My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:30 am

Similarly there are moral potentials within all humans with various stages of unfoldment where it is very less active in the majority of humans but it is progressing to unfold very slowly. [which is evident with the evolutionary inhibition of evil of human history to the present].
These moral potentials are the moral facts when deliberated within the moral FSK.
When we recognized and understand the mechanisms of these real moral facts then there is the possibility to expedite the unfoldment of these potentials to keep in line with the inherent evil potential within.
This "potential" within us for moral behaviour is what I described in another thread as being hard wired into us. We are born with it, but how it expresses itself in later life depends on how it is primed by our early environment. I don't know what a psychologist or whatever kind of expert whose field of knowledge includes this aspect of human behaviour would think of that description, but it seems to broadly agree with what you have said, so for the sake of this discussion let's say it is the case. Given that, I would call it a biological fact, if I had to use the word fact at all.
True, it is biological fact, or genetic facts, epigenetic facts depending on which Framework of knowledge it is put through.

Note this;
When the biological facts of DNA are introduced in a court of law i.e. the legal FSK, it contribute to the emergence of a legal fact.
E.g. it is a fact R is convicted Rapists [critically based on DNA [biological, genetical] evidences] in the USA within US Laws in such and such a date.

Similarly those moral potentials which can be verified and justified empirically when introduced into a moral FSK, they can contribute to the emergence of moral facts.
All human beings are capable of feeling love of various kinds; the potential for that is also part of our make up, but it would seem odd to call it a love fact. Maybe the fact that human beings have a predisposition to behave within a personal framework of what we call morality is an anthropological fact.

If you insist on calling it a moral fact I think most people are going to either not know what you mean, or misunderstand what you mean. Language is for communication, so the language we use should be that which communicates what we are trying to express to others most effectively.
Feeling of love [fundamentally biological] are emotional facts or psychological facts within the respective FSK.

I insist that the moral potential be identified as moral facts so that we can make progress with morality in the future.
We need the moral FSK to generate effective models to drive the progress of morality to be ahead of the greater impending evil potential that humanity is likely to face in the future, e.g. cheap WMDs [biological and nuclear], genetics [cloning of humans], etc.

We will not be able to make progress if we are wallowing in the mud pools of the highly subjective 'who is right' and 'who is wrong'.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by Age »

Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:30 am

Similarly there are moral potentials within all humans with various stages of unfoldment where it is very less active in the majority of humans but it is progressing to unfold very slowly. [which is evident with the evolutionary inhibition of evil of human history to the present].
These moral potentials are the moral facts when deliberated within the moral FSK.
When we recognized and understand the mechanisms of these real moral facts then there is the possibility to expedite the unfoldment of these potentials to keep in line with the inherent evil potential within.
This "potential" within us for moral behaviour is what I described in another thread as being hard wired into us. We are born with it, but how it expresses itself in later life depends on how it is primed by our early environment. I don't know what a psychologist or whatever kind of expert whose field of knowledge includes this aspect of human behaviour would think of that description, but it seems to broadly agree with what you have said, so for the sake of this discussion let's say it is the case. Given that, I would call it a biological fact, if I had to use the word fact at all.

All human beings are capable of feeling love of various kinds; the potential for that is also part of our make up, but it would seem odd to call it a love fact. Maybe the fact that human beings have a predisposition to behave within a personal framework of what we call morality is an anthropological fact. If you insist on calling it a moral fact I think most people are going to either not know what you mean, or misunderstand what you mean. Language is for communication, so the language we use should be that which communicates what we are trying to express to others most effectively.
If there has to be a law made in relation to what is right and what is wrong in Life, then that moral lore is: Do not abuse any thing.

If this Lore is 'broken', then those human beings are not dealt with punishment nor ridicule, but with guidance, support, and understanding. Which, by the way, is doing what is Right in Life.

And when this Lore is being followed and adhered to, voluntarily, by everyone, then 'world peace' comes to fruition.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6269
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:47 am When 'morality' is nailed down to the question of 'right' or 'wrong' it would be absolutely subjective and thus a state of "till the cows come home" with no room for progress.
And there it is again, that's the headshot. The single sentence in which he accidentally confesses that he knows moral realism to be a failure.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9564
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:36 am

I insist that the moral potential be identified as moral facts so that we can make progress with morality in the future.
We need the moral FSK to generate effective models to drive the progress of morality to be ahead of the greater impending evil potential that humanity is likely to face in the future, e.g. cheap WMDs [biological and nuclear], genetics [cloning of humans], etc.
The deterrent effect of not wanting to face a nuclear attack will always be the prime factor in preventing the launching of one, in my opinion. Don't we already apply ethical contraints on what is allowed with genetics?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:36 am

I insist that the moral potential be identified as moral facts so that we can make progress with morality in the future.
We need the moral FSK to generate effective models to drive the progress of morality to be ahead of the greater impending evil potential that humanity is likely to face in the future, e.g. cheap WMDs [biological and nuclear], genetics [cloning of humans], etc.
The deterrent effect of not wanting to face a nuclear attack will always be the prime factor in preventing the launching of one, in my opinion. Don't we already apply ethical contraints on what is allowed with genetics?
I did a course in Islamic Terrorism.
It was discovered that Al Qaeda had attempted to get access to cheap WMDs.
For Islam, Earthly life is cheapskate, therefore if Islamists were to exterminate the human species via WMDs, for them it is a win-win for they will be granted eternal life in paradise with greater rewards [virgins supposedly].

Thus MAD is not effective for Islamists.
Btw, if 10% of Muslims are evil prone, that is 150 million of them around the world :shock: :shock:
WMDs are now getting cheaper and easier to obtain in the blackmarket.

There is nothing of substance at present to prevent rogue scientists from cloning humans and other genetic manipulation of pathogens.

Do you have a counter for my claim , there are moral facts emerging from a moral FSK?
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:36 am
Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:30 am

Similarly there are moral potentials within all humans with various stages of unfoldment where it is very less active in the majority of humans but it is progressing to unfold very slowly. [which is evident with the evolutionary inhibition of evil of human history to the present].
These moral potentials are the moral facts when deliberated within the moral FSK.
When we recognized and understand the mechanisms of these real moral facts then there is the possibility to expedite the unfoldment of these potentials to keep in line with the inherent evil potential within.
This "potential" within us for moral behaviour is what I described in another thread as being hard wired into us. We are born with it, but how it expresses itself in later life depends on how it is primed by our early environment. I don't know what a psychologist or whatever kind of expert whose field of knowledge includes this aspect of human behaviour would think of that description, but it seems to broadly agree with what you have said, so for the sake of this discussion let's say it is the case. Given that, I would call it a biological fact, if I had to use the word fact at all.
True, it is biological fact, or genetic facts, epigenetic facts depending on which Framework of knowledge it is put through.

Note this;
When the biological facts of DNA are introduced in a court of law i.e. the legal FSK, it contribute to the emergence of a legal fact.
It might be classed as 'a legal fact', but this is no way means that it is a fact at all.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:36 am E.g. it is a fact R is convicted Rapists [critically based on DNA [biological, genetical] evidences] in the USA within US Laws in such and such a date.
So called "dna evidence" can be tampered with. So, as I just pointed out, 'it' is not necessarily 'a fact' at all. Even though ALL of 'you' could say 'it' is.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:36 am Similarly those moral potentials which can be verified and justified empirically when introduced into a moral FSK, they can contribute to the emergence of moral facts.
You keep telling us that, "There are moral facts". So, instead of just telling us "there are", how about you show what 'they are', exactly?

If you know 'moral facts' exist, then just write down all the 'moral facts', which exist, (to you).
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:36 am
All human beings are capable of feeling love of various kinds; the potential for that is also part of our make up, but it would seem odd to call it a love fact. Maybe the fact that human beings have a predisposition to behave within a personal framework of what we call morality is an anthropological fact.

If you insist on calling it a moral fact I think most people are going to either not know what you mean, or misunderstand what you mean. Language is for communication, so the language we use should be that which communicates what we are trying to express to others most effectively.
Feeling of love [fundamentally biological] are emotional facts or psychological facts within the respective FSK.
Your supposed and alleged 'facts' only exist because of the so-called "fsk", which you have made up in the belief that it would support your own made up 'facts'.

If you have a 'moral fact', then just provide it. Exactly like what "harbal" just did.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:36 am I insist that the moral potential be identified as moral facts so that we can make progress with morality in the future.
1. How exactly when the "veritas aequitas" made up and so-called 'moral potential' is identified as 'moral facts' then so-called 'progress' will be made with morality in the future?

2. You INSISTING that we follow and behave to your own way of thinking, well to me anyway, seems to go completely and utterly against what 'morality' is, in relation to what is Right in Life anyway.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:36 am We need the moral FSK to generate effective models to drive the progress of morality to be ahead of the greater impending evil potential that humanity is likely to face in the future, e.g. cheap WMDs [biological and nuclear], genetics [cloning of humans], etc.
Human beings have the ability to do what is Right in Life, as well as what is Wrong in Life. The potential for both Right, or good, and Wrong, or evil, is equal.

I suggest you do not let your own fear that "muslims" are coming to kill us override your ability to look at things how they really are.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:36 am We will not be able to make progress if we are wallowing in the mud pools of the highly subjective 'who is right' and 'who is wrong'.
The reason 'you', human beings, are not making progress is shown here through your own examples of fear and misunderstanding "veritas aequitas".
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9564
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:21 am

Do you have a counter for my claim , there are moral facts emerging from a moral FSK?
No, I don't have a counter claim.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:21 am
Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:36 am

I insist that the moral potential be identified as moral facts so that we can make progress with morality in the future.
We need the moral FSK to generate effective models to drive the progress of morality to be ahead of the greater impending evil potential that humanity is likely to face in the future, e.g. cheap WMDs [biological and nuclear], genetics [cloning of humans], etc.
The deterrent effect of not wanting to face a nuclear attack will always be the prime factor in preventing the launching of one, in my opinion. Don't we already apply ethical contraints on what is allowed with genetics?
I did a course in Islamic Terrorism.
Who runs courses in "islamic terrorism", and were you instructed in how to make bombs?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:21 am It was discovered that Al Qaeda had attempted to get access to cheap WMDs.
It is a proven fact that "christians" make very expensive weapons of mass destruction. But there is absolutely no need to fear this fact, correct?

It is only the "muslims" who we should all fear correct "veritas aequitas"?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:21 am For Islam, Earthly life is cheapskate, therefore if Islamists were to exterminate the human species via WMDs, for them it is a win-win for they will be granted eternal life in paradise with greater rewards [virgins supposedly].
For "christians" earthly life is cheapskate, also. For them all their rewards supposedly come after they die, and it does not matter if that is from a weapon, of any size, or not.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:21 am Thus MAD is not effective for Islamists.
Btw, if 10% of Muslims are evil prone, that is 150 million of them around the world :shock: :shock:
Absolutely EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, has the ability to do good and bad (evil). Therefore, absolutely EVERY one of 'you' is prone to evil and good.

Your 10% figure is obviously just made up, and your fear and hatred of "muslims" is also just made up, as well.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:21 am WMDs are now getting cheaper and easier to obtain in the blackmarket.
What is 'mass', in 'weapons of mass destruction', in relation to, exactly?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:21 am There is nothing of substance at present to prevent rogue scientists from cloning humans and other genetic manipulation of pathogens.
Where did this come from?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:21 am Do you have a counter for my claim , there are moral facts emerging from a moral FSK?
Can you even name what is actually a 'moral fact'?

If they exist, then it would be very simple and easy to do.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:21 am
Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:06 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:36 am

I insist that the moral potential be identified as moral facts so that we can make progress with morality in the future.
We need the moral FSK to generate effective models to drive the progress of morality to be ahead of the greater impending evil potential that humanity is likely to face in the future, e.g. cheap WMDs [biological and nuclear], genetics [cloning of humans], etc.
The deterrent effect of not wanting to face a nuclear attack will always be the prime factor in preventing the launching of one, in my opinion. Don't we already apply ethical contraints on what is allowed with genetics?
I did a course in Islamic Terrorism.
It was discovered that Al Qaeda had attempted to get access to cheap WMDs.
Says who?

I think you are getting ahead of yourself.
You still have not answered my question.

Please furnish an example of a moral fact that is verified empirically.
Thank you in advance.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by henry quirk »

VA,
Thanks for your points but I cannot agree.
You're welcome. I figured you wouldn't, but I had to try.

👍

*

Pete,
we have to make moral decisions.
Well, I make moral decisions: you just form opinions.

I have a measure (the measure): you don't (well, you do but you reject it).

✌️
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:01 pm VA,
Thanks for your points but I cannot agree.
You're welcome. I figured you wouldn't, but I had to try.

👍

*

Pete,
we have to make moral decisions.
Well, I make moral decisions: you just form opinions.

I have a measure (the measure): you don't (well, you do but you reject it).

✌️
Nope. Your argument is that, because there are moral facts - or at least one moral fact - which begs the question - the only decision we have to make is whether or not to accept them - or it.

But the point about facts is that they just are the case, whether we accept them or not. For example, there's evidence that water is H2O, so it's a fact, whatever we believe.

So where's the evidence for even one moral fact - evidence that renders our moral decision irrelevant?

Y'aint got nothing - just a moral assertion which doesn't logically follow from any actual fact.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by henry quirk »

Pete,
Your argument is that...
My position is what it's always been...

My life, liberty, and property are mine; your life, liberty, and property are yours; neither of us have a claim to the other's life, liberty, and property.

However, as I say to flash...
henry quirk wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:42 pmthere's a gulf between you and me as amoralist and moralist I don't know how to bridge. Neither of us moves the other.
...so, I'm not here to tussle. I said what I had to VA and that's it for me.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:31 pm Pete,
Your argument is that...
My position is what it's always been...

My life, liberty, and property are mine; your life, liberty, and property are yours; neither of us have a claim to the other's life, liberty, and property.

However, as I say to flash...
henry quirk wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:42 pmthere's a gulf between you and me as amoralist and moralist I don't know how to bridge. Neither of us moves the other.
...so, I'm not here to tussle. I said what I had to VA and that's it for me.
Fine. But the slur that we who deny the existence of moral facts are amoralists is a vicious libel. Prove that it's true, or withdraw it. Do the right thing.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by henry quirk »

Do the right thing.
🤣
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6269
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:31 pm Pete,
Your argument is that...
My position is what it's always been...

My life, liberty, and property are mine; your life, liberty, and property are yours; neither of us have a claim to the other's life, liberty, and property.

However, as I say to flash...
henry quirk wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:42 pmthere's a gulf between you and me as amoralist and moralist I don't know how to bridge. Neither of us moves the other.
...so, I'm not here to tussle. I said what I had to VA and that's it for me.
I have a different explanation for what morality is made out of than you do, and I describe its actions differently to you. But you are a bastard who won't allow me to have the thoughts that are in my own head, and insist that I must be amoral if I am not you.
Post Reply