Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

What we call objectivity is sticking to the facts.

What we call facts are states-of-affairs, or descriptions of states-of-affairs, that are or were the case.

So there can be moral objectivity only if there are moral states-of affairs - if, for example, the moral rightness of capital punishment is a state-of-affairs, or the moral wrongness of eating animals. And, of course, those aren't states-of-affairs at all - and to think they are is an obvious misunderstanding.

Because there are states-of-affairs that can be described by physics, there are 'physics facts'. But there are no such states-of-affairs that moral assertions describe. So morality can't be objective - how ever desperately moral objectivists want it to be.

Shouting from being trapped within your 'silo' is not about the real world.
Your definition of 'what is fact' is too archaic and shallow which is inherited from the bastardized ideology of the logical positivists and those of analytic philosophy.

Read this;
What is fact?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
I have quoted this a '1000' times.

What you are arguing against is the typical moral claims, from theists who made claims of moral facts from a God; platonists who claim there are moral universals; various people who make subjective moral claims and judgments, i.e. murder is wrong, abortion is wrong, capital punishment is wrong and the likes. I agree these are not moral facts per se but merely opinions and belief.

What I am claiming is there are moral facts within a Moral Framework and System which are justified as credible facts like facts from Science.
These moral facts are states-of-affairs within the brain of the moral agent as represented by the referent of various moral neural algorithms which can be verified like scientific and psychological facts.
From this perspective moral facts are objective.

In addition, I don't believe you understand what is objectivity-proper.
According to Mathew Kramers who wrote one specialized book on 'Moral Objectivity' where what is objectivity-proper must fulfill 7 dimensions below;

• Ontological (Chapters 2–5)
  1 Mind-independence
  2 Determinate correctness
  3 Uniform applicability
  4 Invariance
  
  Epistemic (Chapters 6–7)
  5 Transindividual concurrence
  6 Impartiality
  
  Semantic (Chapter -8)
  7 Truth-aptitude

I have stated the above many times, and I don't think you will every grasp them given your dogmatism and confirmation bias to your bastardized ideas on 'what is morality'.

I and others have repeatedly explained the mistakes in your argument. For example:

'These moral facts are states-of-affairs within the brain of the moral agent as represented by the referent of various moral neural algorithms which can be verified like scientific and psychological facts.'

This is a simple misunderstanding. Brain-states that produce certain behaviour may be facts - states-of-affairs that exist - but they aren't moral facts. They're just facts - features of our brains.

Your argument is: we're wired to think, say, killing people is morally wrong; therefore it's a fact that killing people is morally wrong. (Impressive reasoning.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

What we call objectivity is sticking to the facts.

What we call facts are states-of-affairs, or descriptions of states-of-affairs, that are or were the case.

So there can be moral objectivity only if there are moral states-of affairs - if, for example, the moral rightness of capital punishment is a state-of-affairs, or the moral wrongness of eating animals. And, of course, those aren't states-of-affairs at all - and to think they are is an obvious misunderstanding.

Because there are states-of-affairs that can be described by physics, there are 'physics facts'. But there are no such states-of-affairs that moral assertions describe. So morality can't be objective - how ever desperately moral objectivists want it to be.

Shouting from being trapped within your 'silo' is not about the real world.
Your definition of 'what is fact' is too archaic and shallow which is inherited from the bastardized ideology of the logical positivists and those of analytic philosophy.

Read this;
What is fact?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
I have quoted this a '1000' times.

What you are arguing against is the typical moral claims, from theists who made claims of moral facts from a God; platonists who claim there are moral universals; various people who make subjective moral claims and judgments, i.e. murder is wrong, abortion is wrong, capital punishment is wrong and the likes. I agree these are not moral facts per se but merely opinions and belief.

What I am claiming is there are moral facts within a Moral Framework and System which are justified as credible facts like facts from Science.
These moral facts are states-of-affairs within the brain of the moral agent as represented by the referent of various moral neural algorithms which can be verified like scientific and psychological facts.
From this perspective moral facts are objective.

In addition, I don't believe you understand what is objectivity-proper.
According to Mathew Kramers who wrote one specialized book on 'Moral Objectivity' where what is objectivity-proper must fulfill 7 dimensions below;

• Ontological (Chapters 2–5)
  1 Mind-independence
  2 Determinate correctness
  3 Uniform applicability
  4 Invariance
  
  Epistemic (Chapters 6–7)
  5 Transindividual concurrence
  6 Impartiality
  
  Semantic (Chapter -8)
  7 Truth-aptitude

I have stated the above many times, and I don't think you will every grasp them given your dogmatism and confirmation bias to your bastardized ideas on 'what is morality'.

I and others have repeatedly explained the mistakes in your argument. For example:

'These moral facts are states-of-affairs within the brain of the moral agent as represented by the referent of various moral neural algorithms which can be verified like scientific and psychological facts.'

This is a simple misunderstanding. Brain-states that produce certain behaviour may be facts - states-of-affairs that exist - but they aren't moral facts. They're just facts - features of our brains.

Your argument is: we're wired to think, say, killing people is morally wrong; therefore it's a fact that killing people is morally wrong. (Impressive reasoning.)

You are wrong, the moral fact is all humans are endowed via evolution with a state of ought-not-ness [inhibitory force] in killing another human. This is the substantive aspect of the moral fact.

That people think 'killing people is morally wrong' is secondary is a form of the substantive moral fact that is represented the inherent neural algorithm.

Here is an analogy.
ALL humans are endowed with an algorithm and system to deal with then need for nutrition for the person. This algorithm is represented by a set of neurons within the brain and connected to the visceral and other organs of the body.
When the body and self sensed there is a lack and need for nutrition, it will trigger the impulse of hunger and other uneasy feelings that drive the person to take in food.
As you can see, the thinking of food and hunger is different from the fact and existence of the algorithm and system to deal with the need for nutrition.

It is the same with the moral function within the brain which is represented by an algorithm and system comprising various moral principles, i.e. moral facts.
When a person thinks that 'killing is morally wrong' that is more to thinking than to morality-proper.
What is morality-proper is where the person is in a state where his moral function is in a state of inherent inhibition that inhibit the moral agent from killing another human. Whatever the thinking and reasoning that is secondary; these are merely thoughts.

As I had stated, your thinking is too shallow and narrow.

This is a simple misunderstanding. Brain-states that produce certain behaviour may be facts - states-of-affairs that exist - but they aren't moral facts. They're just facts - features of our brains.

I have to say you are very stupid [literally lack the intelligence and knowledge] in this case.

There are many types of brain states represented by their respective neural algorithms.
Those that represent emotions are facts, features of our brains, but they are effectively facts of the emotions. Similarly specific parts of the brain has their specific facts.
Therefore those neural algorithms that are related to morality are moral facts.

[Peter Holmes]

You are wrong, the moral fact is all humans are endowed via evolution with a state of ought-not-ness [inhibitory force] in killing another human. This is the substantive aspect of the moral fact.

No, you are wrong. It may be a fact that 'all humans are endowed via evolution with a state of ought-not-ness [inhibitory force] in killing another human'. But that doesn't mean the moral ought-not-ness of killing another human is a fact. It just means we're wired not to kill another human. And that has no moral significance whatsoever - just as, if we were wired to kill other humans, the moral oughtness of doing so wouldn't be a fact.

You simply don't understand the issue. You never have, and it seems likely you never will.

[Skepdick]

I and others have repeatedly explained the mistakes in your argument. For example:

'These moral facts are states-of-affairs within the brain of the moral agent as represented by the referent of various moral neural algorithms which can be verified like scientific and psychological facts.'

This is a simple misunderstanding. Brain-states that produce certain behaviour may be facts - states-of-affairs that exist - but they aren't moral facts. They're just facts - features of our brains.

If morality exists (and you seem to believe it does), then morality is a part of "the state of affairs".

Where or what is this existent which you call "morality"? Could you please locate it for us in spacetime?

If you aren't willing to step up to the challenge, then stop wasting everybody's time with your fucking nihilism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are wrong, the moral fact is all humans are endowed via evolution with a state of ought-not-ness [inhibitory force] in killing another human. This is the substantive aspect of the moral fact.

No, you are wrong. It may be a fact that 'all humans are endowed via evolution with a state of ought-not-ness [inhibitory force] in killing another human'. But that doesn't mean the moral ought-not-ness of killing another human is a fact. It just means we're wired not to kill another human. And that has no moral significance whatsoever - just as, if we were wired to kill other humans, the moral oughtness of doing so wouldn't be a fact.

I am surprised you are willing to degrade and stoop so low in your understanding of what is fact and what is morality.

"the moral ought-not-ness of killing another human" is a mental state that is represented by a referent, i.e. the specific algorithm - i.e. a state-of-affairs.
Why is that not a fact?
This 'ought-not-ness of killing another human' can be verified scientifically as a scientific fact - why is it not a fact?

Morality is basically about doing good and avoiding evil act.
This 'ought-not-ness of killing another human' is related to avoiding evil acts of killing another human.
Therefore ought-not-ness of killing another human' is a moral fact.

There is no inherent ought-to_ness and obligation to kill another and other humans wired in the human brain.
Some humans killed other humans because of defects in the inherent 'ought-not-ness of killing another human' algorithm.

You simply don't understand the issue. You never have, and it seems likely you never will.

My Morality and Ethics Folder now has 720 files in 33 folders [with some repetitions] that cover a wide extensive and deeper areas of the subject. I am confident I understand the issue more than you.

On the other hand, you are simply relying on ONE archaic point from the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists and you dare to imply you understand the issues related to morality and ethics and always will.

[Peter Holmes]

You are wrong, the moral fact is all humans are endowed via evolution with a state of ought-not-ness [inhibitory force] in killing another human. This is the substantive aspect of the moral fact.

No, you are wrong. It may be a fact that 'all humans are endowed via evolution with a state of ought-not-ness [inhibitory force] in killing another human'. But that doesn't mean the moral ought-not-ness of killing another human is a fact. It just means we're wired not to kill another human. And that has no moral significance whatsoever - just as, if we were wired to kill other humans, the moral oughtness of doing so wouldn't be a fact.

You simply don't understand the issue. You never have, and it seems likely you never will.

I am surprised you are willing to degrade and stoop so low in your understanding of what is fact and what is morality.

"the moral ought-not-ness of killing another human" is a mental state that is represented by a referent, i.e. the specific algorithm - i.e. a state-of-affairs.
Why is that not a fact?
This 'ought-not-ness of killing another human' can be verified scientifically as a scientific fact - why is it not a fact?

Morality is basically about doing good and avoiding evil act.
This 'ought-not-ness of killing another human' is related to avoiding evil acts of killing another human.
Therefore ought-not-ness of killing another human' is a moral fact.

There is no inherent ought-to_ness and obligation to kill another and other humans wired in the human brain.
Some humans killed other humans because of defects in the inherent 'ought-not-ness of killing another human' algorithm.

No. Keep trying to think it through.

Suppose we are programmed not to kill other humans - to think it's morally wrong to kill other humans. If so, that would be a fact - a neuro-physical state-of-affairs - in our brains. Let's suppose that is the case. If so, notice what the fact actually is. It's to do with our programming and behaviour.

Now, try very hard and consider what could be called a counter-factual, which is a thought-experiment designed to show something. Suppose we are programmed to kill some other humans - for example, outsiders who threaten our families or group, or insiders who break our rules. Remember, this is not a claim about reality. It's a thought-experiment.

Now, in this case, we're programmed to kill some other humans - to think it's morally right to kill some other humans. And again, this would be a fact about our programming and behaviour.

The question you need to answer is this: given this programming, would it be a fact that it's morally right to kill some other humans? Try thinking about the implications of answering yes - and then think through the implications of answering no.

Who knows? Maybe the penny will drop.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, you are wrong. It may be a fact that 'all humans are endowed via evolution with a state of ought-not-ness [inhibitory force] in killing another human'. But that doesn't mean the moral ought-not-ness of killing another human is a fact. It just means we're wired not to kill another human. And that has no moral significance whatsoever - just as, if we were wired to kill other humans, the moral oughtness of doing so wouldn't be a fact.

You simply don't understand the issue. You never have, and it seems likely you never will.

I am surprised you are willing to degrade and stoop so low in your understanding of what is fact and what is morality.

"the moral ought-not-ness of killing another human" is a mental state that is represented by a referent, i.e. the specific algorithm - i.e. a state-of-affairs.
Why is that not a fact?
This 'ought-not-ness of killing another human' can be verified scientifically as a scientific fact - why is it not a fact?

Morality is basically about doing good and avoiding evil act.
This 'ought-not-ness of killing another human' is related to avoiding evil acts of killing another human.
Therefore ought-not-ness of killing another human' is a moral fact.

There is no inherent ought-to_ness and obligation to kill another and other humans wired in the human brain.
Some humans killed other humans because of defects in the inherent 'ought-not-ness of killing another human' algorithm.

No. Keep trying to think it through.

Suppose we are programmed not to kill other humans - to think it's morally wrong to kill other humans. If so, that would be a fact - a neuro-physical state-of-affairs - in our brains. Let's suppose that is the case. If so, notice what the fact actually is. It's to do with our programming and behaviour.

Now, try very hard and consider what could be called a counter-factual, which is a thought-experiment designed to show something. Suppose we are programmed to kill some other humans - for example, outsiders who threaten our families or group, or insiders who break our rules. Remember, this is not a claim about reality. It's a thought-experiment.

Now, in this case, we're programmed to kill some other humans - to think it's morally right to kill some other humans. And again, this would be a fact about our programming and behaviour.

The question you need to answer is this: given this programming, would it be a fact that it's morally right to kill some other humans? Try thinking about the implications of answering yes - and then think through the implications of answering no.

Who knows? Maybe the penny will drop.

Humans are "programmed" to kill other living non-human for food and security.
BUT humans are not "programmed" inherently to kill another human and humans. If so that would contradict the point 'all humans are 'programmed' to survive'.

So the default is 'all humans are 'programmed' to survive'
thus, all human are also programmed not to kill another human.
When the above is processed via the necessary Moral FSK, we have
'no human ought to kill another'
which is a moral fact.

Thus it is morally wrong for a human to kill another.

Therefore there is no room for 'killing another human' to be morally right.

I would remind you again, you cannot conflate the fact of the state of "ought-not_ness to kill" with the fact of thinking about whether to kill or not.
Both are different neural activities represented by different parts of the brain.

[Belinda]

I am surprised you are willing to degrade and stoop so low in your understanding of what is fact and what is morality.

"the moral ought-not-ness of killing another human" is a mental state that is represented by a referent, i.e. the specific algorithm - i.e. a state-of-affairs.
Why is that not a fact?
This 'ought-not-ness of killing another human' can be verified scientifically as a scientific fact - why is it not a fact?

Morality is basically about doing good and avoiding evil act.
This 'ought-not-ness of killing another human' is related to avoiding evil acts of killing another human.
Therefore ought-not-ness of killing another human' is a moral fact.

There is no inherent ought-to_ness and obligation to kill another and other humans wired in the human brain.
Some humans killed other humans because of defects in the inherent 'ought-not-ness of killing another human' algorithm.

No. Keep trying to think it through.

Suppose we are programmed not to kill other humans - to think it's morally wrong to kill other humans. If so, that would be a fact - a neuro-physical state-of-affairs - in our brains. Let's suppose that is the case. If so, notice what the fact actually is. It's to do with our programming and behaviour.

Now, try very hard and consider what could be called a counter-factual, which is a thought-experiment designed to show something. Suppose we are programmed to kill some other humans - for example, outsiders who threaten our families or group, or insiders who break our rules. Remember, this is not a claim about reality. It's a thought-experiment.

Now, in this case, we're programmed to kill some other humans - to think it's morally right to kill some other humans. And again, this would be a fact about our programming and behaviour.

The question you need to answer is this: given this programming, would it be a fact that it's morally right to kill some other humans? Try thinking about the implications of answering yes - and then think through the implications of answering no.

Who knows? Maybe the penny will drop.

Humans are "programmed" to kill other living non-human for food and security.
BUT humans are not "programmed" inherently to kill another human and humans. If so that would contradict the point 'all humans are 'programmed' to survive'.

So the default is 'all humans are 'programmed' to survive'
thus, all human are also programmed not to kill another human.
When the above is processed via the necessary Moral FSK, we have
'no human ought to kill another'
which is a moral fact.

Thus it is morally wrong for a human to kill another.

Therefore there is no room for 'killing another human' to be morally right.

I would remind you again, you cannot conflate the fact of the state of "ought-not_ness to kill" with the fact of thinking about whether to kill or not.
Both are different neural activities represented by different parts of the brain.

"you cannot conflate the fact of the state of "ought-not_ness to kill" with the fact of thinking about whether to kill or not.
Both are different neural activities represented by different parts of the brain."


But men have many very different possibilities inherent in their biology. Men are capable of great kindness and also appalling cruelty. Culture selects which of these inherent possibilities will be developed and even perpetuated as a moral code.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"you cannot conflate the fact of the state of "ought-not_ness to kill" with the fact of thinking about whether to kill or not.
Both are different neural activities represented by different parts of the brain."


But men have many very different possibilities inherent in their biology. Men are capable of great kindness and also appalling cruelty. Culture selects which of these inherent possibilities will be developed and even perpetuated as a moral code.

You missed my point re 'conflating
..being in an actual mental state
and
..thinking about that mental state'.
Can you see the difference re the bolded.

There are many inherent impulses or a wide range within human biology.
One example is the impulse to breathe; no amount of cultural impact can select whether one should nor should not breathe.
It is very similar with the inherent moral facts and their related impulses that I am referring to.

Yes, there are other inherent possibilities and potential that will change in adaptation to the varied conditions humans are in. I am not referring to those re my points.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You simply don't understand the issue. You never have, and it seems likely you never will.

You are making yourself stupid with the above claim which is irrational and not objective.
You are really in a silo of false reality.

I bet you don't even have a clue your archaic view 'there are no moral facts' and 'morality is not objective' had been bombed to smithereens long ago with the Frege-Geach Problem.

Frege-Geach Problem Destroyed NonCognitivism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30150

and this video;

• Most Famous Ethical Puzzle: The Frege-Geach Problem
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIzsMHApx8I
  One of the most famous and difficult problems in ethics!
  The issue that killed moral noncognitivism – The Frege-Geach Problem!

You are likely to be an ostrich to the above and pretend your ignorant views re morality are still valid.
Hey Rip Van Winkle... Wake up!

Don't forget your view 'morality is not objective' i.e. moral anti-realism is in the minority, note this;

• A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[6] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

[Belinda]

"you cannot conflate the fact of the state of "ought-not_ness to kill" with the fact of thinking about whether to kill or not.
Both are different neural activities represented by different parts of the brain."


But men have many very different possibilities inherent in their biology. Men are capable of great kindness and also appalling cruelty. Culture selects which of these inherent possibilities will be developed and even perpetuated as a moral code.

You missed my point re 'conflating
..being in an actual mental state
and
..thinking about that mental state'.
Can you see the difference re the bolded.

There are many inherent impulses or a wide range within human biology.
One example is the impulse to breathe; no amount of cultural impact can select whether one should nor should not breathe.


It is very similar with the inherent moral facts and their related impulses that I am referring to.

Yes, there are other inherent possibilities and potential that will change in adaptation to the varied conditions humans are in. I am not referring to those re my points.

People keep breathing willy nilly, although I daresay some moral systems have led people to suffocate other people Some moral systems actually stop people walking about, instead they restrain them very cruelly. Other moral systems stop people thinking to the best of their ability, but keep them in mental chains. I agree with you about what people biologically are capable of. However there is no known individual who has not been subjected to some cultural influence , even if that culture were extremely limited, and cruel, for instance those criminal parents who kept their children shut up.
It is not possible precisely to tell whether nature (biology) or nurture(culture) causes certain human behaviours. It seems you tend to believe biology has more influence and I tend to believe culture has more influence.

[Peter Holmes]

I am surprised you are willing to degrade and stoop so low in your understanding of what is fact and what is morality.

"the moral ought-not-ness of killing another human" is a mental state that is represented by a referent, i.e. the specific algorithm - i.e. a state-of-affairs.
Why is that not a fact?
This 'ought-not-ness of killing another human' can be verified scientifically as a scientific fact - why is it not a fact?

Morality is basically about doing good and avoiding evil act.
This 'ought-not-ness of killing another human' is related to avoiding evil acts of killing another human.
Therefore ought-not-ness of killing another human' is a moral fact.

There is no inherent ought-to_ness and obligation to kill another and other humans wired in the human brain.
Some humans killed other humans because of defects in the inherent 'ought-not-ness of killing another human' algorithm.

No. Keep trying to think it through.

Suppose we are programmed not to kill other humans - to think it's morally wrong to kill other humans. If so, that would be a fact - a neuro-physical state-of-affairs - in our brains. Let's suppose that is the case. If so, notice what the fact actually is. It's to do with our programming and behaviour.

Now, try very hard and consider what could be called a counter-factual, which is a thought-experiment designed to show something. Suppose we are programmed to kill some other humans - for example, outsiders who threaten our families or group, or insiders who break our rules. Remember, this is not a claim about reality. It's a thought-experiment.

Now, in this case, we're programmed to kill some other humans - to think it's morally right to kill some other humans. And again, this would be a fact about our programming and behaviour.

The question you need to answer is this: given this programming, would it be a fact that it's morally right to kill some other humans? Try thinking about the implications of answering yes - and then think through the implications of answering no.

Who knows? Maybe the penny will drop.

Humans are "programmed" to kill other living non-human for food and security.
BUT humans are not "programmed" inherently to kill another human and humans. If so that would contradict the point 'all humans are 'programmed' to survive'.

So the default is 'all humans are 'programmed' to survive'
thus, all human are also programmed not to kill another human.
When the above is processed via the necessary Moral FSK, we have
'no human ought to kill another'
which is a moral fact.

Thus it is morally wrong for a human to kill another.

Therefore there is no room for 'killing another human' to be morally right.

I would remind you again, you cannot conflate the fact of the state of "ought-not_ness to kill" with the fact of thinking about whether to kill or not.
Both are different neural activities represented by different parts of the brain.

So you don't understand the point or nature of a thought-experiment. Who'd have predicted that?

[Veritas Aequitas]

"you cannot conflate the fact of the state of "ought-not_ness to kill" with the fact of thinking about whether to kill or not.
Both are different neural activities represented by different parts of the brain."


But men have many very different possibilities inherent in their biology. Men are capable of great kindness and also appalling cruelty. Culture selects which of these inherent possibilities will be developed and even perpetuated as a moral code.

You missed my point re 'conflating
..being in an actual mental state
and
..thinking about that mental state'.
Can you see the difference re the bolded.

There are many inherent impulses or a wide range within human biology.
One example is the impulse to breathe; no amount of cultural impact can select whether one should nor should not breathe.


It is very similar with the inherent moral facts and their related impulses that I am referring to.

Yes, there are other inherent possibilities and potential that will change in adaptation to the varied conditions humans are in. I am not referring to those re my points.

People keep breathing willy nilly, although I daresay some moral systems have led people to suffocate other people Some moral systems actually stop people walking about, instead they restrain them very cruelly. Other moral systems stop people thinking to the best of their ability, but keep them in mental chains. I agree with you about what people biologically are capable of. However there is no known individual who has not been subjected to some cultural influence , even if that culture were extremely limited, and cruel, for instance those criminal parents who kept their children shut up.
It is not possible precisely to tell whether nature (biology) or nurture(culture) causes certain human behaviours. It seems you tend to believe biology has more influence and I tend to believe culture has more influence.

I believe that is the difference.
In terms of morality [especially in the present state] I believe Nature is 80% critical while Nurture is 20%.
It is critical we understand the foundation of morality so that we can construct effective ethical systems to enable each individual to self-develop their moral competence in alignment with the inherent NATURE moral properties.

In this case, when the cultural and conditions changes we can adapt to the changes more effectively if we understand the foundations, i.e. NATURE.

At present we have the problems related to morality and ethics arising from cross-cultural situations due to the 'too quick state of globalization'.
This issue with 'cross-cultural' element is a hot-topic within morality at present.
I believe this is a serious issue within the UK where there is a quick surge of immigrants into UK ingrained with their own relative cultures and morality.

The problem in such a case is, whose culture and morality should prevail or how to compromise?

I believe the clash of culture and morality in the UK and elsewhere in Europe and US is very problematic for the respective governments because they are so ignorant of the NATURE elements of morality and culture.

[Belinda]

You missed my point re 'conflating
..being in an actual mental state
and
..thinking about that mental state'.
Can you see the difference re the bolded.

There are many inherent impulses or a wide range within human biology.
One example is the impulse to breathe; no amount of cultural impact can select whether one should nor should not breathe.


It is very similar with the inherent moral facts and their related impulses that I am referring to.

Yes, there are other inherent possibilities and potential that will change in adaptation to the varied conditions humans are in. I am not referring to those re my points.

People keep breathing willy nilly, although I daresay some moral systems have led people to suffocate other people Some moral systems actually stop people walking about, instead they restrain them very cruelly. Other moral systems stop people thinking to the best of their ability, but keep them in mental chains. I agree with you about what people biologically are capable of. However there is no known individual who has not been subjected to some cultural influence , even if that culture were extremely limited, and cruel, for instance those criminal parents who kept their children shut up.
It is not possible precisely to tell whether nature (biology) or nurture(culture) causes certain human behaviours. It seems you tend to believe biology has more influence and I tend to believe culture has more influence.

I believe that is the difference.
In terms of morality [especially in the present state] I believe Nature is 80% critical while Nurture is 20%.
It is critical we understand the foundation of morality so that we can construct effective ethical systems to enable each individual to self-develop their moral competence in alignment with the inherent NATURE moral properties.

In this case, when the cultural and conditions changes we can adapt to the changes more effectively if we understand the foundations, i.e. NATURE.

At present we have the problems related to morality and ethics arising from cross-cultural situations due to the 'too quick state of globalization'.
This issue with 'cross-cultural' element is a hot-topic within morality at present.
I believe this is a serious issue within the UK where there is a quick surge of immigrants into UK ingrained with their own relative cultures and morality.

The problem in such a case is, whose culture and morality should prevail or how to compromise?

I believe the clash of culture and morality in the UK and elsewhere in Europe and US is very problematic for the respective governments because they are so ignorant of the NATURE elements of morality and culture.

Longitudinal studies of identical human twins bear you out, if I am not mistaken.

It is critical we understand the foundation of morality so that we can construct effective ethical systems to enable each individual to self-develop their moral competence in alignment with the inherent NATURE moral properties.

(VA)

Yes. Less risk if we have pessimistic attitude about the human potential for atrocity. Less risk if we have pessimistic attitude about intervention of Providence.

Rule of thumb would be : the more we are pessimistic abut human nature and/or God's kindly intervention the more we should construct effective ethical systems to enable each individual to self-develop their moral competence in alignment with the inherent NATURE moral properties.

The devil is in the details.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe that is the difference.
In terms of morality [especially in the present state] I believe Nature is 80% critical while Nurture is 20%.
It is critical we understand the foundation of morality so that we can construct effective ethical systems to enable each individual to self-develop their moral competence in alignment with the inherent NATURE moral properties.

In this case, when the cultural and conditions changes we can adapt to the changes more effectively if we understand the foundations, i.e. NATURE.

At present we have the problems related to morality and ethics arising from cross-cultural situations due to the 'too quick state of globalization'.
This issue with 'cross-cultural' element is a hot-topic within morality at present.
I believe this is a serious issue within the UK where there is a quick surge of immigrants into UK ingrained with their own relative cultures and morality.

The problem in such a case is, whose culture and morality should prevail or how to compromise?

I believe the clash of culture and morality in the UK and elsewhere in Europe and US is very problematic for the respective governments because they are so ignorant of the NATURE elements of morality and culture.

Longitudinal studies of identical human twins bear you out, if I am not mistaken.

Not sure of your point.
Re twins, both will have the same DNA/RNA but during RNA expression, changes and defects can happen which could lead to variations in their moral competence in later life.
However I don't see this twins example has any relation to cross-cultural problems within morality?

It is critical we understand the foundation of morality so that we can construct effective ethical systems to enable each individual to self-develop their moral competence in alignment with the inherent NATURE moral properties.

(VA)

Yes. Less risk if we have pessimistic attitude about the human potential for atrocity. Less risk if we have pessimistic attitude about intervention of Providence.

Rule of thumb would be : the more we are pessimistic abut human nature and/or God's kindly intervention the more we should construct effective ethical systems to enable each individual to self-develop their moral competence in alignment with the inherent NATURE moral properties.

The devil is in the details.

Perhaps that is your pessimistic view of pessimism about human nature.

My views are that the more we know about human nature, the more optimistic we are with the potential for individuals to be more moral competence in the future [not at present].

It is the same with the more we know about the human genome, the more optimistic we are of the possibility of preventing critical diseases and developing other potentials for humanity sake in the future [not now nor immediately].

You missed my point regarding 'constructing effective ethical systems' to something else.
What I stated is this " ..construct effective ethical systems to enable each individual to self-develop their moral competence .."
What I meant is, if the average moral quotient is 100 at present, then the self-development programs will increase the average moral quotient to say 500.
This will not happen to the present individuals but to those of future generations within the next 50-75 years.