morality and Darwin

[Sculptor]

My point;
Darwin acknowledged in his book there is a deep Moral Sense within humanity that is adaptive and constituted by a minimal objective normative ethic.
This moral sense is represented by physical neuronal connectivity as a 'program' within the mind and brain which is thus a physical fact. Since these are related to morality, they are objective moral facts.

You cannot say what Darwin wrote since you have not read anything he wrote.
When you say "his book" which of his many publications are you referring to, and where exactly and in what context did he say that.
Come ON!!
I've even given you a reading list of Darwin's published works.
So where did he say these things you claim??

In this post of mine,
viewtopic.php?p=613857#p613857
I referred to this article,
https://philosophynow.org/issues/71/Dar ... telligence
where Vincent di Norcia made reference to Darwin's The Origin of Species.

As for the rest of the points you're an ignorant dickhead.. so Fuck Off.

And the rest of the points you have not even tried to defend because they are so idiotic.

As for the PN article, you have simply misunderstood what is being said, as the article does not say what you say it says.
Not only do you misquote di Norca (whoever the fuck he is), but you attribute your misquote of di Norca to Darwin.
It's no wonder you remain a man with zero academic qualifications, who errors like that.

So you can fuck off.

[popeye1945]

You seem to have missed my argument above that Christianity per se is inherently pacifist and the OT is not a part of the contract of Christianity.
Thus the OT cannot be a moral guide [standard] for Christianity per se.
If anyone were to insist the OT is their primary moral guide, then they are technically not a Christian.

It is just an example of the theory that is not enacted into practice as a reaction to said theory. It is an egocentric process as practiced and the ideal is not realistically obtainable. Traditional religions are rather ignorant expressions of human nature or biological extensions of said human nature. These religions are sacred ignorance unchanging so necessarily they are unnatural, for all things but these scriptures change it is the only guarantee life/reality affords us.

Morality is fundamental to human nature and exists inherently in a physical sense in the brains [DNA] of ALL humans, thus an objective fact.
This fundamental objective fact, like most other fundamentals of human nature, unfolds differently in individuals and groups due to the range of complexities within each human brain and environment. It is too late for now but in the future, it is possible to ensure the moral potential within all humans unfolds optimally for the well beings of the individuals and humanity. This will take a long time to achieve in the future and provided we start now. There is already evidence the moral potential has unfolded albeit slowly in the example of the abolishment of slavery.
It took perhaps 5000 years from the barbaric enslavement of humans to the present state where all sovereign nations have at least taken steps to ban chattel slavery.
This is merely evidence of the unfoldment of our moral potential with regard to one type of evil act, i.e. slavery to a certain extent but it is still far from expectation i.e. eliminating slaver voluntarily without external laws nor coercions. [/quote]

All meaning, morality one lonely aspect, is bestowed upon a meaningless world. Our senses and our sensibilities in thought are most important when held in common, for individual experience is more fallible than collective experience. Morality based upon our common biology, meaning the common biology of all life forms as carbon-based is the proper subject of morality. It is quite true that all things are process and that there should be evolutionary moral progress should not be surprising but I personally believe greater progress would be made if our common humanity our common biology was recognized as the proper subject of human morality and not handed down from any imaginary entity.

Besides slavery, morality-proper comprises many other moral elements which must be addressed and expeditiously.
We cannot progress expeditiously until there is greater awareness that morality is represented by objective moral facts which are the physical elements and algorithms in the brain and body.
[/quote]

There are no objective moral facts. The world is only known to us on a subjective level and through that subjective experience we then bestow meaning upon the world, but that meaning is only relational to us as conscious subjects. Meaning truly never belongs to the object in and of itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are no objective moral facts. The world is only known to us on a subjective level and through that subjective experience we then bestow meaning upon the world, but that meaning is only relational to us as conscious subjects. Meaning truly never belongs to the object in and of itself.

Whatever is objective is Ultimately subjective, i.e. intersubjective. Somehow the 'subject' is an intricate part and parcel of reality.

In the above sense, scientific knowledge is ultimately subjective, but then scientific knowledge is recognized as objective, i.e. intersubjective and is independent of any individual's belief, opinion and judgement.
There are other fields of knowledge that is recognized as 'objective' but of lesser credibility than scientific knowledge.

As such the term 'objective' and objectivity is critical in the above sense and context.
It is this same sense that there are objective moral facts with the proviso that it is ultimately subjective, i.e. intersubjective.

Therefore re the subjective / objective dichotomy, context and sense are critical.

At present, the conventional view is that morality is SUBJECTIVE. Because Morality is so subjective we don't have to be serious about it and thus let it be and come what may. This is why there has been no serious improvements in human acts and evil acts continue to increase.

But if we were to view Morality as Objective [whilst ultimately subjective] in its proper context, we will have a fixed goal post to work with and contribute improvements to the morality index of humanity.

[Iwannaplato]

At present, the conventional view is that morality is SUBJECTIVE.

That's absurd. The conventional view is that morality and morals are objective. The vast majority of the world, theist and atheist alike, believe that morals are objective and morality is objective. They can't agree on the moralities involved or what is moral or what attitudes or character traits or virtues are right or better or good, etc.

But the vast majority of the world is moral realist.

[popeye1945]

How could anything be objective, seeing as we can only know the world subjectively? We come to know the world through our bodies where there are alterations to one's biology, there is perception/experience/meaning. Meaning never belongs to the object until meaning is bestowed upon it by a conscious subject. Meanings are biological readouts, the reason the world appears as it does to us is because of the structure and nature of our given biology, change the biology and you change perception/experience/meaning. It is quite possible that there are only objects for biological life, biological consciousness. We can never step out of our own subjectivity but only speculate about what lies outside that subjectivity and the answer to that seems to be that all is energy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How could anything be objective, seeing as we can only know the world subjectively?

Are you saying our current scientific knowledge is not "objective"?

Objective is defined as belief or knowledge that is independent of any individual's beliefs, judgment or opinion.

What is objective must always be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Reality [FSR], i.e. scientific knowledge is only objective when qualified to its FSR.

However the bottom line is, whatever is claimed as objective [conditionally] is ultimately subjective.

[popeye1945]

How could anything be objective, seeing as we can only know the world subjectively?

Are you saying our current scientific knowledge is not "objective"?

Objective is defined as belief or knowledge that is independent of any individual's beliefs, judgment or opinion.

What is objective must always be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Reality [FSR], i.e. scientific knowledge is only objective when qualified to its FSR.

However, the bottom line is, whatever is claimed as objective [conditionally] is ultimately subjective.

Knowledge is meaning and thus it is the property of a conscious subject, knowledge, and meaning can never belong to the object in question and the truth of that knowledge is inescapably relative only to a conscious subject. There is nothing known that is independent of a conscious subject, the truth of something can be related/communicated by a like biology but it is not first-hand knowledge and will be affirmed or negated with personal experience. We trust the statements of authorities that experience through like biologizes but this is not true knowledge until it is personal experience.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How could anything be objective, seeing as we can only know the world subjectively?

Are you saying our current scientific knowledge is not "objective"?

Objective is defined as belief or knowledge that is independent of any individual's beliefs, judgment or opinion.

What is objective must always be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Reality [FSR], i.e. scientific knowledge is only objective when qualified to its FSR.

However, the bottom line is, whatever is claimed as objective [conditionally] is ultimately subjective.

Knowledge is meaning and thus it is the property of a conscious subject, knowledge, and meaning can never belong to the object in question and the truth of that knowledge is inescapably relative only to a conscious subject. There is nothing known that is independent of a conscious subject, the truth of something can be related/communicated by a like biology but it is not first-hand knowledge and will be affirmed or negated with personal experience. We trust the statements of authorities that experience through like biologizes but this is not true knowledge until it is personal experience.

You stated:
How could anything be objective, seeing as we can only know the world subjectively?
So I asked above:
Are you saying our current scientific knowledge is not "objective"?

But you did not answer the above directly.

In any case, personal experience cannot be 'true' knowledge because the individual-human[s] by nature or even by necessity are very fallible.

Here's Kant's view of objective true knowledge which range within a continuum from very loose opinions [no truth values] to the highest possible objective knowledge.

1. Opinions are very subjective because anything goes without any need or call for justifications. This will have no or at best minimal truth value, say 0-1%.

2. Beliefs, i.e. personal beliefs are based on personal experiences which are personally justified, i.e. confidence restricted to only oneself. Because the individual human is so fallible, the highest truth value is say 50%.

3. Knowledge, i.e. knowledge is objective when personal beliefs are verified and justified within a community, i.e. a Framework and System of Reality [FSR]; e.g. the scientific FSR will generate a range of truth value from 51% to the highest possible truth value of say 90%.
Thus, knowledge can be called qualified 'justified true belief' [JTB]
We have various FSR, e.g. legal, economics, mathematics, political and the likes which will generate their respective truth values with different confidence levels.

Thus, personal experience is restricted to 2 above and at best its truth value cannot exceed 50% until it is verified and justified within its respective community and FSR.
For example, Einstein may have a personal confidence of 100% of his Theory of Relativity based on his personal experience, verification and justification [proof] but it is not accepted as scientific-knowledge [qualified and conditional] until it is accepted by his peers who will confirm its compliance with the FSR of the community.

As we can see, Einstein theory of relativity when contrast to Quantum Mechanics can at best generate a truth value of say 80%.

Note % used are relative [rough] not absolute.

It is the same with moral truth and objectivity where whatever the moral facts and truths, they must be conditioned upon a credible moral FSR; unfortunately there is no established moral FSR but it is nevertheless working loosely.

[popeye1945]

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=615084 time=1671791338 us


You stated:
How could anything be objective, seeing as we can only know the world subjectively?
So I asked above:
Are you saying our current scientific knowledge is not "objective"?

But you did not answer the above directly.

In any case, personal experience cannot be 'true' knowledge because the individual-human[s] by nature or even by necessity are very fallible.

Here's Kant's view of objective true knowledge which ranges within a continuum from very loose opinions [no truth values] to the highest possible objective knowledge.

1. Opinions are very subjective because anything goes without any need or call for justifications. This will have no or at best minimal truth value, say 0-1%.

2. Beliefs, i.e. personal beliefs are based on personal experiences which are personally justified, i.e. confidence restricted to only oneself. Because the individual human is so fallible, the highest truth value is say 50%.

3. Knowledge, i.e. knowledge is objective when personal beliefs are verified and justified within a community, i.e. a Framework and System of Reality [FSR]; e.g. the scientific FSR will generate a range of truth value from 51% to the highest possible truth value of say 90%.
Thus, knowledge can be called qualified 'justified true belief' [JTB]
We have various FSR, e.g. legal, economics, mathematics, political and the likes which will generate their respective truth values with different confidence levels.

Thus, personal experience is restricted to 2 above and at best its truth value cannot exceed 50% until it is verified and justified within its respective community and FSR.
For example, Einstein may have a personal confidence of 100% of his Theory of Relativity based on his personal experience, verification and justification [proof] but it is not accepted as scientific-knowledge [qualified and conditional] until it is accepted by his peers who will confirm its compliance with the FSR of the community.

As we can see, Einstein theory of relativity when contrast to Quantum Mechanics can at best generate a truth value of say 80%.

Note % used are relative [rough] not absolute.

It is the same with moral truth and objectivity where whatever the moral facts and truths, they must be conditioned upon a credible moral FSR; unfortunately there is no established moral FSR but it is nevertheless working loosely.
[/quote]

There is no objective knowledge, all knowledge is subjective, only the object is considered objective and the object has no knowledge in and of itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no objective knowledge, all knowledge is subjective, only the object is considered objective and the object has no knowledge in and of itself.

Your sense of objective is odd for you to insist "There is no objective knowledge, all knowledge is subjective" which seem very dogmatic.
Thus you will tell the world, all scientific knowledge is subjective.
In this case you will have no qualms accepting Creationism as scientific knowledge since subjectivity rules?

Btw, how do you define 'objective' and 'objectivity'.

I agree with this definition [philosophy].

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

I am not too sure of this definition of objectivity;
"A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being."
'ibid

[popeye1945]

Your sense of objective is odd for you to insist "There is no objective knowledge, all knowledge is subjective" which seem very dogmatic.
Thus you will tell the world, all scientific knowledge is subjective.
In this case you will have no qualms accepting Creationism as scientific knowledge since subjectivity rules?
Btw, how do you define 'objective' and 'objectivity'. I agree with this definition [philosophy].

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

I am not too sure of this definition of objectivity;
"A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being."
'ibid

Hi Veritas,

I do not know why it is a difficulty, what knowledge do you imagine the chair I am sitting in has of itself, me or its surroundings? Knowledge is subjective and we gain knowledge through experience and through evidence gathered through our experiences. Creationism has no evidence and nothing convincing in the way of experience, in fact, there is a mountain range of evidence against its validity. Objective and objectivity are drawn from the word object, objectivity in some cases can mean not to get emotionally involved with the object/person in question. I take it to mean a limitation of how much of your subjective nature will be involved. No truth, no meanings/knowledge, no experience is objective. There is in fact no such thing as objectivity, one cannot be engaged with the world and be uninvested in some way. " A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without the bias caused by the mind/sentient being." Just what then is going to make that evaluation?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your sense of objective is odd for you to insist "There is no objective knowledge, all knowledge is subjective" which seem very dogmatic.
Thus you will tell the world, all scientific knowledge is subjective.
In this case you will have no qualms accepting Creationism as scientific knowledge since subjectivity rules?
Btw, how do you define 'objective' and 'objectivity'. I agree with this definition [philosophy].

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

I am not too sure of this definition of objectivity;
"A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being."
'ibid

Hi Veritas,

I do not know why it is a difficulty, what knowledge do you imagine the chair I am sitting in has of itself, me or its surroundings? Knowledge is subjective and we gain knowledge through experience and through evidence gathered through our experiences. Creationism has no evidence and nothing convincing in the way of experience, in fact, there is a mountain range of evidence against its validity. Objective and objectivity are drawn from the word object, objectivity in some cases can mean not to get emotionally involved with the object/person in question. I take it to mean a limitation of how much of your subjective nature will be involved. No truth, no meanings/knowledge, no experience is objective. There is in fact no such thing as objectivity, one cannot be engaged with the world and be uninvested in some way. " A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without the bias caused by the mind/sentient being." Just what then is going to make that evaluation?

popeye1945: "No truth, no meanings/knowledge, no experience is objective."
I can agree experience is subjective and not objective, but there is the objective aspects of truth, meanings and knowledge.

In this case, can you confirm scientific truths & knowledge are not objective.

[popeye1945]

Your sense of objective is odd for you to insist "There is no objective knowledge, all knowledge is subjective" which seem very dogmatic.
Thus you will tell the world, all scientific knowledge is subjective.
In this case you will have no qualms accepting Creationism as scientific knowledge since subjectivity rules?
Btw, how do you define 'objective' and 'objectivity'. I agree with this definition [philosophy].



I am not too sure of this definition of objectivity;
"A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being."
'ibid

Hi Veritas,

I do not know why it is a difficulty, what knowledge do you imagine the chair I am sitting in has of itself, me or its surroundings? Knowledge is subjective and we gain knowledge through experience and through evidence gathered through our experiences. Creationism has no evidence and nothing convincing in the way of experience, in fact, there is a mountain range of evidence against its validity. Objective and objectivity are drawn from the word object, objectivity in some cases can mean not to get emotionally involved with the object/person in question. I take it to mean a limitation of how much of your subjective nature will be involved. No truth, no meanings/knowledge, no experience is objective. There is in fact no such thing as objectivity, one cannot be engaged with the world and be uninvested in some way. " A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without the bias caused by the mind/sentient being." Just what then is going to make that evaluation?

popeye1945: "No truth, no meanings/knowledge, no experience is objective."
I can agree experience is subjective and not objective, but there are objective aspects of truth, meanings and knowledge.

In this case, can you confirm scientific truths & knowledge are not objective?

An object of investigation can be thought of as objective, but the knowledge gained of the said object belongs to a conscious subject, as subjectively held knowledge. A hot stove is an objective reality, its experience/knowledge is biologically subjective knowledge.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hi Veritas,

I do not know why it is a difficulty, what knowledge do you imagine the chair I am sitting in has of itself, me or its surroundings? Knowledge is subjective and we gain knowledge through experience and through evidence gathered through our experiences. Creationism has no evidence and nothing convincing in the way of experience, in fact, there is a mountain range of evidence against its validity. Objective and objectivity are drawn from the word object, objectivity in some cases can mean not to get emotionally involved with the object/person in question. I take it to mean a limitation of how much of your subjective nature will be involved. No truth, no meanings/knowledge, no experience is objective. There is in fact no such thing as objectivity, one cannot be engaged with the world and be uninvested in some way. " A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without the bias caused by the mind/sentient being." Just what then is going to make that evaluation?

popeye1945: "No truth, no meanings/knowledge, no experience is objective."
I can agree experience is subjective and not objective, but there are objective aspects of truth, meanings and knowledge.

In this case, can you confirm scientific truths & knowledge are not objective?

An object of investigation can be thought of as objective, but the knowledge gained of the said object belongs to a conscious subject, as subjectively held knowledge. A hot stove is an objective reality, its experience/knowledge is biologically subjective knowledge.

"the knowledge gained of the said object belongs to a conscious subject, as subjectively held knowledge." is odd because subjective knowledge is sort of an oxymoron.
Rather there is only personal beliefs and opinions as held by a conscious subject without any verification and justification via a credible specific Framework and System of Knowledge"

In the case of scientific knowledge, such knowledge do not belong to "a conscious subject' but is conditioned to a specific scientific "Framework and System of Knowledge".
Since a Framework and System of Knowledge is not 'a conscious subject' we cannot assert that scientific knowledge is subjective.
Btw, scientific knowledge is not confined to "objects" but to what is empirically physical [defined scientifically] which includes the solids, non-solid, principles and laws.

My point is, knowledge is objective when it is conditioned upon a specific "Framework and System of Knowledge or Reality" and must always be qualified as such.

[popeye1945]

Hi Veritas,

I do not know why it is a difficulty, what knowledge do you imagine the chair I am sitting in has of itself, me or its surroundings? Knowledge is subjective and we gain knowledge through experience and through evidence gathered through our experiences. Creationism has no evidence and nothing convincing in the way of experience, in fact, there is a mountain range of evidence against its validity. Objective and objectivity are drawn from the word object, objectivity in some cases can mean not to get emotionally involved with the object/person in question. I take it to mean a limitation of how much of your subjective nature will be involved. No truth, no meanings/knowledge, no experience is objective. There is in fact no such thing as objectivity, one cannot be engaged with the world and be uninvested in some way. " A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without the bias caused by the mind/sentient being." Just what then is going to make that evaluation?

popeye1945: "No truth, no meanings/knowledge, no experience is objective."
I can agree experience is subjective and not objective, but there are objective aspects of truth, meanings and knowledge.

In this case, can you confirm scientific truths & knowledge are not objective?

An object of investigation can be thought of as objective, but the knowledge gained of the said object belongs to a conscious subject, as subjectively held knowledge. A hot stove is an objective reality, its experience/knowledge is biologically subjective knowledge.

There is absolutely nothing that is known that is not known by a conscious subject, and the system of verification is the conscious subject himself. There is that which is known recorded and communicated as second-hand knowledge but can again only be verified by the personal experience of the conscious subject. Certainly, recorded knowledge as in text is objective but useless in the absence of a conscious subject for the conscious subject learns this second-hand knowledge only to verify it by personal experience, otherwise, it is just hearsay, trusting the source is all-important to be pre-advised. This is why scientific experiments must be able to be duplicated to verify results by another conscious subject. Indeed, I suspect that there are only objects for biological consciousness, for just as there is no color and no sounds in what tends to be called the objective world; so, to there are no objects, there is but the biological interpretations of energies that we call objects, for they can be relative only to biological consciousness.