What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If philosophy is superior over science, what is it superior for? How do you measure this claimed "superiority" ?

By the comparative rarity of high level philosophy jobs, as opposed to the many dime-a-dozen low level "science" jobs heavily advertised and propagated by 6th grade reading level mass media as a sales mechanism, most not even updated from archaic little 19th century tidbits, and mainly for the purpose of selling consumerist trinkets like cell phones, washing machines, and video game consoles to people who religiously consume 6th grade reading level scientistic propaganda and nonsensicalities.

The only purposes the natural sciences serve are either an aesthetic one, akin to philosophy (which if they fail at, are therefore worthless), or simple pragmatics and pratical uses within specific industries and job sectors, which in that regard makes them no different than any other "skill", "work", or "applied sciences", such as plumbing and cable-Tv installation.

The term 'philosophy' at present had been bastardized by academic philosophy.

However there is still what is inherent Philosophy [basically lover of wisdom], i.e. philosophy-proper as a cognitive and faculty within the human brain.
Philosophy is not merely 'lover of wisdom' but note the implied 'practical' within the term 'wisdom' i.e. the applied knowledge.
DNA wise, all humans are "programmed" with an algorithm for philosophical competence which is necessary for the preservation of the human species in the advent of humanity's greater awareness of larger scale threats, e.g. galactical, rogue meteors, pandemic, WMDs, etc.

To abstract and understand what is philosophy-proper as a natural tendency within all human beings, one need to research every aspects of 'what is philosophy' from the whole of the human database since human emerged and covering Eastern, Western philosophies and philosophies from every corner of the world.
Note the Eastern philosophies already existed as 'philosophy-proper' thousands of years before the Greek Philosophies [the ground for Western Philosophy].

In addition, the Greek Philosophies were heavily influenced by Buddhist and Hindu Philosophies in their initial phases and the reverse vice-versa happened very much later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXBygl-ox5Q

I suggest to abstract the common-pattern and understand what is 'philosophy-proper' one need to research on at least 500 definitions of 'what is philosophy' that is defined within Eastern, Western and everywhere the term - philosophy' is used and implied.
I have done that.

From what I have gathered, the essence of what is philosophy-proper is this;

• Philosophy-proper is the "programmed" [via evolution] overriding mental drive of a neural algorithm to ensure the optimal well-being of the individuals and that of humanity via the meta-development and adoption of whatever mental tools* that is necessary.

Mental tools encompass logic, rationality, knowledge, wisdom, whatever that necessary and is net-positive.
Philosophy-proper is 'meta' i.e. it overrides all form of knowledge and mental activities including philosophy-itself as a source of knowledge.
This is why we have "the Philosophy of X" where 'X' can be anything.

That is why we have appropriately 'The Philosophy of Science' where philosophy-proper overrides Science and not 'The Science of Philosophy'.

[Peter Holmes]

Since this fascinating Batman-v-Superman argument about science v philosophy has ground to a halt - here's a way of seeing why moral objectivism is a mistake.

Moral objectivists claim that a moral assertion, such as 'slavery is morally wrong' can be objective. The argument is something like this:

P1: If action X is contrary to goal Y, then action X is wrong.
P2: Action X is contrary to goal Y.
C: Therefore, action X is wrong.

This inference is valid. And needless to say, P1: If action X is consistent with goal Y, then action X is right, and so on, is also valid.

The objectivist argument is that:

a) the nature of goal Y is irrelevant - it could be driving safely, playing football, promoting the well-being of all agents, and so on; and
b) if action X is demonstrably contrary to (or consistent with) goal Y, then the assertion of its 'wrongness' or 'rightness' is objective.

But, crucially, 'wrong' and 'right' are instrumental here, and have no moral significance. In effect, 'right' means 'consistent with goal Y'; and 'wrong' means 'contrary to goal Y'. And, by substitution, that renders the argument useless, as follows:

P1: If action X is contrary to goal Y, then action X is contrary to goal Y [ie, wrong].
P2: Action X is contrary to goal Y.
C: Therefore, action X is contrary to goal Y [ie, wrong].

And notice that the demonstrability of action X's relationship to goal Y doesn't improve the argument.

Now, objectivists want to use this brilliant reasoning to establish the objectivity of a moral assertion such as 'slavery (enslaving people) is morally wrong'. And here, goal Y is something like 'promoting the well-being of all agents'. So, here goes.

P1: If enslaving people is contrary to the goal of promoting the well-being of all agents, then enslaving people is wrong.
P2: Enslaving people is contrary to the goal of promoting the well-being of all agents.
C: Therefore, enslaving people is wrong.

Notice that 'wrong' here DOES NOT MEAN 'MORALLY WRONG'. 'Wrong' and 'right' here are purely instrumental, meaning just 'contrary to' and 'consistent with' the goal, whose nature is irrelevant.

The objectivist trick is to smuggle 'morally' into the conclusion - therefore enslaving people is morally wrong - on the pretext that goal Y here is what we call a moral goal. It's a grammatical sleight-of-hand.

This argument does not establish the objectivity of an assertion such as 'slavery is morally wrong'. It's a confidence trick.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Since this fascinating Batman-v-Superman argument about science v philosophy has ground to a halt - here's a way of seeing why moral objectivism is a mistake.

Moral objectivists claim that a moral assertion, such as 'slavery is morally wrong' can be objective. The argument is something like this:

P1: If action X is contrary to goal Y, then action X is wrong.
P2: Action X is contrary to goal Y.
C: Therefore, action X is wrong.

This inference is valid. And needless to say, P1: If action X is consistent with goal Y, then action X is right, and so on, is also valid.

The objectivist argument is that:

a) the nature of goal Y is irrelevant - it could be driving safely, playing football, promoting the well-being of all agents, and so on; and
b) if action X is demonstrably contrary to (or consistent with) goal Y, then the assertion of its 'wrongness' or 'rightness' is objective.

But, crucially, 'wrong' and 'right' are instrumental here, and have no moral significance. In effect, 'right' means 'consistent with goal Y'; and 'wrong' means 'contrary to goal Y'. And, by substitution, that renders the argument useless, as follows:

P1: If action X is contrary to goal Y, then action X is contrary to goal Y [ie, wrong].
P2: Action X is contrary to goal Y.
C: Therefore, action X is contrary to goal Y [ie, wrong].

And notice that the demonstrability of action X's relationship to goal Y doesn't improve the argument.

Now, objectivists want to use this brilliant reasoning to establish the objectivity of a moral assertion such as 'slavery (enslaving people) is morally wrong'. And here, goal Y is something like 'promoting the well-being of all agents'. So, here goes.

P1: If enslaving people is contrary to the goal of promoting the well-being of all agents, then enslaving people is wrong.
P2: Enslaving people is contrary to the goal of promoting the well-being of all agents.
C: Therefore, enslaving people is wrong.

Notice that 'wrong' here DOES NOT MEAN 'MORALLY WRONG'. 'Wrong' and 'right' here are purely instrumental, meaning just 'contrary to' and 'consistent with' the goal, whose nature is irrelevant.

The objectivist trick is to smuggle 'morally' into the conclusion - therefore enslaving people is morally wrong - on the pretext that goal Y here is what we call a moral goal. It's a grammatical sleight-of-hand.

This argument does not establish the objectivity of an assertion such as 'slavery is morally wrong'. It's a confidence trick.

I am not an objectivist [philosphical] but I am arguing that a secular objective absolute moral ought is critical as a GUIDE [only] within a model to drive good human behavior towards the highest good.

The objectivist trick is to smuggle 'morally' into the conclusion - therefore enslaving people is morally wrong - on the pretext that goal Y here is what we call a moral goal. It's a grammatical sleight-of-hand.

What kind of thinking is that?
In my case,

Note the definition of morality:

• morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Chattel slavery concerns right/good or wrong/evil behavior.

Just as scientific theories are objective,
"slavery is morally wrong" is objective based on justified empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.

The empirical evidences are;

• 1. Personal confirmation:
  Would you want to be enslaved [owned as a chattel] by another human being?
  Surely it would a no!
  Based on your close relationship with them, have you heard your spouse, children, relatives and friend wanting to be chattel slaves.
  
  2. No other human would want to be enslaved [owned as a chattel] by another human being.
  If we are to ask every human on Earth, no individual will agree to be enslaved [owned as a chattel] by another human being.
  This is evident - there is no records of any individual wanting to be a slave to another humans voluntarily without any form of coercion. The exceptions are those as proven via psychiatry as having psychological and mental weakness and defects.
  There is no final confirmation until we get evidence on video confirmation from every individual on Earth and whilst this is a mammoth task, this is not an impossible task.
  
  As such whilst awaiting 100% evidence on the poll, we rely partly from philosophical reasoning.

Philosophical Reasoning;

• 1. Basic human right and dignity.
  It is well recognize all human individuals are entitle the basic human dignity and human right to be free, i.e. from being encumbered upon by another human being.
  https://www.un.org/en/universal-declara ... an-rights/
  
  2. The Golden Rule as Ethic of Reciprocity
  If one do not want to be enslaved to another, then one should not enslaved another human.
  
  3. Mirror Neurons and the inherent faculty of Morality within.
  
  4. Others .. many ..freewill, highest absolute good, etc.

The above empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning support the moral ought as objective because as argued it is generic to all human beings;

• "No human shall enslave another human" as a moral ought.
  {confined to chattel slavery in this case}

Note the above is a secular objective moral ought not a moral obligation nor duty-bound on the part of the individual.

As demonstrated above, we can arrive at a secular objective absolute moral ought.

Show me where my argument failed and why I cannot use the above demonstrated justified secular objective absolute moral ought as a GUIDE.
Note used as a guide only not to be enforced on any individual.

I can understand the resistance if we force people to comply to this moral ought but I am only using it as a GUIDE within an efficient moral model which would likely produce results re morality.
I have argued elsewhere how an efficient moral model will definitely produce progressively improvements.

Note:
You should direct your above condemnation to theists who claim a theistic moral model based on 'objective' moral laws from a God.
The theistic moral model is actually pseudo-morality or bastardized morality without any justified empirical evidence [God is illusory] and sound philosophical reasoning [based on faith].
It is the theists who smuggled in the term 'morality' into their flimsy model of good or evil when god is illusory and the behaviors of theists are threatened with fear of hell if they do not comply with God's law [which is actually subjective].

[Peter Holmes]

(Sorry, everyone. I poked the bear again. Chronic ursine torpor. No sign of improvement.)

1 The assertion that there is a 'highest good' for humanity expresses an opinion, and is therefore subjective.
2 The assertion 'X is the highest good for humanity' expresses an opinion, and is therefore subjective.
3 The assertion that we should pursue the highest good for humanity expresses an opinion, and is therefore subjective.

Anyone can propose any moral principles, goals and rules they like. But the claim that they can be objective (independent from opinion) comes from a category error.

[Veritas Aequitas]

(Sorry, everyone. I poked the bear again. Chronic ursine torpor. No sign of improvement.)

1 The assertion that there is a 'highest good' for humanity expresses an opinion, and is therefore subjective.
2 The assertion 'X is the highest good for humanity' expresses an opinion, and is therefore subjective.
3 The assertion that we should pursue the highest good for humanity expresses an opinion, and is therefore subjective.

Anyone can propose any moral principles, goals and rules they like. But the claim that they can be objective (independent from opinion) comes from a category error.

Ad hominen and dehumanizing another. No wonder you don't have a sense of what is good morality.
I am not that desperate as you think. I will not bother to respond to your post on this issue except for the below;

Is the "highest good" the only contentious point?
So the rest are OK.

The objective "highest good" as I had argued from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning is;
"the maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the human species."
It cannot be an opinion since it is intrinsic and inherent in human nature, i.e.
DNA/RNA wise ALL humans [generic human being] is "programmed" for this objective 'highest good" thus independent from anyone's opinion especially the theists'.

ALL humans [with exceptions and perversion] are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable, avoid premature death, fuck to produce the next generations, with ocytoxins to take care of the newborn and child so that they can produce the next generations, i.e. all these are to serve the "highest good" i.e. preservation of the human species based on the principles of large numbers.
You dispute this?

What is of concern to you is you are so ignorant of your own human nature within your brain and physical self. Know Thyself!

[Peter Holmes]

(Sorry, everyone. I poked the bear again. Chronic ursine torpor. No sign of improvement.)

1 The assertion that there is a 'highest good' for humanity expresses an opinion, and is therefore subjective.
2 The assertion 'X is the highest good for humanity' expresses an opinion, and is therefore subjective.
3 The assertion that we should pursue the highest good for humanity expresses an opinion, and is therefore subjective.

Anyone can propose any moral principles, goals and rules they like. But the claim that they can be objective (independent from opinion) comes from a category error.

Ad hominen and dehumanizing another. No wonder you don't have a sense of what is good morality.
I am not that desperate as you think. I will not bother to respond to your post on this issue except for the below;

Is the "highest good" the only contentious point?
So the rest are OK.

The objective "highest good" as I had argued from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning is;
"the maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the human species."
It cannot be an opinion since it is intrinsic and inherent in human nature, i.e.
DNA/RNA wise ALL humans [generic human being] is "programmed" for this objective 'highest good" thus independent from anyone's opinion especially the theists'.

ALL humans [with exceptions and perversion] are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable, avoid premature death, fuck to produce the next generations, with ocytoxins to take care of the newborn and child so that they can produce the next generations, i.e. all these are to serve the "highest good" i.e. preservation of the human species based on the principles of large numbers.
You dispute this?

What is of concern to you is you are so ignorant of your own human nature within your brain and physical self. Know Thyself!

No, I was using just one example - what you called 'the highest good' - and showing you, again, that assertions about such things are subjective. If and when you wake up and recognise that fact, you'll see how the rest of your argument for objective morality collapses.

You propose this goal: the maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the human species. But that has nothing to do with morality. And it's a matter of opinion that the human race should be maintained, sustained and preserved. And to call that goal 'the highest good' is laughable.

How about this goal? The maintenance, sustaining and preservation of planet earth and all the forms of life that humans are destroying. I call that 'the highest good'. Now, which of us is right? Is there any way of adjudicating between our opinions? Does science tell us the answer?

[Skepdick]

No, I was using just one example - what you called 'the highest good' - and showing you, again, that assertions about such things are subjective. If and when you wake up and recognise that fact, you'll see how the rest of your argument for objective morality collapses.

You propose this goal: the maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the human species. But that has nothing to do with morality. And it's a matter of opinion that the human race should be maintained, sustained and preserved. And to call that goal 'the highest good' is laughable.

How about this goal? The maintenance, sustaining and preservation of planet earth and all the forms of life that humans are destroying. I call that 'the highest good'. Now, which of us is right? Is there any way of adjudicating between our opinions? Does science tell us the answer?

You don't have to make arguments to exist, but you have to exist in order to make arguments.
You don't have to do science to exist, but you have to exist to do science.
You don't have to laugh at stupid arguments to exist, but you have to exist to laugh at stupid arguments.

Indeed, all of the above are scientific answers. Falsifiable and everything.

If you reject the anthropic principle, if you reject your own existence - say so.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, I was using just one example - what you called 'the highest good' - and showing you, again, that assertions about such things are subjective. If and when you wake up and recognise that fact, you'll see how the rest of your argument for objective morality collapses.

You propose this goal: the maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the human species. But that has nothing to do with morality. And it's a matter of opinion that the human race should be maintained, sustained and preserved. And to call that goal 'the highest good' is laughable.

You are laughing at your own ignorance.
It is due to your ignorance and intelligence on this issue that you are not able to reconcile the proposed goal to morality. I have already gone into that before.

It is very objective.
It is evident all species that emerged with evidence showing the maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the species.
Show me one species of living thing that emerge with an implied intention to be extinct immediate upon its emergence?
Thus the maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the species is an intrinsic goal of any species therefore inherent within the human species.
In this sense the maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the species is the implied "highest good" for each individual within the species.

How about this goal? The maintenance, sustaining and preservation of planet earth and all the forms of life that humans are destroying. I call that 'the highest good'. Now, which of us is right? Is there any way of adjudicating between our opinions? Does science tell us the answer?

You are resorting to rhetoric.
At no time did I imply the goal of the human species is extended to all forms of life on Earth.
To achieve the goal in maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the human species, humans has to kill other living things for food and self-defense. However humans has the moral obligation to optimize in not killing all living things at its own expense or detriment.

Btw, you are many steps behind.
Whatever counters you have thrown at me, I have a ready answer.
Other than that you are merely using rhetoric, straw-man and irrelevant points which I had exposed.
What we are discussing is merely 10% of morality and ethics, there is still 90% to explore below the surface and it looks like if we go further I will have to waste a lot of time providing answers to your ignorance and uncovering your rhetoric.

[Peter Holmes]

No, I was using just one example - what you called 'the highest good' - and showing you, again, that assertions about such things are subjective. If and when you wake up and recognise that fact, you'll see how the rest of your argument for objective morality collapses.

You propose this goal: the maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the human species. But that has nothing to do with morality. And it's a matter of opinion that the human race should be maintained, sustained and preserved. And to call that goal 'the highest good' is laughable.

You are laughing at your own ignorance.
It is due to your ignorance and intelligence on this issue that you are not able to reconcile the proposed goal to morality. I have already gone into that before.

It is very objective.
It is evident all species that emerged with evidence showing the maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the species.
Show me one species of living thing that emerge with an implied intention to be extinct immediate upon its emergence?
Thus the maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the species is an intrinsic goal of any species therefore inherent within the human species.
In this sense the maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the species is the implied "highest good" for each individual within the species.

How about this goal? The maintenance, sustaining and preservation of planet earth and all the forms of life that humans are destroying. I call that 'the highest good'. Now, which of us is right? Is there any way of adjudicating between our opinions? Does science tell us the answer?

You are resorting to rhetoric.
At no time did I imply the goal of the human species is extended to all forms of life on Earth.
To achieve the goal in maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the human species, humans has to kill other living things for food and self-defense. However humans has the moral obligation to optimize in not killing all living things at its own expense or detriment.

Btw, you are many steps behind.
Whatever counters you have thrown at me, I have a ready answer.
Other than that you are merely using rhetoric, straw-man and irrelevant points which I had exposed.
What we are discussing is merely 10% of morality and ethics, there is still 90% to explore below the surface and it looks like if we go further I will have to waste a lot of time providing answers to your ignorance and uncovering your rhetoric.

Well, equipped with such a powerful mind, you'll have no problem with this question.

Can you explain the functional difference between the following two assertions?

1 A species' main aim is to maintain, sustain and preserve itself.

2 A species' main aim should be to maintain, sustain and preserve itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, I was using just one example - what you called 'the highest good' - and showing you, again, that assertions about such things are subjective. If and when you wake up and recognise that fact, you'll see how the rest of your argument for objective morality collapses.

You propose this goal: the maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the human species. But that has nothing to do with morality. And it's a matter of opinion that the human race should be maintained, sustained and preserved. And to call that goal 'the highest good' is laughable.

You are laughing at your own ignorance.
It is due to your ignorance and intelligence on this issue that you are not able to reconcile the proposed goal to morality. I have already gone into that before.

It is very objective.
It is evident all species that emerged with evidence showing the maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the species.
Show me one species of living thing that emerge with an implied intention to be extinct immediate upon its emergence?
Thus the maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the species is an intrinsic goal of any species therefore inherent within the human species.
In this sense the maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the species is the implied "highest good" for each individual within the species.

How about this goal? The maintenance, sustaining and preservation of planet earth and all the forms of life that humans are destroying. I call that 'the highest good'. Now, which of us is right? Is there any way of adjudicating between our opinions? Does science tell us the answer?

You are resorting to rhetoric.
At no time did I imply the goal of the human species is extended to all forms of life on Earth.
To achieve the goal in maintenance, sustaining and preservation of the human species, humans has to kill other living things for food and self-defense. However humans has the moral obligation to optimize in not killing all living things at its own expense or detriment.

Btw, you are many steps behind.
Whatever counters you have thrown at me, I have a ready answer.
Other than that you are merely using rhetoric, straw-man and irrelevant points which I had exposed.
What we are discussing is merely 10% of morality and ethics, there is still 90% to explore below the surface and it looks like if we go further I will have to waste a lot of time providing answers to your ignorance and uncovering your rhetoric.

Well, equipped with such a powerful mind, you'll have no problem with this question.

Can you explain the functional difference between the following two assertions?

1 A species' main aim is to maintain, sustain and preserve itself.

2 A species' main aim should be to maintain, sustain and preserve itself.

Rhetoric again.
I have never asserted the need for 'should' 'ought' nor any form of enforcement.

Why don't you ask;
Gravity's main should be to pull things down to Earth.

[Peter Holmes]

Can you explain the functional difference between the following two assertions?

1 A species' main aim is to maintain, sustain and preserve itself.

2 A species' main aim should be to maintain, sustain and preserve itself.

Rhetoric again.
I have never asserted the need for 'should' 'ought' nor any form of enforcement.

Why don't you ask;
Gravity's main should be to pull things down to Earth.

But your argument is that the 'highest good' for a species is to maintain (etc) itself. (And earlier you've claimed that we should adopt a moral code, with ideal goals, and so on. Similar approach.)

Seriously, can you explain the functional difference between the 'is' assertion and the 'should' or 'ought to' assertion? If so, please do so - and never mind if you don't want to assert the 'should' or 'ought to' claim.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can you explain the functional difference between the following two assertions?

1 A species' main aim is to maintain, sustain and preserve itself.

2 A species' main aim should be to maintain, sustain and preserve itself.

Rhetoric again.
I have never asserted the need for 'should' 'ought' nor any form of enforcement.

Why don't you ask;
Gravity's main should be to pull things down to Earth.

But your argument is that the 'highest good' for a species is to maintain (etc) itself. (And earlier you've claimed that we should adopt a moral code, with ideal goals, and so on. Similar approach.)

Seriously, can you explain the functional difference between the 'is' assertion and the 'should' or 'ought to' assertion? If so, please do so - and never mind if you don't want to assert the 'should' or 'ought to' claim.

Note I stated, we should or recommended, i.e. imperative for efficiency, that we adopt the "moral ought" as a GUIDE only within the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
You may have been confused by the seemingly contradiction 'moral ought' as a GUIDE only.
Note I have highlighted "1000s" times, such a ideal 'ought' is never to be enforced.

[Peter Holmes]

Rhetoric again.
I have never asserted the need for 'should' 'ought' nor any form of enforcement.

Why don't you ask;
Gravity's main should be to pull things down to Earth.

But your argument is that the 'highest good' for a species is to maintain (etc) itself. (And earlier you've claimed that we should adopt a moral code, with ideal goals, and so on. Similar approach.)

Seriously, can you explain the functional difference between the 'is' assertion and the 'should' or 'ought to' assertion? If so, please do so - and never mind if you don't want to assert the 'should' or 'ought to' claim.

Note I stated, we should or recommended, i.e. imperative for efficiency, that we adopt the "moral ought" as a GUIDE only within the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
You may have been confused by the seemingly contradiction 'moral ought' as a GUIDE only.
Note I have highlighted "1000s" times, such a ideal 'ought' is never to be enforced.

Thanks. I completely understand that you don't propose enforcement of any kind. I completely understand that that the moral 'ought' you propose is a guide only. You've said this a thousand times, and I completely understand it. No need to say it again.

Now, given that we agree that 'should' and 'ought to' have nothing compulsory or mandatory in their meaning - that they are advisory only - that they express a recommendation only - please can you explain the function of the 'should' assertion below.

We should adopt a moral code with ideal goals.

In other words, if you were to make that assertion - or something like it - what would be your reason for making it, and how do you think the rest of us should understand it?

[RCSaunders]

There initially needs to be some provisional axioms to establish the basis for morality...

Quite so.

"There initially needs to be some provisional axioms to establish the basis for morality," for what? What is the objective of, "morality?" Why would anyone need to know anything called, "moral," or, "ethical," principles?

It is not too difficult to understand why the basic principles of mechanics, mathematics, the general sciences, language (reading and writing), even finance (what money is and how to use it) or even food preparation are important to one's life and why one would want to know and use those principles. Why would anyone want to know and use moral principles?

With very rare exception, I have never seen this question answered that does not assume someone's preconceived notion of what moral principles are. All the answers are variations of, "you should be moral because it is moral." It's a non-answer.

[RCSaunders]

ALL humans [with exceptions and perversion] are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable, avoid premature death, fuck to produce the next generations, with ocytoxins to take care of the newborn and child so that they can produce the next generations, i.e. all these are to serve the "highest good" i.e. preservation of the human species based on the principles of large numbers.
You dispute this?

This is mostly correct. I would only change it as follows:

The great mass of sub-humans, who have not quite fully evolved to true rational volitional beings are "programmed" to survive and reproduce like the mindless protozoa they are most like, chimeras, part animal and part human, whose extinction cannot occur too soon, leaving the world free for the use and enjoyment of the truly productive human beings.