You did not address or counter this point;FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 1:54 pmI am a magnanimous overlord so I will grant points for effort on the putdown thing.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:40 amResorting to "put downs" indicates [subliminal] insecurities and lack of confidence in your answers. You could not resist that natural negative emotional impulse.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:47 am
So...
for deontologists, the goodness of an action is determined by obedience to a rule
for urilitarians, the goodness of an action is determined by the quantity of suffering created or prevented
And for VegetableAmbulancarians the goodness of an action is determined by obedience to prgrammed instructions in the dna - but only if it is a "normal" instruction.
Is that about right?
Within morality-proper, it is not a question of obedience as implied in the pseudo-moral systems like deontology, theistic morality and others.
Within morality-proper, there is no question of goodness prior to acting.
Rather, within morality-proper, each individual [with assistance from the collective] self-develops to progress their inherent moral functions to enable the factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" to unfold progressively, be active naturally and thus to flow & act spontaneously without any sense of being consciously obedience nor obligated.
The fact that you don't run out of your house with a chopper killing humans is self-evident the above factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" is active in you [brain and self] at present.
However if that inherent factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" in you is weakened due to various reasons [very likely in your case as evident and given in your weakness in resisting put-downs] you could end up killing humans.
The only note is that you should leave that sort of ironic self-sabotage to the pros, I will cheerfully ruin my own argument that way because I don't really care. But you have real difficulty working out what it is that makes an action right or wrong, and using the self-burn putdown thing to show us that you are smuggling an assumption in that matter seems like more than you wanted to do there.
The fact that you don't run out of your house with a chopper killing humans is self-evident the above factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" is active in you [brain and self] at present.
This is supported by evidence the majority 99% of people do not ordinarily and normally go on a killing spree on other human beings.
The exception is,
if that inherent factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" in some people is weakened or damage due to various reasons they will end up killing humans.
Malignant psychopaths are clear evidence of those who have damaged inhibition of the oughtness of not to kill humans.
Those who promote and agree to go to wars has weakened inhibitors due to the stronger triggers of the tribalism impulses.
Islamists kill non-believers because their ought-not_ness inhibitors are weakened by an inherent existential cognitive dissonances, thus the impulse to please their Allah is stronger.
Research has been done to support the above.A dog can see that you have given him fewer treats than you gave to some other dog. They can perform a quantitative calculation and an evaulation. Monkeys and babies and no doubt rabbits too can all do this sort of thing, which is of course the forming of opinions about stuff they see around them.
Similarly the animal kingdom demonstrates empathy, mercy, grudges, reciprocation, and sometimes revenge.
These are obvious clues the moral function is inherent and adaptive via evolution and is more evident in the higher animals and should be many folds more advanced in humans.
The moral elements verified and justified as innate in animals are empathy, sense of fairness, interbreeding avoidance, not killing members of one species arbitrary, etc.
These are innate and inherent with those 'higher' animals and are not elements of nurture.
These are objective facts which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically via a credible FSK and this certain pattern of animal behaviors are compatible with what we recognized as elements of what we called 'morality'.
Since they are innate with those animals they are objective facts and if associated with morality, thus are moral facts.
If the above elements exists as objective facts thus are moral facts in those higher animals, the same inherent innate moral elements should exist within the more higher human beings by defaults of evolution.
Thus these are obvious clues the moral function is inherent and adaptive via evolution and is more evident in the higher animals and should be many folds more advanced in humans.
What I have done is I had verified and justified them empirically and philosophically with a moral FSK as inherent moral facts.