Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:34 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 1:50 pm
Nope. There is every denying. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in a certain way is NOT a moral mechanism or function. And the reason why it isn't is that judgement as to the moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour is a separate matter. I've explained this to you a thousand times.
For the same reason, that we are obviously programmed to kill humans that threaten ourselves, our families, or our group, doesn't mean that we ought to do so - that it's morally right to do so. For the thousandth time. But ignore this fact, by all means, as usual.
You are the one who is ignoring all my counters to your above.
1. "the moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour is a separate matter"
is not an issue within morality proper.
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
You have not countered the above point.
2. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in moral ways within a moral FSK is NOT a moral mechanism or function. re morality as defined.
A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in sexual ways within a sex-FSK is NOT a sexual mechanism or function.
This applicable to all different functions, e.g. visual, auditory, intellectual, compassion, etc.
3. That humans are programmed to kill for various reason has nothing to do with morality on a primary basis but rather they had to kill for food and basic survival.
I have explained ad nauseam on the above but you have not provided any convincing counter to the above.
Show me your counters to the above.
Here are my counters, in your number order.
1 You claim that what you call 'morality-proper' or (here) 'morality per se' has nothing to do with judgements, beliefs, decisions or opinions. So you claim that the assertion 'abortion is morally wrong' doesn't express a judgement, belief, decision or opinion - but is instead a factual assertion that is true or false, independently from opinion and therefore subjectivity. And this claim is false.
If your claim doesn't apply to 'abortion is morally wrong' - because that's a matter of opinion - but instead applies to 'no human ought to kill humans' - in other words, if some moral assertions are factual, but others aren't - then you have to demonstrate that that distinction between moral assertions is objective (factual) and not, in itself, merely a matter of opinion. In other words: is it a fact that some moral assertions are factual (and therefore true or false) but that others aren't factual? My answer is: no.
You are creating your own strawman and is deceptive as usual.
I did not state this "
'abortion is morally wrong' doesn't express a judgement, belief, decision or opinion."
I agree 'abortion is morally wrong' is a judgment, belief or opinion, but such a judgment is not applicable to morality-proper [as defined].
Morality-proper do not deal primarily with judgments, beliefs or opinions.
Note my general principle;
Whatever is claimed as a moral fact, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK, e.g.
'no human ought to kill humans'
which I had justified.
If it is related to abortion then the moral fact would be,
"no human ought to abort any unborn human'
But note, I have not justified this moral fact solidly and soundly yet, so I am not making any strong claim on it at present.
Also, your description of morality doesn't conform to any dictionary definition of the word 'morality', all of which (including the one you repeatedly cite) refer to the rightness and wrongness, the propriety and impropriety, or the goodness and badness of behaviour. And if your version of morality merely involves consistency with programming, or other causal aspects of human nature, then it has nothing to do with what the rest of us call 'morality'.
I am aware morality is defined in term of 'right or wrong' but I do not prefer such "too-loose" terms so I am opting for 'good' or 'evil' which I had defined the latter terms.
2 This seems to endorse my point about the use of 'moral' as a modifier in the way you use it, for example in the incoherent expression 'moral fact'. I'm delighted you understand this point, at last.
I was rushing to do something, thus there is an omission there and I had merely copied what you wrote without editing it out the 'NOT'. I will represent, i.e.
- 2. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that make us behave in moral ways within a moral FSK is a moral mechanism or function. re morality as defined.
A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that make us behave in sexual ways within a sex-FSK is a sexual mechanism or function.
This applicable to all different functions, e.g. visual, auditory, intellectual, compassion, etc.
3 Your expression 'morality on a primary basis' is as empty as your expressions 'morality-proper' and 'morality per se'. Changing the name doesn't change the fact that this is your invention, as is the 'morality framework and system of knowledge'. You've deluded yourself into thinking these things exist, but have failed to provide what you yourself insist on: empirical evidence. Your claim that programming represents an 'oughtness' in humans that somehow translates into a moral 'oughtness' is fatuous - as I and others have demonstrated a thousand times.
Your claims are false, or not shown to be true. And your arguments are unsound, or not shown to be sound. And nothing will change for you until you go back to the drawing board, wipe off all the elaborate nonsense you've chalked up, and start again.
Point is I have defined what is 'morality-proper.'
This definition is in alignment with the fundamentals of what is generally defined as 'morality', e.g. deontology, consequentialism, theistic morality, those of moral relativism. e.g.
Do you have a problem with that definition?
How come you are so ignorant of what is generally a Framework and System of Knowledge or Reality as in Science and the range of knowledge out there?
As such there is no issue with what is a moral framework and system.
Whatever "programming" in the brain is justified with the moral FSK is a moral fact just as scientific facts are from a scientific FSK.
Why you cannot understand my rational views is because you have been indoctrinated with the bastardized views of the logical positivists and the archaic classical analytic philosophers.