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
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:29 am
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:23 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:26 am The task is how to rewire the brain of the individual to trigger moral progress within on a foolproof, natural and spontaneous basis.
How could this task be approached, exactly?
Who would have to be involved, what concrete projects could be initiated, etc.?
The principle is to identify the specific neural mechanisms and then made changes and improvement upon it to achieve the intended results, i.e. moral competence.
Through Stalinist reeducation policies that you design and openly intend to remove all the variety in human nature in order to replace with perfected robots.

This whole nonsense of human perfectibility is what Berlin warns of in the two concepts.
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: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:29 am The principle is to identify the specific neural mechanisms and then made changes and improvement upon it to achieve the intended results, i.e. moral competence.
What I'm asking is a bit different; I'm aware that there are various means to develop "skills" such as empathy, emotional intelligence, impulse control, etc., so this is understood.

The problem is that the proposed methods can only be applied by a person who is somewhere in the middle of the Dunning-Krueger curve, so to speak. Meaning: you must have a sense of how much you don't know yet, and the willingness (as well as the resources) to put effort into improving yourself.

Many -- arguably most -- people are somewhere at the left hand side of the curve when it comes to these abilities. In other words, they're quite certain that they know themselves and understand how the world works, even though objectively, they're totally wrong.

The question is therefore how to spread this knowledge. It seems to me that upper middle-class people in developed countries are already doing a "decent" job at this, because a certain required base level of economic and cultural progress is met. When it comes to lower-than-middle-class (particularly not in first-world countries), it's very difficult to convince people to be "moral" in an environment where being moral is often synonymous with being naive and exploitable. Because of this it very much smells like a first-world problem.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:29 am I have not develop my own moral FSK. What I have presented is the theory of how a credible FSK should be constructed.
So who should construct it, then? I don't think it will magically appear on its own. I have a basic idea of how you would envision it, but it feels very intangible and it's tough to imagine how it could actually be utilized to derive knowledge that is distinct from other fields and as such warrants its own FSK. Right now, we have dedicated fields such as neuro-science and evolutionary science which cover these topics, so a dedicated moral FSK seems confusing, more than anything else.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:29 am Nope, the moral FSK need not be communicated to the scientific community.
Well, but I assume it has to be accepted in the moral FSK community (which doesn't really exist yet), at the very least, no?

In other words, some people from some communities have to adopt it and utilize it in their research. Who exactly would these people be and why should they accept the moral FSK? How would it benefit their research concretely, compared to simply relying on the scientific FSK?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:29 am An objective fact, truth or knowledge is conditioned upon a specific FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK.
An objective fact, truth or knowledge is thus derived from a moral FSK.
To be credible the moral FSK major inputs must be from the scientific FSK, which must be represented by justifiable physical referents in terms of neuronal sets, etc.

The objective moral fact, e.g. ought-not-ness-to-kill-human algorithm or neuronal set is a physical thing in the brain that inhibit the killing impulse.
Falsifiability: If this neural set is damaged, e.g. as in a malignant psychopath, then he will have the potential to kill humans.
What I'm asking is how to determine what is a moral fact. In your example, you say that there are certain aspects to our brains that inhibit the impulse to kill, and you state that this is a moral fact -- as if this was already established. But you don't provide your reasoning as to how you arrive at the conclusion that it is a moral fact (which, I assume, would have to be concluded on the basis of the moral FSK).

So what constitutes a moral fact, exactly? Is it a moral fact simply because you have defined moral facts as that which pertains to regulating impulses to kill? Is this an exhaustive definition?

Would impulses pertaining to lying and deception be considered moral facts? Or those pertaining to stealing?
How about more subtle ones, such as the ability to delay gratification? Or the ability to estimate character and intentions?

My point is that our brains encompass a multitude of features, so the question is how do we differentiate between moral and non-moral ones? Where do we draw the line?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:29 am Falsifiability: If this neural set is damaged, e.g. as in a malignant psychopath, then he will have the potential to kill humans.
That's not falsifiability, that's just an impaired neural mechanism.

I'm referring to falsifiability in the scientific sense: "falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Any statement of an objective nature must be falsifiable, including even taxonomic ones. For example, a watermelon was / is thought of as a fruit, but is actually a berry. Meaning: the definition of a fruit, based on our knowledge about watermelons, falsifies they idea that a watermelon is a fruit.

So the question is: how can (for example) the statement "brain features that inhibit the impulse to kill are a moral fact" be falsified?

Just to clarify: I'm not asking whether brain features that inhibit the impulse to kill are a neurological fact -- this is obvious. But you posit that it's a moral fact, so we need an entirely different approach to falsify it, which isn't obvious to me.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:58 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:29 am The principle is to identify the specific neural mechanisms and then made changes and improvement upon it to achieve the intended results, i.e. moral competence.
What I'm asking is a bit different; I'm aware that there are various means to develop "skills" such as empathy, emotional intelligence, impulse control, etc., so this is understood.

The problem is that the proposed methods can only be applied by a person who is somewhere in the middle of the Dunning-Krueger curve, so to speak. Meaning: you must have a sense of how much you don't know yet, and the willingness (as well as the resources) to put effort into improving yourself.

Many -- arguably most -- people are somewhere at the left hand side of the curve when it comes to these abilities. In other words, they're quite certain that they know themselves and understand how the world works, even though objectively, they're totally wrong.

The question is therefore how to spread this knowledge. It seems to me that upper middle-class people in developed countries are already doing a "decent" job at this, because a certain required base level of economic and cultural progress is met. When it comes to lower-than-middle-class (particularly not in first-world countries), it's very difficult to convince people to be "moral" in an environment where being moral is often synonymous with being naive and exploitable. Because of this it very much smells like a first-world problem.
Whilst the focus here is the self-development of the individual's Moral Quotient, it is implied all other relevant life skills are also being developed and improve upon.
As such if one is at the extreme of the Dunning-Krueger curve, then, the whole package of self-development will eliminate or reduced the Dunning-Krueger state.

The fact is immorality cut across all demographics, economics status, etc.
For example, psychopathy -one negative of morality - represent 1% of the human population and it is not specific to any human category.

Thus the self-development of moral competence is a general trait of the human population regardless of various human status.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:29 am I have not develop my own moral FSK. What I have presented is the theory of how a credible FSK should be constructed.
So who should construct it, then? I don't think it will magically appear on its own. I have a basic idea of how you would envision it, but it feels very intangible and it's tough to imagine how it could actually be utilized to derive knowledge that is distinct from other fields and as such warrants its own FSK. Right now, we have dedicated fields such as neuro-science and evolutionary science which cover these topics, so a dedicated moral FSK seems confusing, more than anything else.
As I had stated the moral potential & function is innate within ALL humans but in different degrees of activeness.
As such this innate impulse has driven individuals to be 'moral' [left side of the curve] in the proto-days and eventually morality was organized into various moral FSK specific to the periods of human developments.
So, the moral FSK emerged naturally as it on its own as driven by the slow unfoldment of the moral potential and functions in relation to the degrees of human civilization development.

The moral FSK emerged initially as pseudo-moral FSK such as tribal rules, religious edicts, political laws and others.
The moral elements so far embedded in pseudo-moral FSK are not effective.

What I am proposing is the moral FSK proper where there is no enforcement of morality from external authorities [tribal council, politics, social, etc.] but rather what is morality is self-regulated spontaneously within the individual himself.

To do so, we must first recognized the inherent objective moral facts, i.e. the physical mechanisms of the inherent innate moral potential and function within the brain.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:29 am Nope, the moral FSK need not be communicated to the scientific community.
Well, but I assume it has to be accepted in the moral FSK community (which doesn't really exist yet), at the very least, no?

In other words, some people from some communities have to adopt it and utilize it in their research. Who exactly would these people be and why should they accept the moral FSK? How would it benefit their research concretely, compared to simply relying on the scientific FSK?
The point is, as stated, there are already moral FSKs [of various qualities] within human history to the present but they are pseudo-moral FSK, not moral FSK proper.

For example the theistic-Christian-moral-FSK grounded on the teachings of Christ, is intuitively right on target with the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' thus it is a pseudo-moral FSK. In a way they sort of 'guess' it correctly which aligns with the inherent features; it other words, the Christianity moral FSK [pseudo-] is based on faith rather than on verified and justified facts.
Christian are influenced to be moral [not killing humans], they will insist it is because God or Jesus command they must obey or else Hell will await them after death.

Say, if Christians in the future, state they will not kill humans because of their inherent moral functions as represented by physical facts, then, they are moving towards a moral-FSK proper re this particular moral element related to 'killing of humans'.

How the sense of morality-FSK proper to reach the masses is via education, evidence, testability and repeatability via self-development.
The moral sense and moral function are already inherent within all humans, so it is a matter of activating what is natural and not forcing anything new on individuals.
Note the analogy of the intelligence function within humanity and how it progress over the last 500 years to the present.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:29 am An objective fact, truth or knowledge is conditioned upon a specific FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK.
An objective fact, truth or knowledge is thus derived from a moral FSK.
To be credible the moral FSK major inputs must be from the scientific FSK, which must be represented by justifiable physical referents in terms of neuronal sets, etc.

The objective moral fact, e.g. ought-not-ness-to-kill-human algorithm or neuronal set is a physical thing in the brain that inhibit the killing impulse.
Falsifiability: If this neural set is damaged, e.g. as in a malignant psychopath, then he will have the potential to kill humans.
What I'm asking is how to determine what is a moral fact. In your example, you say that there are certain aspects to our brains that inhibit the impulse to kill, and you state that this is a moral fact -- as if this was already established. But you don't provide your reasoning as to how you arrive at the conclusion that it is a moral fact (which, I assume, would have to be concluded on the basis of the moral FSK).

So what constitutes a moral fact, exactly? Is it a moral fact simply because you have defined moral facts as that which pertains to regulating impulses to kill? Is this an exhaustive definition?

Would impulses pertaining to lying and deception be considered moral facts? Or those pertaining to stealing?
How about more subtle ones, such as the ability to delay gratification? Or the ability to estimate character and intentions?

My point is that our brains encompass a multitude of features, so the question is how do we differentiate between moral and non-moral ones? Where do we draw the line?
As stated, in establishing the Moral FSK [proper], we must define what is morality and what elements it cover.
A moral FSK proper must exclude virtues [honesty, charitable, prudence, grateful, integrity] which will be dealt separately within its Virtue-FSK.

For each of the moral elements, we must assign weightage of the degree of evilness.
Surely if we rank genocide at say 99/100 degree of evilness, we can easily rank say petty lying at 10/100 degree of evilness/badness and estimate what are the features in between the extremes.

Reasoning of moral facts?
We identify 'killing of humans' as a moral element.
It is evident out of the 8 billion of people, the majority of human do not have an active impulse to kill humans despite having the biological fact of a potential to kill.
It is a known fact [general accepted] that 1% of people have psychopath tendencies and a small percentage of them are malignant with an active impulse to kill humans.

It is undeniable the above features exist in the brains of the related humans as a fact which science at present has minimal knowledge of.
Since they are related to the moral FSK, there are objective moral facts awaiting discovery of their precise nature and mechanisms.
It is a matter to time that the detailed moral mechanisms will be uncovered by more advanced neurosciences.
This is how I infer the existence of objective moral facts; this is supported by various partial empirical research and findings.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:29 am Falsifiability: If this neural set is damaged, e.g. as in a malignant psychopath, then he will have the potential to kill humans.
That's not falsifiability, that's just an impaired neural mechanism.

I'm referring to falsifiability in the scientific sense: "falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Any statement of an objective nature must be falsifiable, including even taxonomic ones. For example, a watermelon was / is thought of as a fruit, but is actually a berry. Meaning: the definition of a fruit, based on our knowledge about watermelons, falsifies they idea that a watermelon is a fruit.

So the question is: how can (for example) the statement "brain features that inhibit the impulse to kill are a moral fact" be falsified?

Just to clarify: I'm not asking whether brain features that inhibit the impulse to kill are a neurological fact -- this is obvious. But you posit that it's a moral fact, so we need an entirely different approach to falsify it, which isn't obvious to me.
As stated above,
1. it is evident the majority of people do not go about killing humans while some people did kill humans throughout the history of mankind.
2. Thus there must be some physical facts in the brain of these humans that drive the killing of human and corresponding elements where people do not kill humans.
3. Since the above physical facts related to morality within a moral FSK, they are objective moral facts.

The above so evident, not sure how could I construct a falsifiable position.
Perhaps there is no need for a falsification in the above case.
I believe the eventual empirical verification and justification of the above fact via the scientific FSK then process via the moral FSK is sufficient as objective knowledge and truth.
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 »

OK, I'll try to formulate your answers in my own words, please let me know if these interpretations are fair and accurate:
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:21 am Whilst the focus here is the self-development of the individual's Moral Quotient, it is implied all other relevant life skills are also being developed and improve upon.
As such if one is at the extreme of the Dunning-Krueger curve, then, the whole package of self-development will eliminate or reduced the Dunning-Krueger state.

The fact is immorality cut across all demographics, economics status, etc.
For example, psychopathy -one negative of morality - represent 1% of the human population and it is not specific to any human category.

Thus the self-development of moral competence is a general trait of the human population regardless of various human status.
What you're saying here is that every person, in theory, has the potential to improve their moral capacity.

However, we don't currently have any means to effectively facilitate this process from the outside (maybe in the future through advancements that don't exist yet).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:21 am As I had stated the moral potential & function is innate within ALL humans but in different degrees of activeness.
As such this innate impulse has driven individuals to be 'moral' [left side of the curve] in the proto-days and eventually morality was organized into various moral FSK specific to the periods of human developments.
So, the moral FSK emerged naturally as it on its own as driven by the slow unfoldment of the moral potential and functions in relation to the degrees of human civilization development.

The moral FSK emerged initially as pseudo-moral FSK such as tribal rules, religious edicts, political laws and others.
The moral elements so far embedded in pseudo-moral FSK are not effective.

What I am proposing is the moral FSK proper where there is no enforcement of morality from external authorities [tribal council, politics, social, etc.] but rather what is morality is self-regulated spontaneously within the individual himself.

To do so, we must first recognized the inherent objective moral facts, i.e. the physical mechanisms of the inherent innate moral potential and function within the brain.
What you seem to be saying here is that we have to gain a deeper understanding of the brain functions that regulate our behavior pertaining to interactions with other living beings, such that it becomes possible to develop techniques or possibly substances or medical procedures which would enable us to enhance those natural abilities.

In this sense, it seems to me that the "moral FSK proper" is not so much a system or framework that can simply be conceptualized or formulated. Rather, it would require various technological advancements, as well as improvements in our understanding of brain functions to "emerge" someday in the future. In other words, it's not currently possible to develop a "moral FSK proper", even if there was a concerted effort.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:21 am The point is, as stated, there are already moral FSKs [of various qualities] within human history to the present but they are pseudo-moral FSK, not moral FSK proper.

For example the theistic-Christian-moral-FSK grounded on the teachings of Christ, is intuitively right on target with the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' thus it is a pseudo-moral FSK. In a way they sort of 'guess' it correctly which aligns with the inherent features; it other words, the Christianity moral FSK [pseudo-] is based on faith rather than on verified and justified facts.
Christian are influenced to be moral [not killing humans], they will insist it is because God or Jesus command they must obey or else Hell will await them after death.

Say, if Christians in the future, state they will not kill humans because of their inherent moral functions as represented by physical facts, then, they are moving towards a moral-FSK proper re this particular moral element related to 'killing of humans'.

How the sense of morality-FSK proper to reach the masses is via education, evidence, testability and repeatability via self-development.
The moral sense and moral function are already inherent within all humans, so it is a matter of activating what is natural and not forcing anything new on individuals.
Note the analogy of the intelligence function within humanity and how it progress over the last 500 years to the present.
I believe what you're saying here is that, in a very basic sense, the "moral FSK proper" is simply the acceptance that our ability to make what we call "moral" choices ought to be informed by knowledge of the neural mechanisms that guide our moral decision making processes. This means that the "moral FSK proper" is, at any point, only as developed as our understanding of those mechanisms.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:21 am As stated, in establishing the Moral FSK [proper], we must define what is morality and what elements it cover.

A moral FSK proper must exclude virtues [honesty, charitable, prudence, grateful, integrity] which will be dealt separately within its Virtue-FSK.
This would narrow it down a bit, but it's still not clear how to approach the question of what morality should entail?
What would you propose? We have to start somewhere.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:21 am For each of the moral elements, we must assign weightage of the degree of evilness.
Surely if we rank genocide at say 99/100 degree of evilness, we can easily rank say petty lying at 10/100 degree of evilness/badness and estimate what are the features in between the extremes.
What you seem to be suggesting here is that we should rely on our intuitive moral senses to classify certain actions regarding their level of "evilness". So for example through surveys, similarly to how we would attempt to gauge which facial features people find attractive or unattractive.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:21 am As stated above,
1. it is evident the majority of people do not go about killing humans while some people did kill humans throughout the history of mankind.
2. Thus there must be some physical facts in the brain of these humans that drive the killing of human and corresponding elements where people do not kill humans.
3. Since the above physical facts related to morality within a moral FSK, they are objective moral facts.

The above so evident, not sure how could I construct a falsifiable position.
Perhaps there is no need for a falsification in the above case.
I believe the eventual empirical verification and justification of the above fact via the scientific FSK then process via the moral FSK is sufficient as objective knowledge and truth.
You don't falsify observations, but rather the theories that attempt to explain them. For example, we can derive facts about the anatomy of the human eye through observation. However, this alone doesn't inform us about how the human eye came to be. For this we need another theory. Proponents of intelligent design would claim that the human eye has been "engineered" by an intelligent entity with all of its components in place (because having "half an eye" would be non-functional). In this way it's not really falsifiable, because it's not specified who that creator was and how the creation happened exactly. So there is nothing we could look for that could either confirm or refute this theory. As such, it's an argument from ignorance: it seems as if it's impossible for something as complex as the human eye to develop through random, natural processes, so it must have been designed with intent and purpose behind it by some kind of creator.

This idea can be contrasted with the theory of evolution by natural selection, which states that the human eye is the result of a very long evolutionary process. This theory can easily be falsified for example through unexplainable genetic inconsistencies or the discovery of fossils that don't fit in the predicted timeline. And yet, the more evidence is collected, the more it confirms what the theory of evolution predicts.

From what I understand, the "moral FSK proper" you propose will only become meaningful in conjunction with a moral theory. Otherwise, it's like talking about an "evolution FSK" without any kind of theory of evolution.

In this way, it's only natural that it can't be falsified, because it has no explanatory or predictive properties in the first place, since it's not actually a theory.

So to summarize:

From what I understand the moral FSK proper is simply the context in which we accept that "moral" knowledge is derived on the basis of the functions of the human brain which manage our social instincts. However, at the moment, the moral FSK proper lacks a theory of morality. As such, it can't really predict or explain anything pertaining to morality.

I'm not sure if you would agree with this summary, but it makes perfect sense to me... It explains why it seems so "obvious" from your point of view, and yet so intangible to everyone else.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:31 pm OK, I'll try to formulate your answers in my own words, please let me know if these interpretations are fair and accurate:
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:21 am Whilst the focus here is the self-development of the individual's Moral Quotient, it is implied all other relevant life skills are also being developed and improve upon.
As such if one is at the extreme of the Dunning-Krueger curve, then, the whole package of self-development will eliminate or reduced the Dunning-Krueger state.

The fact is immorality cut across all demographics, economics status, etc.
For example, psychopathy -one negative of morality - represent 1% of the human population and it is not specific to any human category.

Thus the self-development of moral competence is a general trait of the human population regardless of various human status.
What you're saying here is that every person, in theory, has the potential to improve their moral capacity.

However, we don't currently have any means to effectively facilitate this process from the outside (maybe in the future through advancements that don't exist yet).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:21 am As I had stated the moral potential & function is innate within ALL humans but in different degrees of activeness.
As such this innate impulse has driven individuals to be 'moral' [left side of the curve] in the proto-days and eventually morality was organized into various moral FSK specific to the periods of human developments.
So, the moral FSK emerged naturally as it on its own as driven by the slow unfoldment of the moral potential and functions in relation to the degrees of human civilization development.

The moral FSK emerged initially as pseudo-moral FSK such as tribal rules, religious edicts, political laws and others.
The moral elements so far embedded in pseudo-moral FSK are not effective.

What I am proposing is the moral FSK proper where there is no enforcement of morality from external authorities [tribal council, politics, social, etc.] but rather what is morality is self-regulated spontaneously within the individual himself.

To do so, we must first recognized the inherent objective moral facts, i.e. the physical mechanisms of the inherent innate moral potential and function within the brain.
What you seem to be saying here is that we have to gain a deeper understanding of the brain functions that regulate our behavior pertaining to interactions with other living beings, such that it becomes possible to develop techniques or possibly substances or medical procedures which would enable us to enhance those natural abilities.

In this sense, it seems to me that the "moral FSK proper" is not so much a system or framework that can simply be conceptualized or formulated. Rather, it would require various technological advancements, as well as improvements in our understanding of brain functions to "emerge" someday in the future. In other words, it's not currently possible to develop a "moral FSK proper", even if there was a concerted effort.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:21 am The point is, as stated, there are already moral FSKs [of various qualities] within human history to the present but they are pseudo-moral FSK, not moral FSK proper.

For example the theistic-Christian-moral-FSK grounded on the teachings of Christ, is intuitively right on target with the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' thus it is a pseudo-moral FSK. In a way they sort of 'guess' it correctly which aligns with the inherent features; it other words, the Christianity moral FSK [pseudo-] is based on faith rather than on verified and justified facts.
Christian are influenced to be moral [not killing humans], they will insist it is because God or Jesus command they must obey or else Hell will await them after death.

Say, if Christians in the future, state they will not kill humans because of their inherent moral functions as represented by physical facts, then, they are moving towards a moral-FSK proper re this particular moral element related to 'killing of humans'.

How the sense of morality-FSK proper to reach the masses is via education, evidence, testability and repeatability via self-development.
The moral sense and moral function are already inherent within all humans, so it is a matter of activating what is natural and not forcing anything new on individuals.
Note the analogy of the intelligence function within humanity and how it progress over the last 500 years to the present.
I believe what you're saying here is that, in a very basic sense, the "moral FSK proper" is simply the acceptance that our ability to make what we call "moral" choices ought to be informed by knowledge of the neural mechanisms that guide our moral decision making processes. This means that the "moral FSK proper" is, at any point, only as developed as our understanding of those mechanisms.
The above points do conform to my views.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:21 am As stated, in establishing the Moral FSK [proper], we must define what is morality and what elements it cover.

A moral FSK proper must exclude virtues [honesty, charitable, prudence, grateful, integrity] which will be dealt separately within its Virtue-FSK.
This would narrow it down a bit, but it's still not clear how to approach the question of what morality should entail?
What would you propose? We have to start somewhere.
1. Morality is defined as avoiding evil to promote good.
2. What is evil is net-negative to the survival and basic well-being of the individuals and [implied] therefrom the human species.

To establish what morality or evil entail, we can refer to the Criminal Code & Criminal Laws that are in existence [including those of the International Criminal Court] and filter to retain those are in relation to 2 above and polished to make them more refined and effective.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:21 am For each of the moral elements, we must assign weightage of the degree of evilness.
Surely if we rank genocide at say 99/100 degree of evilness, we can easily rank say petty lying at 10/100 degree of evilness/badness and estimate what are the features in between the extremes.
What you seem to be suggesting here is that we should rely on our intuitive moral senses to classify certain actions regarding their level of "evilness". So for example through surveys, similarly to how we would attempt to gauge which facial features people find attractive or unattractive.
Basically it is intuitive but can be objectively verified and justified empirically & scientifically, e.g. pains and suffering with reference to brain imagings and neural activities.

Fortunately we already have intuitive assessment of weightages, i.e. the types and degrees of punishments accorded in reference to degrees of criminality and their related degree of punishments in those criminal laws as mentioned above.
From those we can draft a rough guide of weightages and polished from there.

Since what is deemed evil as an objective moral fact [as verified and justified within the moral FSK] and ONLY to be used as a standard and guide, there is no need for high precision.

Say if I rate genocide with potential of the extinction of the human species [using WMDs] at 99/100 [one extreme], and petty evils at 5/100 [other extreme] we can easily estimate the in-betweens of the curve.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:21 am As stated above,
1. it is evident the majority of people do not go about killing humans while some people did kill humans throughout the history of mankind.
2. Thus there must be some physical facts in the brain of these humans that drive the killing of human and corresponding elements where people do not kill humans.
3. Since the above physical facts related to morality within a moral FSK, they are objective moral facts.

The above so evident, not sure how could I construct a falsifiable position.
Perhaps there is no need for a falsification in the above case.
I believe the eventual empirical verification and justification of the above fact via the scientific FSK then process via the moral FSK is sufficient as objective knowledge and truth.
You don't falsify observations, but rather the theories that attempt to explain them. For example, we can derive facts about the anatomy of the human eye through observation. However, this alone doesn't inform us about how the human eye came to be. For this we need another theory. Proponents of intelligent design would claim that the human eye has been "engineered" by an intelligent entity with all of its components in place (because having "half an eye" would be non-functional). In this way it's not really falsifiable, because it's not specified who that creator was and how the creation happened exactly. So there is nothing we could look for that could either confirm or refute this theory. As such, it's an argument from ignorance: it seems as if it's impossible for something as complex as the human eye to develop through random, natural processes, so it must have been designed with intent and purpose behind it by some kind of creator.

This idea can be contrasted with the theory of evolution by natural selection, which states that the human eye is the result of a very long evolutionary process. This theory can easily be falsified for example through unexplainable genetic inconsistencies or the discovery of fossils that don't fit in the predicted timeline. And yet, the more evidence is collected, the more it confirms what the theory of evolution predicts.

From what I understand, the "moral FSK proper" you propose will only become meaningful in conjunction with a moral theory. Otherwise, it's like talking about an "evolution FSK" without any kind of theory of evolution.

In this way, it's only natural that it can't be falsified, because it has no explanatory or predictive properties in the first place, since it's not actually a theory.

So to summarize:

From what I understand the moral FSK proper is simply the context in which we accept that "moral" knowledge is derived on the basis of the functions of the human brain which manage our social instincts. However, at the moment, the moral FSK proper lacks a theory of morality. As such, it can't really predict or explain anything pertaining to morality.

I'm not sure if you would agree with this summary, but it makes perfect sense to me... It explains why it seems so "obvious" from your point of view, and yet so intangible to everyone else.
I don't see that it is imperative for the need of a theory to establish every FSK-proper.
Rather it is the established FSK that generate theories, e.g. the scientific FSK generate scientific theories.

What is critical for a FSK proper is it must be grounded on a credible Constitution that stipulate it Vision, Mission, objectives, principles, assumptions, limitations, processes, conditions of compliances, etc. just like those of the scientific FSK.

To be credible the outputs of the FSK-proper must be objective and have high utilities values, e.g. the scientific FSK or the economic FSK.

As such, the moral FSK-proper to have high credibility qualification must have features and qualities that are as closed as possible to the scientific FSK [the standard bearer].
In addition, I had stated the majority of inputs in the FSKs are from the credible scientific FSK.

Note for example the astronomy FSK [constituted by International Astronomical Union (IAU)] rely heavily on the Physics and Chemistry FSK to generate its own astronomical facts which itself is not highly credible.
For example, Pluto was redefined as a dwarf planet from its earlier status as a Planet.
In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) formally redefined the term planet to exclude dwarf planets such as Pluto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
Even the scientific FSK as the most reliable do not claim perfection nor certainty.

I am optimistic, with the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, in the future, humanity will be able to establish a reliable moral FSK proper by continually improving on the existing moral FSKs.
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by reasonvemotion »

Neuroscientific (Neurobiological Facts) studies have identified the role of the frontal lobe in contributing to personality, emotions, judgment, problem solving, abstract thought, attention, and planning........ but we are both born and made with these behaviors and have the ability to choose which direction we take.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-4nzmdYQTA

In this video, Kuklinski asks the psychologist about himself, "What do you think about me? Anything good, bad or indifferent?"

The psychologist analyzes Kuklinski and comes up with multiple thoughts as to why Kuklinski was a successful contract killer and why also some people who have this lack of fear choose instead to perhaps risk themselves to protect the world and a lot of this has to do with how their parents raised them.

Veritas Aequitas
wrote
I am optimistic, with the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, in the future, humanity will be able to establish a reliable moral FSK proper by continually improving on the existing moral FSKs.
This way too clinical.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

reasonvemotion wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:31 am Neuroscientific (Neurobiological Facts) studies have identified the role of the frontal lobe in contributing to personality, emotions, judgment, problem solving, abstract thought, attention, and planning........ but we are both born and made with these behaviors and have the ability to choose which direction we take.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-4nzmdYQTA

In this video, Kuklinski asks the psychologist about himself, "What do you think about me? Anything good, bad or indifferent?"

The psychologist analyzes Kuklinski and comes up with multiple thoughts as to why Kuklinski was a successful contract killer and why also some people who have this lack of fear choose instead to perhaps risk themselves to protect the world and a lot of this has to do with how their parents raised them.

Veritas Aequitas
wrote
I am optimistic, with the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, in the future, humanity will be able to establish a reliable moral FSK proper by continually improving on the existing moral FSKs.
This way too clinical.
I listened to that video.
Park Dietz's explanation is too superficial relative to the existing knowledge we have at present.

Obviously there are nature and nurture factors.
Park Dietz mentioned 'genetics' but what is more crucial are the epigenetics factor that happened in the mother's womb during fetal development, e.g. stress levels, oxidative stress, health conditions, etc.
There are 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses. Just imagine the number of possible combinations and wrong connections can happen due to the conditions of the mother and in her womb.

In addition, he mentioned genetics but not the specific genes within the DNA.

What do you mean by 'too clinical'?
Isn't it the more precise we are, the better we will understand the conditions of the problems.

Park Dietz mentioned Kuklinski's fearlessness but no further details.
Note this image which show why a person is fearless.
Honnold climbed a 3000 feet of vertical clifts without ropes at all. I had sweating palms merely watching him climbing without ropes.

Image
ABSENCE OF FEAR: Scans compare Honnold’s brain (left) with a control subject’s (right), a rock climber of a similar age. Crosshairs mark the amygdala, a group of nuclei involved in generating fear. As both climbers look at the same arousing images, the control subject’s amygdala glows, while Honnold’s remains inert, showing no activity whatsoever.
https://nautil.us/the-strange-brain-of- ... er-236051/

If they take images of Kuklinski's brain, he is likely to have similar patterns in the amydala.
But being a killer, Kuklinski' would have other differences in his neural connections that drove him to kill without remorse.

The above brain images which are relatively more advance than Park Dietz's analysis and explanations, are still very crude.
What is needed is for scientists to nail the root causes to the exact and specific neurons involved and if genes, then the specific genes within the DNA.

I am optimistic we can do that in the future.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Peter Holmes »

Physics is credible because it describes reality in testable ways. So physics theories have predictive power.

Morality is nothing like physics, and never can be. It doesn't even try to describe reality as it is - only as some aspects of it should be. And it has no predictive power whatsoever. There is no moral knowledge, because there's nothing to be known.

Finding out why humans behave as they do - and how to manipulate them to behave in certain ways - can tell us nothing about the way humans ought to behave. And it's dangerously delusional to think it can.
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by reasonvemotion »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Park Dietz mentioned 'genetics' but what is more crucial are the epigenetics factor that happened in the mother's womb during fetal development, e.g. stress levels, oxidative stress, health conditions, etc.
There are 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses. Just imagine the number of possible combinations and wrong connections can happen due to the conditions of the mother and in her womb.
"She was born at the gates of a Concentration Camp, she weighed 3 lbs when born and her mother was only 5 stone when pregnant."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQumoBihkEQ

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
The brain images which are relatively more advance than Park Dietz's analysis and explanations, are still very crude.
Park Dietz (MD and MPH '75, PhD '84) is a most prominent and accomplished forensic psychiatrist. As a researcher, consultant, and expert witness, he applies psychiatric knowledge to legal problems and issues of crime and public safety. He has testified as an expert witness at the murder trials of John Hinckley Jr., Jeffrey Dahmer, Betty Broderick, Arthur Shawcross, and Joel Rifkin. He has consulted for the FBI, the CIA, U.S. attorneys general offices from Miami to Honolulu, the federal Drug Enforcement Agency, the U.S. military services, the Department of Justice, and more than 120 corporations. He has investigated the behavior of serial killers, family annihilators, sexual sadists, celebrity stalkers, product tamperers, cannibals, necro-philiacs, and the sort of folks who show up at a workplace one day and gun down five people with an assault rifle. 

Veritas Aequitas
wrote:
What is needed is for scientists to nail the root causes to the exact and specific neurons involved and if genes, then the specific genes within the DNA.I am optimistic we can do that in the future.
The human soul has a lot of dark, infested alleyways where technology cannot walk down.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

reasonvemotion wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:25 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Park Dietz mentioned 'genetics' but what is more crucial are the epigenetics factor that happened in the mother's womb during fetal development, e.g. stress levels, oxidative stress, health conditions, etc.
There are 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses. Just imagine the number of possible combinations and wrong connections can happen due to the conditions of the mother and in her womb.
"She was born at the gates of a Concentration Camp, she weighed 3 lbs when born and her mother was only 5 stone when pregnant."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQumoBihkEQ

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
The brain images which are relatively more advance than Park Dietz's analysis and explanations, are still very crude.
Park Dietz (MD and MPH '75, PhD '84) is a most prominent and accomplished forensic psychiatrist. As a researcher, consultant, and expert witness, he applies psychiatric knowledge to legal problems and issues of crime and public safety. He has testified as an expert witness at the murder trials of John Hinckley Jr., Jeffrey Dahmer, Betty Broderick, Arthur Shawcross, and Joel Rifkin. He has consulted for the FBI, the CIA, U.S. attorneys general offices from Miami to Honolulu, the federal Drug Enforcement Agency, the U.S. military services, the Department of Justice, and more than 120 corporations. He has investigated the behavior of serial killers, family annihilators, sexual sadists, celebrity stalkers, product tamperers, cannibals, necro-philiacs, and the sort of folks who show up at a workplace one day and gun down five people with an assault rifle. 

Veritas Aequitas
wrote:
What is needed is for scientists to nail the root causes to the exact and specific neurons involved and if genes, then the specific genes within the DNA.I am optimistic we can do that in the future.
The human soul has a lot of dark, infested alleyways where technology cannot walk down.
If you were to do extensive research to know your own nature, i.e. within the brain's 100 billion neurons with up to 10,000 connectors plus the genes within your DNA, then you will likely be more optimistic than your current state of pessimism.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:12 am Physics is credible because it describes reality in testable ways. So physics theories have predictive power.

Morality is nothing like physics, and never can be. It doesn't even try to describe reality as it is - only as some aspects of it should be. And it has no predictive power whatsoever. There is no moral knowledge, because there's nothing to be known.

Finding out why humans behave as they do - and how to manipulate them to behave in certain ways - can tell us nothing about the way humans ought to behave. And it's dangerously delusional to think it can.
How come you are so ignorant?

It is so obvious humans are a moral animal.
It is human nature to deal with moral matters.
That is why we have a Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
What is human nature is contained within the physical human body and self, critically the brain.

If it is human nature to express moral matters [feelings, thoughts, judgments and beliefs], then they must arise from origins which are from the physical body and brain.
These physical matter of fact within the body and brain are the objective moral facts, NOT their expression of feelings, thoughts, judgment and beliefs.

Like scientific facts, these objective moral facts are empirically verifiable, justifiable testable and repeatable.
Even at present we can test the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' inhibitor algorithm on a black box basis. It is evident we can turn a goody-two-shoes into a maniac killer or suicide bomber via brainwashing.
It is just a matter of time, when neuroscience can uncover the precise neural correlates that represent this 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' inhibitor algorithm.

Note the objective of science, in this case neuroscience, is merely to know, i.e. establish knowledge.
It is up to other FSKs enabling their own FSK-facts, e.g. technologies adopting scientific knowledge to produce utilities for the progress of humanity.
For example, a rocket capable of going to the moon is a fact, but this factual rocket emerged from a convergence of a rocket-FSK adopting multidisciplinary facts, e.g. science, management, economics, human resources, philosophy, etc.

In a similar manner whatever facts relevant for morality will be adopted by the moral FSK to enable its respective objective moral facts. QED!
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:21 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:12 am Physics is credible because it describes reality in testable ways. So physics theories have predictive power.

Morality is nothing like physics, and never can be. It doesn't even try to describe reality as it is - only as some aspects of it should be. And it has no predictive power whatsoever. There is no moral knowledge, because there's nothing to be known.

Finding out why humans behave as they do - and how to manipulate them to behave in certain ways - can tell us nothing about the way humans ought to behave. And it's dangerously delusional to think it can.
How come you are so ignorant?

It is so obvious humans are a moral animal.
It is human nature to deal with moral matters.
That is why we have a Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
What is human nature is contained within the physical human body and self, critically the brain.

If it is human nature to express moral matters [feelings, thoughts, judgments and beliefs], then they must arise from origins which are from the physical body and brain.
These physical matter of fact within the body and brain are the objective moral facts, NOT their expression of feelings, thoughts, judgment and beliefs.

Like scientific facts, these objective moral facts are empirically verifiable, justifiable testable and repeatable.
Even at present we can test the 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' inhibitor algorithm on a black box basis. It is evident we can turn a goody-two-shoes into a maniac killer or suicide bomber via brainwashing.
It is just a matter of time, when neuroscience can uncover the precise neural correlates that represent this 'ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans' inhibitor algorithm.

Note the objective of science, in this case neuroscience, is merely to know, i.e. establish knowledge.
It is up to other FSKs enabling their own FSK-facts, e.g. technologies adopting scientific knowledge to produce utilities for the progress of humanity.
For example, a rocket capable of going to the moon is a fact, but this factual rocket emerged from a convergence of a rocket-FSK adopting multidisciplinary facts, e.g. science, management, economics, human resources, philosophy, etc.

In a similar manner whatever facts relevant for morality will be adopted by the moral FSK to enable its respective objective moral facts. QED!
Put your thinking hat on, and try really, really hard to understand this. To repeat:

Finding out why humans behave as they do can tell us nothing about the way humans ought to behave.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:21 am It is so obvious humans are a moral animal.
Could you define 'moral' in this sentence? It could mean humans act morally, according to you. It could mean they come up with morals. It could mean they tend to think of behavior and interpersonal relations in terms of morals.
What did you mean?
It is human nature to deal with moral matters.
To think in those terms, yes.
That is why we have a Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
We also have philosophies of deities.
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 Jan 30, 2023 10:40 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:21 am It is so obvious humans are a moral animal.
Could you define 'moral' in this sentence? It could mean humans act morally, according to you. It could mean they come up with morals. It could mean they tend to think of behavior and interpersonal relations in terms of morals.
What did you mean?
Perhaps it'll help to formulate it in a different "style": as far as I understand, VA believes that what is "moral" should be derived on the basis of a "morality FSK", the exact details of which are to be determined through further research and advancements in the study of morality. This "morality FSK" can include various sources (meaning other FSK's), such as biology, neurology, sociology, psychology, etc.

For example, we can conduct studies to determine what various groups of people consider to be moral based on behavior and existing laws and norms and such. These would become "moral facts" from the sociology FSK. We can examine the behavior of people (and animals) to determine facts about our moral intuitions (empathy, reciprocity, etc.). We can look at biology and the general tendencies of living organisms, which can be universally observed to struggle towards surviving and reproducing (what VA calls "will-to-live"). This would become a moral fact from the biology FSK. Then we can look at neural mechanisms which function to promote our abilities to coexist and grow as a species (i.e. mirror neurons). These would become facts from the neurology FSK, etc.

So it's not so much about determining moral rules and norms and such. Rather, it's about discovering factors that contribute to the functionality and progress of humans and humanity as a whole.

In other words, it's not something that would fit inside of any of the existing prescriptive approaches to morality, but rather it's more like a scientist (perhaps without a philosophical background) would approach it. For this reason it's very confusing for philosophically-minded people.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Iwannaplato »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:54 am Perhaps it'll help to formulate it in a different "style": as far as I understand, VA believes that what is "moral" should be derived on the basis of a "morality FSK", the exact details of which are to be determined through further research and advancements in the study of morality. This "morality FSK" can include various sources (meaning other FSK's), such as biology, neurology, sociology, psychology, etc.
Yes, I've understood that.
For example, we can conduct studies to determine what various groups of people consider to be moral based on behavior and existing laws and norms and such. These would become "moral facts" from the sociology FSK. We can examine the behavior of people (and animals) to determine facts about our moral intuitions (empathy, reciprocity, etc.).

Sure, and we do those things. Even there though, I think one needs to be careful about what one means by moral as an adjective. Humans think in terms of morals. Things we think need not be factual. That we think that way may be factual. Humans tend to believe in God. I bring this up because VA is an atheist. That humans this this way doesn't mean that God exist. Nor that morals exist in the traditional humans should or ought to way. They exist in that humans tend to have them.

We can look at biology and the general tendencies of living organisms, which can be universally observed to struggle towards surviving and reproducing (what VA calls "will-to-live"). This would become a moral fact from the biology FSK.
That sounds like a behavioral fact.
Then we can look at neural mechanisms which function to promote our abilities to coexist and grow as a species (i.e. mirror neurons). These would become facts from the neurology FSK, etc.

So it's not so much about determining moral rules and norms and such. Rather, it's about discovering factors that contribute to the functionality and progress of humans and humanity as a whole.
The problem with this interpretation of his position is that he sees, for example, mirror neurons which produce empathy. He uses this to support that ought-not-to-killness is a moral fact. On the other hand he does not talk about the parts of the brain that cause aggression and call oughtness-not-to-kill as something we should enhance. Neither one of these parts of the brain is a moral fact, they are facts about brains. Adn these facts affect, yes, how we think about morals. We can certainly come up with facts about morals, but not moral facts.

IOW he cherry picks parts of the brain to support a morality (one, at this level of abstraction, I would support also.) But he supports is as showing an objective morality. It doesn't really matter if he is thinking in terms of norms - which I think it is obvious he is, since he repeatedly talks about the oughtness of not killing - but what is talking about is not objective morality. It is objective tendencies to view morality in us. Amongst other tendencies. Which ones he chooses to focus on reflect his morality, not moral facts.
In other words, it's not something that would fit inside of any of the existing prescriptive approaches to morality, but rather it's more like a scientist (perhaps without a philosophical background) would approach it. For this reason it's very confusing for philosophically-minded people.
I'm really not confused by this. I do have a background in science, part of it, but more that when he uses philosophical terms, he uses them in ways that are not supported by his arguments. When he uses scientific terms, he also is often confused. English is not his first language - and while he is extremely good in English, I think he often misses nuances. How much that is a problem, I don't know.

IOW above you are assuming that people interested in philosophy only see things in terms of deontology (an accusation he ofte makes), I think you are incorrect.

If he titled his thread, From facts about Brains to Facts about Human morals, that would be a different can of beans. I think that's a perfectly fine way to come up with ideas about where our morals come from or

I think he often, but not always falls under Virtue ethics which
is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism).
IOW he wants to enhance the character of people, via technology, so that the parts of the brain that enhance empathy are stronger. Then the behavior will tend to sort itself out without rules to 'be nice to people'. This has been pointed out to him long ago.

And, of course, this is a valid option for looking at ethics and morals. But he seems to think he can just assume that oughtness to not kill is the one we should enhance. That his version of moral realism had demonstrated this because there are mirror neurons. But it hasn't.

It might be one we, via consensus or democratic means, agree we want. But that does not make it a moral fact. No more than enhancing the aggressive parts of the brain to create less empathetic (or more noble, Viking warrior, or corporate leader) types is a moral fact.
Post Reply