Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:31 am
Argument. Humans have the potential to do X and not do Y; therefore X is morally right and Y is morally wrong.
This is a non sequitur fallacy. A non-moral premise can't entail a moral conclusion, even if the premise is true.
But VA wants to by-pass the fallacy: Humans have the potential to do X (which is morally right) and not do Y (which is morally wrong). VA then claims these are
moral facts of, based on, or arising from, human nature.
So a purported (non-moral) fact about human nature is supposed to establish the unarguable existence of a supposed moral fact.
The way out of this mess is extremely simple: recognition that a moral assertion, such as 'X is wrong', expresses an opinion, judgement or belief about something, but doesn't make a falsifiable factual claim with a truth-value.
For some reason - and I suspect some deep insecurity that demands external discipline - moral objectivists and realists - not just VA - simply can't bear this fact about our moral predicament.
Strawmaning as usual due to your ignorance and dogmatism.
WHERE?
where did I state "Humans have the potential to do X and
not do Y."
Note I have given the clue,
human as the
potential [compulsion] of the oughtness to breathe, there is no question of the potential not to breathe.
this potential [that compel one to breathe] is represented by physical biological elements and the potential itself is a physical fact.
the above clue can be transposed to the
moral potentials represented by physical biological elements and such a potential is a moral fact when dealt within a credible moral FSK.
Human nature?
It is not a naturalistic fallacy [Moore] when we can trace the specific facts [physical moral potential] to the specific physical neuronal network and support the moral potential.
Your resistance in recognition of the physical moral facts is definitely due to some psychological defects from the inherent cognitive dissonance.
My drive OTOH is with a concern with compassion for the future of humanity re Kant's vision and mission, i.e.
1. What can I know? - epistemology
2. What can I do? - Morality & Ethics
3. What can I hope for? - the vision of perpetual peace.
When we have recognized morality is driven by a
real physical moral potential inherent in the DNA, brain and mind, in
the future [not now] we will be above to develop self-improvement programs that target specifically for moral progress. I am optimistic this is possible given the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge in the neurosciences, other advance knowledge and technologies.
You're just an ignorant selfish human being selfishly clinging on to dogmatic beliefs for your own salvation from cognitive dissonance.