Syllogism: Morality is an Objective Fact

[Age]

• 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.

The ONLY WAY 'you', human beings, will FIND, and SEE, the Factual ANSWERS to moral QUESTIONS is WHEN 'you' LEARN HOW to FIND the ANSWERS to ALL the MEANINGFUL QUESTIONS in Life.

AND WHEN, and HOW, this WILL HAPPEN I HAVE ALREADY, partly, EXPLAINED.

[Age]

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 Faculty psychology was out-of-date ages ago.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.

IF 'moral rightness' and/or 'moral wrongness' is NOT by or on JUDGMENT, then what IS 'moral rightness' AND 'moral wrongness' BASED UPON, EXACTLY?

"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?

What IS Wrong with the above is that 'you' do NOT YET KNOW and UNDERSTAND WHERE 'morality' IS 'inherently programmed' AND 'instinctively KNOWN'.

ONCE 'you' CAN start EXPLAINING these 'things', then 'you' WILL OBTAIN MORE 'LISTENERS'. Until then I suggest 'you' LOSE THE BELIEFS, BECOME FAR MORE OPEN, and BEGIN TO START LEARNING MORE, and/or ANEW.

[Age]

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?".

This has ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED IRREFUTABLY True, in this forum.

You could accept any one of round; spherical; oblate spheroid; or you could reject all approximations.

'you', human beings, are ABSOLUTELY FREE to CHOOSE absolutely whatever 'you' like. INCLUDING 'accepting' or 'rejecting' absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL.

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

I am OPEN to START at ANY point of 'your' CHOOSING.

[Age]

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'.

For one who DETESTS ANY sort of 'religious' or 'God' BELIEF, CLAIMING that 'promoting good' and 'avoiding evil' is a 'programmed human nature' seems rather CONTRADICTORY considering just how much EFFORT 'religion' spends IN 'promoting good' AND 'avoiding evil'.

But anyway, they who do NOT YET KNOW what they DO, WILL carry on.

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.

The POWER OF BELIEF is Truly AMAZING to WATCH, and OBSERVE. These two 'posters' here ACTUALLY BELIEVE that their OWN views on 'things' here are the ONLY RIGHT and TRUE VIEW, which the ABSURDITY OF and LAUGH ABILITY FACTOR speak for themselves.

[Age]

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.

There is a phenomenon that is called 'thought'. That is an objective fact. The content of ANY and ALL 'thoughts' is founded in subjectivity. That is ANOTHER objective fact.

Now, HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE between 'objective facts' AND 'subjective facts' is Truly a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY PROCESS.

Thus, WHY FINDING and KNOWING what IS ACTUALLY A 'morally objective Fact', FROM ALL of 'your' OWN personal subjective OPINIONS about what is right and wrong in Life, is ALSO a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY PROCESS, INDEED.

[Age]

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

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

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

Yup, people fantasize.

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

Yup, people dream.

And yup, people moralize.

They are processes that exist. No one is denying they exist, not PH.'

And people do them in all sorts of ways. With all sorts of content. All sorts of attitudes and character traits.

Part of the trick in his syllogism is the reification of a process, to moralize, into a noun: morality.

The other is conflating existence of a process with any objective conclusion about the moral merit of any given version of it in that great diverse set of ways we dream, fantasize and moralize.


I dreamt I owned Belize. Yup, that happened.
I fantasized I beat up Tyson Fury. Yup, that was a fantasy.
I moralized about the behavior of one of my teachers in the 8th grade. Yup, I did that.

From the VERY OUTSET of this thread "veritas aequitas's" syllogism is as ABSURD AS:
P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
P2 Personal opinions are part of human nature
P3 Personal opinions are an objective fact
Therefore, ALL personal opinions are objective facts.

The MAJORITY of what "veritas aequitas" SAYS and CLAIMS in this forum is just PURE ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL.

[Agent Smith]

Nice try. Something's off about it.

"Dig, dig!"

"We're digging, we're digging!!"

"Dig, dig!"

"Would you stop saying that every 2 seconds. It's annoying!"

"Ok!"

A few moments later ...

"Dig, dig!"

"Aaargh! We no dig! Him keep saying "dig, dig". It driving us crazy!!"

"Now look what you've done Samuel!! You've upset the only friends we have! And they're leaving now!!"

"What?! Every culture/people have their own version of 'yo heave ho'!! Tell 'em that's what dig, dig means!"

"What exactly are we digging for Samuel? We've been doing this for a whole week!"

"I found a map to a buried treasure. X marks the spot!"

"I see. I wouldn't bury treasure to this depth though. Are you sure the map is authentic?"

"100% authentic!! It's been verified by a team of experts."

"Well, dig, dig?"

"Dig, dig!"

[Age]

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.

There IS a LOT MORE than just 'killing another human' WHICH ARE so-called 'evil acts'.

AND, by the way, "veritas aequitas", ALL of 'you', adult human beings, ARE committing so-called 'evil acts', in the days when this is being written, INCLUDING 'you', "veritas aequitas".

So, WHERE, and HOW, EXACTLY are 'you' AND 'them' 'avoiding evil acts'?

ALL humans has an inherent "program" not to kill another human.

EACH and EVERY human being HAS an INTERNAL KNOWING of what IS Right and what IS Wrong, in Life.

This KNOWING, however, and UNFORTUNATELY, WAS STILL existing in the UNCONSCIOUS, but VERY, VERY SLOWLY and GRADUALLY becoming KNOWN in the SUBCONSCIOUS, in the days when this WAS being written.

But, BECAUSE 'it' WAS ALWAYS GOING TO HAPPEN, one day 'you', human beings, CAME-TO-KNOW and UNDERSTAND what WAS 'programmed' INSTINCTIVELY WITHIN 'you', CONSCIOUSLY. And there IS NO NEED to WORRY NOR FRET OVER ANY of 'this' as COMING-TO-KNOW ALL-OF-THIS, CONSCIOUSLY, or FULLY AWARINGLY, including thy 'Self' WAS PRE-PROGRAMMED, or PRE-DETERMINED, to happen ANYWAY.

But just like with ALL CONSCIOUS AWARENESS SOME beings are just MORE SLOWER than "others" in LEARNING, UNDERSTANDING, and COMPREHENDING.

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.

What IS an alleged and supposed 'objective moral fact', EXACTLY?

INSTEAD of just RE-REPEATING that 'objective moral facts' EXIST how about you PROVIDE us with SOME examples?

OBVIOUSLY, if 'it/they' ARE 'objective moral facts', then absolute NO one could REFUTE your example/s.

How much SIMPLER and EASIER does this get?

If one CLAIMS 'objective moral facts' EXIST, then JUST PROVIDE 'them' here, for ALL to LOOK AT and SEE.

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.

So, AGAIN, and ONCE MORE, what IS an 'objective moral fact', EXACTLY, which is, supposedly, 'morality proper'?

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

LOL WHAT 'moral norm'?

In some countries it IS WRITTEN in LAW that it is RIGHT and GOOD to KILL "other humans".

Just look at that country called "united states of america". There are MANY "humans" KILLED, 'legally'. In fact, by law, SOME "humans" are TO BE KILLED.

So, WHAT IS the 'moral norm' of 'that country'?

And, is 'that moral norm' the 'moral norm' for the rest of 'the world'?

If no, then WHAT 'moral norm' are 'you' talking ABOUT here?

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

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE 'hunger' is '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.

INSTEAD of continually TELLING us ABOUT this 'inherent moral program', WHICH, by the way, DOES EXIST, how about you DESCRIBE 'it' BETTER, or at least ELABORATE on 'it' AND ANSWER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed and ASKED to you?

WHAT the 'inherent moral program' IS, EXACTLY, HOW 'it' WORKS, EXACTLY, WHY 'it' IS STILL, mostly, in the UNCONSCIOUS, and WHEN 'its' FUNCTIONING ABILITIES WILL START WORKING, FULLY, are ANSWERS ALREADY KNOWN, by SOME of us.

We just WAIT, PATIENTLY, for those who are Truly INTERESTED in LEARNING, and KNOWING, MORE here.

[Harbal]

Now, HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE between 'objective facts' AND 'subjective facts' is Truly a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY PROCESS.

Thus, WHY FINDING and KNOWING what IS ACTUALLY A 'morally objective Fact', FROM ALL of 'your' OWN personal subjective OPINIONS about what is right and wrong in Life, is ALSO a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY PROCESS, INDEED.

You often say it is an easy process to work out this or that, but you never seem to say what the process is.

[Harbal]

From the VERY OUTSET of this thread "veritas aequitas's" syllogism is as ABSURD AS:
P1 Human Nature is an objective fact
P2 Personal opinions are part of human nature
P3 Personal opinions are an objective fact
Therefore, ALL personal opinions are objective facts.

The MAJORITY of what "veritas aequitas" SAYS and CLAIMS in this forum is just PURE ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL.

I, too, find most of what he says to be illogical and nonsensical. He claims to have read a lot by way of research, but I always have the feeling that he has misunderstood most of what he has read.

[Flannel Jesus]

Now, HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE between 'objective facts' AND 'subjective facts' is Truly a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY PROCESS.

Thus, WHY FINDING and KNOWING what IS ACTUALLY A 'morally objective Fact', FROM ALL of 'your' OWN personal subjective OPINIONS about what is right and wrong in Life, is ALSO a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY PROCESS, INDEED.

You often say it is an easy process to work out this or that, but you never seem to say what the process is.

It's so easy that it goes without saying.

[Iwannaplato]

Now, HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE between 'objective facts' AND 'subjective facts' is Truly a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY PROCESS.

Thus, WHY FINDING and KNOWING what IS ACTUALLY A 'morally objective Fact', FROM ALL of 'your' OWN personal subjective OPINIONS about what is right and wrong in Life, is ALSO a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY PROCESS, INDEED.

You often say it is an easy process to work out this or that, but you never seem to say what the process is.

It's so easy that it goes without saying.

I have to say I blushed in empathy when Age felt compelled to mention it. To ask him to explain it would be beyond the pale.

[popeye1945]

Apparent reality/meaning is not objective, that is why it is called apparent rather than ultimate reality. We can only know the world subjectively and that is the result of whatever is out there altering our biological senses or changing the nature of our biology. This, however, tells us little to nothing of what is out there, it only tells us how what is out there affects us in giving us experience, apparent reality is a biological readout. Objects are particular to biology, in other words, objects are biologically dependent and consciousness is energy or what is out there dependent.

[Iwannaplato]

Apparent reality/meaning is not objective, that is why it is called apparent rather than ultimate reality. We can only know the world subjectively and that is the result of whatever is out there altering our biological senses or changing the nature of our biology. This, however, tells us little to nothing of what is out there, it only tells us how what is out there affects us in giving us experience, apparent reality is a biological readout. Objects are particular to biology, in other words, objects are biologically dependent and consciousness is energy or what is out there dependent.

How do you know this applies to other people? We are out there to you!

[Age]

• 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.


Above syllogism abstracted from the following discussion;



Morality is a sentiment, a subjective cognitive feeling, biology being the mark and measure of all things. All perceptions/experiences/meanings are biologically and thus subjectively dependent. Human nature is a subjective fact in that it is the subject, only the subject's physical body is an object to the subjective experience. Human nature is not experienced, it just is, a subjective consciousness, the entire body being subjective consciousness.

You missed my point?

The scientific knowledge of knowing say 'dog' nature, is to study as many dogs as possible and find out what is common among all the dogs in terms of their physical [from outer to the inner genes & DNA] and basic behavioral and mental features.

As such, the scientific knowledge of human nature is to study as many 'humans' [all possible all humans] as possible and find out what is common among all humans in terms of their physical [from outer to the inner genes & DNA] and basic behavioral and mental features.

It is this aspect that human nature is a physical objective fact.

How about INSTEAD of CONTINUALLY TELLING us that 'human nature' is a physical objective fact', which, in a way, could NEVER be REFUTED ANYWAY, you TELL us what, EXACTLY, IS 'human nature'.

The ANSWER by the way is EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to COMPREHEND, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW. We would just LIKE TO SEE if 'you' ALSO KNOW the ANSWER "veritas aequitas". However, the WAY that 'you' are CARRYING ON here is SHOWING, and maybe PROVING, that 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to what IS 'human nature', EXACTLY.

One very evident features of human nature is the subject of morality which is noticeably subjective comprising of opinions, beliefs, judgments related to the subject of morality.

This would be like SAYING, and ARGUING, that one very evident feature of 'human nature' is the subject of 'trains', which is noticeably subjective comprising of opinions, beliefs, and judgments related to the subject of 'trains'.

PLEASE STOP talking IN CIRCLES, and START ACTUALLY EXPLAINING.

'A subject of ANY thing, like 'the 'subject' of morality', is NOT 'human nature', AT ALL.

'Human nature' is 'that' what separates 'you', human beings, from ALL 'other' 'things'. KNOWING what IS ACTUALLY Right AND Wrong in Life IS what separates 'you', human beings, from EVERY 'thing' ELSE. However, at the stage of evolution, when this is being written, most of 'you', human beings, had YET to CONSCIOUSLY KNOW what IS Right AND Wrong, in Life.

As Sculptor stated;
"there is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species"
which I believe is agreed by all observant humans.
This moral nature is obviously subjective, but the question to be raised now is, is there an objective aspect to these supposed moral matters within human nature?

I am arguing that whilst the subjective moral matter are very obvious in human nature, what really matter are the physical objective moral facts underlying these subjective moral issues within the physical aspects of human nature.

If 'that' is what, supposedly, REALLY MATTERS, then just POST what are the RIDICULOUSLY called 'physical objective moral facts'.

I have used various analogies to demonstrate there are possible physical moral facts

Is there ACTUAL 'physical moral facts', OR, is there just the POSSIBILITY that there are 'physical moral facts'?

Also, WHY would you even ADD the 'physical' word here?

underlying all subjective matters of morality raised by mankind.

SO, what are 'they', EXACTLY?

As such, all moral issues related to evil acts within human nature has its physical moral facts correlates within the brain, neurons, genes, DNA, etc.

LOL Here we have 'confirmation bias' AT WORK, in one of its PRIME FORMS. These people, back then, REALLY would say just about ANY thing in the HOPE that what they are SAYING and CLAIMING backs up and supports what they, at that time, 'CURRENTLY' BELIEVED WAS TRUE. However, and as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, a LOT of what they were SAYING and CLAIMING was just PURE NONSENSE and Truly ILLOGICAL.

Although there may well have been Truth WITHIN 'their words', they REALLY did NOT spend the time to LEARN how to EXPLAIN 'things' PROPERLY and CORRECTLY.

So, Morality is an Objective fact.

Just out of CURIOSITY "veritas aequitas", HOW is 'objectivity' ACTUALLY FOUND, DISCOVERED, and/or SEEN?