Moral Facts from the Inherent Moral Potential

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Moral Facts from the Inherent Moral Potential

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:52 pm The only ways morality has objectivity are as biological expressions made manifest.
Potentials such a potential energy are justifiable physical facts.
In physics, a potential may refer to the scalar potential or to the vector potential. In either case, it is a field defined in space, from which many important physical properties may be derived.

Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability.

The term is used in a wide variety of fields, from physics to the social sciences to indicate things that are in a state where they are able to change in ways ranging from the simple release of energy by objects to the realization of abilities in people.

The philosopher Aristotle incorporated this concept into his theory of potentiality and actuality,[1] a pair of closely connected principles which he used to analyze motion, causality, ethics, and physiology in his Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and De Anima, which is about the human psyche.[2]

That which is potential can theoretically be made actual by taking the right action; for example, a boulder on the edge of a cliff has potential to fall that could be actualized by pushing it over the edge.
Several languages have a potential mood, a grammatical construction that indicates that something is potential. These include Finnish,[3] Japanese,[4] and Sanskrit.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential
The above is the path we should direct our attention to search for moral facts within the inherent moral potential represented by physical neural networks of neurons.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Moral Facts from the Inherent Moral Potential

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:08 am “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.”

― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason

So Kant saw 'the moral law' within or before him. He/we don't have to search for it, or hypothesise about it. It just is, part of 'the consciousness of ... existence'.

Game over. That's a slam-dunk. There are moral facts, so morality is objective.
Kant basis of the "moral law within me" is intuitive and supposed to be 'objective' as reasoned and argued as platonic ideas and ideals.

I would not agree that Kant's moral assertions are 'sufficiently' objective because they are not based on verifiable and justifiable facts derivable scientifically and processed within a credible moral FSK.

At present we have the trend of advancing neurosciences which had already revealed clues to the moral fact in terms of mirror neurons which is merely a part [not the full] of the moral facts.

If Kant has such knowledge of the neurosciences related to morality, I am sure he would have gotten them into his moral theory.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Moral Facts from the Inherent Moral Potential

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Moral Facts from the Inherent Moral Potential

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:58 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:52 pm The only ways morality has objectivity are as biological expressions made manifest.
Potentials such a potential energy are justifiable physical facts.
This is an equivocation. Potential energy and the potential behavior/attitudes of a person are not the same kinds of things. This is equivocating on the word potential which is science has several very specific contexts of use and these are not at all like VA idea of potential morals in parts of the brain.
The above is the path we should direct our attention to search for moral facts within the inherent moral potential represented by physical neural networks of neurons.
But there is NOT inherent moral potential. There is only behavioral/learning/attitudinal potentials. Which, as I said above, are not parallel to potential energy.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Moral Facts from the Inherent Moral Potential

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:33 am
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.
No, he's more or less right. You have argued that the potential in the mirror neurons shows us that we have a moral potential (to have compassionate characters). But you never explain how these behaviors/attitudes should be be considered moral, rather then beahviors and attitudes. You start with an assumption, an empathetic character is a good one. You mention (only) mirror neurons which have the potential to lead to attitudes/behaviors associated with an empathetic character. This is cherry picking or, picking parts of the brain connected to behaviors/attitudes (character) you ALREADY consider good.

You never justify why that part of the brain (and not the ones associated for aggression) are to lead us to conclude character X is good. You start with the assumption that empathetic character is good. Bring up the part of the brain associated with this. Avoid mentioning other parts of the brain and other potentials.

It is utterly circular reasoning, with cherry picking to throw off the scent.

And, of course, PH will think you argued so, because you simply imply it. Without that implication your questionable argument has NO FORCE AT ALL. With it, it is circular.

One thing VA could do would be to say that the scientific physiological/psychological models have the idea that certain brain areas have potential to lead to these character types or these behavior/attitudinal types, if the person learns/is trained/experiences certain things in certain ways. Here the entities involved are neuronal structures and patterns of behavior and attitudes. That is what science and psychologly have found. But...
VA could say, their model is incomplete. There are also moral facts. And he could then give evidence about why the scientific model is incomplete, but he has never done this.
Post Reply