I understand that this is the epistemological model which you accept to be true. But accepting this model means that your own theory -- including this epistemological model itself -- will only become objective knowledge with enough consensus. In other words, until there is a sufficient amount of agreement among other intellectuals, your model, for all intents and purposes, is equivalent in its truth value to any other random opinion of belief. Furthermore, it's not possible to say whether it's true or false in any meaningful sense until there is sufficient consensus, because any criticism constitutes just a subjective opinion or personal belief, which can be dismissed on this basis.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:54 am Kant presented 'what is held to be true' in a continuum from;
1. opinions [high subjectivity]
2. beliefs [low subjectivity - personal]
3. knowledge [high objectivity with consensus].
1. Copernicus would have started with a sort of opinion, guess, approximation based on abduction.
2. When Copernicus make more observations and is personally convinced, that is his belief with personal conviction but it is still subjective i.e. subject dependent.
3. The Heliocentric model was only 'knowledge' when more astronomers accepted the Heliocentric model as confirmed by empirical evidence; this consensus is then considered 'objective' knowledge because it is now independent from Copernicus the individual.
At present when the Heliocentric model is accepted as true not because Copernicus [the individual] said so but because the Astronomy FSK [collective of subjects] said so.
Every scientific theory initiated by a person, e.g. Newton, Mendel, Einstein, and others would have gone through the above continuum and process from opinion, personal belief to objective knowledge based on consensus within a FSK.
There is no such pre-existing objectivity as you 'it was already 'objectively true' ".
As I had been debating with Popeye, objectivity is intersubjectivity.
There is no standalone, God-eyes-view objectivity.
Whatever is objective must be conditioned a specific FSK.
The scientific FSK is the most reliable at present and has the highest rated objectivity in contrast to other FSKs.
Do you understand / agree with this assessment (even if you don't agree that this is deeply problematic)?
This sounds circular. Humans can't be programmed with "morality", i.e. the very thing that you're defining. What they're "programmed" with are functions to either inhibit or trigger certain behaviors, which have been evolutionarily selected for because they promote social cohesion and "fitness" of the group (in the evolutionary sense). None of this has an inherent moral character, unless it's added to it. What I mean is that the logic you present here works perfectly fine without moral terminology:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:54 am What is morality [a feature of human nature] is aligned as follow;
1. Evidently, All humans are programmed to survive as long as possible till the inevitable.
2. To achieve 1, all humans strive to have optimal well-being targeting the maximum.
3. To achieve 2, all humans strive for the highest good and avoiding all evil [bad].
4. To achieve 3, all humans are programmed with a moral function, i.e. Morality.
1. Evidently, All humans are programmed to survive as long as possible till the inevitable (for the most part).
2. To achieve 1, all humans strive to have optimal well-being targeting the maximum (among other things).
3. To achieve 2, all humans strive towards that which increases well-being, and avoid that which decreases well-being (tendentially).
4. To achieve 3, all humans are programmed with cognitive abilities that help them in those regards.
This is a perfectly clear description which needs no moral language whatsoever. The only reason to insert moral language is for tactical purposes, i.e. to make it more emotionally salient. It does not add any additional information or clarity.
Sure, we can start with this assumption. I fully agree that we can ascertain some degree of agreement regarding the "evilness" of various acts based on intuitive evaluations. But this isn't enough for a "science of evil"; we need exact criteria how to judge and compare various "evil" acts more specifically. For example, is there a difference in killing 10 soldiers in a war and killing 10 innocent children? What exactly is it that makes one act more evil than another?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:54 am My point with the article is merely to show that there is now at present a serious philosophical consideration of 'what is evil' whereas in the past it was more of a religious term.
Thus we have to initiate a definition of what is evil then to seek consensus based on verification and justification based on empirical evidences, culminating in a science of evil.
After having defined 'evil', for a start, I assigned the act of genocide as 95/100 degree of evilness which [.. I am confident] would be accepted by all normal humans.
Can you agree with that? if not why?
My point is that once you start thinking about it more deeply, you will find that there is no single parameter that determines "evilness". It's a combination of many factors, which is why it's necessary to look at it from many different angles. In other words, you can't simply look at "well-being" and use this to explain why certain acts appear intuitively more evil than others. Some acts can be cruel without even affecting well-being, at all. So if well-being is not sufficient to explain "evil" fully, then how can it be the only parameter for morality? Do you see that this is a significant inadequacy in your proposed approach?