True, it is biological fact, or genetic facts, epigenetic facts depending on which Framework of knowledge it is put through.Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:07 amThis "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.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.
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.
Feeling of love [fundamentally biological] are emotional facts or psychological facts within the respective FSK.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.
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'.