There are Objective Moral Facts

[Alexander_Reiswich]

What I had proposed all along is the objective moral facts or moral standards must be based on the credible scientific FSK and moral FSK.

Your argument, then, is not strictly philosophical, but rather pragmatic and humanistic. The terms "objective" and "moral" contributed heavily to the confusion. It would be much clearer, but also much less controversial, if you simply avoided these terms completely.

"Objective" in your paradigm simply means "verified in its validity on the basis of a credible process, such as scientific consensus".

"Moral" in your paradigm simply means "in accordance with credibly established knowledge of the proper function of biological / physiological systems (within humans)"

With these definitions in mind, I don't think you'll encounter much disagreement by anybody. Yes, objective moral facts in this specific sense can be ascertained.

The question then is simply how to go about realizing this vision. It does sound a lot like science fiction, and I'm not sure if there's anything we can do that we're not already attempting. There are plenty of efforts aiming to understand and possibly even control our sense of empathy and our moral intuitions. But this is a tough nut to crack, particularly from the neurological end. In any case, I honestly don't think this is a philosophical question.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What I had proposed all along is the objective moral facts or moral standards must be based on the credible scientific FSK and moral FSK.

Your argument, then, is not strictly philosophical, but rather pragmatic and humanistic. The terms "objective" and "moral" contributed heavily to the confusion. It would be much clearer, but also much less controversial, if you simply avoided these terms completely.

"Objective" in your paradigm simply means "verified in its validity on the basis of a credible process, such as scientific consensus".

"Moral" in your paradigm simply means "in accordance with credibly established knowledge of the proper function of biological / physiological systems (within humans)"

With these definitions in mind, I don't think you'll encounter much disagreement by anybody. Yes, objective moral facts in this specific sense can be ascertained.

The question of moral realism or whether there are objective moral facts has been there for a long long time that was raised by Hume, Moore, the Logical Positivist and the present batch of moral facts deniers such as Peter Holmes and gang.
Such strong anti moral facts [woke] views had hindered moral progress.

Note this 449 pages thread;
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

This 199 pages'
Is morality objective or subjective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24531

I have raised > 200 threads in this section to counter the above. These moral fact deniers claimed I am stupid in presenting the alternative views that contradict their dogmatic views.

The question then is simply how to go about realizing this vision. It does sound a lot like science fiction, and I'm not sure if there's anything we can do that we're not already attempting. There are plenty of efforts aiming to understand and possibly even control our sense of empathy and our moral intuitions. But this is a tough nut to crack, particularly from the neurological end. In any case, I honestly don't think this is a philosophical question.

I define 'philosophy' as meta- and encompassing all fields of knowledge.
This is why we often see 'Philosophy of X' where 'X' can be anything.

I am confident and optimistic what I proposed for the future is possible and realizable given that I have taken courses from Harvardx and MITx related to Biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, genetic engineering, genomics, and rational medicines. If you do the same, you will be able to sense those possibilities in the future.

Note this;

• Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY
  Designer babies, the end of diseases, genetically modified humans that never age. Outrageous things that used to be science fiction are suddenly becoming reality. The only thing we know for sure is that things will change irreversibly.

What is stopping humans from doing the above and going out of hand is the natural inherent moral function within all humans, yes that is an objective moral fact [to be verified] at work.
I believe, humans being-human there are already various people attempting to produce genetic modified humans underground.

Fortunately there is some inherent moral sense within humanity;

• Chinese scientist who produced genetically altered babies sentenced to 3 years in jail Link

This is why it is critically serious we need to recognize and identify the inherent moral sense as an objective moral facts to enable them to be analytical and worked upon for improvement of the average moral competence.
This is critically serious as knowledge and technology are expanding exponentially [time & tide waiting for no man] with potential for greater evil than we can cope at present or in the future.

So, we need to start now to strive toward higher and higher degree of moral competence in the future [50, 100 or > years time?].
We cannot proceed effectively on such without objectifying moral elements as objective moral facts.
When there is no objectivity [verifiable, analytical, quantifiable] there are only free floating contentious subjective views and everyone is fighting in insisting their is the true view thus hindering progress.

[Peter Holmes]

What I had proposed all along is the objective moral facts or moral standards must be based on the credible scientific FSK and moral FSK.

Your argument, then, is not strictly philosophical, but rather pragmatic and humanistic. The terms "objective" and "moral" contributed heavily to the confusion. It would be much clearer, but also much less controversial, if you simply avoided these terms completely.

"Objective" in your paradigm simply means "verified in its validity on the basis of a credible process, such as scientific consensus".

"Moral" in your paradigm simply means "in accordance with credibly established knowledge of the proper function of biological / physiological systems (within humans)"

With these definitions in mind, I don't think you'll encounter much disagreement by anybody. Yes, objective moral facts in this specific sense can be ascertained.

The question of moral realism or whether there are objective moral facts has been there for a long long time that was raised by Hume, Moore, the Logical Positivist and the present batch of moral facts deniers such as Peter Holmes and gang.
Such strong anti moral facts [woke] views had hindered moral progress.

Note this 449 pages thread;
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

This 199 pages'
Is morality objective or subjective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24531

I have raised > 200 threads in this section to counter the above. These moral fact deniers claimed I am stupid in presenting the alternative views that contradict their dogmatic views.

The question then is simply how to go about realizing this vision. It does sound a lot like science fiction, and I'm not sure if there's anything we can do that we're not already attempting. There are plenty of efforts aiming to understand and possibly even control our sense of empathy and our moral intuitions. But this is a tough nut to crack, particularly from the neurological end. In any case, I honestly don't think this is a philosophical question.

I define 'philosophy' as meta- and encompassing all fields of knowledge.
This is why we often see 'Philosophy of X' where 'X' can be anything.

I am confident and optimistic what I proposed for the future is possible and realizable given that I have taken courses from Harvardx and MITx related to Biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, genetic engineering, genomics, and rational medicines. If you do the same, you will be able to sense those possibilities in the future.

Note this;

• Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY
  Designer babies, the end of diseases, genetically modified humans that never age. Outrageous things that used to be science fiction are suddenly becoming reality. The only thing we know for sure is that things will change irreversibly.

What is stopping humans from doing the above and going out of hand is the natural inherent moral function within all humans, yes that is an objective moral fact [to be verified] at work.
I believe, humans being-human there are already various people attempting to produce genetic modified humans underground.

Fortunately there is some inherent moral sense within humanity;

• Chinese scientist who produced genetically altered babies sentenced to 3 years in jail Link

This is why it is critically serious we need to recognize and identify the inherent moral sense as an objective moral facts to enable them to be analytical and worked upon for improvement of the average moral competence.
This is critically serious as knowledge and technology are expanding exponentially [time & tide waiting for no man] with potential for greater evil than we can cope at present or in the future.

So, we need to start now to strive toward higher and higher degree of moral competence in the future [50, 100 or > years time?].
We cannot proceed effectively on such without objectifying moral elements as objective moral facts.
When there is no objectivity [verifiable, analytical, quantifiable] there are only free floating contentious subjective views and everyone is fighting in insisting their is the true view thus hindering progress.

Nope. Same mistake. Consider the following argument.

Premise: Humans are programmed to kill humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans ought to kill humans.

This is a non sequitur. And it would still be a non sequitur if the premise were: Humans are programmed with 'ought-to-kill humans'. After all, why ought humans to follow their programming? That's an unstated premise - an assumption.

And you say that, in 'morality proper', the ought in the conclusion has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness. So what does the ought mean in 'humans ought to kill humans'?

Point is, the argument is just as invalid in your version, as follows.

Premise: Humans are programmed not to kill humans/with 'ought-not-to-kill humans'.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans ought not to kill humans.

Even if the premise is true, the conclusion doesn't follow, for the same reason: why ought humans to follow their programming? And what does ought mean in this assertion, if it doesn't refer to moral rightness or wrongness?

More fundamentally, why ought we to 'recognize and identify the inherent moral sense'? Morality, according to you, has nothing to do with the right and wrong thing to do. So what's your grand project about, and why ought the rest of us to pay it the least attention?

[Iwannaplato]

Premise: Humans are programmed to kill humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans ought to kill humans.

Premise: Humans are programmed not to kill humans/with 'ought-not-to-kill humans'.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans ought not to kill humans.

And while your argument never needs to go there, humans are, in fact, programmed to both ends (if they are to either). We have brain structures/patterns that lead to aggression and structures/patterns that lead to empathetic relations.

Why do I add this?

Well, I think it directs our attention to the circularity in VA's argument. He picked out mirror neurons because they fit with his
already existant morality.
He did not pick out the brain structures and patterns associated with aggression.

By making that choice, and not another, it seems like he has found an objective starting point for an objective morality. As if the mirror neurons were the starting point, but they are not.

In fact his morality led to him starting with mirror neurons and, more or less defacto, hoping that people appeal to a somewhat universal distaste for murder.

I am not saying he is being disingenous (consciously).

I think that where he focuses in the brain for what is objective shows directly that the process begins with a clear subjective choice based on his own morality which seems confirmed...because of where he focuses.

[Peter Holmes]

Premise: Humans are programmed to kill humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans ought to kill humans.

Premise: Humans are programmed not to kill humans/with 'ought-not-to-kill humans'.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans ought not to kill humans.

And while your argument never needs to go there, humans are, in fact, programmed to both ends (if they are to either). We have brain structures/patterns that lead to aggression and structures/patterns that lead to empathetic relations.

Why do I add this?

Well, I think it directs our attention to the circularity in VA's argument. He picked out mirror neurons because they fit with his
already existant morality.
He did not pick out the brain structures and patterns associated with aggression.

By making that choice, and not another, it seems like he has found an objective starting point for an objective morality. As if the mirror neurons were the starting point, but they are not.

In fact his morality led to him starting with mirror neurons and, more or less defacto, hoping that people appeal to a somewhat universal distaste for murder.

I am not saying he is being disingenous (consciously).

I think that where he focuses in the brain for what is objective shows directly that the process begins with a clear subjective choice based on his own morality which seems confirmed...because of where he focuses.

Agreed. You're right to point out VA's choice of fact about the brain.

I put it this way: whatever fact we deploy to justify a moral opinion, it remains an opinion, and others can deploy the same fact differently, or a different fact, to justify a different moral opinion. And that's because a non-moral (eg factual) premise can never entail a moral conclusion.

[Alexander_Reiswich]

I am confident and optimistic what I proposed for the future is possible and realizable given that I have taken courses from Harvardx and MITx related to Biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, genetic engineering, genomics, and rational medicines. If you do the same, you will be able to sense those possibilities in the future.

What exactly are you proposing, though?

From what I understand, you are basically making an appeal for scientists to research harder, particularly in relation to neurology. Even if all of us here were in agreement with you on that -- this is a philosophy forum. This board is literally called "ethical theory", not "ethical practice"

For example, you claim we need to identify moral facts, and this sounds like a philosophical question for sure.

But as I have already pointed out, you're not referring to moral facts in a classical, philosophical sense. You're referring to "facts about the proper function of biological / physiological systems, particularly within humans". This is literally a question for neurology / physiology / biology / technology...

[Iwannaplato]

I put it this way: whatever fact we deploy to justify a moral opinion, it remains an opinion, and others can deploy the same fact differently, or a different fact, to justify a different moral opinion. And that's because a non-moral (eg factual) premise can never entail a moral conclusion.

Yes, well put.

And then we have the issue of whether the human species thriving is a good thing or not.

Perhaps humans thriving is an overall bad. We are currently killing off other species. Perhaps when fully spaceborn, we will kill all other sentient species we meet. (it's not completely far fetched).

Perhaps, while we are speculating, if there is an objective morality, it is one that judges species that kills species as immoral species.

Thus things that enhance the human species are bad.

We cannot find evidence inside human brains that something that is good for us is Good in general. (even if the brain had a single clear message about interpersonal relations or attitudes or tendencies or potentials)

[Walker]

There are Objective Moral Facts

Views, counters??

viewtopic.php?p=619842#p619842

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope. Same mistake. Consider the following argument.

Premise: Humans are programmed to kill humans.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans ought to kill humans.

This is a non sequitur. And it would still be a non sequitur if the premise were: Humans are programmed with 'ought-to-kill humans'. After all, why ought humans to follow their programming? That's an unstated premise - an assumption.

And you say that, in 'morality proper', the ought in the conclusion has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness. So what does the ought mean in 'humans ought to kill humans'?

Point is, the argument is just as invalid in your version, as follows.

Premise: Humans are programmed not to kill humans/with 'ought-not-to-kill humans'.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans ought not to kill humans.

Even if the premise is true, the conclusion doesn't follow, for the same reason: why ought humans to follow their programming? And what does ought mean in this assertion, if it doesn't refer to moral rightness or wrongness?

More fundamentally, why ought we to 'recognize and identify the inherent moral sense'? Morality, according to you, has nothing to do with the right and wrong thing to do. So what's your grand project about, and why ought the rest of us to pay it the least attention?

Strawman again, i.e. the "millionth" times.

Where did I state, "humans ought not to kill humans."

I am very confident I stated, all human are programmed with an inherent "oughtness to kill" living things, i.e. it is very critical and necessity for survival, eliminate threats that can be fatal and self-defense where necessary.

The danger with this very necessary "oughtness to kill" inherent in human nature is, it can be directed at humans being without impulse controls, thus a threat to humanity itself.

Thus the adaptive moral function with a program [the objective moral fact] of "ought-not-ness-to-kill-human".

In the present state, the "ought-not-ness-to-kill-human" within the majority of humans are not strong enough, thus there are still humans with the propensity [psychopaths] and possibility [in rage, passion] to kill humans.

The inherent "oughtness to kill" is embedded deep in the human brain and will not go away, thus there is a need to develop and strengthen the "ought-not-ness-to-kill-human" to suppress, inhibit and modulate the "oughtness to kill" impulse for its intended purpose, i.e. killing non-humans for food to sustain survival with greater confidence no human will kill humans in the future [not now].

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am confident and optimistic what I proposed for the future is possible and realizable given that I have taken courses from Harvardx and MITx related to Biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, genetic engineering, genomics, and rational medicines. If you do the same, you will be able to sense those possibilities in the future.

What exactly are you proposing, though?

From what I understand, you are basically making an appeal for scientists to research harder, particularly in relation to neurology. Even if all of us here were in agreement with you on that -- this is a philosophy forum. This board is literally called "ethical theory", not "ethical practice"

For example, you claim we need to identify moral facts, and this sounds like a philosophical question for sure.

But as I have already pointed out, you're not referring to moral facts in a classical, philosophical sense. You're referring to "facts about the proper function of biological / physiological systems, particularly within humans". This is literally a question for neurology / physiology / biology / technology...

You seem to promote the 'silo' approach which is very ineffective.

For the sake of efficiency, we have to have an interdisciplinary approach comprising all the relevant fields of knowledge and technology [pure and applied] with philosophy as its underlying faculty.

Biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, genetic engineering, genomics, and rational medicines are very complex and extensive subjects and I have not posted the details of these subjects but merely mentioned them in a few lines.

But as I have already pointed out, you're not referring to moral facts in a classical, philosophical sense.

The point is there are no moral facts in the classical philosophical sense of morality as Hume [in his limited view] and others had pointed out. As such any mentioned of moral facts is condemned.
It is because there is no recognition of the inherent moral facts that there is no significant progress in morality within humanity at present.

If you were to research more extensive on the theory of morality, you will note there is trend at present where morality is trending towards moral elements as moral facts is in the brain and self.

[Alexander_Reiswich]

If you were to research more extensive on the theory of morality, you will note there is trend at present where morality is trending towards moral elements as moral facts is in the brain and self.

I did research it reasonably extensively, but from an entirely different vantage point -- my research leads me to believe that a logic of Morality can be ascertained with no reference to how our brains work, at all, and yet it leads to very similar (though more abstract) conclusions regarding the nature of Morality. There is nothing "esoteric" about this approach -- it's simply an abstraction with the capability of describing and predicting hypothetical states of affairs which we would ascribe a moral character to. But we don't have to get into that in this thread.

I don't mind discussing other approaches -- and no, I don't generally favor a "silo" approach. It's just that each of us has limits in the resources available to them, and I don't plan to become an expert in "biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, genetic engineering, genomics, and rational medicines any time soon...

But my recommendation for you is to try and clarify the moral aspects of your terminology a bit more, because it comes with a lot of baggage, and as a result anyone reading your propositions infuses them with their own assumptions about morality, which don't align very well with yours. Thus, it appears like you are making fairly outrageous claims, even though now, after understanding your position more properly, I no longer think so. It's just that the language of morality acts as a bit of "trigger".

For example, we often use terms like good and bad, right and wrong, good and evil in our conversations about morality. It would be a good start to clarify how you would utilize these terms, if at all. Possibly also terms such as rights and duties. In my opinion, these in particular are philosophically underdeveloped (the internal logic is sound, but it's unclear how general rights, i.e. human rights are derived, precisely). This is something that my approach to objective Morality attempts to explain (well, I wouldn't mind a more descriptive name for my approach, but nothing else came to mind yet).

But maybe this can also be somehow tackled by using your approach. I'm not sure.

[Peter Holmes]

The inherent "oughtness to kill" is embedded deep in the human brain and will not go away, thus there is a need to develop and strengthen the "ought-not-ness-to-kill-human" to suppress, inhibit and modulate the "oughtness to kill" impulse for its intended purpose, i.e. killing non-humans for food to sustain survival with greater confidence no human will kill humans in the future [not now].

But WHY is there 'a need to develop and strengthen the "ought-not-ness-to-kill-human[s]" ? WHY do we need to reduce or stop the killing of humans by humans? WHY should the human race survive?

You fail to recognise that these are NOT self-evidently answerable questions, with obvious, factual answers. You merely assume that humans ought not to kill humans, and that the human race ought to survive.

Those are not facts, but rather matters of opinion. You are doing precisely what Hume pointed out: conjuring 'oughts' from nowhere, with no logical connection to facts.

You've been doing this for years, so the penny has probably rusted in place and can never drop for you.

[Alexander_Reiswich]

But WHY is there 'a need to develop and strengthen the "ought-not-ness-to-kill-human[s]" ? WHY do we need to reduce or stop the killing of humans by humans? WHY should the human race survive?

I'm almost positive I understand Veritas Aequitas's position by now, and as far as I can tell, it's really not as problematic as it might appear...

The idea, in simpler terms, is that "objective" knowledge is established (not derived) on the basis of (inter-subjective) consensus and an appropriate system for verifying proposed theories, i.e. the scientific method. Objective knowledge in this sense is not "absolute" -- it's just an estimation of accuracy / validity / quality ("degree of objectivity"). So given enough (credible) consensus pertaining to a particular theory, the status of "objective" is reached. Within this paradigm, it doesn't matter whether the theory refers to human sense-based experiences (sense of taste, sense of beauty, and of course also sense of morality) or observed physical phenomena.

By this definition, if the scientific community were to agree that there is a "proper" function for biological systems (humans in particular), which can be credibly shown to be beneficial to the well-being of humans / humanity, then this would justify an "ought" in an "objective" way, simply because this conclusion has reached a high degree of "objectivity" based on the consensus within the scientific community. Therefore, that which is "objectively" shown to be beneficial to the well-being and thriving of humans (as a species) is deemed to be "objectively moral".

As an example, the concept of mirror neurons, which is considered a scientific fact, can be assessed as being beneficial to our ability to co-exist peacefully. Thus, it's morally relevant, and in this sense opens up the possibility for "moral facts" within scientific considerations.

The is-ought-problem is therefore not technically violated, but at the same time, there is no claim that an "ought" outside of the interests of human beings has been derived. Rather, it's an appeal to the rationality and the common interest of people to improve the human condition, so in the traditional sense this would actually be considered a subjective moral argument. As far as I understand, Veritas Aequitas argues that the traditional approach is essentially useless, because objective morality is (allegedly) impossible within it, so we "ought" to adapt the new paradigm, in which objective morality is possible -- in a certain sense.

[FlashDangerpants]

But WHY is there 'a need to develop and strengthen the "ought-not-ness-to-kill-human[s]" ? WHY do we need to reduce or stop the killing of humans by humans? WHY should the human race survive?

I'm almost positive I understand Veritas Aequitas's position by now, and as far as I can tell, it's really not as problematic as it might appear...

We might not let you forget you wrote that.

[Alexander_Reiswich]

We might not let you forget you wrote that.

I'm counting on you