Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

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

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 10:32 am I just want to make sure you understand that, va. The quote does not say that. I can help you interpret that text more correctly if you don't already understand why it doesn't say that.
I have to say I am not completely clear what VA was saying at first and even this....
Are you interpreting that somehow as saying "science is claimed to be anti-philosophical realism"?
...I am not sure of.

Do you mean:
Are you saying that science is now anti-realist?
or (changing the phrasing slightly)
Are you saying the Wikipedia article asserts that science is anti-realist?
or perhaps putting it in terms of realism:
Are you saying that Wikipedia says that science is against realism?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 1:45 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 10:32 am I just want to make sure you understand that, va. The quote does not say that. I can help you interpret that text more correctly if you don't already understand why it doesn't say that.
I have to say I am not completely clear what VA was saying at first and even this....
Are you interpreting that somehow as saying "science is claimed to be anti-philosophical realism"?
...I am not sure of.

Do you mean:
Are you saying that science is now anti-realist?
or (changing the phrasing slightly)
Are you saying the Wikipedia article asserts that science is anti-realist?
or perhaps putting it in terms of realism:
Are you saying that Wikipedia says that science is against realism?
He quoted some text from Wikipedia. He apparently believes that that quote, if correctly interpreted, means or implies Science is anti philosophical realism in some way.

His wording leaves a lot of room for interpretation, so it's possible that's not what he's saying. Awaiting clarification if that's the case.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 2:00 pm He quoted some text from Wikipedia. He apparently believes that that quote, if correctly interpreted, means or implies Science is anti philosophical realism in some way.

His wording leaves a lot of room for interpretation, so it's possible that's not what he's saying. Awaiting clarification if that's the case.
In a sense its almost a category error either way: science is pro realist, science is anti-realist. Most scientists are realists. But science is a batch of methodologies. It's not an ontological stance.

I read the paragraphs on science and they didn't seem to say science is anti-realist.

And what would that look like? What would a geologist do differently? And have they started to do this?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 4:03 pm And what would that look like? What would a geologist do differently? And have they started to do this?
Geologists wouldn't do anything differently. A a mathematician; a physicists or a computer scientist might.

They would think differently. Indeed - they have started. By asking "What the fuck is an electron?"
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 3:50 am"their highest goal" :shock:
whose? the Buddha's, Ghandi's it can also be Hitler's, evil-laden Islam's, Pol Pot;
Their highest goal. Whoever they are. If they are Buddha, then Buddha's highest goal. If they are Ghandi, then Ghandi's highest goal. If they are Hitler, then Hitler's highest goal. If they are a group of people, then the highest goal of every member of that group. If they are everyone, then every single person's highest goal.

There isn't one morality. There are many moralities.

For each person, there is one morality. These are individual moralities. There is, for example, your own morality, i.e. the laws ( not beliefs about what these laws are ) that you ought to obey in order to maximize your chances of attaining your highest goal. There is my moraloty, i.e. the laws that I ought to obey in order to maximize my chances of attaining my highest goal. My morality and your morality might or might not be identical. Even if they arr, they are still two different moralities.

The same goes for every group of two or more people. For each such group, there is one morality. There is a morality for you and me. There is a morality for you and Peter Holmes. There is a morality for the three of us. And so on. Finally, there is a morality for everyone. That is universal morality, i.e. the set of laws that everyone ought to obey in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal.
[T]here is no reason [grounds] for you [and others] to insist who is right or who is wrong.
There is. Let me explain.

Each person has a goal they are trying to achieve that is not subordinated to any other goal, i.e. that is at the top of the hierarchy of goals. This is their "highest goal". Whatever it is.

The highest goal may or may not be the same for everyone. Personally, I think that it is. I think that every living being strives to live as long as possible, i.e. to attain immortality. This is the highest goal of every living being. But this isn't really relevant here because all I'm trying to establish at this ppint is whether or not I have reasons [ grounds ] to insist that this or that person is right or wrong.

Morality is a set of laws that those to whom they apply should obey in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal. These are laws of the form "Under circumstances X, you ought to do Y". This is another way of saying "Under circumstances X, doing Y will get you closer to attaining your highest than doing something else". And that is either true or false -- it has nothing to do with what anyone thinks. It's "out there" for us to discover. It's mind-independent. It's philosophical realism applied to morality.
ALL humans ought to breathe!
What is universal with this human nature is the universal neural correlates or algorithm in the brain and body represented by physical neurons, genes, DNA, sub-atomic particles.
SOME may deliberate choose not breathe and commit suicide, but there is no denying the above physical elements driving human oughtness to breathe exist in their brain and body; the difference, they are not working as expected due to damage to the algorithm.

So, what is critical is not so much of moral principles, but rather the universal physical neural correlates that drive the moral principles.
Humans ought to breathe because choosing not to breathe leads to a shorter.life than the alternative.

You seem to be arguing that morality is something inside people's brains. How is that different from people who say that morality is just a set of beliefs? There is a small difference, sure, but ultimately, you're agreeing with them that morality is something subjective, something that exists inside subjects. You seem to think that all we have to do in order to become moral is get in touch with this hidden, neglected, part of ourselves that simply knows, at all times, what's right and what's wrong.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12371
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 8:14 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 3:50 am"their highest goal" :shock:
whose? the Buddha's, Ghandi's it can also be Hitler's, evil-laden Islam's, Pol Pot;
Their highest goal. Whoever they are. If they are Buddha, then Buddha's highest goal. If they are Ghandi, then Ghandi's highest goal. If they are Hitler, then Hitler's highest goal. If they are a group of people, then the highest goal of every member of that group. If they are everyone, then every single person's highest goal.
There is something wrong in your thinking re Morality if you think Hitler's [one of his highest goal] genocide of the Jews is something that is moral. [ :shock: ... I feel like vomiting on such an abhorrent thought].

Morality & Ethics is one of the main topic of Philosophy is generally defined as follows;
  • Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1]
    Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]
    Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
The opposite of 'goodness' is evilness.
  • Good is a broad concept, but it typically deals with an association with life, charity, continuity, happiness, love, and justice
    Evil typically is associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological needs and dignity, destructiveness, and acts of unnecessary and/or indiscriminate violence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good#Modern_concepts
As such, my definition of 'morality' as the the elimination of evilness to enable its related goodness is very appropriate.

Thus, how can Hilter's highest goal re the genocides [harm and killings] of the Jews [6 million :shock: ] be accepted as 'morality' and is morally acceptable?
You need to review and reassess your thinking on this.
There isn't one morality. There are many moralities.

For each person, there is one morality. These are individual moralities. There is, for example, your own morality, i.e. the laws ( not beliefs about what these laws are ) that you ought to obey in order to maximize your chances of attaining your highest goal. There is my morality, i.e. the laws that I ought to obey in order to maximize my chances of attaining my highest goal. My morality and your morality might or might not be identical. Even if they arr, they are still two different moralities.

The same goes for every group of two or more people. For each such group, there is one morality. There is a morality for you and me. There is a morality for you and Peter Holmes. There is a morality for the three of us. And so on. Finally, there is a morality for everyone. That is universal morality, i.e. the set of laws that everyone ought to obey in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal.
Nope, there is only ONE morality within human nature that is Universal in ALL human beings.
The problem is the term 'morality' is rather vague, as such, there individuals and groups who think their specific definition of 'what is morality' is that universal morality.

Analogy:
There is only ONE universal 'hunger drive' in all humans to motivate them to eat [healthy] food to avoid starvation and death. This Universal hunger drive is represented by its corresponding neural correlates in the gene, DNA, brain and body of ALL humans. This is undeniable especially if you understand basis Biology.
Even if anyone were to avoid eating when feeling hungry, the physical neural correlates of hunger is still there.

As with the above analogy, there is the universal 'morality' drive to motivate them to act good instead of evil [see definition of morality above]; this universal drive is represented by neural correlates in the DNA, genes, brain, and body. This is what I meant by 'morality' is fundamentally physical that facilitates moral acts.

[T]here is no reason [grounds] for you [and others] to insist who is right or who is wrong.
There is. Let me explain.

Each person has a goal they are trying to achieve that is not subordinated to any other goal, i.e. that is at the top of the hierarchy of goals. This is their "highest goal". Whatever it is.

The highest goal may or may not be the same for everyone. Personally, I think that it is. I think that every living being strives to live as long as possible, i.e. to attain immortality. This is the highest goal of every living being. But this isn't really relevant here because all I'm trying to establish at this ppint is whether or not I have reasons [ grounds ] to insist that this or that person is right or wrong.

Morality is a set of laws that those to whom they apply should obey in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal. These are laws of the form "Under circumstances X, you ought to do Y". This is another way of saying "Under circumstances X, doing Y will get you closer to attaining your highest than doing something else". And that is either true or false -- it has nothing to do with what anyone thinks. It's "out there" for us to discover. It's mind-independent. It's philosophical realism applied to morality.
If there is any 'highest goal' it is dictated by evolution and human nature which then should be incorporated with what is natural morality.

Individuals or groups' own highest goal cannot be morality [good over evil]; there is no way Hitler's and other evil dictators can be categorized within morality.

Morality cannot be a set of Laws, that would be politics or personal governance.

At present, the average natural moral competence of humans is very low. As such when we discuss morality it is more appropriate and relevant to future generations because it takes time [generations] for the brain to rewire from low moral activeness to higher activeness.

The objective of the moral function is for all [if not most] humans to self-develop their moral competence to a state of spontaneous activation of morality instead of having to deliberate on it or being controlled by a set of laws or enforcement.
This will not happen immediately but gradually from the present generation to future generations if we start the process of improving moral competence at present.

To initiate the gradual and continuous improvements of moral competence of future generation we need to recognize the existence of the inherent biological moral functions within the genes, DNA, brain and body in ALL humans and make improvements to these moral mechanisms.

ALL humans ought to breathe!
What is universal with this human nature is the universal neural correlates or algorithm in the brain and body represented by physical neurons, genes, DNA, sub-atomic particles.
SOME may deliberate choose not breathe and commit suicide, but there is no denying the above physical elements driving human oughtness to breathe exist in their brain and body; the difference, they are not working as expected due to damage to the algorithm.

So, what is critical is not so much of moral principles, but rather the universal physical neural correlates that drive the moral principles.
Humans ought to breathe because choosing not to breathe leads to a shorter life than the alternative.
1. The universal is ALL humans ought to breathe, else they die.
2. If the universal is ALL humans ought-not to breathe, then in principle, the human species will go extinct.
As such principle 1 should prevail as a moral principle.
Because the opposite would be evil, thus contra good [the moral].

You seem to be arguing that morality is something inside people's brains. How is that different from people who say that morality is just a set of beliefs? There is a small difference, sure, but ultimately, you're agreeing with them that morality is something subjective, something that exists inside subjects. You seem to think that all we have to do in order to become moral is get in touch with this hidden, neglected, part of ourselves that simply knows, at all times, what's right and what's wrong.
Nope, morally, fundamentally is not only in the brain but in the genes, DNA, brain and body. This is Pure natural morality. This cannot be subjective because these can be verified and justified via the scientific FSK [Framework and System of Knowledge] and then the moral FSK.

When morality is wrongly related to a set of beliefs, it is corrupted because beliefs are influenced by SO many variables [internal and external].

Note, one of the main element of morality within the inherent Pure natural morality is the oughtness-not-to-kill-humans and this expression of pure morality is very evident in the past and has since improve over the last 100,000 to 10,000, to 100 to the present. But the improvement is still not up to the standard of ZERO killing of humans by humans, as such our discussion of morality [proper] in this case is to find ways to expedite the improvement towards ZERO killings of humans by humans.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by popeye1945 »

Compassion arises when there is an identification of self with another, otherwise, it is a non-starter, with the rise of compassion for others comes the creation of subjective morality. Being that all experience, all knowledge and all meaning is the property of a conscious subject, and never the property of the world as object/s. Morality only becomes objective when the subject makes it manifest in the world in the form of common sentiments, rules of behavior, laws, and institutions to sanctify those subjective sentiments, such as churches and temples, etc.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 5:14 amThere is something wrong in your thinking re Morality if you think Hitler's [one of his highest goal] genocide of the Jews is something that is moral. [ :shock: ... I feel like vomiting on such an abhorrent thought.

[..]

Thus, how can Hilter's highest goal re the genocides [harm and killings] of the Jews [6 million :shock: ] be accepted as 'morality' and is morally acceptable?
You need to review and reassess your thinking on this.
1) You are saying that genocide was one of Hitler's highest goals. But each person has only one highest goal. It's called the highest goal for a reason. It refers to the goal that sits at the top of the hierarchy of goals. It's a goal that is not subordinated to any other goal. The purpose of its attainment isn't to attain some other goal.

2) If you think that Hitler's highest goal was to commit genocide, what makes you think so? I'd rather say that his highest goal was the same as the one held by everyone else, namely, to live as long as possible. His goal to commit genocide was merely a sub-goal the attainment of which he erroneously thought will help him live as long as possible.

3) Regardless of what a man's highest goal is, a decision is said to be good if and only if its consequences are such that it brings the man in question closer to the attainment of his highest goal more than the consequences of all other decisions do. As such, if you're not talking about the highest goal when talking about morality, you're not talking about morality, you're talking about something else, you're talking about social engineering or how to make people do what you want them to do regardless of whether it's good for them or not.
Nope, there is only ONE morality within human nature that is Universal in ALL human beings.
The problem is the term 'morality' is rather vague, as such, there individuals and groups who think their specific definition of 'what is morality' is that universal morality.
It's a language issue.

The word "morality" is defined as "the set of all laws that someone ought to obey". Since this "someone" can be any individual and any group of people, it follows that there is more than one morality -- one for each individual and one for each group of people. Even if all of these numerous moralities consist of the same exact laws, they still would be separate moralities rather than one and the same morality.

It is, however, true that there is only one universal morality. But you seem to be saying more than that. You seem to be saying that every non-universal morality has the same exact laws as the universal morality. I disagree with that. People aren't clones of each other.

Analogy:
There is only ONE universal 'hunger drive' in all humans to motivate them to eat [healthy] food to avoid starvation and death. This Universal hunger drive is represented by its corresponding neural correlates in the gene, DNA, brain and body of ALL humans. This is undeniable especially if you understand basis Biology.
Even if anyone were to avoid eating when feeling hungry, the physical neural correlates of hunger is still there.

As with the above analogy, there is the universal 'morality' drive to motivate them to act good instead of evil [see definition of morality above]; this universal drive is represented by neural correlates in the DNA, genes, brain, and body. This is what I meant by 'morality' is fundamentally physical that facilitates moral acts.
You know very well that each person has their own hunger drive. Your hunger drive is not my hunger drive. They are two separate drives. But they can be identical drives. And that's all you're saying. You're merely saying that human drives are identical to each other, i.e. that they are clones of each other.
Morality cannot be a set of Laws, that would be politics or personal governance.
That's exactly what morality is. But do note that moral laws aren't man-made laws. Morality does not refer to societal laws ( i.e. laws that govern societies such as "If an American kills someone, he will go to jail" ) and personal laws ( i.e. laws that govern how humans behave such as "Peter never eats meat". ) Rather, they are laws that govern what's the best decision under given circumstances.
Nope, morally, fundamentally is not only in the brain but in the genes, DNA, brain and body. This is Pure natural morality. This cannot be subjective because these can be verified and justified via the scientific FSK [Framework and System of Knowledge] and then the moral FSK.
The word "subjective", when used to refer to a mode of existence, i.e. how something exists, or rather, where it exists, means "that which exists within subjects". Usually, the term "subject" is used to mean "mind", so the term "subjective" means "that which exists within minds". If something exists within minds, then when you get rid of all minds, you also get rid of it. But the term "subject" can also be used to refer to the entire person, which, beside including mind, also includes things such as body, DNA, etc. Since you think that morality is something within DNA, it follows that you think that morality is subjective in this broader sense. The bottom line is that you think that morality is something that exists within people. If we get rid of people, we also get rid of morality.

In the epistemological sense, the word "subjective" limits the meaning of propositions. It specifies that the truth value of the accompanying proposition is whatever people want it to be. An epistemologically subjective proposition, in other words, is one that it's true if someone wants it to be true and false if someone wants it to be false. If I want it to be true, and someone else wants it to be false, then it is both true and false. It is often said, but incorrectly so, that propositions such as "I like ice cream" are subjective in this sense, i.e. that their truth value is whatever other people think it is. But that's simply not the case. There are NO propositions that are epistemologically subjective. Every proposition is true or false depending on whether or not it corresponds to the portion of reality it is describing. In this case, the portion of reality that is being described is how much I like ice creams. Since how much I like ice creams is a portion of reality that exists within my mind -- not outside of it -- the statement is describing something that is ontologically subjective. But the proposition itself isn't epistemologically subjective. I either like ice creams or I don't. What I say or think about it is irrelevant. It's not necessarily true, e.g. I may lie about it or simply be unaware of my preferences. And the same applies to moral and aesthetic propositions.

That said, your actual stance when it comes to morality is that you think that morality is ontologically subjective ( i.e. it exists within people ) but that moral propositions are epistemologically objective ( i.e. their truth value isn't decided by whether or not people want them to be true. )

Let's compare our positions.

ME:
Morality -> ontologically objective.
Moral propositions -> epistemologically objective.

YOU:
Morality -> ontologically subjective.
Moral propositions -> epistemologically objective.

PETER HOLMES:
Morality -> ?
Moral propositions -> epistemologically subjective.
When morality is wrongly related to a set of beliefs, it is corrupted because beliefs are influenced by SO many variables [internal and external].
The word "morality" does not refer to a set of beliefs. But it also does not refer to something within DNA. It refers to a set of laws -- and laws aren't beliefs. And even then, the laws it refers to are of certain type rather than any type. Man-made laws such as societal laws ( i.e. the laws that govern how societies function ) and personal laws ( i.e. the laws that govern how individual people behave ) aren't moral laws. Moral laws are laws of the form "Under circumstances C, the best decision for person P is D."
Atla
Posts: 6687
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Atla »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 1:34 pm You're using the word in the modern, narrow, sense. That's fine, it's just not how I'm using it.

Note that each person has something called "the highest goal" the attainment of which they are pursuing with every decision they make throught their entire lives. As such, to say "You ought to do X" is to say "Doing X will bring you closer to attaining your higher goal than doing something else". That applies to statements such as "You ought not to eat meat" just as well.
Why do you use the word morality in such a sense? I've never seen anyone mean the attainment of the highest goal by it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12371
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 1:48 pm 1) You are saying that genocide was one of Hitler's highest goals. But each person has only one highest goal. It's called the highest goal for a reason. It refers to the goal that sits at the top of the hierarchy of goals. It's a goal that is not subordinated to any other goal. The purpose of its attainment isn't to attain some other goal.

2) If you think that Hitler's highest goal was to commit genocide, what makes you think so? I'd rather say that his highest goal was the same as the one held by everyone else, namely, to live as long as possible. His goal to commit genocide was merely a sub-goal the attainment of which he erroneously thought will help him live as long as possible.

3) Regardless of what a man's highest goal is, a decision is said to be good if and only if its consequences are such that it brings the man in question closer to the attainment of his highest goal more than the consequences of all other decisions do. As such, if you're not talking about the highest goal when talking about morality, you're not talking about morality, you're talking about something else, you're talking about social engineering or how to make people do what you want them to do regardless of whether it's good for them or not.
I don't believe there is an absolute highest goal for a human.

I have always claimed as you mentioned above, humans are programmed via evolution to live as long as possible till the inevitable, driven by 'selfish genes' and preservation of the species.

To support the above, there are a range of complex functions within the body and brain, i.e. the 4Fs, fight, flight, food, fuck; a wide range of instincts, emotions, evolving ever higher to self-consciousness, etc. intelligences.

One of the above complex functions is the moral functions [i.e. morality] that has a basic structure and mechanism with potential that is continually unfolding and evolving.

Like all other neural and body functions, e.g. intelligences, morality is not fundamentally a set of laws that people can choose to adopt and ought to obey.
Rather morality [supported by moral facts] is the inherent potential that all humans need to unfold so as to achieve the natural embedded objectives spontaneously and naturally, i.e. flow.

Genocide is a critical moral issue because it hinders the achievement of the embedded natural objective to ensuring the individuals and all other humans to live as long as possible [till the inevitable].

In Hitler's case, genocide of the Jews [deemed a threat] is one of his sub-goals of his self-defined 'morality' to achieve the universal human goal live as long as possible [till the inevitable].
Whilst Hitler's case is not so obvious, genocides are committed by various groups [the us] on the 'them' because the "them" are deemed as a threat to achieve to their survival, i.e. the universal human goal live as long as possible [till the inevitable].

This is why the specific issues related to 'what is morality' are those evil acts that threaten and hinder the individual or groups survival, i.e. the universal human goal live as long as possible [till the inevitable].

Note the function of intelligence, also promote the universal human goal live as long as possible [till the inevitable] but it is specifically 'intelligence' and not categorized as 'morality'. It is the same with other subjects like logic, metaphysics, mathematics, etc. which promote survival, but they are not morality nor ethics.
Nope, there is only ONE morality within human nature that is Universal in ALL human beings.
The problem is the term 'morality' is rather vague, as such, there individuals and groups who think their specific definition of 'what is morality' is that universal morality.
It's a language issue.

The word "morality" is defined as "the set of all laws that someone ought to obey". Since this "someone" can be any individual and any group of people, it follows that there is more than one morality -- one for each individual and one for each group of people. Even if all of these numerous moralities consist of the same exact laws, they still would be separate moralities rather than one and the same morality.

It is, however, true that there is only one universal morality. But you seem to be saying more than that. You seem to be saying that every non-universal morality has the same exact laws as the universal morality. I disagree with that. People aren't clones of each other.
It is obvious all humans are unique in the sense of having different set of fingerprints.
But note human nature and human universals.
These human universals as studied by Science is most critical to facilitate the individual's and species 'ultimate' goals.
One of these human universals is the universal morality within all humans.
All human universals has the same basic principles [not same laws] which are useful as a basis for the progress of humanity.
You know very well that each person has their own hunger drive. Your hunger drive is not my hunger drive. They are two separate drives. But they can be identical drives. And that's all you're saying. You're merely saying that human drives are identical to each other, i.e. that they are clones of each other.
As I had stated, each person as his own set of unique fingerprints, genome, etc.
Particulars and Universals are both critical information to humanity, but I believe the universal principles are more effective in contribution to humanity's progress.
When we understand what is the universal hunger drive that is universal in all humans, we can deal with hunger within humanity.
Morality cannot be a set of Laws, that would be politics or personal governance.
That's exactly what morality is. But do note that moral laws aren't man-made laws. Morality does not refer to societal laws ( i.e. laws that govern societies such as "If an American kills someone, he will go to jail" ) and personal laws ( i.e. laws that govern how humans behave such as "Peter never eats meat". ) Rather, they are laws that govern what's the best decision under given circumstances.
The term 'law' can be misleading, as it can be political [man-made] or natural laws.

I would prefer to use principles and facts in relation to universal morality.
Thus there is need to discover the details structure, mechanisms and processes of these objective moral facts so that humanity can facilitate greater moral progress for all individuals and humanity [not now but in the future].
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12371
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 1:48 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 5:14 amThere is Nope, morally, fundamentally is not only in the brain but in the genes, DNA, brain and body. This is Pure natural morality. This cannot be subjective because these can be verified and justified via the scientific FSK [Framework and System of Knowledge] and then the moral FSK.
The word "subjective", when used to refer to a mode of existence, i.e. how something exists, or rather, where it exists, means "that which exists within subjects". Usually, the term "subject" is used to mean "mind", so the term "subjective" means "that which exists within minds". If something exists within minds, then when you get rid of all minds, you also get rid of it. But the term "subject" can also be used to refer to the entire person, which, beside including mind, also includes things such as body, DNA, etc. Since you think that morality is something within DNA, it follows that you think that morality is subjective in this broader sense. The bottom line is that you think that morality is something that exists within people. If we get rid of people, we also get rid of morality.

In the epistemological sense, the word "subjective" limits the meaning of propositions. It specifies that the truth value of the accompanying proposition is whatever people want it to be. An epistemologically subjective proposition, in other words, is one that it's true if someone wants it to be true and false if someone wants it to be false. If I want it to be true, and someone else wants it to be false, then it is both true and false. It is often said, but incorrectly so, that propositions such as "I like ice cream" are subjective in this sense, i.e. that their truth value is whatever other people think it is. But that's simply not the case. There are NO propositions that are epistemologically subjective. Every proposition is true or false depending on whether or not it corresponds to the portion of reality it is describing. In this case, the portion of reality that is being described is how much I like ice creams. Since how much I like ice creams is a portion of reality that exists within my mind -- not outside of it -- the statement is describing something that is ontologically subjective. But the proposition itself isn't epistemologically subjective. I either like ice creams or I don't. What I say or think about it is irrelevant. It's not necessarily true, e.g. I may lie about it or simply be unaware of my preferences. And the same applies to moral and aesthetic propositions.

That said, your actual stance when it comes to morality is that you think that morality is ontologically subjective ( i.e. it exists within people ) but that moral propositions are epistemologically objective ( i.e. their truth value isn't decided by whether or not people want them to be true. )

Let's compare our positions.

ME:
Morality -> ontologically objective.
Moral propositions -> epistemologically objective.

YOU:
Morality -> ontologically subjective.
Moral propositions -> epistemologically objective.

PETER HOLMES:
Morality -> ?
Moral propositions -> epistemologically subjective.
I find your above confusing.

Note there are two senses of what is Objectivity;
1. Philosophical Realist sense - mind-independent, a delusional sense
2. FSK-ed sense - e.g. Science FSK
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326


What is objectivity within Philosophy;
In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a [ONE] sentient being.

Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.

Objectivity in the moral framework calls for moral codes to be assessed based on the well-being of the people in the society that follow it.[1] Moral objectivity also calls for moral codes to be compared to one another through a set of universal facts and not through subjectivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Note the "a" [ONE] sentient being; thus if propositions are considered by ONE person or a a few loose number of people, then it is subjective.

Note Scientific Objectivity:
  • Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs.[1] It is often linked to observation as part of the scientific method. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility. To be considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in a collective understanding of the world. Such demonstrable knowledge has ordinarily conferred demonstrable powers of prediction or technology.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
When I believe Morality is reducible to genes, DNA in the brain and body, that is based on Science which is objective [see above], not subjective as you attribute to me.
What is objective [FSK] is based on the shared-beliefs in consensus by a group of subjects conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] of which the science-FSK is the most credible.

Thus I believe morality is objective as supported by objective moral facts within a human-based science-FSK and within a human based moral FSK.
The word "morality" does not refer to a set of beliefs. But it also does not refer to something within DNA. It refers to a set of laws -- and laws aren't beliefs. And even then, the laws it refers to are of certain type rather than any type. Man-made laws such as societal laws ( i.e. the laws that govern how societies function ) and personal laws ( i.e. the laws that govern how individual people behave ) aren't moral laws. Moral laws are laws of the form "Under circumstances C, the best decision for person P is D."
I presumed you meant morality refer to a set of natural laws; I prefer, principles.
In my case, these moral principles or facts are grounded on DNA, genes, brain and body which are verifiable and justifiable within the science-FSK.

These moral principles and facts are inherent in ALL humans, thus universal.
Their existence is undeniable as verifiable and justifiable by science.

Your "Under circumstances C, the best decision for person P is D" refer to "Applied Ethics" not morality per-se which is reference to human universals and principles, thus PURE Ethics or Morality.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 4:14 am In my case, these moral principles or facts are grounded on DNA, genes, brain and body which are verifiable and justifiable within the science-FSK.
These moral principles and facts are inherent in ALL humans, thus universal.
Realism is as close to universal as the moral principles you've often listed. In fact there are many people who ignore the oughtness not to kill. Compared to them there are very few antirealists. Yet, realism is primitive.

Are the neural patterns in the brains objective authorites or not?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12371
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 10:38 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 4:14 am In my case, these moral principles or facts are grounded on DNA, genes, brain and body which are verifiable and justifiable within the science-FSK.
These moral principles and facts are inherent in ALL humans, thus universal.
Realism is as close to universal as the moral principles you've often listed. In fact there are many people who ignore the oughtness not to kill. Compared to them there are very few antirealists. Yet, realism is primitive.

Are the neural patterns in the brains objective authorites or not?
Analogy:
As programmed in ALL humans there is a potential of an 'oughtness to manifest puberty' in a certain phase of life, usually around 10-12 years of age.

There are many people who do not manifest puberty;
  • Kallmann syndrome (KS) is a genetic disorder that prevents a person from starting or fully completing puberty. Kallmann syndrome is a form of a group of conditions termed hypogonadotropic hypogonadism.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kallmann_syndrome#
At present in the transgender situations, children are given certain hormones, etc. to suppress their puberty potential.

This does not infer that not all humans are programmed with a potential of an 'oughtness to manifest puberty'.
The fact is this 'oughtness to manifest puberty' as a potential is represented by certain physical genes and DNA and thus are science-biological FSK-ed facts.

Similarly the "oughtness-not-to-kill" which is evident the majority of human do not go about killing humans arbitrarily, is a potential that is represented by certain physical genes and DNA and thus are human-based science-biological FSK-ed facts.

It is not that some people ignored "oughtness-not-to-kill" potential which is inherent in them.
Rather, their "oughtness-not-to-kill" potential did not activate accordingly due to various reasons, e.g. under-development, damage to mechanisms that activate this potential, psychopathy, etc.
But despite this, there is no denial, "oughtness-not-to-kill" potential is exists as real and represented by certain physical genes and DNA and thus are human-based science-biological FSK-ed facts.

The above facts when inputted into a credible human-based moral FSR-FSK enables the emergence and realization of moral FSR-FSK facts which are objective, thus human based morality is objective.

Analogy:
The inherent potential of puberty is a human based science-biological fact.
When it is inputted into the human-based transgenderism FSR-FSK, it becomes a transgenderism FSR-FSK fact that is useful and applied in reality.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 9:01 am
As programmed in ALL humans there is a potential of an 'oughtness to manifest puberty' in a certain phase of life, usually around 10-12 years of age.
I remember some of the more advanced boys manifesting it in the school gym changing rooms, and wondering if I ought to be manifesting it. :(
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2023 9:01 am
As programmed in ALL humans there is a potential of an 'oughtness to manifest puberty' in a certain phase of life
You are obviously trying to make "oughtness" seem like something more substantial than it is, presumably to make the oughtness that goes with morality seem more solid. Nobody, except you, thinks in those terms. If the human body is programmed to manifest puberty around a certain age, you should just say that, instead of saying it is programmed with an oughtness to manifest it; that is just ridiculous. Can you imagine buying a tin of paint that says on the label, "This product includes an oughtness to make your walls red"? :roll:
Post Reply