Is morality objective or subjective?

[Belinda]

that ain't how my morality works

You don't allow others to self-determine the way in which they want to be treated?

nutshellin' it: my morality only prohibits me from abusin' folks; it doesn't obligate me to abuse 'em, even if they want to be abused

If you own the river banks that are the only water for miles and miles is it abuse to keep other people away from the river?

What if the other person who has died from thirst was the only seedsman available to help you to grow stuff?

[henry quirk]

Rejecting their right to reject the existence of abuse is pretty abusive if you ask me.

I ain't obligated to participate in their insanity; I'm only obligated to leave 'em be

done with you unless you got sumthin' new

[henry quirk]

If you own the river banks that are the only water for miles and miles is it abuse to keep other people away from the river?

no, it would be stupid: I could make a killin' sellin' water (kinda like it's done today, all over the damn place)


What if the other person who has died from thirst was the only seedsman available to help you to grow stuff?

meh...I'm rich from sellin' water...I'll just order some from the Sears Roebuck Catalog (and have my negro manservant collect the parcel from the general store)

[Belinda]

If you own the river banks that are the only water for miles and miles is it abuse to keep other people away from the river?

no, it would be stupid: I could make a killin' sellin' water (kinda like it's done today, all over the damn place)


What if the other person who has died from thirst was the only seedsman available to help you to grow stuff?

meh...I'm rich from sellin' water...I'll just order some from the Sears Roebuck Catalog (and have my negro manservant collect the parcel from the general store)

True, about selling water.

On the other hand Sears Roebuck Catalog could not exist unless the editors, producers, printer, wholesalers, distributors, buyers, and users had an unspoken agreement to be honest.

Honesty is the psychological basis of cooperation.

[henry quirk]

If you own the river banks that are the only water for miles and miles is it abuse to keep other people away from the river?

no, it would be stupid: I could make a killin' sellin' water (kinda like it's done today, all over the damn place)


What if the other person who has died from thirst was the only seedsman available to help you to grow stuff?

meh...I'm rich from sellin' water...I'll just order some from the Sears Roebuck Catalog (and have my negro manservant collect the parcel from the general store)

True, about selling water.

On the other hand Sears Roebuck Catalog could not exist unless the editors, producers, printer, wholesalers, distributors, buyers, and users had an unspoken agreement to be honest.

Honesty is the psychological basis of cooperation.

ain't nuthin' unspoken, B

the catalog was a business venture: there were contracts all over the place

not sure where you're goin' with all the honesty jazz

you sayin' I'm not honest?

if so...

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think that the following is the stripped-down version of your argument.

Factual premise: The moral assertion 'No human ought to kill another human' is represented by a neural algorithm in the human brain. (Humans are programmed not to kill other humans.)

Moral conclusion: Therefore, 'No human ought to kill another human' is a fact - a moral fact. (It is morally wrong to kill another human.)

If this is what you think, then let's change the premise, as follows. (I assume you understand the purpose of a counter-factual.)

Factual premise: The moral assertion 'Humans ought to kill other humansr' is represented by a neural algorithm in the human brain. (Humans are programmed to kill other humans.)

Moral conclusion: Therefore, 'Humans ought to kill other humans' is a fact - a moral fact. (It is morally right to kill another human.)

Now I assume you reject this new moral conclusion, though I may be wrong. But if you do, then you must see that neural programming isn't what determines the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. If the second conclusion doesn't follow, then nor does the first, unless you commit the fallacy of special pleading.

For now, we can leave aside the truth of either factual premise. But, as it happens, there's plenty of evidence that we're programmed to kill in extreme self-defence, or defence of the family or social group - as are all other primates and many other species.

Obviously I will not agree to your counter-factual because it has nothing to do with morality per se at all.
Your counter-factual is more to do with evil which would only be proposed by a stupid evil satanic adherent.

Here is why your counter-factual do not counter;

• 1. All humans programmed with the potential to kill other living things for food to facilitate survival.
  
  2. I had argued Morality is species-centric to ensure survival of the human species.
  
  3. Thus the 'potential to kill' cannot be directed at humans.
  
  4. However that inherent 'potential to kill' in all humans could and evidently had been triggered by SOME humans who had killed various situations.
  
  5. To maintain 2 and prevent 4, ALL humans are 'programmed' with an inherent moral functions to promote 'good' and prevent 'evil'.
  
  6. It is the neural algorithm of the inherent functions that generate a mental state, i.e. a state-of-affairs:
  "No human ought to kill another human" or
  "ALL [every] Humans ought-NOT to kill other humans"
  which is a fact - a moral fact within the moral FSK.

Your counter-factual;

• "Humans ought to kill other humans"
  should be;
  "ALL [every] Humans ought to kill other humans"

is CONTRADICTORY to the agent to hold such an imperative because the agent himself is targeted to be killed.
However, critically, that maxim lead to the potential the human species will be extinct in time, thus self-defeating from the start.
Thus my point, your counter-factual is more to do with evil which would only be proposed by a stupid evil satanic adherent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Permanent challenge for moral objectivists, including intellectually challenged trolls.

Demonstrate, without begging the question, how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, and therefore how a moral assertion can logically contradict a factual assertion.

The rest of us are waiting. Permanently. Because it can't be done. Which is why moral objectivism is irrational.

Your usual ad nauseam that reflect your stupidity in philosophy.

I have already presented a 'thousand times'
A specific FSK generate its specific facts
A Moral FSK generate moral facts

• P1 Moral facts
  P2 Moral Facts
  C1 Moral Facts [entailed].

As Hume had argued, all humans has an empirical moral sense.
Modern biology and neurosciences has shown a human sense faculty is represented by a neural algorithm.

In paraphrasing Hume;

• If we consider carefully all the facts about a willful murder, we find nothing in the external circumstances that answers to what we call vice.
  We find vice only when we look into our own brain/mind and find a sentiment of disapproval [represented by a neural algorithm] toward the perpetrator of the crime.
  There is a matter of fact in the case, but it is the object of the moral sense, not of reason; it [the matter of fact] is in us, not in the object.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Permanent challenge for moral objectivists, including intellectually challenged trolls.

Demonstrate, without begging the question, how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, and therefore how a moral assertion can logically contradict a factual assertion.

The rest of us are waiting. Permanently. Because it can't be done. Which is why moral objectivism is irrational.

Permanent challenge to the idiot.

What does empirical factuality have to do with logical entailment?

I proposed the experiment to settle this. Lets shoot you in the face and see if a contradiction arises.

If no contradiction arises then you are right and I am wrong.

A very good test in Applied Ethics to verify what will happen if there are no moral facts, e.g. in the above case,
"No human ought to kill another" or
"Every [ALL] humans ought to kill other humans"

[Peter Holmes]

Permanent challenge for moral objectivists, including intellectually challenged trolls.

Demonstrate, without begging the question, how a factual assertion can logically entail a moral assertion, and therefore how a moral assertion can logically contradict a factual assertion.

The rest of us are waiting. Permanently. Because it can't be done. Which is why moral objectivism is irrational.

Permanent challenge to the idiot.

What does empirical factuality have to do with logical entailment?

I proposed the experiment to settle this. Lets shoot you in the face and see if a contradiction arises.

If no contradiction arises then you are right and I am wrong.

A very good test in Applied Ethics to verify what will happen if there are no moral facts, e.g. in the above case,
"No human ought to kill another" or
"Every [ALL] humans ought to kill other humans"

You're confused. The question is: what would happen if people don't have and follow moral rules?

Since there are no moral facts, there are only moral values, rules and judgements. And without those, yes, we'd be in trouble.

For example, a morally imbecilic wanker, whose only reason for not shooting people in the face is that he thinks it's a moral fact that he shouldn't, might, relieved of that delusion, put some clothes on, heave himself out of his cellar, and set about shooting people in the face, beginning, of course, with Mother.

[Belinda]

If you own the river banks that are the only water for miles and miles is it abuse to keep other people away from the river?

no, it would be stupid: I could make a killin' sellin' water (kinda like it's done today, all over the damn place)


What if the other person who has died from thirst was the only seedsman available to help you to grow stuff?

meh...I'm rich from sellin' water...I'll just order some from the Sears Roebuck Catalog (and have my negro manservant collect the parcel from the general store)

True, about selling water.

On the other hand Sears Roebuck Catalog could not exist unless the editors, producers, printer, wholesalers, distributors, buyers, and users had an unspoken agreement to be honest.

Honesty is the psychological basis of cooperation.

ain't nuthin' unspoken, B

the catalog was a business venture: there were contracts all over the place

not sure where you're goin' with all the honesty jazz

you sayin' I'm not honest?

if so...

I think your persona here is honest and probably reflects your real life person.
Honesty is the basic attitude of people living in societies. It would be impossible for a law abiding society to survive without most of the citizens' being honest. Look at Lebanon. The honest people are the young citizens who are trying to make order from the mess of a chronically corrupt ruling class.
I am not a great supporter of capitalism, but as far as I know Sears Roebuck makes honest money.

[Skepdick]

Since there are no moral facts, there are only moral values, rules and judgements. And without those, yes, we'd be in trouble.

Where do those moral values, rules and judgments exist, Peter?

Can you show them to us?

But my brain doesn't contain abstract things.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Permanent challenge to the idiot.

What does empirical factuality have to do with logical entailment?

I proposed the experiment to settle this. Lets shoot you in the face and see if a contradiction arises.

If no contradiction arises then you are right and I am wrong.

A very good test in Applied Ethics to verify what will happen if there are no moral facts, e.g. in the above case,
"No human ought to kill another" or
"Every [ALL] humans ought to kill other humans"

You're confused. The question is: what would happen if people don't have and follow moral rules?

Since there are no moral facts, there are only moral values, rules and judgements. And without those, yes, we'd be in trouble.

For example, a morally imbecilic wanker, whose only reason for not shooting people in the face is that he thinks it's a moral fact that he shouldn't, might, relieved of that delusion, put some clothes on, heave himself out of his cellar, and set about shooting people in the face, beginning, of course, with Mother.

You are the one who is confused.

You deny there are moral facts, especially the one we have been contending, i.e.
"No human ought to kill another" or
"Every [ALL] humans ought to kill other humans"

As such you will have no moral maxims as a standard to refer to when someone want to shoot you in the face.

[Peter Holmes]

A very good test in Applied Ethics to verify what will happen if there are no moral facts, e.g. in the above case,
"No human ought to kill another" or
"Every [ALL] humans ought to kill other humans"

You're confused. The question is: what would happen if people don't have and follow moral rules?

Since there are no moral facts, there are only moral values, rules and judgements. And without those, yes, we'd be in trouble.

For example, a morally imbecilic wanker, whose only reason for not shooting people in the face is that he thinks it's a moral fact that he shouldn't, might, relieved of that delusion, put some clothes on, heave himself out of his cellar, and set about shooting people in the face, beginning, of course, with Mother.

You are the one who is confused.

You deny there are moral facts, especially the one we have been contending, i.e.
"No human ought to kill another" or
"Every [ALL] humans ought to kill other humans"

As such you will have no moral maxims as a standard to refer to when someone want to shoot you in the face.

False, ridiculous and libellous.

Fact: If there are no moral facts, then there are only moral judgements.
Fact: If there are only moral judgements, then a moral assertion can express only a moral judgement.
False and ridiculous conclusion: If there are only moral judgements, then there can be no moral judgements.

VA, if the penny finally drops for you, and you realise there are no moral facts, will you then think it's morally okay for you or some morally imbecilic wanker to go out and shoot people in the face? Will you feel unable to morally judge the Dick for shooting you in the face?

[Skepdick]

Fact: If there are no moral facts, then there are only moral judgements.

Peter, in your very own words: what and where are judgments and in what way do they exist?

But my brain doesn't contain abstract things.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA, if the penny finally drops for you, and you realise there are no moral facts, will you then think it's morally okay for you or some morally imbecilic wanker to go out and shoot people in the face? Will you feel unable to morally judge the Dick for shooting you in the face?

As per the Principles of Normal Distribution, there will be a percentile of outliers, the 1% or up to 5-10% who will and potentially commit the most odious repulsive immoral acts.
When these outliers commit the most hideous, abhorrent immoral acts, they will be repugnant to the average moral inclined person regardless of whether there are moral fact or not.

I insist there are moral facts as I have justified them succinctly over various posts and threads.
It is because, I understand the existence of moral facts, I can use them as a standard to strive for improvement to the inherent standards, where all humans should be doing the same.
At present it is too late for improvements for the current generations, but moral facts provide improvements for future generations if the right direction and steps are taken.

Note the advantage of Moral Realism, i.e. there are moral facts which are truth-apt;

Moral realism allows the ordinary rules of logic (modus ponens, etc.) to be applied straightforwardly to moral statements. We can say that a moral belief is false or unjustified or contradictory in the same way we would about a factual belief. This is a problem for expressivism, as shown by the Frege–Geach problem.

Another advantage of moral realism is its capacity to resolve moral disagreements: if two moral beliefs contradict one another, realism says that they cannot both be right, and therefore everyone involved ought to be seeking out the right answer to resolve the disagreement. Contrary theories of meta-ethics have trouble even formulating the statement "this moral belief is wrong," and so they cannot resolve disagreements in this way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism#Advantages

In your case with Moral Subjectivism - there are no moral facts but merely subjective judgments - you and your likes will be indifferent to any moral improvements and progress and accept the status quo. Then you can only complain when someone shoot you in the face, especially in the present when the police dept is defunded thus no officer to investigate the shooter.