be peers, right?

Obviously, so?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Then you system is bollocks.

There you go again, merely brushing off without justification which exposes your low intellectual integrity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is not a practical answer.
No one could take this answer and understand where your all encompassing moral algorithm stood on this matter.
It looks like your moral system is not fit for purpose.

Why not practical?
It is a fact there are no more Samurai Bushido in modern Japan.

The tradition somehow crept into the Japanese Mafia where killing was rampant.
At present the Japanese Government has got rid of the Japanese Mafia and there is no more mafia killings and tortures.
This is evident the inherent moral drive [moral fact] had reduced the moral-defective in this aspect of the Japanese society.

If you scheme is objective then time and culture would not make a difference.
But the fact is that all value-laden systems; which means ALL moral systems have to be SUBJECTIVE. Something you have denied
In this case historically and culturally subjective.
QED. You moral system is a failure.

Note the etymological origin of 'science' which is 'to know';

• ORIGIN OF SCIENCE
  1300–50; Middle English <Middle French <Latin scientia knowledge, equivalent to scient- (stem of sciēns), present participle of scīre to know + -ia-ia
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t

This "to know" is "programmed" and embedded in the human DNA right from the beginning of being human, i.e. human nature. This is a fundamental biological fact and a scientific fact.
But the features of science [to know] has changed over the hundreds of thousand of years to its present state and will change into the future.
Whilst the features of science change over time, i.e. relative, the fundamental fact 'to know' had been constant since the beginning.

It is the same with the moral drive and the moral fact of 'no killing of humans by humans' which is fundamental from the beginning regardless of the changes in culture and other factors.
It is this fundamental moral fact that is objective and do not change over time, culture, personal opinions and beliefs.

Note you ignorance of this point i.e. your inability to differentiate between substance and its forms.

[Sculptor]

Then you system is bollocks.

There you go again, merely brushing off without justification which exposes your low intellectual integrity.

But it is not fit for purpose. It utterly ignores the natural world, and is condensed and reduced to the wishes of the minority of "normal" people, and only with regard to other humans.
FAIL

[Sculptor]

Why not practical?
It is a fact there are no more Samurai Bushido in modern Japan.

The tradition somehow crept into the Japanese Mafia where killing was rampant.
At present the Japanese Government has got rid of the Japanese Mafia and there is no more mafia killings and tortures.
This is evident the inherent moral drive [moral fact] had reduced the moral-defective in this aspect of the Japanese society.

If you scheme is objective then time and culture would not make a difference.
But the fact is that all value-laden systems; which means ALL moral systems have to be SUBJECTIVE. Something you have denied
In this case historically and culturally subjective.
QED. You moral system is a failure.

Note the etymological origin of 'science' which is 'to know';

• ORIGIN OF SCIENCE
  1300–50; Middle English <Middle French <Latin scientia knowledge, equivalent to scient- (stem of sciēns), present participle of scīre to know + -ia-ia
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t

Any fool can copy and paste. You need a brain to use the information properly.

This "to know" is "programmed" and embedded in the human DNA right from the beginning of being human, i.e. human nature. This is a fundamental biological fact and a scientific fact.
But the features of science [to know] has changed over the hundreds of thousand of years to its present state and will change into the future.
Whilst the features of science change over time, i.e. relative, the fundamental fact 'to know' had been constant since the beginning.

It is the same with the moral drive and the moral fact of 'no killing of humans by humans' which is fundamental from the beginning regardless of the changes in culture and other factors.

This is false by your own rubric, since it is normal for ALL human societies to wage war, and it is almost universal to have capital punishment.
In other words it is "normal" to kill humans and you have lost your own argument.

It is this fundamental moral fact that is objective and do not change over time, culture, personal opinions and beliefs.

Evidence shows the complete opposite

Note you ignorance of this point i.e. your inability to differentiate between substance and its forms.

There you ga again. Insulting others who don't agree with you like any other megalomaniac.

[Terrapin Station]

To get to peer review, there have to be peers, right?

Obviously, so?

So do you believe that you can observe a peer?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you scheme is objective then time and culture would not make a difference.
But the fact is that all value-laden systems; which means ALL moral systems have to be SUBJECTIVE. Something you have denied
In this case historically and culturally subjective.
QED. You moral system is a failure.

Note the etymological origin of 'science' which is 'to know';

• ORIGIN OF SCIENCE
  1300–50; Middle English <Middle French <Latin scientia knowledge, equivalent to scient- (stem of sciēns), present participle of scīre to know + -ia-ia
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t

Any fool can copy and paste. You need a brain to use the information properly.

This "to know" is "programmed" and embedded in the human DNA right from the beginning of being human, i.e. human nature. This is a fundamental biological fact and a scientific fact.
But the features of science [to know] has changed over the hundreds of thousand of years to its present state and will change into the future.
Whilst the features of science change over time, i.e. relative, the fundamental fact 'to know' had been constant since the beginning.

It is the same with the moral drive and the moral fact of 'no killing of humans by humans' which is fundamental from the beginning regardless of the changes in culture and other factors.

This is false by your own rubric, since it is normal for ALL human societies to wage war, and it is almost universal to have capital punishment.
In other words it is "normal" to kill humans and you have lost your own argument.

It is this fundamental moral fact that is objective and do not change over time, culture, personal opinions and beliefs.

Evidence shows the complete opposite

Note you ignorance of this point i.e. your inability to differentiate between substance and its forms.

There you ga again. Insulting others who don't agree with you like any other megalomaniac.

There is obviously a reduction in wars since WWW II.
There is also a reduction in capital punishment around the world.

• The following is a summary of the use of capital punishment by country. Globally, of the 195 independent states that are UN members or have UN observer status, 106 countries have completely abolished it de jure for all crimes,
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_p ... by_country

Note again, you are ignorant of the above point and other relevant knowledge.

What is critical is the reducing trend and more countries will abolish capital punishments.

The above reducing trend in terms of wars, capital punishments, evil and violence is driven by the unfoldment of the inherent moral potential within humanity. i.e. the inherent moral fact that 'no human ought to kill humans'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To get to peer review, there have to be peers, right?

Obviously, so?

So do you believe that you can observe a peer?

You missed my point and as usual invent a new argument.

My point is,
Whatever are scientific facts, they are peer-reviewed and accepted with consensus within the requirement of the scientific FSK.
That Einstein Theory of Special Relativity was peer-reviewed by his fellow scientists, and accepted by consensus, adopted by others and not disputed within Modern Physics, implied his theory has fulfilled the requirements of the specific FSK.
I personally don't have to observe a peer in this case.

It is possible for me that I can observe an empirical person who is doing a peer-review, i.e. testing some theories, writing his paper, etc.
So what is the problem with observing a peer in this case?

[Sculptor]

Note the etymological origin of 'science' which is 'to know';

• ORIGIN OF SCIENCE
  1300–50; Middle English <Middle French <Latin scientia knowledge, equivalent to scient- (stem of sciēns), present participle of scīre to know + -ia-ia
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t

Any fool can copy and paste. You need a brain to use the information properly.

This "to know" is "programmed" and embedded in the human DNA right from the beginning of being human, i.e. human nature. This is a fundamental biological fact and a scientific fact.
But the features of science [to know] has changed over the hundreds of thousand of years to its present state and will change into the future.
Whilst the features of science change over time, i.e. relative, the fundamental fact 'to know' had been constant since the beginning.

It is the same with the moral drive and the moral fact of 'no killing of humans by humans' which is fundamental from the beginning regardless of the changes in culture and other factors.

This is false by your own rubric, since it is normal for ALL human societies to wage war, and it is almost universal to have capital punishment.
In other words it is "normal" to kill humans and you have lost your own argument.

It is this fundamental moral fact that is objective and do not change over time, culture, personal opinions and beliefs.

Evidence shows the complete opposite

Note you ignorance of this point i.e. your inability to differentiate between substance and its forms.

There you ga again. Insulting others who don't agree with you like any other megalomaniac.

There is obviously a reduction in wars since WWW II.

WWWWWWwerere.
The world has been in continual war since WW2.
Not that it is relevant.
Until the next big one.

There is also a reduction in capital punishment around the world.

• The following is a summary of the use of capital punishment by country. Globally, of the 195 independent states that are UN members or have UN observer status, 106 countries have completely abolished it de jure for all crimes,
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_p ... by_country

But also irrlevant

Note again, you are ignorant of the above point and other relevant knowledge.

Try not to be a c+nt.
You are completely ignorant of my knowledge. So please restrict yourself to things you think you know about.

What is critical is the reducing trend and more countries will abolish capital punishments.

But also irrlevant

The above reducing trend in terms of wars, capital punishments, evil and violence is driven by the unfoldment of the inherent moral potential within humanity. i.e. the inherent moral fact that 'no human ought to kill humans'.

Things are going the other way in the USA. Where same sex marriage has gone backwards. There are also many other place in the world that are much worse off.
But SO WHAT?
None of this is relevant.
Whichever way it goes it points to a simple fact that morality is fluid. u.e. subjective.
The very change you point of supports my point.

[Terrapin Station]

Obviously, so?

So do you believe that you can observe a peer?

You missed my point and as usual invent a new argument.

My point is,
Whatever are scientific facts, they are peer-reviewed and accepted with consensus within the requirement of the scientific FSK.
That Einstein Theory of Special Relativity was peer-reviewed by his fellow scientists, and accepted by consensus, adopted by others and not disputed within Modern Physics, implied his theory has fulfilled the requirements of the specific FSK.
I personally don't have to observe a peer in this case.

It is possible for me that I can observe an empirical person who is doing a peer-review, i.e. testing some theories, writing his paper, etc.
So what is the problem with observing a peer in this case?

I'm trying to get you to think about and address what I'm asking you.