Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I have "an unrealistic view of what human beings" ???

Note I have finished a course from
1. Harvard-x on Biochemistry and
2. MIT-x on Human Nature at the levels of Genetics, Genomics, Molecular Biology and Rational Medicine.

Try understanding the following human full metabolic pathways,
http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project.cfm?id=224



Are you familiar with this?
https://www.humanconnectome.org/

[Iwannaplato]

You seem to have an unrealistic view of what human beings are.

I found it interesting and confirming of your assertion above that to show he has a realistic view of humans he says he has taken an introductory online biology course, that one audits, and an introductory biochemistry course.

It's as if doing well in those two courses - and we don't even know what he learned nor does he since they were audited - precludes the possibility of having an unrealistic view of what human beings are.

There's a new kind of unrealistic view of humans in his response to you.

[Agent Smith]

There are very good reasons to "go out", oui monsieur?

[Iwannaplato]

There are very good reasons to "go out", oui monsieur?

Are you suggesting we date? (but seriously, I am not sure what you mean)

[Agent Smith]

There are very good reasons to "go out", oui monsieur?

Are you suggesting we date? (but seriously, I am not sure what you mean)

I was only considering the rationality of it all? The OP is asking why so and so?

[Iwannaplato]

There are very good reasons to "go out", oui monsieur?

Are you suggesting we date? (but seriously, I am not sure what you mean)

I was only considering the rationality of it all? The OP is asking why so and so?

It seemed like the OP was telling how things are. That there are moral facts. Not facts about our morals, but moral facts. I don't think the OP works, for reasons pointed out by myself and others. He doesn't read my posts - at least, he no longer responds to them. But I don't think he adequately responded to other people's objections.

I doubt anyone here likes the idea of torturing babies.

I would guess that social mammals in general would find watching such a thing, even in babies of other species, to be unpleasant. I mean, dogs will try to stop tickling a human child sometimes.

Then culture also comes in around this kind of thing - though in certain periods of history for some today, harming the enemy's babies is fine.

Anyway, not much controversy there for most people.

I don't know why we have to call it objective. I don't think anything is gained.

It is a very strong tendency to dislike this. It's not universal and hasn't been in other periods of time.

But let's say it is universal. Does that make it objective. Objectively good. I don't know what that means. What are the objective criteria for goodness? What raises a preference to an objective good?

It may not seem like a problem with torturing babies, but run it over to abortion or chips in brains or having a very smart AI run society or traditional vs. modern parenting styles....

Using that word it seems to me would be raising someone's values, to give their preferences power.

It seems to me parsimony leads us to viewing our preferences and tendenices to prefer thing rather than coming in with the idea that there are objective morals. We have preferences or values. Wait, they are not only our values, but they are objective facts.

I don't see any evidence that adding this idea explains something not explained by them being our preferences, some innate some cultural, most a mix.

And in those instances, like torturing children, where we have, at least in some societies near consensus, we don't need to bring in the hammer of 'it's an objective fact'. We have agreement.

Where we don't, we don't even have universal, let alone objective.

And what's beneficial for humans might be bad, for example for life in general. Shouldn't we give wolf-preferences the possibilty of being objective?

[Harbal]

You seem to have an unrealistic view of what human beings are.

I have "an unrealistic view of what human beings" ???

I thought it sounded more tactful than telling you you were coming out with a load of nonsence.

[Agent Smith]

Are you suggesting we date? (but seriously, I am not sure what you mean)

I was only considering the rationality of it all? The OP is asking why so and so?

It seemed like the OP was telling how things are. That there are moral facts. Not facts about our morals, but moral facts. I don't think the OP works, for reasons pointed out by myself and others. He doesn't read my posts - at least, he no longer responds to them. But I don't think he adequately responded to other people's objections.

I doubt anyone here likes the idea of torturing babies.

I would guess that social mammals in general would find watching such a thing, even in babies of other species, to be unpleasant. I mean, dogs will try to stop tickling a human child sometimes.

Then culture also comes in around this kind of thing - though in certain periods of history for some today, harming the enemy's babies is fine.

Anyway, not much controversy there for most people.

I don't know why we have to call it objective. I don't think anything is gained.

It is a very strong tendency to dislike this. It's not universal and hasn't been in other periods of time.

But let's say it is universal. Does that make it objective. Objectively good. I don't know what that means. What are the objective criteria for goodness? What raises a preference to an objective good?

It may not seem like a problem with torturing babies, but run it over to abortion or chips in brains or having a very smart AI run society or traditional vs. modern parenting styles....

Using that word it seems to me would be raising someone's values, to give their preferences power.

It seems to me parsimony leads us to viewing our preferences and tendenices to prefer thing rather than coming in with the idea that there are objective morals. We have preferences or values. Wait, they are not only our values, but they are objective facts.

I don't see any evidence that adding this idea explains something not explained by them being our preferences, some innate some cultural, most a mix.

And in those instances, like torturing children, where we have, at least in some societies near consensus, we don't need to bring in the hammer of 'it's an objective fact'. We have agreement.

Where we don't, we don't even have universal, let alone objective.

And what's beneficial for humans might be bad, for example for life in general. Shouldn't we give wolf-preferences the possibilty of being objective?

Précisément mon ami, précisément! We're looking for the right things as far as I can tell; as philosophers that's what we do and truth be told that's who (we think) we are. Proceed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You seem to have an unrealistic view of what human beings are.

I have "an unrealistic view of what human beings" ???

I thought it sounded more tactful than telling you you were coming out with a load of nonsence.

If you think what I wrote is nonsense and if you want to say something, then you should at least [in a proper intellectual protocol] counter it with what you think is 'sense' briefly.

I read so much nonsense in this forum, I just ignore them.

[Harbal]

If you think what I wrote is nonsense and if you want to say something, then you should at least [in a proper intellectual protocol] counter it with what you think is 'sense' briefly.

I read so much nonsense in this forum, I just ignore them.

It might be possible to describe, and even demonstrate, physical processes within our brains that cause us to believe and assert that torturing babies is wrong. That would entitle you to claim that there are objective facts that explain why we believe the torturing of babies to be wrong, but there are no objective facts that show that torturing babies actually is wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you think what I wrote is nonsense and if you want to say something, then you should at least [in a proper intellectual protocol] counter it with what you think is 'sense' briefly.

I read so much nonsense in this forum, I just ignore them.

It might be possible to describe, and even demonstrate, physical processes within our brains that cause us to believe and assert that torturing babies is wrong. That would entitle you to claim that there are objective facts that explain why we believe the torturing of babies to be wrong, but there are no objective facts that show that torturing babies actually is wrong.

As I had reminded Peter Holmes a "1000" times, my morality-proper do not involve the very loose terms of 'rightness' or 'wrongness'.

I had stated there is an inherent Ought-Not-Ness [noun] to Torture Human Babies to Death within the brains of ALL humans.
Note 'All' which would support an abduction there is likely to be such a physical element in the brain of ALL humans. [which you agree]
This empirical scientific fact is very possible because 99.99% or more humans do not torture human babies to death for pleasure; I am confident neuroscience will be able to prove this in the future.
When processed within the moral FSK, this is a objective moral fact.

BUT I had NEVER claimed this objective moral fact that show that torturing babies actually is WRONG.

At 0.001% there is still 80,000 humans who are potentials to torturing babies to death for pleasure.
What I did claim is, since this is proven to be a moral fact that is represented by real physical facts, i.e. the mechanisms, then, human must strive to use this as a guide of the possibility to strengthen this 'ought-not-ness' to ensure there is ZERO or very very rare cases of humans torturing babies to death for pleasure.

There is no question of rightness or wrongness, but merely a case of improving the current moral competences of the average person.
Being stuck with rightness or wrongness will only hinder progress.

It is like, I would NOT say stupidity or lack of intelligence is wrong. Since we recognize there is an inherent function and mechanism [a fact] that support human intelligence, we can in the future strive to improve the efficiency of this function to increase the average IQ of humanity in contrast to the present.

[Harbal]

There is no question of rightness or wrongness, but merely a case of improving the current moral competences of the average person.
Being stuck with rightness or wrongness will only hinder progress.

I don't see how you can discuss morality without talking about rightness and wrongness. The concept of rightness and wrongness is the core around which morality is formed. And when you talk about improving "moral competences", you presumably mean to improve them according to your own, personal standards and preferences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no question of rightness or wrongness, but merely a case of improving the current moral competences of the average person.
Being stuck with rightness or wrongness will only hinder progress.

I don't see how you can discuss morality without talking about rightness and wrongness. The concept of rightness and wrongness is the core around which morality is formed. And when you talk about improving "moral competences", you presumably mean to improve them according to your own, personal standards and preferences.

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.
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.

The improvements of "moral competences" based on moral actions taken can be measured of statistics in terms of the trend of reduction of evil acts in time [future not now], e.g. reduction in numbers of humans killed by humans, mass murder, rapes, violence, wars, etc.

[Harbal]

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 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.

[Iwannaplato]

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.
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.

The improvements of "moral competences" based on moral actions taken can be measured of statistics in terms of the trend of reduction of evil acts in time [future not now], e.g. reduction in numbers of humans killed by humans, mass murder, rapes, violence, wars, etc.

Here's the irony here. What was the problem with the Ptolomeic system? Actually there were two related ones: 1) human perceptions are in the center - hey, it looks like the sun moves and the earth doesn't. 2) humans thought of the earth as central: read, they believed they were central. So, the earth couldn't be moving!!

What is VA's revolution: go into the brains of humans, find out what they like and what their tendencies are and devloping a theory about objective morals. Humans are in the center, like they were in Ptolemy. Their preferencies and idiosyncracies are in the center again, as they were with Ptolemy.'

Let's look at what this actually means. It means that natural selection of human brains leads to objective morals.

How the hell does that work?

Further, we haven't been around long. These built in heuristics may have worked in the past but may not be good in the long run for all sorts of reasons.

Just like every other species we are a kind of experiment in a sense. Maybe this'll work, maybe not. For how long? In what conditions? They may be long term destructive results (and not just for us).

Turtles have been around much much longer than us. What aren't their oughtness not to X used to develop objective morals? This would entail that we only hand out during mating. The solitary life is extremely effective.

In any case, the idea that patterns of behavior and attitude in one species arrived at through mutation and natural selection should be considered objective morals is confused and at the category level.

In fact we probably have to go beyond what are brain implies around oughtness to save ourselves from our own habits. So, even to take care of ourselves out own brain oughtnesses (assuming all of that part of VA's argument is correct) still needs to change for our own best interests, which should not be conflated with objective goods.