Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

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: 6269
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Harbal wrote: Thu Mar 02, 2023 11:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:55 am
I understand at present the concept of rightness and wrongness are the typical elements of morality, but they are equivalent to the claims of the Flat-Earthers.
But the concepts of right and wrong are what constitute morality. Without them, we no longer have morality. :?
Many moons ago, a gentleman who wanted for some reason to sell plastics as food invented the notion of Genuine American Cheese. This noxious substance could not just be called cheese for reasons of not actually being cheese.

VA performs an identical manoeuvre by replacing morality (the discussion of right and wrong and so on) with Morality-Proper. The -proper being his analogue of "Genuine American" in every case where he uses it. Morality-Proper does not discuss what morality discusses, but rather it carries something flavourless and lacking in texture but easy to produce and simpler to replicate on an industrial scale. Morality-proper is compatible with reduction to robotic instruction sets in a way that morality is not because it simply elects random opinions as knowledge on an entirely ad hoc basis.

See also "Buddhism-proper" which is a real thing that VA claims to be the master of, along with "Philosophy-proper" which is dissimilar to actual philosophy in every meaningful way, but happens top be just one more specific art at which VA is the world's greatest.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Thu Mar 02, 2023 11:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:55 am
I understand at present the concept of rightness and wrongness are the typical elements of morality, but they are equivalent to the claims of the Flat-Earthers.
But the concepts of right and wrong are what constitute morality. Without them, we no longer have morality. :?
As I had stated, the current majority of people are still stuck with the concepts of right and wrong as what constitute morality.
I have already stated, to Hitler, the genocide of Jews was 'morally right'. To Islam, the killing of non-Muslims upon the slightest threat is morally right. What is morally right to many entails killing of humans, violence, wars, and the like.
You would disagree their views, but based on your definition of 'what is morality' you have to respect what is morally right to them, thus will not do anything to correct the situation.
In this case, you are indirectly complicit to all their evil acts.

You have to understand and recognize, the function of morality is a 'Johnny comes lately' within human evolution. This is why the majority of humans are still grappling what morally really is in alignment with human nature.

There is a need for visionaries to expedite the moral progress within humanity.
I define 'what is morality' there about as 'eliminating evil to enable its related good.' We cannot eliminate evil totally, so we need to strive at least reduce it to the least optimal minimal.

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/
As such, I am proposing a Copernican Revolution and 180 degrees paradigm shift to our internal human nature of biology [macro and molecular], neuroscience, psychological, genetics, genomics and epigenetics.
I'm sorry, but I think you are dreaming of a fantassy world. :|
Before you think I am dreaming of a fantasy world, you need to ask yourself whether you have covered all that had been covered within humanity's knowledge database regarding 'what is morality' from the beginning to the present.
I strived to leave no stones unturned on issues of 'what is morality' and I believe my homework on that has covered all the critical issues plus many other fringe issues.
So, what I proposed has reasonable grounds.

Yours? what makes you think what I proposed in impossible?
Note sure if you are up to date with this, where Genetically Modified Children has already be created, born alive and living healthily, except,
  • He Jiankui created the first gene-edited children. The price was his career. And his freedom.
    https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/0 ... pr-babies/

    The world’s first genetically edited children are living happily with their parents, according to He Jiankui, the controversial scientist who created three gene-edited babies in 2018 and 2019.
    “They have a normal, peaceful and undisturbed life. This is their wish and we should respect them,” He told the South China Morning Post in an interview on Friday.
    He said he did not want to see the children being disturbed too much for the purpose of scientific research, adding that “the happiness of the children and their families should come first”.
    Link
While the above progress is held back by ethical concerns, the possibility of GM humans is already a possibility and proven.

In addition, note the trend of the current advancement in AI.

With the above, there is a possibility in future that humanity can facilitate to enable the individual[s] to self-developed in a FOOLPROOF approach in maximize the potential of their inherent moral-calling.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Thu Mar 02, 2023 11:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:55 am
I understand at present the concept of rightness and wrongness are the typical elements of morality, but they are equivalent to the claims of the Flat-Earthers.
But the concepts of right and wrong are what constitute morality. Without them, we no longer have morality. :?
Here is a view why "the concepts of right and wrong are what constitute morality" is morally corrupt.
Landau wrote:But we can say, with some assurance, that there has already been an important movement in the direction of our moral thinking.
This shift has been little noticed, but is no less significant for that.
It is a return to the language of Good and Evil.

Whatever happened to Good and Evil?
Prior to September 11th, these notions didn't have the currency they once did.
They struck many as old-fashioned, as quaint vestiges of less skeptical times.
Many preferred to give up on these concepts; others were happy to keep them, so long as the appropriate qualifications were entered.
We signaled our hesitations by declaring things right-for me; or wrong--according to my culture.
This sort of moral humility wasn't entirely unappealing.
But it was unsuited to issuing the kind of condemnations that we sought to express in the wake of the terrorists' destruction.
Those who perpetrated the attacks weren't just offending against our point of view.
They were offending against the enlightened ethic of any person with a moral conscience.
What they did was Evil.

Does that sound too strong?
It may strike you as dogmatic, as narrow-minded and parochial.
If so, here's the natural follow-up: Who am I to render such a judgment?
After all, I'm just expressing how things appear to me.
But why think that my perspective is any better than anyone else's?
I see things my way; they see things their way.
We're just different, that's all.
And we have to respect differences.
End of story.

In my view, that's a quite poor kind of story.
It's one that's often told nowadays, one that has its persuasive advocates, but one that seems to me fundamentally corrupt.
Admittedly, those who advance such a tale often do so from the best motives: intellectual modesty, tolerance, and an appreciation of cultural diversity.
But these virtues fail to underwrite the views they are meant to do, as I will try to show in the pages to come.
-Landau
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9564
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 5:48 am
As I had stated, the current majority of people are still stuck with the concepts of right and wrong as what constitute morality.
I have already stated, to Hitler, the genocide of Jews was 'morally right'. To Islam, the killing of non-Muslims upon the slightest threat is morally right. What is morally right to many entails killing of humans, violence, wars, and the like.
All you are demonstrating here is that morality is subjective opinion, yet you constantly claim morality to be objective. :?
You would disagree their views, but based on your definition of 'what is morality' you have to respect what is morally right to them, thus will not do anything to correct the situation.
In this case, you are indirectly complicit to all their evil acts.
No, I don't have to respect moral views that conflict with my own.
Yours? what makes you think what I proposed in impossible?
Note sure if you are up to date with this, where Genetically Modified Children has already be created, born alive and living healthily, except,

He Jiankui created the first gene-edited children. The price was his career. And his freedom.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/0 ... pr-babies/

The world’s first genetically edited children are living happily with their parents, according to He Jiankui, the controversial scientist who created three gene-edited babies in 2018 and 2019.
“They have a normal, peaceful and undisturbed life. This is their wish and we should respect them,” He told the South China Morning Post in an interview on Friday.
He said he did not want to see the children being disturbed too much for the purpose of scientific research, adding that “the happiness of the children and their families should come first”.
Link

While the above progress is held back by ethical concerns, the possibility of GM humans is already a possibility and proven.
Are you seriously suggesting that babies should be genetically modified to behave in a certain way? I can't believe you are proposing something so dangerously stupid.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 5:48 am
As I had stated, the current majority of people are still stuck with the concepts of right and wrong as what constitute morality.
I have already stated, to Hitler, the genocide of Jews was 'morally right'. To Islam, the killing of non-Muslims upon the slightest threat is morally right. What is morally right to many entails killing of humans, violence, wars, and the like.
All you are demonstrating here is that morality is subjective opinion, yet you constantly claim morality to be objective. :?
You missed my point.

I was referring to the majority of people [me excluded] like you who are still stuck with the concepts of right and wrong as what constitute morality.
As I posted later in another post, such a position is morally corrupt.

I believe morality is objective and has inherent objective moral standards within them that are universally applicable to ALL humans.
As such, what humanity need to do is to develop these inherent objective moral standards from their current state of moral competence.
There is no emphasis whether they are morally right or wrong.
You would disagree their views, but based on your definition of 'what is morality' you have to respect what is morally right to them, thus will not do anything to correct the situation.
In this case, you are indirectly complicit to all their evil acts.
No, I don't have to respect moral views that conflict with my own.
OK.
Even in that case, you are not acting as a universal human citizen to ensure there is moral progress because you believe there are moral rightness and wrongness.
Yours? what makes you think what I proposed in impossible?
Note sure if you are up to date with this, where Genetically Modified Children has already be created, born alive and living healthily, except,

He Jiankui created the first gene-edited children. The price was his career. And his freedom.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/0 ... pr-babies/

The world’s first genetically edited children are living happily with their parents, according to He Jiankui, the controversial scientist who created three gene-edited babies in 2018 and 2019.
“They have a normal, peaceful and undisturbed life. This is their wish and we should respect them,” He told the South China Morning Post in an interview on Friday.
He said he did not want to see the children being disturbed too much for the purpose of scientific research, adding that “the happiness of the children and their families should come first”.
Link

While the above progress is held back by ethical concerns, the possibility of GM humans is already a possibility and proven.
Are you seriously suggesting that babies should be genetically modified to behave in a certain way? I can't believe you are proposing something so dangerously stupid.
Didn't you read, the above scientist was imprisoned for performing genetic modification to humans.
Do you think I am so stupid to suggest or do it NOW such that I will go to prison for it?

The main objective of humanity is to strive to facilitate all humans to self-develop their inherent moral functions and potential to be morally competent.
There are many ways to achieve the above objective in the future [not now].

My point is, there is an option of genetic modification because it is already a possibility and proven can be done.
But if humanity were to resort to this approach in the future [not now] then, it must be approach in a FOOLPROOF condition. I am optimist this option is possible in the future [not now, maybe in 50, 75 or >100 years time].

If say, after implementing the above various options [FOOLPROOF], the results is there is ZERO [or very rare] of humans killed by humans therefrom, isn't this a morally effective action and the preferred state of affairs?

I wrote this above, you missed it?
VA wrote:With the above, there is a possibility in future that humanity can facilitate to enable the individual[s] to self-developed in a FOOLPROOF approach in maximize the potential of their inherent moral-calling.
Btw, do you understand what "FOOLPROOF" mean?
FOOLPROOF = incapable of going wrong or being misused.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9564
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:50 am
Btw, do you understand what "FOOLPROOF" mean?
FOOLPROOF = incapable of going wrong or being misused.
Yes, I do understand what foolproof means. It means you won't be involved.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8121
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Gary Childress »

Harbal wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 11:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:50 am
Btw, do you understand what "FOOLPROOF" mean?
FOOLPROOF = incapable of going wrong or being misused.
Yes, I do understand what foolproof means. It means you won't be involved.
:lol: OMG. Priceless!
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 11:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:50 am
Btw, do you understand what "FOOLPROOF" mean?
FOOLPROOF = incapable of going wrong or being misused.
Yes, I do understand what foolproof means. It means you won't be involved.
Easy way out, so ad hominem .. intellectual cowardice.
Running out of arguments?

You're a luddite;

1. a person opposed to new technology or ways of working.
"a small-minded Luddite resisting progress"
2. HISTORICAL
a member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, especially in cotton and woollen mills, that they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16).
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Mar 04, 2023 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 2:14 am
Harbal wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 11:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:50 am
Btw, do you understand what "FOOLPROOF" mean?
FOOLPROOF = incapable of going wrong or being misused.
Yes, I do understand what foolproof means. It means you won't be involved.
Easy way out, so ad hominem .. intellectual cowardice.
Running out of arguments?
It's an insult, not an ad hom. And you set the tone for the thread. From the OP...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:12 am
Since people like Peter Holmes and others as moral-facts-deniers do not believe morality is objective, which imply that they would in principle accept and condone that anyone can Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose.
That's a much heavier insult than Harbals. And it doesn't actually make any sense. You can fight against all sorts of things, based precisely on empathy, for example, which you often mention, without believing in objective morality.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Agent Smith »

So?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by iambiguous »

Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Sure, in a world in which an omniscient and omnipotent God exists, one ought not to. And that is because 1] God will know you did it and 2] with regard to most Gods, you will be punished for doing so. Either your death will end in oblivion or you will burn in Hell for all of eternity.

But, in a No God world, how on earth would mere mortals establish that objectively, universally and/or deontologically torturing a human baby [or sending six million Jews to the gas chamber] is inherently/necessarily wrong?

You might do so [for whatever personal reason] and never get caught, never get punished. It's "universally immoral" but for all practical purposes what does that mean then?

Or next month the Big One might come hurtling down to Earth and extinguish all human life. What of "universal morality" then?

Nope, it seems reasonable to me that, in the absence of God, all things can be rationalized. And, really, hasn't almost everything already been rationalized?

For example, you might not see abortion as the torture of a human baby, but others do. And it certainly results in the baby's death. But that's rationalized, right? And not only was the Holocaust rationalized it was embraced by many Nazis as nothing short of a moral crusade to rid the nation of those who were deemed unfit to live.

That's the scary part when those who insist that some behaviors must be sustained or stamped out gain political power...enabling them to act out their own moral dogmas. Maybe it's the color of your skin, or your ethnicity, or your sexual orientation, or your religion or your politics.

Just ask the moral and political objectivists among us what they themselves believe that human beings ought not to do. Who knows, it might be something that you do.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Wait a sec, the "scary part" is that people might use force to stop people torturing babies to death?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:06 pm Wait a sec, the "scary part" is that people might use force to stop people torturing babies to death?
Actually, for some, the scary part is that people are torturing babies because they were never able not to torture babies in a wholly determined universe. And others are stopping them for the same reason.

Everyone is off the hook!!

Now, let's move on to the points I raised here:
Sure, in a world in which an omniscient and omnipotent God exists, one ought not to. And that is because 1] God will know you did it and 2] with regard to most Gods, you will be punished for doing so. Either your death will end in oblivion or you will burn in Hell for all of eternity.

But, in a No God world, how on earth would mere mortals establish that objectively, universally and/or deontologically torturing a human baby [or sending six million Jews to the gas chamber] is inherently/necessarily wrong?

You might do so [for whatever personal reason] and never get caught, never get punished. It's "universally immoral" but for all practical purposes what does that mean then?

Or next month the Big One might come hurtling down to Earth and extinguish all human life. What of "universal morality" then?

Nope, it seems reasonable to me that, in the absence of God, all things can be rationalized. And, really, hasn't almost everything already been rationalized?

For example, you might not see abortion as the torture of a human baby, but others do. And it certainly results in the baby's death. But that's rationalized, right? And not only was the Holocaust rationalized it was embraced by many Nazis as nothing short of a moral crusade to rid the nation of those who were deemed unfit to live.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:06 pm Wait a sec, the "scary part" is that people might use force to stop people torturing babies to death?
Notice, as I am sure you will, that he does not respond to the point you are making. It reminds him of something. I think his posts would be a lot better if he started his opening sentences with 'Your post reminds me of the abortion issue¨ or 'your post reminds me of my thinking about dasein'. Or 'Tangent alert, I am not going to respond to your points, I will take up one of my pet peeves and copy paste some stuff from some of my threads.'
'If this or my other forum behavior seems to annoy you, it actually isn't my behavior. My arguments, in fact, are putting you in an existential crisis. You cannot possibly be annoyed by my behavior. I can rule that out. I am not at all fractured in relation to this conclusion of mine.' I never have any significant doubt about my mindreading ability. I have solved the problem of other minds. It's just determinism vs. free will and objective morality that plague me and should you also. I am however not interested in dialogue with Peter Holmes.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

Post by Agent Smith »

Long live philosophy! 8)

What's he sayin'? I didn't quite catch that.
Post Reply