Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

[Sculptor]

Here is the typical realist shoot-from-the hip approach:

Your knowledge re Morality and Ethics is too narrow and shallow.

Repeating your bullshit does not make it more true.

The above confirms your knowledge re morality is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic, no wonder you like images with a very thick skull.

Repeating your bullshit does not make it more true.

[Harbal]

That why you are not going out to kill humans arbitrary now is because of moral neurons that prevent you to do so. It is true or false whether there are such neurons pre-existing in your brain.

I'm not sure you could call instinctive behaviour morality; most mothers have an incredibly strong instictive impulse to look after their babies, and do not protect them at all costs just because it seems like the right thing to do. Human beings are social animals, and no social animal would fare well as a species if they killed one another at the drop of a hat. Our innate inhibition to kill members of our own species is a logical consequence of natural selection, and has a clear practical purpose. And it also seems to me that that instinct only makes us disinclined to kill members of our own social group, and does not extend to outsiders. A brief study of human history would quickly confirm that. I agree it is a fact that we have a capacity for modifying our behaviour in accordance with an adopted set of principles that we call morality, but the principles themselves are not pre-programmed into us.

In VA's model non-violence is the default. This is simply not the case.

I have to agree. Human beings, when not influenced by certain social constraints, have the capacity and potential to be the most vicious, cruel and brutal creatures on the planet.

[Iwannaplato]

That why you are not going out to kill humans arbitrary now is because of moral neurons that prevent you to do so. It is true or false whether there are such neurons pre-existing in your brain.

Do moral neurons exist when no one is looking at them?

[Veritas Aequitas]

That why you are not going out to kill humans arbitrary now is because of moral neurons that prevent you to do so. It is true or false whether there are such neurons pre-existing in your brain.

I'm not sure you could call instinctive behaviour morality;

Strawman, where did I mention instincts.
I have always mentioned that the moral function is inherent in ALL humans, just like the faculty of the intellect, etc.
The moral function draws upon instincts and other neural processes.

Even if they are instincts, they are basically biological processes with the biology-FSK, but they are more significant within the psychology, psychiatric, sociology FSKs. Instincts are also considered less critical within other FSKs. e.g. nutrition, metabolism, medicine, sports, etc.

As such, the inherent ought-not-ness-to-kill is an element of the overall moral function inherent within ALL humans. It is a default. It is a moral matter when dealt within the moral FSK.

most mothers have an incredibly strong instinctive impulse to look after their babies, and do not protect them at all costs just because it seems like the right thing to do.

That instinct is an imperative that is supported by neurons in the mother's brain. This is a fact, this is undeniable. It is also a moral fact, to ensure their babies are not dead due to deliberate inattention to childcare.
Because the instinct, as a default, a moral fact, is supported by physical neurons, it is vulnerable to be damaged in some minority, thus the neglect and insufficient nurturing and childcare.
Whilst it is damaged, there is no denying that the moral fact exists in the brain of ALL humans.

Human beings are social animals, and no social animal would fare well as a species if they killed one another at the drop of a hat.

That is my point.
That is why ALL humans are evolved with the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans inhibitor to enable the species to be preserved. This is the default.
Such an ought like "ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans" is an essential element of morality.
Morality is about "what one ought and ought-not to do" i.e. within morality as defined.

Our innate inhibition to kill members of our own species is a logical consequence of natural selection, and has a clear practical purpose. And it also seems to me that that instinct only makes us disinclined to kill members of our own social group, and does not extend to outsiders. A brief study of human history would quickly confirm that.

ALL humans are evolved with the "ought-to-kill" instinct such that they will kill animals for food but there is danger to the species if this ought-to-kill is extended to humans.

As such ALL humans are also evolved with "ought-not-ness-to-kill-human" instinct as an inhibitor to ensure the preservation of the human species.

In the various phases of evolution, ALL humans were also evolved with the Tribalism instincts, i.e. us versus them, that would trigger one tribe to kill another if and only if, the other tribe is perceived as a threat.
But primal primitive tribalism had already waned long ago and this is due to the activation and extension of "ought-not-ness-to-kill-human" i.e. from the moral function.

As you stated;
Our innate inhibition to kill members of our own species is a logical consequence of natural selection, and has a clear practical purpose.
I stated the above innate inhibition is a biological-psychological fact as a default.
When we can understand the precise neural mechanism of this innate inhibition and make it dominant and an active modulator and inhibitor within the human neural system, then we can visualize the possibility of ZERO human killed by humans as a target to strive for.
In practice, there will be a decrease in the number of humans killed by humans.
This is the task of the moral FSK when the above fact is adapted as a moral fact.

I agree it is a fact that we have a capacity for modifying our behaviour in accordance with an adopted set of principles that we call morality, but the principles themselves are not pre-programmed into us.

As I had stated the "ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans" evolved in ALL humans, is physical and represented and verifiable by neurons, neural algorithms, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.
When the above biological facts [biology FSK] are adapted within a moral FSK, then it is a moral fact that can be managed for moral progress. Morality is thus Objective.

I have to agree. Human beings, when not influenced by certain social constraints, have the capacity and potential to be the most vicious, cruel and brutal creatures on the planet.

1. ALL humans are fundamentally embedded with the 4Fs i.e. Fight, Flight, Food, Fuck; the 'kill or be killed'; tribalism; etc. instincts via evolution.
2. As the same time as a control, ALL humans are also embedded the "ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans" instincts acting as modulators and inhibitors to ensure the preservation of the species.

While humans are evolving under different conditions, there was [even at present] a need to optimize between instinct 1 [kill] and 2 [not to kill].

However you must note there is a trend of reduction in primal killing and violence since 200,000 years ago up the present.
This decreasing trend is due to the gradual activation of the impulse of the "ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans" which is incorporated as a moral principle in the various moral FSKs [social, theological, etc.].
The present moral FSKs do contribute in reducing the number of humans killed by humans but it is considered not effective.

To be most effective in moral progress, humanity must recognize the moral facts, i.e. the physical moral elements within the moral functions in the brain, understand its workings, mechanisms and process, so that we can intervene [foolproof] to enable the moral elements to be more dominant [active] to expedite moral progress.

[Harbal]

And it also seems to me that that instinct only makes us disinclined to kill members of our own social group, and does not extend to outsiders. A brief study of human history would quickly confirm that.

ALL humans are evolved with the "ought-to-kill" instinct such that they will kill animals for food but there is danger to the species if this ought-to-kill is extended to humans.

As such ALL humans are also evolved with "ought-not-ness-to-kill-human" instinct as an inhibitor to ensure the preservation of the human species.

I think you are wrong about this. In fact, despite your belief that you are something of an expert in the subject, I think you have a very poor grasp on it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And it also seems to me that that instinct only makes us disinclined to kill members of our own social group, and does not extend to outsiders. A brief study of human history would quickly confirm that.

ALL humans are evolved with the "ought-to-kill" instinct such that they will kill animals for food but there is danger to the species if this ought-to-kill is extended to humans.

As such ALL humans are also evolved with "ought-not-ness-to-kill-human" instinct as an inhibitor to ensure the preservation of the human species.

I think you are wrong about this. In fact, despite your belief that you are something of an expert in the subject, I think you have a very poor grasp on it.

I did not claim I am an expert but I have sufficient knowledge to express a reasonable belief of its truth based on the fact that I have covered the relevant subjects extensively and in great depths.

You have not informed me in reference to the above points I raised, where I am likely to be wrong?

[Harbal]

I did not claim I am an expert but I have sufficient knowledge to express a reasonable belief of its truth based on the fact that I have covered the relevant subjects extensively and in great depths.

I don't doubt that you have "covered the relevant subjects extensively and in great depths", but it seems obvious that you haven't properly understood much of it.

You have not informed me in reference to the above points I raised, where I am likely to be wrong?

I don't have the patience. To be honest, I wish I could just ignore what you write, but some of it is just too ludicrous to be left unchallenged.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I did not claim I am an expert but I have sufficient knowledge to express a reasonable belief of its truth based on the fact that I have covered the relevant subjects extensively and in great depths.

I don't doubt that you have "covered the relevant subjects extensively and in great depths", but it seems obvious that you haven't properly understood much of it.

You have not informed me in reference to the above points I raised, where I am likely to be wrong?

I don't have the patience. To be honest, I wish I could just ignore what you write, but some of it is just too ludicrous to be left unchallenged.

Btw, from what I have gathered from your posts, you are merely an empty vessel.
I have not come across a single reference you have make to some source with authority.

[Harbal]

Btw, from what I have gathered from your posts, you are merely an empty vessel.

Merely?

[Iwannaplato]

Btw, from what I have gathered from your posts, you are merely an empty vessel.

Merely?

He's strongly influenced by Buddhism: it's a compliment.