Syllogism: Morality is an Objective Fact

[Veritas Aequitas]

• P1 Human Nature is an objective fact [scientific]
  P2 Morality is part of human nature [self-evident]
  C1 Morality is an objective fact

Human nature is represented by the physical human body, brain, organs, cells, DNA and their functions and workings.
There can no no denial human nature is not an objective fact in terms of the above.


Above syllogism abstracted from the following discussion;

There is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species; but there is nothing to mandate specific rules in morality, according to the theory. There is nothing objective about morality except that fact that we are moralistic beings. But the existence of psychopathy is evidence that traits have variability, as do all features of humanity. Can we call a psychopath a human, yes. WOuld everyone say they were moral, no. Their idea of moral good, seems to be directed to themselves. and who they can manipulate.

Your
"there is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species"
implied that our 'moral nature' is something universal within human nature, i.e. independent of any individual beliefs, opinions or judgments, thus it is objective subject to verification and justification.
In this sense our moral nature, i.e. morality is objective.

Morality-proper as inherent within human nature is not about rules, obligations or laws of 'right' or 'wrong' enforceable upon individuals from external authorities, customs nor social conventions.

Since all humans has a moral nature [morality properly defined] the point is human need to allow this moral potential to unfold naturally for its intended evolutionary purpose. But such expectation of greater morality is too late for the current or next few to achieve due to our current psychological state which need time to change neuronally. But moral change for the better is possible for future generations provided we take the right steps now.

ETA: added ['scientific fact and objectivity'] [self-evident]

[Peter Holmes]

• P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
  P2 Morality is part of human nature
  C1 Morality is an objective fact

Nope. Even if there is such a thing as human nature which sets it apart from, say, dog nature and cockroach nature - and even if it's human nature to behave in certain ways - that wouldn't make it morally right to behave in those ways, and morally wrong not to. Moral judgements are of a separate and different kind from factual considerations.

Facts about humans and their well-being don't and can't entail moral conclusions. Full stop.

[Veritas Aequitas]

• P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
  P2 Morality is part of human nature
  C1 Morality is an objective fact

Nope. Even if there is such a thing as human nature which sets it apart from, say, dog nature and cockroach nature - and even if it's human nature to behave in certain ways - that wouldn't make it morally right to behave in those ways, and morally wrong not to. Moral judgements are of a separate and different kind from factual considerations.

Facts about humans and their well-being don't and can't entail moral conclusions. Full stop.

Strawman again!
I have stated a "million times" my version of morality is not leveraged on 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of human acts.

It is very evident and generally accepted as Sculptor stated;
"There is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species; "

As such the moral nature is inherent within human nature.

You don't agree with this obvious human nature?

As stated in the OP:
Human nature is represented by the physical human body, brain, organs, cells, DNA and their functions [programs] and workings.
Therefore the generally accepted moral nature of all humans must be represented by physical human body, brain, organs, cells, DNA and their functions and workings which are matter of facts.
Therefore whatever is moral must be factual.

Since morality is about avoiding evil to promote good,
then improving the inherent moral program effective will lead to lesser evil, i.e. increasing morality index.
There is no need to cling to 'rightness' or 'wrongness'.

Analogy, if your room temperature is lower than the degree set in the thermostat, that does not result in wrongness.
All the air-conditioner need to do is to work its mechanisms and process to achieve the targeted temperature.
If it cannot achieve the target due to damage, then repairs are necessary.

The same analogy applies to the moral faculty within human nature.

The physical elements, programs and processes within the moral faculty or potential are the objective moral facts -there is no question of 'rightness' nor 'wrongness'.

[Peter Holmes]

• P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
  P2 Morality is part of human nature
  C1 Morality is an objective fact

Nope. Even if there is such a thing as human nature which sets it apart from, say, dog nature and cockroach nature - and even if it's human nature to behave in certain ways - that wouldn't make it morally right to behave in those ways, and morally wrong not to. Moral judgements are of a separate and different kind from factual considerations.

Facts about humans and their well-being don't and can't entail moral conclusions. Full stop.

Strawman again!
I have stated a "million times" my version of morality is not leveraged on 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of human acts.

It is very evident and generally accepted as Sculptor stated;
"There is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species; "

As such the moral nature is inherent within human nature.

You don't agree with this obvious human nature?

As stated in the OP:
Human nature is represented by the physical human body, brain, organs, cells, DNA and their functions [programs] and workings.
Therefore the generally accepted moral nature of all humans must be represented by physical human body, brain, organs, cells, DNA and their functions and workings which are matter of facts.
Therefore whatever is moral must be factual.

Since morality is about avoiding evil to promote good,
then improving the inherent moral program effective will lead to lesser evil, i.e. increasing morality index.
There is no need to cling to 'rightness' or 'wrongness'.

Analogy, if your room temperature is lower than the degree set in the thermostat, that does not result in wrongness.
All the air-conditioner need to do is to work its mechanisms and process to achieve the targeted temperature.
If it cannot achieve the target due to damage, then repairs are necessary.

The same analogy applies to the moral faculty within human nature.

The physical elements, programs and processes within the moral faculty or potential are the objective moral facts -there is no question of 'rightness' nor 'wrongness'.

So now we have 'the moral faculty within human nature'. Faculty psychology was out-of-date ages ago.

And you're still not getting it. Like all physical facts, the 'physical elements, programs and processes' in our brains have no intrinsic moral entailment. We may be programmed to do X and not do Y. But judgement as to the moral goodness of X and badness or evil of Y is a separate matter, nothing to do with the programming.

[Skepdick]

Facts about humans and their well-being don't and can't entail moral conclusions.

That's an ought disguised as a fact

People can and do constantly arrive at moral conclusions based on facts about well-being.

You are claiming that they shouldn't.

[Iwannaplato]

• P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
  P2 Morality is part of human nature
  C1 Morality is an objective fact

I can accept P1. P2 is true. Humans make up a various of morals, moral systems, metamoral positions. That is a fact. Humans also fantasize. We could say that fantasy is a part of human nature. This does not make the fantasies factual.

There is an equivocation in the P2 to C1 process around morality. Of course, we are creatures that think in moral terms. That is a facet of being human. That doesn't entail that our thinking is objective, just that it exists.

[Iwannaplato]

...

More importantly...not only is there nothing here that VA has not said before, but it would fit perfectly in the following threads he created....

• There are Objective Moral Facts
  Hume's "No Ought From Is" is Limited!
  My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.
  Copernican Revolution for Morality?
  What is Morality?
  Moral Facts from the Inherent Moral Potential
  Anti-Realists' Fact vs Realists' Fact
  Moral realism: A Defence - Russ Shafer-Landau
  Morality is Self-Driven like Self-Discipline, Self-Motivation.

and it goes on and on, that's just from the first two pages
and does not include all the threads aimed at PH that take up exactly the same issues with the exact same arguments (and yes, also other versions)
IOW VA started a thread for no reason. Did not add to his positions but repeated an argument he has made before. Any slight changes in his wording could be highlighted in one of the many threads he has already started on this issue.

[FlashDangerpants]

• P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
  P2 Morality is part of human nature
  C1 Morality is an objective fact

This syllogism is meaningless to the extent that it doesn't matter one way or the other whether it is valid.
That's because it does nothing to show that there are factual answers to moral questions.

[Iwannaplato]

• P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
  P2 Morality is part of human nature
  C1 Morality is an objective fact

This syllogism is meaningless to the extent that it doesn't matter one way or the other whether it is valid.
That's because it does nothing to show that there are factual answers to moral questions.

That's certainly a more concise way of saying what I said. I just realized that I chose to go into more detail as if this would make a difference. [covering face in shame]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope. Even if there is such a thing as human nature which sets it apart from, say, dog nature and cockroach nature - and even if it's human nature to behave in certain ways - that wouldn't make it morally right to behave in those ways, and morally wrong not to. Moral judgements are of a separate and different kind from factual considerations.

Facts about humans and their well-being don't and can't entail moral conclusions. Full stop.

Strawman again!
I have stated a "million times" my version of morality is not leveraged on 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of human acts.

It is very evident and generally accepted as Sculptor stated;
"There is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species; "

As such the moral nature is inherent within human nature.

You don't agree with this obvious human nature?

As stated in the OP:
Human nature is represented by the physical human body, brain, organs, cells, DNA and their functions [programs] and workings.
Therefore the generally accepted moral nature of all humans must be represented by physical human body, brain, organs, cells, DNA and their functions and workings which are matter of facts.
Therefore whatever is moral must be factual.

Since morality is about avoiding evil to promote good,
then improving the inherent moral program effective will lead to lesser evil, i.e. increasing morality index.
There is no need to cling to 'rightness' or 'wrongness'.

Analogy, if your room temperature is lower than the degree set in the thermostat, that does not result in wrongness.
All the air-conditioner need to do is to work its mechanisms and process to achieve the targeted temperature.
If it cannot achieve the target due to damage, then repairs are necessary.

The same analogy applies to the moral faculty within human nature.

The physical elements, programs and processes within the moral faculty or potential are the objective moral facts -there is no question of 'rightness' nor 'wrongness'.

So now we have 'the moral faculty within human nature'. Faculty psychology was out-of-date ages ago.

And you're still not getting it. Like all physical facts, the 'physical elements, programs and processes' in our brains have no intrinsic moral entailment. We may be programmed to do X and not do Y. But judgement as to the moral goodness of X and badness or evil of Y is a separate matter, nothing to do with the programming.

Strawman, you keep harping on JUDGEMENT re moral goodness, badness or evil which I have never got involved in.

Just show me where in my statements did I mention about JUDGEMENT re moral rightness and moral wrongness.

"We may be programmed to do X and not do Y" e.g. not to commit evil acts.
If what we are programmed to do X and not to Y is related to morality as defined, then the related physical elements are objective moral facts.

Problem is you are stuck like a broken record that at the sight of 'moral facts' they refer to the typical subjective moral judgments [of theological and other moralists] which I do not subscribe to.

My main point is ALL humans are programmed with a moral potential which on a wider scale would be a faculty i.e. a collective of neuronal connectivity associated with morality [as defined].

faculty: an inherent mental or physical power.
What is wrong with the above?

[Skepdick]

That's because it does nothing to show that there are factual answers to moral questions.

That's a peculiar statement with suppositions you will probably refuse to address. Still - here's to trying...

What shows that there's a "factual" answer to the question "What is the shape of planet Earth?". You could accept any one of round; spherical; oblate spheroid; or you could reject all approximations.

At what point do you want to tackle the matter of sufficiency and satisfiability?

[Peter Holmes]

Strawman again!
I have stated a "million times" my version of morality is not leveraged on 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of human acts.

It is very evident and generally accepted as Sculptor stated;
"There is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species; "

As such the moral nature is inherent within human nature.

You don't agree with this obvious human nature?

As stated in the OP:
Human nature is represented by the physical human body, brain, organs, cells, DNA and their functions [programs] and workings.
Therefore the generally accepted moral nature of all humans must be represented by physical human body, brain, organs, cells, DNA and their functions and workings which are matter of facts.
Therefore whatever is moral must be factual.

Since morality is about avoiding evil to promote good,
then improving the inherent moral program effective will lead to lesser evil, i.e. increasing morality index.
There is no need to cling to 'rightness' or 'wrongness'.

Analogy, if your room temperature is lower than the degree set in the thermostat, that does not result in wrongness.
All the air-conditioner need to do is to work its mechanisms and process to achieve the targeted temperature.
If it cannot achieve the target due to damage, then repairs are necessary.

The same analogy applies to the moral faculty within human nature.

The physical elements, programs and processes within the moral faculty or potential are the objective moral facts -there is no question of 'rightness' nor 'wrongness'.

So now we have 'the moral faculty within human nature'. Faculty psychology was out-of-date ages ago.

And you're still not getting it. Like all physical facts, the 'physical elements, programs and processes' in our brains have no intrinsic moral entailment. We may be programmed to do X and not do Y. But judgement as to the moral goodness of X and badness or evil of Y is a separate matter, nothing to do with the programming.

Strawman, you keep harping on JUDGEMENT re moral goodness, badness or evil which I have never got involved in.

Just show me where in my statements did I mention about JUDGEMENT re moral rightness and moral wrongness.

"We may be programmed to do X and not do Y" e.g. not to commit evil acts.
If what we are programmed to do X and not to Y is related to morality as defined, then the related physical elements are objective moral facts.

Problem is you are stuck like a broken record that at the sight of 'moral facts' they refer to the typical subjective moral judgments [of theological and other moralists] which I do not subscribe to.

My main point is ALL humans are programmed with a moral potential which on a wider scale would be a faculty i.e. a collective of neuronal connectivity associated with morality [as defined].

faculty: an inherent mental or physical power.
What is wrong with the above?

Unbelievable.

Look at the following assertion: humans are programmed to do X and not to do Y.

Notice - this assertion says nothing about morality defined in any way whatsoever. For example, it doesn't mention promoting good and avoiding evil - which you say is the essence of 'morality proper'.

So, if an assertion says nothing about morality, it isn't a moral assertion, it doesn't assert a moral fact, and it doesn't demonstrate the objectivity of morality. The end.

[Harbal]

• P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
  P2 Morality is part of human nature
  C1 Morality is an objective fact

Human nature is represented by the physical human body, brain, organs, cells, DNA and their functions and workings.
There can no no denial human nature is not an objective fact in terms of the above.

There is a phenomenon that we call human nature. That is an objective fact. The content of any system of morality is founded in subjectivity.

[Flannel Jesus]

• P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
  P2 Morality is part of human nature
  C1 Morality is an objective fact

Human nature is represented by the physical human body, brain, organs, cells, DNA and their functions and workings.
There can no no denial human nature is not an objective fact in terms of the above.

There is a phenomenon that we call human nature. That is an objective fact. The content of any system of morality is founded in subjectivity.

This sounds about right. It sounds like op is trying to sneak in unwarranted conclusions using equivocations.

[Harbal]

This sounds about right. It sounds like op is trying to sneak in unwarranted conclusions using equivocations.

Actually, I made a mess of that post. I meant to say: "There is a phenomenon that we call morality. That is an objective fact. The content of any system of morality, however, is founded in subjectivity."

Same message, though.