Moral Drive = Moral Ought

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is another counter-example to Hume's "No Ought from IS." [NOFI].

• 1. The moral drive is a subset of Reality, i.e. "IS" - justified empirically
  2. Moral Oughts are subsets of the Moral Drive. - justified empirically within moral FSK.
  3. Moral oughts are subsets of "IS" - deductively
  4. Therefore there are moral oughts from "is-es" - deductively

1. The moral drive is a subset of Reality, i.e. "IS" - justified empirically
This is very evident empirically from the point that morality aka ethics is one of the core subjects of philosophy and prevalent in all cultures, traditions, religions, etc.

The moral drive is not about the supposedly moral opinions, beliefs, judgments and decisions made by individuals or groups.

What is the moral drive is the embedded force that drives morally and represented by its neural and physical correlated inherited via the human DNA/RNA.

What drives tantamount to what ought to be driven.

Analogy to Sex-Drive.
The analogy of the moral drive is like that of the sex-drive which is represented by by its neural and physical correlated inherited via the human DNA/RNA.
The inherent sex-drive is distinctly different from sexual feeling, opinions, beliefs, judgments and decisions made by individuals or groups.
The basic sex-drive is common to both males and females but manifested into different sexual expressions of heterosexuality, homosexuality, bestiality, various sex perversions, rapes, etc.
Even those who are asexual and celibate still has the sex-drive except it is not active because of damage, suppression etc.

The sex-drive as explained above is analogically similar to the moral drive.

The difference is the sex-drive is primal and activated in the early phases of evolution, while the moral drive was embedded early but is activated in the later phases of evolution, i.e. it is even later than the intelligence-drive.

The moral drive is thus a biological fact first and then a moral fact when justified empirically within moral FSK.

2. Moral Oughts are subsets of the Moral Drive. - justified empirically within moral FSK.
Whatever is a moral ought as a moral fact must be verified and justified empirically & philosophically within a credible moral framework and system [FSK].
As such, whatever is a moral ought from the moral drive is a moral fact.

From the above, there can be no denial, the inherent moral oughts exist as moral facts, i.e. are "is-es"

Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just in case of dispute as to what is fact, note this;

What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

What are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

[Peter Holmes]

Different term - 'moral drive' - same old claptrap.

Factual premise: all normal humans have a moral drive to do X (behave in certain ways).
Moral conclusions: humans ought to do X; X is morally right.

Analogous fallacy:

Factual premise: all normal humans have a sex drive.
Moral conclusion: humans ought to have sex; having sex is morally right.

The pattern is always the same: here's a fact (established or putative); and here's the moral conclusion entailed by that fact.

How many times will you repeat this fallacy? When will the penny drop?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Different term - 'moral drive' - same old claptrap.

Factual premise: all normal humans have a moral drive to do X (behave in certain ways).
Moral conclusions: humans ought to do X; X is morally right.

Analogous fallacy:

Factual premise: all normal humans have a sex drive.
Moral conclusion: humans ought to have sex; having sex is morally right.

The pattern is always the same: here's a fact (established or putative); and here's the moral conclusion entailed by that fact.

How many times will you repeat this fallacy? When will the penny drop?

You did not read the OP and explanation thoroughly.
Note I did not make this claim,

PH: Factual premise: all normal humans have a sex drive.
Moral conclusion: humans ought to have sex; having sex is morally right.

I stated,
ALL humans are programmed with a sex drive - empirically evident.
The human sex drive within the brain can be verified and justified as a fact within the biology FSK.

All humans are programmed with a moral drive - empirically evident
Analogous to the sex drive,
The human moral drive within the brain can also be verified and justified as a moral fact within the moral FSK.

Looks like your penny will never drop because you are dogmatic to an archaic belief and you are ignorant of the existence of abstract things supervene upon the physical.
Note I mentioned Property Dualism somewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism

[Peter Holmes]

Different term - 'moral drive' - same old claptrap.

Factual premise: all normal humans have a moral drive to do X (behave in certain ways).
Moral conclusions: humans ought to do X; X is morally right.

Analogous fallacy:

Factual premise: all normal humans have a sex drive.
Moral conclusion: humans ought to have sex; having sex is morally right.

The pattern is always the same: here's a fact (established or putative); and here's the moral conclusion entailed by that fact.

How many times will you repeat this fallacy? When will the penny drop?

You did not read the OP and explanation thoroughly.
Note I did not make this claim,

PH: Factual premise: all normal humans have a sex drive.
Moral conclusion: humans ought to have sex; having sex is morally right.

I stated,
ALL humans are programmed with a sex drive - empirically evident.
The human sex drive within the brain can be verified and justified as a fact within the biology FSK.

All humans are programmed with a moral drive - empirically evident
Analogous to the sex drive,
The human moral drive within the brain can also be verified and justified as a moral fact within the moral FSK.

Looks like your penny will never drop because you are dogmatic to an archaic belief and you are ignorant of the existence of abstract things supervene upon the physical.
Note I mentioned Property Dualism somewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism

So, let me point out the fallacy in what you say. Here are the two crucial passages:

1 ALL humans are programmed with a sex drive - empirically evident.
The human sex drive within the brain can be verified and justified as a fact within the biology FSK.

2 All humans are programmed with a moral drive - empirically evident
Analogous to the sex drive,
The human moral drive within the brain can also be verified and justified as a moral fact within the moral FSK.

Have a close look. In #1, you say 'The human sex drive...can be verified and justified as a fact...
But in #2, you say 'The human moral drive...can be verified and justified as a moral fact...

You don't say the human sex drive is a sex fact - because that expression is peculiar. It's a fact of our biology (our nature) that we [most of us] have a sex drive to behave in a certain way. But it isn't a 'sex fact'. It's just a fact about our nature.

So why is our having a moral drive a 'moral fact'? It may be a fact of our biology (our nature) that we [most of us] have a moral drive to behave in a certain way. But it isn't a 'moral fact'. It's just a fact about our nature. (Supposing this drive to exist.)

To repeat, moral judgement as to the rightness and wrongness - or goodness and evilness - of behaviour is a separate matter from the cause or nature of our behaviour. Perhaps the penny can drop? Perhaps pigs can fly?

[Terrapin Station]

You're still not even understanding what the issue is.

The issue is that if we have a fact, such as "Joe shot Pete and killed him," that fact does not imply any normative or moral maxim/edict/whatever you want to call it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Different term - 'moral drive' - same old claptrap.

Factual premise: all normal humans have a moral drive to do X (behave in certain ways).
Moral conclusions: humans ought to do X; X is morally right.

Analogous fallacy:

Factual premise: all normal humans have a sex drive.
Moral conclusion: humans ought to have sex; having sex is morally right.

The pattern is always the same: here's a fact (established or putative); and here's the moral conclusion entailed by that fact.

How many times will you repeat this fallacy? When will the penny drop?

You did not read the OP and explanation thoroughly.
Note I did not make this claim,

PH: Factual premise: all normal humans have a sex drive.
Moral conclusion: humans ought to have sex; having sex is morally right.

I stated,
ALL humans are programmed with a sex drive - empirically evident.
The human sex drive within the brain can be verified and justified as a fact within the biology FSK.

All humans are programmed with a moral drive - empirically evident
Analogous to the sex drive,
The human moral drive within the brain can also be verified and justified as a moral fact within the moral FSK.

Looks like your penny will never drop because you are dogmatic to an archaic belief and you are ignorant of the existence of abstract things supervene upon the physical.
Note I mentioned Property Dualism somewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism

So, let me point out the fallacy in what you say. Here are the two crucial passages:

1 ALL humans are programmed with a sex drive - empirically evident.
The human sex drive within the brain can be verified and justified as a fact within the biology FSK.

2 All humans are programmed with a moral drive - empirically evident
Analogous to the sex drive,
The human moral drive within the brain can also be verified and justified as a moral fact within the moral FSK.

Have a close look. In #1, you say 'The human sex drive...can be verified and justified as a fact...
But in #2, you say 'The human moral drive...can be verified and justified as a moral fact...

You don't say the human sex drive is a sex fact - because that expression is peculiar. It's a fact of our biology (our nature) that we [most of us] have a sex drive to behave in a certain way. But it isn't a 'sex fact'. It's just a fact about our nature.

So why is our having a moral drive a 'moral fact'? It may be a fact of our biology (our nature) that we [most of us] have a moral drive to behave in a certain way. But isn't a 'moral fact'. It's just a fact about our nature. (Supposing this drive to exist.)

To repeat, moral judgement as to the rightness and wrongness - or goodness and evilness - of behaviour is a separate matter from the cause or nature of our behaviour. Perhaps the penny can drop? Perhaps pigs can fly?

Your rhetoric and deception as usual.
Where did I state 'sex fact'.

In #1 I implied the sexual drive is a biological fact because it is related to the biology FSK.

So why is our having a moral drive a 'moral fact'? It may be a fact of our biology (our nature) that we [most of us] have a moral drive to behave in a certain way. But isn't a 'moral fact'. It's just a fact about our nature. (Supposing this drive to exist.)

So you agree that drive [moral] is a biological fact.
The point is when this biological fact, i.e. the drive [moral] is input within the moral FSK with other inputs and processes, it is then a moral fact.

My claim is whatever is fact is qualified to its specific FSK.
A biological fact is qualified to a biological FSK.
When a biological fact is inputed into a medical FSK with other inputs, then we have a medical fact. Example, diseases, e.g. kidney diseases are reference to the kidney as a biological fact.

Similarly when the drive [moral] is inputed into a moral FSK, then it becomes a moral fact.

To repeat, moral judgement as to the rightness and wrongness - or goodness and evilness - of behaviour is a separate matter from the cause or nature of our behaviour. Perhaps the penny can drop? Perhaps pigs can fly?

The above is your usual strawman.
The above issues are not the central elements of morality-proper.

Here's the 1000+1th time;
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615

[Veritas Aequitas]

You're still not even understanding what the issue is.
The issue is that if we have a fact, such as "Joe shot Pete and killed him," that fact does not imply any normative or moral maxim/edict/whatever you want to call it.

Address to me?
You are still not even understanding my perspective to the moral issue, i.e. morality-proper.

The issue is that if we have a fact, such as "Joe shot Pete and killed him," that fact does not imply any normative or moral maxim/edict/whatever you want to call it.

I agree, a fact, such as "Joe shot Pete and killed him," is not a moral fact of morality-proper. It is a fact of criminality or legal fact if Joe is convicted of the crime in a court of law.

That "Joe shot Pete and killed him," indicate there is a variance [the Moral Gap]
between
the justified moral fact as a moral standard, i.e. 'no human ought to kill human[s]'
AND
the criminal fact "Joe shot Pete and killed him."

As I had argued, the inherent moral fact as a moral standard is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK.

It is the recognition of this inherent moral fact as a moral standard that will drive and enable humanity to seek improvements efficiently to reduce the moral gap in the future.
It is likely there is nothing much we can do to improve Joe's moral competence at present but what is critical is the potential for improvements in the future with later generations.

[FlashDangerpants]

My claim is whatever is fact is qualified to its specific FSK.

As I explained for you last year, this places you in the metaphorical sandpit of cat turds viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29755&p=462847&hilit=turds#p462847 where you are making up your own game and then telling everyone else they have to agree to your rules in order for them to be wrong. They can simply not agree your FSK (which is only ever justified with circular arguments that rely on the same FSK prior to establishing any moral fact) and then you have nothing at all.

You will never in your life construct any useful argument by this method. No amount of repetition with trivial rewording does anything to help.

[Skepdick]

You will never in your life construct any useful argument by this method. No amount of repetition with trivial rewording does anything to help.

Look who pre-supposes that "argument construction" is useful.

[FlashDangerpants]

You will never in your life construct any useful argument by this method. No amount of repetition with trivial rewording does anything to help.

Look who pre-supposes that "argument construction" is useful.

Yes. But the truth is that Vegetable Ambulance has climbed into this pre-esiting sandpit where those are the rules, and he is attempting to master those rules. So these rules for this sandpit are what he already chose.

[Skepdick]

Yes. But the truth is that Vegetable Ambulance has climbed into this pre-esiting sandpit where those are the rules, and he is attempting to master those rules. So these rules for this sandpit are what he already chose.

Too bad you can't express those rules. Only enforce them.

Which is ironic in the context of moral enforcement.

[Peter Holmes]

So you agree that drive [moral] is a biological fact.
The point is when this biological fact, i.e. the drive [moral] is input within the moral FSK with other inputs and processes, it is then a moral fact.

No. Pay attention. The fact (if it is a fact) that we have 'drives' or 'programming' to behave in certain ways has no - NO - moral significance or implication. It doesn't mean that the behaviour is either morally right or good, or morally wrong or bad or evil.

For example, that we're programmed to have sex doesn't mean that having sex is either right or wrong, good or bad. And, for example, that we're programmed (if we are) not to kill humans doesn't mean that killing humans is either right or wrong, good or bad.

Those moral judgements about behaviour are a separate matter from facts about our behaviour.

Perhaps the penny will drop? Perhaps pigs will fly?

[FlashDangerpants]

Yes. But the truth is that Vegetable Ambulance has climbed into this pre-esiting sandpit where those are the rules, and he is attempting to master those rules. So these rules for this sandpit are what he already chose.

Too bad you can't express those rules. Only enforce them.

Which is ironic in the context of moral enforcement.

It sure would be if I were fooling myself my "FSK" thing was dervied from maths or computer science, but that is a You problem which I don't share.

And it would be ironic, if I were retailing some vision of indubitable moral certainty derived via robotic observation of data, but that is a You and Vulnerable Equestrian problem, which I also don't share in.

[Skepdick]

It sure would be if I were fooling myself my "FSK" thing was dervied from maths or computer science, but that is a You problem which I don't share.

Good thing that I am not "fooling" myself then. My FSK is not "derived from maths or computer science". Maths/computer science/logic/deduction/induction/science - is all invented. Like all human knowledge - they are instrumental.

And so the one being delusional about this is the moron confusing the world of logic/deduction/argumentation with the real world. The dumb representationalist (who doesn't grok the Mirror of Nature). You.

And it would be ironic, if I were retailing some vision of indubitable moral certainty derived via robotic observation of data, but that is a You and Vulnerable Equestrian problem, which I also don't share in.

"robotic observation of data"

Is that what you call "introspection"? Your have the EQ of a potato.