Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:48 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:33 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 10:22 am
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 Faculty psychology was out-of-date ages ago.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.
How come you have become so blurr.
Note I wrote;
"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.
I have defined morality-proper as avoiding evil acts.
For example, "Killing another human" is an evil act.
ALL humans has an inherent "program" not to kill another human.
It is this inherent program and its related
physical elements that is an objective fact, since it is related to morality, thus, it is an objective moral fact.
Whatever beliefs, opinions and judgments of rightness & wrongness, rules of oughtness, God's commands and the likes by individuals or groups related to those objective physical moral facts
are not of morality proper and are
not objective.
Hume's sense of morality was confined to the related feeling and thoughts related to these physical moral elements which are the fundamental fact of morality. Hume [due to his time 1700s] admitted his ignorance to the possibility of such matter of fact related to morality.
We are now in the 2020s but YOU still want to be stuck with 1700s thinking on this moral issue.
There are humans who kill other humans but they are deviants from moral norm but such acts do not mean the inherent "program" not to kill another human does not exist. It does factors.
For example, ALL humans are program with the hunger drive to ensure food intake to sustain survival.
If a person has anorexia nervosa, i.e. refuse to take sufficient food and get very thin with the risk of death, it is due to secondary psychological factors. But the inherent hunger impulse mechanism is still embedded in the brain but its impulses are suppressed by the secondary psychological factors.
It is the same with the inherent moral program within ALL humans.