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

Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Many people consider gender transition to be a moral issue. 99% of people in a society do not try to undergo a gender transition. Does that mean gender transitions are objectively immoral?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

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

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:17 am Many people consider gender transition to be a moral issue. 99% of people in a society do not try to undergo a gender transition. Does that mean gender transitions are objectively immoral?
and was there a Oughtness Not to Accept Gayness and ostracize/punish/kill Them objective fact in humans until very recent times. Was it objectively correct to hate gays up until a certain date and then it beccame objectively less right, then it became perhaps wrong, then it became more clearly objectively wrong, but only in some countries?

And most importantly what did the quarks have to say about gayness in the Middle Ages.
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 »

Are we discussin' moral relativism? It sure looks like we are. The logic of the matter implies both a yes and no to the question.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:09 am It all just seems like begging the question to me.

And if it's only true within one particular FSK, that means it's not true in some other fsk.

And I still have no idea why it matters that most people don't do it. Is morality a democracy?
Seems? you need to be more precise.

If is true within one particular FSK, it may or may not be true in some other FSK but the degrees of truth and objectivity may be different.
For example in the common and conventional sense FSK, the Earth is round and that is even true within some scientific FSKs when taken generally.
But is a more precise astronomical FSK, the more truer shape of the Earth is ellipsoid.

Why most people don't do it is because they have been programmed with a inhibitor not to torture human babies to death for pleasure.
The inherent neural program is a fact existing and represented by physical neurons, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.

Here is clue [there are more neuro-psychological elements to it];
There are deep psychological reasons why humans find babies of all species so cute. Scientists believe that the powerful nurturing instinct we have for our own children spills over into an affection for anything that even loosely resembles them.
https://www.bbcearth.com/news/the-code-for-cuteness
These deep psychological reasons are facts represented by by physical neurons, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.
And I still have no idea ...
Reflect on and consider whether you are ignorant [have not done extensive research] of the fullness of advanced scientific knowledge to date ..
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:17 am Many people consider gender transition to be a moral issue. 99% of people in a society do not try to undergo a gender transition. Does that mean gender transitions are objectively immoral?
Generally, gender transitions in principle is objectively immoral.

But as I had stated, whatever is a moral fact as conditioned to the moral-FSK must not be enforced as laws at all.
However, humanity must adopt such a moral fact as a VISION and guide only.

Therefrom humanity must research to understand the precise root causes of gender transitions and its mechanisms to find out whether the root causes can be resolved.
Gender transition also entails load of stress and sufferings.

If say, because we are determined and found that gender transitions is due to merely eating one type of food-X by the mother during pregnancy, then we can advise all mothers to avoid food-X to avoid gender confusions and therefrom all the related stress and sufferings.
Or it could be due to a one-letter code in a certain gene, then editing [FOOLPROOF] that DNA letter [in 100 years time] will prevent the urge for gender transition.

My point is we should not surrender to the gender transitions before we fully understand the precise root causes.

Gender transitions in principle is objectively immoral, thus 'evil' [by my definition]. However the degree of evilness of gender transition [since no issues of direct fatalities] is very low, as such we need NOT give it serious attentions at present.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

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

Post by Flannel Jesus »

I think this entire approach is incredibly weak. I don't accept that "objective morality" is consistent with the idea of basing it on what most people do or don't do - neither does iwaanaplato, apparently. That's the opposite of objective. That makes morality some sort of democratic system - it's just a popularity contest at that point.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age »

'Ought' human babies be killed WITHOUT torture? Or 'ought' this NOT be done also?

If the latter, then WHY use the 'torture' word above?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
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: Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:12 am Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose?
Would it be okay to torture Peter Holmes to death for pleasure?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:14 am I think this entire approach is incredibly weak. I don't accept that "objective morality" is consistent with the idea of basing it on what most people do or don't do - neither does iwaanaplato, apparently. That's the opposite of objective. That makes morality some sort of democratic system - it's just a popularity contest at that point.
You missed my point.
We know a majority consensus, e.g. the Flat-Earthers view, do not represent the truth of reality with high objectivity.

What is significant on the measurement of degrees of objectivity is the credibility and reliability of the FSK the specific fact is grounded upon.

For example, the majority of humans -80% are theists do not accept the theory of the Big Bang.
So, perhaps approximately 15% of humans accept the Big Bang Theory; but the BB Theory has a reasonable degree of objectivity because it is grounded on the science-Physics FSK which has a higher degree of credibility and reliability.

Thus objectivity is not based on a majority consensus but more significantly on the credibility and reliability of the FSK it is grounded on.

Where there is a majority consensus, then that would be an added bonus to the degree of objectivity of a FSK-conditioned fact.

In my case, I claimed there is majority consensus, but this is not sufficient to claim high objectivity.
Given my claim is analogous to the given example that can be justified and verified by the science-biology FSK, my claim can be verified and justified by the science-biology FSK. In this case my claim will have a science-biology FSK grounding.
Thereafter, my claim will be subjected to the moral FSK [supposedly credible] to enable a moral fact.

I have given an analogy of a legal fact.
If X is convicted as a murderer based heavily on DNA evidence from a scientific-genomic-FSK, then that is a legal fact conditioned upon a legal FSK, conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
Similarly a moral fact can be grounded on a scientific-biology fact within a credible moral FSK.
Since morality is grounded on a moral FSK [collective of subjects - so, objective], morality is objective.

When we claim 'Morality is Objective' it means humanity will have objective moral grounds to enable individuals [in the future, not now] to self-develop their moral competence [moral quotient] to the extent ALL [if not nearly ALL] humans will not have any tendency to torture babies to death for pleasure, in general no tendency to kill humans at all or commit any act of evil [as defined].
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
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: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:11 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:14 am I think this entire approach is incredibly weak. I don't accept that "objective morality" is consistent with the idea of basing it on what most people do or don't do - neither does iwaanaplato, apparently. That's the opposite of objective. That makes morality some sort of democratic system - it's just a popularity contest at that point.
You missed my point.
We know a majority consensus, e.g. the Flat-Earthers view, do not represent the truth of reality with high objectivity.

What is significant on the measurement of degrees of objectivity is the credibility and reliability of the FSK the specific fact is grounded upon.

For example, the majority of humans -80% are theists do not accept the theory of the Big Bang.
So, perhaps approximately 15% of humans accept the Big Bang Theory; but the BB Theory has a reasonable degree of objectivity because it is grounded on the science-Physics FSK which has a higher degree of credibility and reliability.

Thus objectivity is not based on a majority consensus but more significantly on the credibility and reliability of the FSK it is grounded on.

Where there is a majority consensus, then that would be an added bonus to the degree of objectivity of a FSK-conditioned fact.

In my case, I claimed there is majority consensus, but this is not sufficient to claim high objectivity.
Given my claim is analogous to the given example that can be justified and verified by the science-biology FSK, my claim can be verified and justified by the science-biology FSK. In this case my claim will have a science-biology FSK grounding.
Thereafter, my claim will be subjected to the moral FSK [supposedly credible] to enable a moral fact.

I have given an analogy of a legal fact.
If X is convicted as a murderer based heavily on DNA evidence from a scientific-genomic-FSK, then that is a legal fact conditioned upon a legal FSK, conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
Similarly a moral fact can be grounded on a scientific-biology fact within a credible moral FSK.
Since morality is grounded on a moral FSK [collective of subjects - so, objective], morality is objective.

When we claim 'Morality is Objective' it means humanity will have objective moral grounds to enable individuals [in the future, not now] to self-develop their moral competence [moral quotient] to the extent ALL [if not nearly ALL] humans will not have any tendency to torture babies to death for pleasure, in general no tendency to kill humans at all or commit any act of evil [as defined].
This is more like the ramblings of the bloke down the pub after a few pints than philosophy. :|
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:12 am Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose?
Would it be okay to torture Peter Holmes to death for pleasure?
Definitely not for me based on my moral principles.

But people like Peter Holmes will leave room for other people who think it is morally right to torture him [of his future generations] to death for pleasure.

On the other hand,
I believe, in ALL humans there is an inherent "ought-not-ness to torture humans" neural inhibitors in various degrees of activeness.
Since this is a biological fact, thus a moral fact, I will strive to ensure from now onward to influence ALL humans to self-develop this neural inhibitor to ensure in the future no humans will torture other humans in the future [too late now].

At present I have sufficient knowledge to understand and know my vision is a possibility in the future, in 50, 75, >100 years' time, for the possibility is merely a matter of time.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:11 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:14 am I think this entire approach is incredibly weak. I don't accept that "objective morality" is consistent with the idea of basing it on what most people do or don't do - neither does iwaanaplato, apparently. That's the opposite of objective. That makes morality some sort of democratic system - it's just a popularity contest at that point.
You missed my point.
We know a majority consensus, e.g. the Flat-Earthers view, do not represent the truth of reality with high objectivity.

What is significant on the measurement of degrees of objectivity is the credibility and reliability of the FSK the specific fact is grounded upon.

For example, the majority of humans -80% are theists do not accept the theory of the Big Bang.
So, perhaps approximately 15% of humans accept the Big Bang Theory; but the BB Theory has a reasonable degree of objectivity because it is grounded on the science-Physics FSK which has a higher degree of credibility and reliability.

Thus objectivity is not based on a majority consensus but more significantly on the credibility and reliability of the FSK it is grounded on.

Where there is a majority consensus, then that would be an added bonus to the degree of objectivity of a FSK-conditioned fact.

In my case, I claimed there is majority consensus, but this is not sufficient to claim high objectivity.
Given my claim is analogous to the given example that can be justified and verified by the science-biology FSK, my claim can be verified and justified by the science-biology FSK. In this case my claim will have a science-biology FSK grounding.
Thereafter, my claim will be subjected to the moral FSK [supposedly credible] to enable a moral fact.

I have given an analogy of a legal fact.
If X is convicted as a murderer based heavily on DNA evidence from a scientific-genomic-FSK, then that is a legal fact conditioned upon a legal FSK, conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
Similarly a moral fact can be grounded on a scientific-biology fact within a credible moral FSK.
Since morality is grounded on a moral FSK [collective of subjects - so, objective], morality is objective.

When we claim 'Morality is Objective' it means humanity will have objective moral grounds to enable individuals [in the future, not now] to self-develop their moral competence [moral quotient] to the extent ALL [if not nearly ALL] humans will not have any tendency to torture babies to death for pleasure, in general no tendency to kill humans at all or commit any act of evil [as defined].
This is more like the ramblings of the bloke down the pub after a few pints than philosophy. :|
Seems like you are the one who wrote the above after a few pints by the obvious fact you are merely capable of giving one liners than valid and sound arguments.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

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

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:30 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2023 11:23 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:12 am Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose?

Baby: a very young child, especially one that has not yet begun to walk or talk:

I believe;
-there is an inherent Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death within all humans, i.e. universal. [A]
-this A can be verified to physical elements in the brain in terms of neurons, neural algorithm, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.
-it is evident 99.99% of humans do not torture human babies to death.
-when deliberated within a moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] this [A] is a moral fact that is objective.
-therefore Morality is objective.

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.
To them there is no such objective moral fact such as "the Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever reasons."

See Peter Holmes' objection to objective moral facts here;
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

Views?
This is the best you can do?
This is not objective in any meaningful sense.
What you can conclude is that you may be able to get most people to agree with this absurd and extreme case.

But since this is not a matter of morality it is puzzling why you think this allows such a conclusion.
There is no specific law pertaining to this act for the simple reason that it is not an issue.
This is just a poor appeal to emotion.
But you will not get all people to agree to this.
There is no doubt morality is a very common and significant human issue.
This does not support your conclusion.

Since you believe,
"Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose"
is not a moral issue,
in that case you condone such acts?
Depends on many things.
You are really deranged and worst than an 'animal' and should be checked into a lunatic asylum.
This does not support your conclusion.

The above is covered in Laws on Violence against Children.
How can you be so ignorant [not surprising anyway] there is no laws covering such a horrendous crime?
Legal Laws are related to politics not morality.
This does not support your conclusion.

With morality-proper, humanity strive to develop the natural objectgive "Ought-Not-ness to Torture Human Babies to Death" to the extent such that the inherent "oughtness-to-kill" is inhibited and modulated naturally without any need for external enforcements like legal laws.
Objectgive?
Yeah.
It's really Objectgive.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
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: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:24 am
I believe, in ALL humans there is an inherent "ought-not-ness to torture humans" neural inhibitors in various degrees of activeness.
Since this is a biological fact, thus a moral fact, I will strive to ensure from now onward to influence ALL humans to self-develop this neural inhibitor to ensure in the future no humans will torture other humans in the future [too late now].

At present I have sufficient knowledge to understand and know my vision is a possibility in the future, in 50, 75, >100 years' time, for the possibility is merely a matter of time.
You seem to have an unrealistic view of what human beings are.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
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: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:27 am
Harbal wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:20 am
This is more like the ramblings of the bloke down the pub after a few pints than philosophy. :|
Seems like you are the one who wrote the above after a few pints by the obvious fact you are merely capable of giving one liners than valid and sound arguments.
I think it would be foolish to set about compiling a "sound" argument against what you have to say about morality, because your reasoning is so muddled, and your conclusions so misplaced, as to make it impossible to know where to start. :?
Post Reply