From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:19 am "Enforcement" of oughts is not evil, e.g. criminal laws in preventing evil cannot be evil.
Enforcement of laws to prevent enforcement of "evil" ideas is perfectly legitimate (principle of self-defense), so I'm pretty sure the logic of my observation works out.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:19 am What is critical is whether the evil act is committed or not. The enforcement is secondary because it is very common for people to commit evil acts spontaneously or premeditating murders on their own.

Yes, this sounds like there was a misunderstanding -- "enforcing an evil idea" is synonymous with "committing an evil act", in my argument. So it doesn't matter if it happens spontaneously or not. There's no reason why an idea has to be premeditated. The point is that there is a conscious thought in a persons brain, such as "I must kill this guy!". If there is no such idea (say, if I'm hypnotized or something, hypothetically), then the act is not "evil" by definition, because when intent is not attributable, moral judgement is impossible.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:19 am As stated we must have a taxonomy and exhaustive list of 'what are evil acts' without ambiguity.
I already explained many times that this is a pipe dream -- you're thinking in terms of "if everyone were to agree on x, then x would be (objectively) true", and conveniently ignore the fact that situations are possible (and in fact, exceedingly common) where interests can't possibly align, and where one group of people would greatly benefit from the suffering of another group.

For example, take the current Ukraine conflict. Sure, if every party involved was completely rational and trust-worthy, then there would be no conflict to begin with and this entire mess could have been avoided. But the parties involved are neither completely rational nor trust-worthy, because this is the reality we live in.

I fully understand and agree with you that we should strive towards improving conditions to prevent such conflicts in the future, but that is exactly what we've been attempting already -- it just didn't work out super well. For example, Germany and many other European countries were giving off very "soft" vibes, particularly after the annexation of Crimea. This emboldened Russia to take a risk, as they calculated the repercussions to be tolerable and the potential gains worthwhile enough. Had Europe had a stronger, more unified reaction to the invasion of Crimea, chances are Russia would have decided against invading Ukraine.

Now, I already know you're about to say that this was the failing of other FSK's (i.e. politics and international relations), but that's exactly my point: whenever we focus on real-world issues, the moral FSK becomes unusable. Sure, having an ideal vision isn't bad, but if it provides us with no instructions on how to get there then it's pointless.

That's why I believe my previous analysis of your position was completely accurate: either the moral FSK provides us with information pertaining to real-world problems and thus must be applicable to every possible situation in a concrete manner, or it has no value whatsoever, beyond a super-vague vision of "the betterment of mankind" that most people already agree with (the disagreement is about how to get there).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:19 am For example, in a Trolley Problem with a failure of brakes that end up with a decision of having to kill one or five,
the optimal solution would be to act with moral optimality based on one's present moral competence [kill 1 or 5 is OK ] and then what is critical is to ensure that is no possibility of brakes failures [root causes] in the future.
I think I already explained why this is a redundant argument, since we already universally agree that accidents should be minimized. So you're not really adding anything new or useful here.

But let me explain it again with reference to this specific context: the idea behind the trolley problem is that it was intentionally designed for a specific purpose. For example, perhaps we won't be using trains in the future, at all, because some other technology will make them obsolete. Then the trolley problem will become meaningless. But then we'll just think of a different circumstance to demonstrate the same moral dilemma. In other words, the moral problem itself is timeless and universal, and constitutes its own discipline, which includes the analysis of moral responsibility and moral judgement (also known as Morality). This is something that is completely ignored by the moral FSK in your paradigm.

So there are two problems:

1) you replace a perfectly valid, established, existing discipline with a vaguely defined new one
2) the new field only offers a rough goal (which pretty much everyone already agrees with), but no fundamentally new tangible techniques or ideas on how to work towards it

With this in mind, I think a more accurate term for the FSK you propose might be "human well-being FSK". The more I think about it, the less sense I see in conflating morality with human well-being.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:19 am As in the case of the abortion issue, humanity must strive to ensure each individual[s] have the competence to modulate one's sexual lust [with greater pleasure] [in the future, not now] in cases of unplanned pregnancies instead of fucking like animals on impulse with no heed of future outcomes.
Abortion should be banned because humans are inherently fallible and nature is unpredictable but humanity must strive to reduce irresponsible and uncontrollable lusts.
Now this sounds controversial -- previously, you have stated that we shouldn't enforce moral ideals, and individuals must voluntarily and naturally develop to control their impulses in order to prevent "evil" acts from occurring. But now you are saying that abortions should be banned.

So is this due to the phenomenon I described above, called self-defense? Would you say that an abortion constitutes an act of aggression (against the fetus) which permits enforcement against it?

Regardless of your reasoning for why it should be outlawed, now we have a problem, because there is no agreement regarding this issue by experts, and there's not likely to be any, ever. In fact, most scientists and doctors agree that abortions should be legal and viable (but the earlier they are performed, the "better").

It seems to me that your position is therefore in direct opposition to your own originally proposed approach. How do you justify it, exactly?

And: if abortions should be banned because they're (allegedly) caused by out-of-control impulses, should everything that involves improperly regulated impulses be banned? Is banning in itself a good and effective solution? Should we prohibit alcohol and tobacco again?

Most importantly: how do we decide any of this? For example, there is strong expert consensus that alcohol and tobacco are dangerous and destructive. But there is also plenty of evidence that prohibition is not terribly effective and leads to significant negative side-effects. So how does the "morality FSK" help us in any way in this whole mess?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:19 am "Enforcement" of oughts is not evil, e.g. criminal laws in preventing evil cannot be evil.
Enforcement of laws to prevent enforcement of "evil" ideas is perfectly legitimate (principle of self-defense), so I'm pretty sure the logic of my observation works out.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:19 am What is critical is whether the evil act is committed or not. The enforcement is secondary because it is very common for people to commit evil acts spontaneously or premeditating murders on their own.

Yes, this sounds like there was a misunderstanding -- "enforcing an evil idea" is synonymous with "committing an evil act", in my argument. So it doesn't matter if it happens spontaneously or not. There's no reason why an idea has to be premeditated. The point is that there is a conscious thought in a persons brain, such as "I must kill this guy!".
If there is no such idea (say, if I'm hypnotized or something, hypothetically), then the act is not "evil" by definition, because when intent is not attributable, moral judgement is impossible.
I agree "enforcing an evil idea" is synonymous with "committing an evil act".

My definition of what is evil [killing of humans by humans] is represented in a continuum.
As such even when there is no intent, it is still an evil act but not an act-of-evil as such a moral issue by definition and a moral problem.
In the case we have to prevent the hypnotizing, brainwashing, etc. from happening that would cause humans killing humans.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:19 am As stated we must have a taxonomy and exhaustive list of 'what are evil acts' without ambiguity.
I already explained many times that this is a pipe dream -- you're thinking in terms of "if everyone were to agree on x, then x would be (objectively) true", and conveniently ignore the fact that situations are possible (and in fact, exceedingly common) where interests can't possibly align, and where one group of people would greatly benefit from the suffering of another group.

For example, take the current Ukraine conflict. Sure, if every party involved was completely rational and trust-worthy, then there would be no conflict to begin with and this entire mess could have been avoided. But the parties involved are neither completely rational nor trust-worthy, because this is the reality we live in.

I fully understand and agree with you that we should strive towards improving conditions to prevent such conflicts in the future, but that is exactly what we've been attempting already -- it just didn't work out super well. For example, Germany and many other European countries were giving off very "soft" vibes, particularly after the annexation of Crimea. This emboldened Russia to take a risk, as they calculated the repercussions to be tolerable and the potential gains worthwhile enough. Had Europe had a stronger, more unified reaction to the invasion of Crimea, chances are Russia would have decided against invading Ukraine.

Now, I already know you're about to say that this was the failing of other FSK's (i.e. politics and international relations), but that's exactly my point: whenever we focus on real-world issues, the moral FSK becomes unusable. Sure, having an ideal vision isn't bad, but if it provides us with no instructions on how to get there then it's pointless.
I have the details of the whole Moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK], Reality and Practice but my focus at present is not how to get there but rather to establish there are physical mind independent objective moral facts to ground the FSK.

Note the Buddhists had already presented an iterative life problem solving technique >2500 years ago.

Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

If you understand its details and complexity beyond the model in a few lines therein, you will be amaze how sophisticated the technique is.
That's why I believe my previous analysis of your position was completely accurate: either the moral FSK provides us with information pertaining to real-world problems and thus must be applicable to every possible situation in a concrete manner, or it has no value whatsoever, beyond a super-vague vision of "the betterment of mankind" that most people already agree with (the disagreement is about how to get there).
My Moral FSK will be a generic model to ensure moral progress, i.e. driving the current average moral quotient [MQ] [say 100] to 1500 in 50, 75, 100 or more years.
Once the average MQ increases the moral issues will correspondingly be reduced.

Where there are real-world-moral-problems to deal with by individual[s] or groups that leading to fire-fighting the symptoms because we have no yet resolve the root causes.
It is too late whenever a problem that need moral judgment arises; there is no way one can resolve ALL moral issue according to general expectations because there is no time for deliberating on 'which decisions to make' where a decision is expected immediately.

As such, with all evil acts [as defined] at present, e.g. Ukraine conflict, etc. we just have to do our best given the current moral psychological state of humanity.
But what is critical for humanity is to be mindful to direct attention to the root causes of all evil acts which humanity is not capable nor effective AT PRESENT.
Nevertheless that is an inherent moral function in all human that is attempting to reduce evil acts and conflicts, but without an efficient moral FSK, the progress is 'tortoise' speed.
Note Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:19 am For example, in a Trolley Problem with a failure of brakes that end up with a decision of having to kill one or five,
the optimal solution would be to act with moral optimality based on one's present moral competence [kill 1 or 5 is OK ] and then what is critical is to ensure that is no possibility of brakes failures [root causes] in the future.
I think I already explained why this is a redundant argument, since we already universally agree that accidents should be minimized. So you're not really adding anything new or useful here.

But let me explain it again with reference to this specific context: the idea behind the trolley problem is that it was intentionally designed for a specific purpose. For example, perhaps we won't be using trains in the future, at all, because some other technology will make them obsolete. Then the trolley problem will become meaningless. But then we'll just think of a different circumstance to demonstrate the same moral dilemma. In other words, the moral problem itself is timeless and universal, and constitutes its own discipline, which includes the analysis of moral responsibility and moral judgement (also known as Morality). This is something that is completely ignored by the moral FSK in your paradigm.
I understand the Trolley Problem posed a generic Casuistry that can happen in 1000s or 10,000s of specific problems that posed a dilemma, e.g. whether a doctor should kill one to save 5, etc.
What about killing [culling] 2 billion humans to save 6 billion humans?? This may not happen, but it show casuistry moral dilemmas are useful exercises and may be useful, but they [fighting symptoms] are secondary to tacking the root causes.
So there are two problems:

1) you replace a perfectly valid, established, existing discipline with a vaguely defined new one
2) the new field only offers a rough goal (which pretty much everyone already agrees with), but no fundamentally new tangible techniques or ideas on how to work towards it

With this in mind, I think a more accurate term for the FSK you propose might be "human well-being FSK". The more I think about it, the less sense I see in conflating morality with human well-being.
The fact is, there is a moral function inherent within all humans.
Because this function [like higher human intelligence] had unfold quite recently in evolutionary time, the majority are very lost in terms of what 'morality-proper' is about. This is the reason why there are still existing evil acts and evil potentials and humanity had not been able to resolve the evil problems expeditiously.

It is has to be a moral-FSK to reduce evil acts to the minimal.
A "human well-being FSK" is too general which will comprise all other related FSKs that promote human well-being, e.g. health, nutrition, medical, financial, political, sports, sex, etc.


Now this sounds controversial -- previously, you have stated that we shouldn't enforce moral ideals, and individuals must voluntarily and naturally develop to control their impulses in order to prevent "evil" acts from occurring. But now you are saying that abortions should be banned.

So is this due to the phenomenon I described above, called self-defense? Would you say that an abortion constitutes an act of aggression (against the fetus) which permits enforcement against it?

Regardless of your reasoning for why it should be outlawed, now we have a problem, because there is no agreement regarding this issue by experts, and there's not likely to be any, ever. In fact, most scientists and doctors agree that abortions should be legal and viable (but the earlier they are performed, the "better").

It seems to me that your position is therefore in direct opposition to your own originally proposed approach. How do you justify it, exactly?

And: if abortions should be banned because they're (allegedly) caused by out-of-control impulses, should everything that involves improperly regulated impulses be banned? Is banning in itself a good and effective solution? Should we prohibit alcohol and tobacco again?

Most importantly: how do we decide any of this? For example, there is strong expert consensus that alcohol and tobacco are dangerous and destructive. But there is also plenty of evidence that prohibition is not terribly effective and leads to significant negative side-effects. So how does the "morality FSK" help us in any way in this whole mess?
There was an omission, it should read;

"Abortion should NOT be banned because humans are inherently fallible and nature is unpredictable but humanity must strive to reduce irresponsible and uncontrollable lusts."

which will be in alignment with my principle of 'no enforcement' on individuals.

I do not consider abortion as an act of aggression against the fetus.
The moral maxim is no human [born or unborn] ought to be killed by humans or by themselves [suicide].
So the moral objective is to reduce abortion for unplanned pregnancies to the minimal towards ZERO [impossible but a useful standard].

As I stated I have defined what is evil and it is represented in a continuum from 0.01 to 99.9 % degrees of evilness.
Consumption of alcohol and tobacco which evidently kill humans when consumed to the extreme or abused is evil [as defined] but they would rated at say 20% degree of evil.
Consumption of alcohol and tobacco should be reduced to a minimum [in some future time] voluntarily but that would of low priority in comparison to dealing with genocides, mass murder, rapes, and the likes.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 5:42 am There was an omission, it should read;

"Abortion should NOT be banned because humans are inherently fallible and nature is unpredictable but humanity must strive to reduce irresponsible and uncontrollable lusts."
OK, thanks for the clarification 😂

In that case (and considering all other points you've made in this post) I stand by my previous analysis: the reason why your approach "works" is because it rejects enforcement. In this way it's not nearly as susceptible to the problems most political philosophies and policies are prone to (i.e. good intentions, but a disaster when attempting to enforce it).

But this also makes it very weird: for example, you have stated that it's a fact that oughtness-not-to-kill exists. And yet, this fact should not urge us to prohibit murder, because nothing of what the moral FSK derives can be used prescriptively. As such, the political / legal or some other FSK has to come to the conclusion that murder ought to be prohibited independently from the moral FSK.

Furthermore, as I pointed out before, your approach conflicts with the already existing discipline of morality, which deals with questions of moral responsibility and such.

For these reasons, I don't think a "morality FSK" is warranted. The oughtness-not-to-kill for instance is not actually a moral fact (based on the common definition of the term), because it doesn't imply that we shouldn't kill, but only that humans are equipped with neural mechanisms that contain our impulses to kill. In this way, this fact neatly fits inside the biology FSK and there are no more problems.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6675
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Iwannaplato »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:04 am For these reasons, I don't think a "morality FSK" is warranted. The oughtness-not-to-kill for instance is not actually a moral fact (based on the common definition of the term), because it doesn't imply that we shouldn't kill, but only that humans are equipped with neural mechanisms that contain our impulses to kill. In this way, this fact neatly fits inside the biology FSK and there are no more problems.
Exactly.

Further...
"Abortion should NOT be banned because humans are inherently fallible and nature is unpredictable but humanity must strive to reduce irresponsible and uncontrollable lusts."
Here we have two deotological rules. IOW he has often made the claim that his is not a traditional morality. And he focuses on physiological structures and the types of character he wants to create in humans. But it's clear he is a deontologist, one who is tactically non-legislative. But that's just tactics. It's a deontological moral realism.

Except when he's denying it is.

And then, let's look at this a second time...
"Abortion should NOT be banned because humans are inherently fallible and nature is unpredictable but humanity must strive to reduce irresponsible and uncontrollable lusts."
This is a Christian deontology.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:04 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 5:42 am There was an omission, it should read;

"Abortion should NOT be banned because humans are inherently fallible and nature is unpredictable but humanity must strive to reduce irresponsible and uncontrollable lusts."
OK, thanks for the clarification 😂

In that case (and considering all other points you've made in this post) I stand by my previous analysis: the reason why your approach "works" is because it rejects enforcement. In this way it's not nearly as susceptible to the problems most political philosophies and policies are prone to (i.e. good intentions, but a disaster when attempting to enforce it).
Enforcement has its problem but it is necessary and optimal [net-positive] given the current psychological state and average degree of evilness within humanity.
But this also makes it very weird: for example, you have stated that it's a fact that oughtness-not-to-kill exists.
And yet, this fact should not urge us to prohibit murder, because nothing of what the moral FSK derives can be used prescriptively.
As such, the political / legal or some other FSK has to come to the conclusion that murder ought to be prohibited independently from the moral FSK.
It's a fact [physically, biologically & morally] that oughtness-not-to-kill-humans exists But it exists with different of degrees of activeness within humanity.

Since the past to the present [same in the near future], the majority has a weak oughtness-not-to-kill-humans thus not able to control the inherent oughtness-to-kill which when directed to human beings results in evil acts.
Because the natural oughtness-not-to-kill-humans is weak, it is necessary that religions, politics & other authorities has to impose external 'oughts' to prevent killings of humans and other evil acts.

What is critical hereon is humanity must recognize the factual oughtness-not-to-kill-humans exists [the majority are ignorant and many resist this fact as real] within the human self.
When this oughtness-not-to-kill-humans is highly active in a person, the person will naturally be indifferent to killing humans.
If all [if not the majority] humans has a highly active oughtness-not-to-kill-humans state, then no [very minimal] humans will be killed by humans. The progress to the intended target will take quite a long time, given its take time to rewire the neural algorithms in the brain.
How we achieve the above results effectively has to be dealt within the moral-FSK.
Furthermore, as I pointed out before, your approach conflicts with the already existing discipline of morality, which deals with questions of moral responsibility and such.

For these reasons, I don't think a "morality FSK" is warranted. The oughtness-not-to-kill for instance is not actually a moral fact (based on the common definition of the term), because it doesn't imply that we shouldn't kill, but only that humans are equipped with neural mechanisms that contain our impulses to kill. In this way, this fact neatly fits inside the biology FSK and there are no more problems.
What is critical is we must defined what is morality before we talk about a moral FSK. I have done that.

Our existing moral systems as driven by the inherent moral function are essentially about reducing evil acts, no different from my Moral FSK.

The problem is our present moral system focused too much on the symptoms rather than the deeper root causes, thus should be labelled as pseudo-morality against morality-proper within human nature.

Within morality-proper, the factual oughtness-not-to-kill-humans will be used as an objective standard to guide the progress of moral competence directed towards the impossible ZERO target of "no humans ought to be killed by humans."

Yes, the factual oughtness-not-to-kill-humans is basically a biological fact.
Since the 'kill' element is a moral element of the inherent moral function, this biological fact will be incorporated into the moral FSK and recognized as a moral fact. Note the necessity of a Framework and System to manage the moral progress which can be a very complex thing to establish.

Humanity has progressed from pseudo-science to science-proper, it is about time we recognize and take the concerted effort to progress expeditiously from pseudo-morality to morality-proper [as defined] via a Moral FSK that incorporates facts from other reliable FSKs, e.g. biology, neuroscience, etc.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:28 am What is critical is we must defined what is morality before we talk about a moral FSK. I have done that.
Here's the problem: you can't just redefine terms as you see fit... What if I don't agree with your definition? What if no one agrees with it?

Saying that well-being (human and otherwise) should be the focus of morality -- and that morality shouldn't be normative -- is highly controversial. Sure, ultimately it's neither for me nor for you to decide, but rather a question of how well this proposition gets accepted by everyone else. But anything that can be defined more or less arbitrarily will be defined in any way imaginable. This has already been tried by utilitarianism, and the problems it entails are well-known: what ends up happening is that countless little disagreements emerge about its goals and fundamental nature, such that everyone ends up having their own unique version of it, and as a result it becomes impossible to use it objectively without explicitly acknowledging that we shouldn't think too hard about it and focus more about how to do "good", rather than just philosophizing about it -- which is a very common lament among utilitarians, and undermines the legitimacy of utilitarianism as an objective model for morality.

The same fate awaits your approach; if others start adopting it, they'll change and tweak it in ways that makes sense to them. Some will say that it's nonsensical for morality to be non-prescriptive; it's a no-brainer that we should enforce moral facts.

Others will say that well-being is nice and all, but we really should focus on other values. For some it will be freedom and independence, for others fairness and equality, and so on and so forth. People will use it in ways you never intended and desired, but what can you do about it? After all, it's just a question of inter-subjective consensus.

If you want to avoid this mess, you can't just say that morality is a matter of definition. Either you offer solid logical framework for how to derive a proper definition of morality, or everyone will just define it how they see fit.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:28 am Our existing moral systems as driven by the inherent moral function are essentially about reducing evil acts, no different from my Moral FSK.
Not really -- as I have explained above, it's a long-known fact that it's impossible to agree on a single, ultimate moral value. That's why modern moral philosophers don't limit themselves to one particular approach. Rather, they analyse moral issues through multiple lenses. In this way, it's not really possible to identify things in terms of "good" and "evil". Instead, it's more a question of which principles are sound and consistent, and which are contradictory. The only models heavily utilizing concepts of "good" and "evil" are religious ones, which really shouldn't be taken too serious.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:28 am Humanity has progressed from pseudo-science to science-proper, it is about time we recognize and take the concerted effort to progress expeditiously from pseudo-morality to morality-proper [as defined] via a Moral FSK that incorporates facts from other reliable FSKs, e.g. biology, neuroscience, etc.
I sympathize with your intention, but this is not a new idea, and there are good reasons why it has not worked in the past and will likely never work. If you want an objective system, you can't just leave things for people to "define". People are opinionated and will simply come up with their own versions, such that in the end, there will be nothing left of the supposedly objective system.
CIN
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:59 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by CIN »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:11 am ... it's a long-known fact that it's impossible to agree on a single, ultimate moral value. That's why modern moral philosophers don't limit themselves to one particular approach. Rather, they analyse moral issues through multiple lenses. In this way, it's not really possible to identify things in terms of "good" and "evil". Instead, it's more a question of which principles are sound and consistent, and which are contradictory.
You know, it just might be that modern moral philosophers have given up too easily. After all, this argument:
1. Philosophers have so far failed to agree on an ultimate moral value.
2. Therefore there is no ultimate moral value.
is invalid.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:06 am This is a Christian deontology.
Yes, this sounds quite accurate -- I think this approach is an attempt to derive deontological rules by teleological means (by asserting human well-being as the main focus of morality), but the nature of the rules is (wisely) elected to be non-binding, and the rules give off a distinctly Christian vibe (i.e. focus on restraining sexual impulses, rather than contraception).

But it's interesting to explore :D
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

CIN wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:34 am You know, it just might be that modern moral philosophers have given up too easily. After all, this argument:
1. Philosophers have so far failed to agree on an ultimate moral value.
2. Therefore there is no ultimate moral value.
is invalid.
We can easily correct this argument, though:

1. Philosophers have so far failed to agree on an ultimate moral value.
2. Therefore there is so far no ultimate moral value.

Sure, if people (technically everyone, not just moral philosophers) were to agree on an ultimate moral value, then there would an ultimate moral value. But until that happens, there isn't.

This argument is valid because values are subjective, and as such the only way to find an ultimate moral value is via complete agreement. Meaning, it literally does not exist until everyone agrees that it does (unlike a physical phenomenon, which exists even if it hasn't been discovered yet).
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:28 am What is critical is we must defined what is morality before we talk about a moral FSK. I have done that.
Here's the problem: you can't just redefine terms as you see fit...
Is that an ought? If so, on whose or what authority?
What if I don't agree with your definition? What if no one agrees with it?
That is the main purpose of this and other philosophical forums, presenting one's thesis, ideas to be trashed, torn apart and dumped in the drain by others.

At present I am indifferent to anyone agreeing to what I proposed.
If one seek agreement [only], then one is likely to be disappointed.
What I am interested is to read as many views from a wide variety of perspectives while ignoring personalities who are violent and vulgar in attitude.
I would not have gained so much information and knowledge on the subject of morality and ethics if every one has agreed with my views.
I have to thank Peter Holmes on being so dogmatic with his stance, which is a motivation for me to research more on 'Morality' and hope he stays that way while he is here. That is how my Morality & Ethics Folder has grown to >1400 files in 88 sub-folders.

At present I am digging deeper to understand [not agree] Peter's version of "what is fact" which is the functorial basis; based on my present state of research, so far I believe such "facts" [states of affairs, that is the case, that-clauses] are meaningless abstracts and are illusory.
Saying that well-being (human and otherwise) should be the focus of morality -- and that morality shouldn't be normative -- is highly controversial. Sure, ultimately it's neither for me nor for you to decide, but rather a question of how well this proposition gets accepted by everyone else. But anything that can be defined more or less arbitrarily will be defined in any way imaginable. This has already been tried by utilitarianism, and the problems it entails are well-known: what ends up happening is that countless little disagreements emerge about its goals and fundamental nature, such that everyone ends up having their own unique version of it, and as a result it becomes impossible to use it objectively without explicitly acknowledging that we shouldn't think too hard about it and focus more about how to do "good", rather than just philosophizing about it -- which is a very common lament among utilitarians, and undermines the legitimacy of utilitarianism as an objective model for morality.

The same fate awaits your approach; if others start adopting it, they'll change and tweak it in ways that makes sense to them. Some will say that it's nonsensical for morality to be non-prescriptive; it's a no-brainer that we should enforce moral facts.

Others will say that well-being is nice and all, but we really should focus on other values. For some it will be freedom and independence, for others fairness and equality, and so on and so forth. People will use it in ways you never intended and desired, but what can you do about it? After all, it's just a question of inter-subjective consensus.

If you want to avoid this mess, you can't just say that morality is a matter of definition. Either you offer solid logical framework for how to derive a proper definition of morality, or everyone will just define it how they see fit.
It is imperative to define the terms within any thesis, more so if it is a loose term like 'morality'. [others like spirituality, reality, facts, objective, and the like]

I did not pick it from the air or out of the blue, how I arrived with my definition of 'what is morality' is based on the >1400 files in 88 Folders and the direction the 'current' that is flowing within the community of moralists on the subject of morality.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:28 am Our existing moral systems as driven by the inherent moral function are essentially about reducing evil acts, no different from my Moral FSK.
Not really -- as I have explained above, it's a long-known fact that it's impossible to agree on a single, ultimate moral value. That's why modern moral philosophers don't limit themselves to one particular approach. Rather, they analyse moral issues through multiple lenses.
In this way, it's not really possible to identify things in terms of "good" and "evil". Instead, it's more a question of which principles are sound and consistent, and which are contradictory.
The only models heavily utilizing concepts of "good" and "evil" are religious ones, which really shouldn't be taken too serious.
I believe you have not done extensive research in the subjects of philosophy and thus missed on what is relevant to the modern era. Note,
Since World War II, moral, political, and legal philosophers have become increasingly interested in the concept of evil.
This interest has been partly motivated by ascriptions of ‘evil’ by laymen, social scientists, journalists, and politicians as they try to understand and respond to various atrocities and horrors, such as genocides, terrorist attacks, mass murders, and tortures and killing sprees by psychopathic serial killers.
It seems that we cannot capture the moral significance of these actions and their perpetrators by calling them ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ or even ‘very very wrong’ or ‘very very bad.’
We need the concept of evil.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/
You disagree with the above?

To be effective, where possible we need to put all terms within a continuum and mindful at all times of its limitations.
As such I adopt the concept of evil to keep up with the present, but to be more effective I have placed it within a continuum.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:28 am Humanity has progressed from pseudo-science to science-proper, it is about time we recognize and take the concerted effort to progress expeditiously from pseudo-morality to morality-proper [as defined] via a Moral FSK that incorporates facts from other reliable FSKs, e.g. biology, neuroscience, etc.
I sympathize with your intention, but this is not a new idea, and there are good reasons why it has not worked in the past and will likely never work. If you want an objective system, you can't just leave things for people to "define". People are opinionated and will simply come up with their own versions, such that in the end, there will be nothing left of the supposedly objective system.
Check the truth; the scientific revolution did not work in the past to the present?

Note how Science progressed from Philosophy-in-general, then as Natural Philosophy, got entangled with pseudo-science and finally Science-proper with its specific FSK.
This scientific impulse is driven by the innate function and potential "to know" which is a feature of human nature: etymology; Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know’.
This innate function and potential is represented by its physical elements in the brain. This scientific impulse is currently objective and progressing in its degrees of objectivity.

Similarly, from the beginning there is also the 'avoidance of evil' function and potential which is Morality-proper.
The innate 'to know' took hundreds of thousands of years to evolve to its current status as 'Science within the scientific FSK'.
The moral function is a 'Johnny comes lately' and only became more active very recently within human evolution; but because the moral function is innate ["permanent"] in the brain like the innate science function [to know], morality will eventually progress and follows the scientific path to be objective within its destined Morality-Proper-FSK.

I am not expecting you to agree with what I proposed, but somehow you seem to be one of the rare members who understood [not agree] with what I am proposing.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 1:15 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:06 am This is a Christian deontology.
Yes, this sounds quite accurate -- I think this approach is an attempt to derive deontological rules by teleological means (by asserting human well-being as the main focus of morality), but the nature of the rules is (wisely) elected to be non-binding, and the rules give off a distinctly Christian vibe (i.e. focus on restraining sexual impulses, rather than contraception).

But it's interesting to explore :D
What I proposed is obviously not Christian-like because what is fundamental to Christianity are the commands of 'Christ' and God or else to eternal hellfire.

Because the Christian Moral Model is grounded on a God thus it is immutable.
If you reflect carefully, you will note the Christian Moral Model is based intuitively to align with what is inherent within human nature and natural and the Moral FSK that I am proposing.

What I proposed is not deontological which are fixed rules and commands which must be obeyed and complied with, or else there are the corresponding threat of punishments and penalties.

As I had argued the Christian Moral Model is the most and best optimal Moral Model we have at present, but it has significant limitations due to its deontological approach and other negative elements.
While it is deontological, it does provide some and certain moral-proper standards that enable to guide believers moral state towards the ideal Christ-like exemplar.
It is evident the Christian Moral Model [even pseudo] since its emergence has greatly benefited humanity in terms of lesser evil [as defined].
You disagree?

There are Christians who commit evil acts, but they are NOT committing evil in the name of Christ or within the Constitutional maxim of Christianity which is to love all and even enemies.
No Christians will insist they killed humans or commit acts [evil] because Christ or God said so. Note the Constitution of Christianity is not the whole Bible [not OT] but merely the Gospels of Christ.

What I proposed is not deontological at all but rather merely prompting humans to act naturally and spontaneously - in accordance to their human nature that is programmed evolutionarily within themselves, in their own time with some degree of seriousness and urgency.
There is no question of enforcement with punishments nor penalties except to flow to the best of one's abilities in accordance to one inherent human nature.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 5:14 am Is that an ought? If so, on whose or what authority?
You shouldn't redefine terms for the simple reason that if you do so, others can claim to have the same right. This only leads confusion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 5:14 am That is the main purpose of this and other philosophical forums, presenting one's thesis, ideas to be trashed, torn apart and dumped in the drain by others.

At present I am indifferent to anyone agreeing to what I proposed.
If one seek agreement [only], then one is likely to be disappointed.
What I am interested is to read as many views from a wide variety of perspectives while ignoring personalities who are violent and vulgar in attitude.
I would not have gained so much information and knowledge on the subject of morality and ethics if every one has agreed with my views.
I have to thank Peter Holmes on being so dogmatic with his stance, which is a motivation for me to research more on 'Morality' and hope he stays that way while he is here. That is how my Morality & Ethics Folder has grown to >1400 files in 88 sub-folders.
Please don't misunderstand -- I was attempting to make a very specific point here: normally, objective knowledge should be independent from consensus. When Nicolaus Copernicus developed the heliocentric model, it was already "objectively true", in that it described planetary orbits in the solar system with a certain degree of accuracy, and thus allowed for reasonably accurate predictions of planetary positions.

Obviously, his model was not immediately accepted; the consensus at the time was that the geocentric model was correct. However, if one were to review the available data without any preconceptions, then it would have become clear that the heliocentric model was considerably more accurate.

That's why I support new ideas and try my best to understand them, even if others dismiss them. There were plenty of brilliant people who thought the internet would be a short-lived fad. These are some of the reasons why I don't believe in consensus; as far as I'm concerned, it's completely irrelevant.

But in your approach, consensus is essential, because you're asserting an ultimate value (human well-being) as the focus of morality, which is a matter of opinion. That's why agreement is essential -- it all hinges on whether people agree with this choice or not.

You yourself have stated that we must define morality, so clearly you must agree with this assessment. But what it means is that there is no right or wrong answer until there is sufficient agreement.

So for example, I could say that well-being really isn't the most important value -- freedom is. I would rather live a miserable life in freedom, than a comfortable live in slavery. "Evil" under this definition is that which restricts freedom. We could argue about who's right and wrong for days, but that would be an exercise in futility, because values are only "true" relative to the person holding them.

It's perfectly valid to arbitrarily define a particular topic as the subject of a field of study, but because it's arbitrary, it's necessarily contingent upon consensus. In other words, if you were to call your approach something like the "science of well-being", there wouldn't be any problems.

But stating that the "science of well-being" is morality-proper is not likely to be accepted, for the aforementioned reasons. It's also not helpful, because it's simply a semantic insistence that doesn't add any clarity to the discussion. Asserting that things which impede well-being are "evil" does not clarify anything; it merely adds an emotional layer to an otherwise sober, scientific field of study.

The document you've linked to is quite explicit regarding the fact that there is no consensus on what "evil" truly means. Instead, it explores various approaches, which is exactly my point: the only way to sensibly reason about terms like "morality" and "evil" is by recognizing that there is a multitude of lenses by which they can be explored, and it's not possible to pick one and ignore all the others, without providing a lens that accounts for all the others.

I hope this clarifies my position. I believe it's always easy to criticize, and much, much harder to come up with and present new ideas, which is why I respect your efforts, and my feedback is intended to be constructive. I don't think your position is free from biases and other issues, but it's clear you've done significant research and I think it's worthwhile and interesting to explore your propositions.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:35 am What I proposed is obviously not Christian-like because what is fundamental to Christianity are the commands of 'Christ' and God or else to eternal hellfire.
That's certainly not everything, though. For example, Christianity holds that human life is sacred, which is a uniquely Christian belief. On this basis suicide and abortions are considered immoral from a Christian point of reference. But there is not necessarily a clear secular reason as to why these things should be considered bad from a secular point of view. For this reason, arguments that condemn things like suicide and abortions give off a Christian "smell". This isn't really a critique, just an observation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:35 am If you reflect carefully, you will note the Christian Moral Model is based intuitively to align with what is inherent within human nature and natural and the Moral FSK that I am proposing.
Yes, there are similarities -- but the question is whether you have a personal bias towards Christianity, one that would lead you to conclude that it aligns with human nature. Biases are tricky and difficult to avoid even for the most clear-thinking individuals, so there is a probability that some degree of bias is involved. But once again, that's not really a critique, just something to be aware of.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:35 am What I proposed is not deontological which are fixed rules and commands which must be obeyed and complied with, or else there are the corresponding threat of punishments and penalties.
Not necessarily -- deontological ethics, at it's most basic, simply posits that some rules or behaviors are inherently either moral or immoral, but it's not necessarily clear how immoral things should be punished, if at all. The idea is that some behaviors should be avoided by virtue of them being inherently wrong. This actually aligns quite well with your proposition, which states that humans have certain impulses which we must regulate, presumably by virtue of them being inherently bad -- otherwise a concept such as "oughtness-not-to-kill" wouldn't be intelligible (meaning, killing must be "bad" in some way, shape or form).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:35 am As I had argued the Christian Moral Model is the most and best optimal Moral Model we have at present, but it has significant limitations due to its deontological approach and other negative elements.
While it is deontological, it does provide some and certain moral-proper standards that enable to guide believers moral state towards the ideal Christ-like exemplar.
It is evident the Christian Moral Model [even pseudo] since its emergence has greatly benefited humanity in terms of lesser evil [as defined].
You disagree?
The Christian moral model is only (arguably) the "best" among the Abrahamic religions. I don't agree that Christ is an ideal role model, but I do believe that some of Christianity's ideas were beneficial to the development of humanity.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:35 am There are Christians who commit evil acts, but they are NOT committing evil in the name of Christ or within the Constitutional maxim of Christianity which is to love all and even enemies.
No Christians will insist they killed humans or commit acts [evil] because Christ or God said so. Note the Constitution of Christianity is not the whole Bible [not OT] but merely the Gospels of Christ.
I generally agree, but all religions are based on superstitions and make-belief, and thus they all have the potential to encourage tribal and violent behavior if the conditions are just right.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:35 am What I proposed is not deontological at all but rather merely prompting humans to act naturally and spontaneously - in accordance to their human nature that is programmed evolutionarily within themselves, in their own time with some degree of seriousness and urgency.
There is no question of enforcement with punishments nor penalties except to flow to the best of one's abilities in accordance to one inherent human nature.
But that's exactly what it means for a proposition to be deontological 😊

Deontological models are defined by the assignment of moral value to behaviors or rules. "Moral value" means that they're assigned to be either good / should be followed or bad / evil / should not be followed. Punishment and such isn't an essential component.

First, you're stating: "What I proposed is [...] prompting humans to act [...]" -- this implies that a prescriptive aspect is contained within your proposition, even though it's not enforced. In other words, there are some behaviors which should be followed, and others that shouldn't (which is the entire point of using moral terminology, such as the word "evil").

Next, you say: "[...] in accordance to their human nature that is programmed evolutionarily [...]" -- which is a justification to establish the moral value of certain behaviors objectively; it's essentially another formulation of the categorical imperative.

This is affirmed by concepts such as "oughtness-not-to-kill", which identifies killing as evil-in-itself.

However, your approach also contains teleological characteristics, because you have previously agreed that there can be circumstances where it's preferable to inhibit the "oughtness-not-to-kill".

For this reason it seems to me that your approach combines deontological and consequentialist components, which I actually consider to be a good thing. But it raises the question of how this dynamic works, exactly. I get the sense that the deontological elements are variables which can be modulated on the basis of the teleological elements, i.e. "oughtness-not-to-kill" can be either moral or immoral depending on the degree to which it empowers well-being.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:35 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 5:14 am Is that an ought? If so, on whose or what authority?
You shouldn't redefine terms for the simple reason that if you do so, others can claim to have the same right. This only leads confusion.
As I had stated, definition is imperative and critical for any thesis.
Yes, everyone is free to present their thesis and define the terms used.
But what counts ultimately is whether the definitions align with the thesis; the thesis is verified and justified empirically as true within reasonable degree of truthness.
Please don't misunderstand -- I was attempting to make a very specific point here: normally, objective knowledge should be independent from consensus. When Nicolaus Copernicus developed the heliocentric model, it was already "objectively true", in that it described planetary orbits in the solar system with a certain degree of accuracy, and thus allowed for reasonably accurate predictions of planetary positions.

Obviously, his model was not immediately accepted; the consensus at the time was that the geocentric model was correct. However, if one were to review the available data without any preconceptions, then it would have become clear that the heliocentric model was considerably more accurate.

That's why I support new ideas and try my best to understand them, even if others dismiss them. There were plenty of brilliant people who thought the internet would be a short-lived fad. These are some of the reasons why I don't believe in consensus; as far as I'm concerned, it's completely irrelevant.
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.

But in your approach, consensus is essential, because you're asserting an ultimate value (human well-being) as the focus of morality, which is a matter of opinion. That's why agreement is essential -- it all hinges on whether people agree with this choice or not.
All FSKs are conditioned upon consensus.
As such, the moral FSK I proposed must be based on consensus.
Note I stated the majority of inputs into my Moral FSK will be from the scientific FSK which is the most reliability with a high degree of objectivity.
For sure, it is very much higher in objectivity from the 'no objectivity' theological FSK.
You yourself have stated that we must define morality, so clearly you must agree with this assessment. But what it means is that there is no right or wrong answer until there is sufficient agreement.

So for example, I could say that well-being really isn't the most important value -- freedom is. I would rather live a miserable life in freedom, than a comfortable live in slavery. "Evil" under this definition is that which restricts freedom. We could argue about who's right and wrong for days, but that would be an exercise in futility, because values are only "true" relative to the person holding them.

It's perfectly valid to arbitrarily define a particular topic as the subject of a field of study, but because it's arbitrary, it's necessarily contingent upon consensus. In other words, if you were to call your approach something like the "science of well-being", there wouldn't be any problems.

But stating that the "science of well-being" is morality-proper is not likely to be accepted, for the aforementioned reasons. It's also not helpful, because it's simply a semantic insistence that doesn't add any clarity to the discussion. Asserting that things which impede well-being are "evil" does not clarify anything; it merely adds an emotional layer to an otherwise sober, scientific field of study.
I did not state "science of well-being" is morality-proper.
Morality-proper is merely one aspect of well-being and flourishing

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.

The document you've linked to is quite explicit regarding the fact that there is no consensus on what "evil" truly means. Instead, it explores various approaches, which is exactly my point: the only way to sensibly reason about terms like "morality" and "evil" is by recognizing that there is a multitude of lenses by which they can be explored, and it's not possible to pick one and ignore all the others, without providing a lens that accounts for all the others.
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?
hope this clarifies my position. I believe it's always easy to criticize, and much, much harder to come up with and present new ideas, which is why I respect your efforts, and my feedback is intended to be constructive. I don't think your position is free from biases and other issues, but it's clear you've done significant research and I think it's worthwhile and interesting to explore your propositions.
I try to be as objective [personal] and free from personal biases as possible and hopefully there will be greater consensus based on the heavily based empirical evidences I present.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:14 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:35 am What I proposed is obviously not Christian-like because what is fundamental to Christianity are the commands of 'Christ' and God or else to eternal hellfire.
That's certainly not everything, though. For example, Christianity holds that human life is sacred, which is a uniquely Christian belief. On this basis suicide and abortions are considered immoral from a Christian point of reference. But there is not necessarily a clear secular reason as to why these things should be considered bad from a secular point of view. For this reason, arguments that condemn things like suicide and abortions give off a Christian "smell". This isn't really a critique, just an observation.
As I had stated, Christianity and other religions are driven intuitively to align with what is inherently human nature [which they are ignorant what human nature is precisely].

Naturally as programmed via evolution, the survival of all human live [born or unborn] are critical.
If there is no 'ought-not-ness-to-abortion' then in theory the human species could go extinct.
Secularly it would be a safer bet for the human species if the 'ought-not-ness-to-abortion' is recognized as a moral fact via biology whilst not enforcing it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:35 am If you reflect carefully, you will note the Christian Moral Model is based intuitively to align with what is inherent within human nature and natural and the Moral FSK that I am proposing.
Yes, there are similarities -- but the question is whether you have a personal bias towards Christianity, one that would lead you to conclude that it aligns with human nature. Biases are tricky and difficult to avoid even for the most clear-thinking individuals, so there is a probability that some degree of bias is involved. But once again, that's not really a critique, just something to be aware of.
I was a theist but never religious.
I don't have any subjective nor emotional biasness for Christianity. Rather, rationally, Christianity as a religion with its overriding pacifist maxim is not evil-laden in contrast to the Islam.
At present, humanity would be better off if all Muslims were to convert to Christianity.
However, elsewhere I am proposing ALL religions must be weaned off in the future after alternative FOOLPROOF techniques are established to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential dilemma and its terrible cognitive dissonances.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:35 am What I proposed is not deontological which are fixed rules and commands which must be obeyed and complied with, or else there are the corresponding threat of punishments and penalties.
Not necessarily -- deontological ethics, at it's most basic, simply posits that some rules or behaviors are inherently either moral or immoral, but it's not necessarily clear how immoral things should be punished, if at all. The idea is that some behaviors should be avoided by virtue of them being inherently wrong. This actually aligns quite well with your proposition, which states that humans have certain impulses which we must regulate, presumably by virtue of them being inherently bad -- otherwise a concept such as "oughtness-not-to-kill" wouldn't be intelligible (meaning, killing must be "bad" in some way, shape or form).
The term deontological at present has as sort of ugly connotation to rules, laws from religious and other authorities.

In the wider sense, what I propose could be labelled deontological, but it is more toward 'normativity'.
However I would prefer to steer what I proposed to be in alignment with the principles [not rules] of human nature.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:35 am As I had argued the Christian Moral Model is the most and best optimal Moral Model we have at present, but it has significant limitations due to its deontological approach and other negative elements.
While it is deontological, it does provide some and certain moral-proper standards that enable to guide believers moral state towards the ideal Christ-like exemplar.
It is evident the Christian Moral Model [even pseudo] since its emergence has greatly benefited humanity in terms of lesser evil [as defined].
You disagree?
The Christian moral model is only (arguably) the "best" among the Abrahamic religions. I don't agree that Christ is an ideal role model, but I do believe that some of Christianity's ideas were beneficial to the development of humanity.
I have always qualified, the Christian Moral Model is the most optimal relative to the current phase of human evolution.
As for the best religious moral model, that would be the Buddhism Moral Model, but its proper-Model is too advance for the present majority.
The future Moral Model I proposed would be a sort of Buddhism-based Moral but without any religious elements at all, i.e. totally a secular moral FSK.
As such, what I am proposing is not a new idea but merely a modification of a >2500 years old idea [from Buddhism] to adopt to modern secular conditions.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:35 am There are Christians who commit evil acts, but they are NOT committing evil in the name of Christ or within the Constitutional maxim of Christianity which is to love all and even enemies.
No Christians will insist they killed humans or commit acts [evil] because Christ or God said so. Note the Constitution of Christianity is not the whole Bible [not OT] but merely the Gospels of Christ.
I generally agree, but all religions are based on superstitions and make-belief, and thus they all have the potential to encourage tribal and violent behavior if the conditions are just right.
It is not only religions but any grouping, large or small [mob] can trigger the evils associated with tribalism [in-group vs out-group].
What is different here is the moral [not others] elements within Christianity Constitution is overriding pacifist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:35 am What I proposed is not deontological at all but rather merely prompting humans to act naturally and spontaneously - in accordance to their human nature that is programmed evolutionarily within themselves, in their own time with some degree of seriousness and urgency.
There is no question of enforcement with punishments nor penalties except to flow to the best of one's abilities in accordance to one inherent human nature.
But that's exactly what it means for a proposition to be deontological 😊

Deontological models are defined by the assignment of moral value to behaviors or rules. "Moral value" means that they're assigned to be either good / should be followed or bad / evil / should not be followed. Punishment and such isn't an essential component.

First, you're stating: "What I proposed is [...] prompting humans to act [...]" -- this implies that a prescriptive aspect is contained within your proposition, even though it's not enforced. In other words, there are some behaviors which should be followed, and others that shouldn't (which is the entire point of using moral terminology, such as the word "evil").

Next, you say: "[...] in accordance to their human nature that is programmed evolutionarily [...]" -- which is a justification to establish the moral value of certain behaviors objectively; it's essentially another formulation of the categorical imperative.

This is affirmed by concepts such as "oughtness-not-to-kill", which identifies killing as evil-in-itself.

However, your approach also contains teleological characteristics, because you have previously agreed that there can be circumstances where it's preferable to inhibit the "oughtness-not-to-kill".

For this reason it seems to me that your approach combines deontological and consequentialist components, which I actually consider to be a good thing. But it raises the question of how this dynamic works, exactly. I get the sense that the deontological elements are variables which can be modulated on the basis of the teleological elements, i.e. "oughtness-not-to-kill" can be either moral or immoral depending on the degree to which it empowers well-being.
You missed my point with;
"What I proposed is [...] prompting humans to act [...]"

The only action I would proposed in this case is to nudge all humans to self-develop their moral competence.
Then whatever follow from a competent moral function within will be natural.

There is a difference in deliberating to act morally and being-moral naturally.

The term "teleological" also has ugly connotation as it is normally related to religion's ultimate destination of heaven or paradise.

However in terms of biology and human nature, all human organs and processes are teleological, i.e. has a purpose and the ultimate purpose to survive as long as possible till the inevitable.
See: Teleological Notions in Biology
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/
As such the biological moral function with its physical structure is teleological, but what is teleological is never to be enforced by merely to be used as an ideal target guide for moral progress.

Since there is an ideal moral target, it is obvious consequences will be involved.
This is because we need consequences as a necessity to mark milestones of moral improvements towards the ideal.
Post Reply