What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

I have produced a whole 'taxonomy' encompassing everything Moral and Ethics where Moral Relativism [groups] and Moral Subjectivism [individuals] as defined has their rightful place. So it is a question of how one defined one's term.

If you don't agree, what is your definition for moral relativism and moral subjectivism?

As far as your position is concerned, you are definitely a moral non-cognitivist holding the following views, i.e.

Moral Judgments and moral statements are;

• 1. not moral facts
  2. not state-of-affairs
  3. not propositions
  4. not truth-apt, cannot neither be true or false
  5. expressing desires, opinions and beliefs
  6. Prescriptive not descriptive
  7. Not mind independent

There are other features of a non-cognitivists and the above is sufficient to place you within the nonCognitivist's label in opposition to the cognitivist's views.
Advise if your position is any different from the above nonCognitive criteria?

I don't see the problem with moral objectivism since objectivity has its own criteria, note the 7 dimensions and other criteria proposed by Kramer.

The onus is thus on the moral agent to define his framework of morality, in my case, it is Empirical Moral Realism and then justify such is objective.

Justifying labelling & boxing plus the justification of moral facts are imperative to the process and discussion.

1 I reject the implication that moral subjectivism is irrational / non-rational - that moral non-cognitivism implies no-thought or no-reason with regard to moral judgement.

Moral Subjectivism leads to irrationality. I will justify that later.
"no-thought or no-reason " is not listed above as non-cognitivism, so this point is irrelevant.

2 I reject the descriptive / prescriptive dichotomy with regard to the function of moral assertions.

I thought you agree with Hume's "no is from ought" maxim where 'descriptive' relate to "is" and 'prescriptive' is where 'ought' is a prescription.
As you implying you now accept 'ought' [prescriptive] can be derived from 'is' [descriptive]?
Or should you withdraw your above rejection?

3 You claim that moral subjectivism and moral relativism are 'shit'. So yours is the task of defining terms and demonstrating the truth of those claims, while avoiding the fallacy of arguing from undesirable consequences.

Yes, I will compile the proper arguments which I have only surveyed but not grasp fully yet from various sources.

Crudely, moral subjectivism and moral relativism do not have justified moral standards, i.e. universal objective standards. As such anything goes in accordance to the subjective and relative feel of the individuals and groups, thus resulting in Nazism, evil Islamic ideology, fascism, and other evil ideologies which insist they are morally good relatively and where no one can insist they are morally wrong. This is what is going on at present with relativists and subjectivists.

The above are crude points but there are loads of very solid arguments [which I will gather] against moral subjectivism and moral relativism which enable shit to emerge from such practices.

In any case, you are are not a moral relativists nor moral subjectivists who believe there are some moral facts, propositions which are truth-apt [either true or false] except their beliefs are mind-dependent on the individual or groups.

Can you tick off what you believe based on the below;

Moral Judgments and moral statements are;

• 1. not moral facts
  2. not state-of-affairs
  3. not propositions
  4. not truth-apt, cannot neither be true or false
  5. expressing desires, opinions and beliefs
  6. Prescriptive not descriptive
  7. Not mind independent

or add what is not listed above.
It is most likely you will be within the nonCognitive label in general.

Within the nonCognitivism, there are the following sub-categories;

• 1. Emotivism - Ayer
  2. Prescriptivism - Carnap
  3. Universal Prescriptivism - RM Hare
  4. Expressivism
  5. Irrealism
  6. Quasi-Realism
  7. Norm-Expressivism
  8. Moral Fictionalism - Hermeneutic, Revolutionary.

Depending on any other extra elements you have,
you are likely to fall within one or two of the above sub-noncognitivism categories.

It is possible some of the opposite category could be mixed as in Quasi-Moral-Realism.

Moral subjectivism is merely the default position, given the irrationality of moral objectivism. And moral subjectivism is compatible with realism in general, and it need have no prescriptivist implication.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 I reject the implication that moral subjectivism is irrational / non-rational - that moral non-cognitivism implies no-thought or no-reason with regard to moral judgement.

Moral Subjectivism leads to irrationality. I will justify that later.
"no-thought or no-reason " is not listed above as non-cognitivism, so this point is irrelevant.

2 I reject the descriptive / prescriptive dichotomy with regard to the function of moral assertions.

I thought you agree with Hume's "no is from ought" maxim where 'descriptive' relate to "is" and 'prescriptive' is where 'ought' is a prescription.
As you implying you now accept 'ought' [prescriptive] can be derived from 'is' [descriptive]?
Or should you withdraw your above rejection?

3 You claim that moral subjectivism and moral relativism are 'shit'. So yours is the task of defining terms and demonstrating the truth of those claims, while avoiding the fallacy of arguing from undesirable consequences.

Yes, I will compile the proper arguments which I have only surveyed but not grasp fully yet from various sources.

Crudely, moral subjectivism and moral relativism do not have justified moral standards, i.e. universal objective standards. As such anything goes in accordance to the subjective and relative feel of the individuals and groups, thus resulting in Nazism, evil Islamic ideology, fascism, and other evil ideologies which insist they are morally good relatively and where no one can insist they are morally wrong. This is what is going on at present with relativists and subjectivists.

The above are crude points but there are loads of very solid arguments [which I will gather] against moral subjectivism and moral relativism which enable shit to emerge from such practices.

In any case, you are are not a moral relativists nor moral subjectivists who believe there are some moral facts, propositions which are truth-apt [either true or false] except their beliefs are mind-dependent on the individual or groups.

Can you tick off what you believe based on the below;

Moral Judgments and moral statements are;

• 1. not moral facts
  2. not state-of-affairs
  3. not propositions
  4. not truth-apt, neither be true or false
  5. expressing desires, opinions and beliefs
  6. Prescriptive not descriptive
  7. Not mind independent

or add what is not listed above.
It is most likely you will be within the nonCognitive label in general.

Within the nonCognitivism, there are the following sub-categories;

• 1. Emotivism - Ayer
  2. Prescriptivism - Carnap
  3. Universal Prescriptivism - RM Hare
  4. Expressivism
  5. Irrealism
  6. Quasi-Realism
  7. Norm-Expressivism
  8. Moral Fictionalism - Hermeneutic, Revolutionary.

Depending on any other extra elements you have,
you are likely to fall within one or two of the above sub-noncognitivism categories.

It is possible some of the opposite category could be mixed as in Quasi-Moral-Realism.

Moral subjectivism is merely the default position, given the irrationality of moral objectivism. And moral subjectivism is compatible with realism in general, and it need have no prescriptivist implication.

Your argument is too plain, i.e. just because you THINK [unjustified] moral objectivism is irrational, then, moral subjectivism is the default position; that sort of jumping-to-conclusion is too kindergartenish.

Note I have presented the claim moral realism [as objective] is the default of morality here;
Moral Realism is the Default Within Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30483
Do you have a counter for that?

The proper approach to establish objectivity within morality must be a two-stage-process, i.e.

• 1. find your bearing within Morality and Ethics from the metaethics perspective or Ethical theory then,
  2. assess whether your claims are objective or not using the 7 main dimensions of Objectivity.

Note the typical definition of Moral Subjectivism;

Ethical [Moral] subjectivism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

• 1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
  2. Some such propositions are true.
  3. The truth or falsity of such propositions is ineliminably dependent on the (actual or hypothetical) attitudes of people.[1]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism

How can you claim to be a moral subjectivists [if that is the case] when you do not even agree with all the premises above, i.e. ethical [moral] statements/judgment express proposition and can be either true or false.

This is why I presented the following checklist for you to tick off;

Moral Judgments and moral statements are;

• 1. not moral facts
  2. not state-of-affairs
  3. not propositions
  4. not truth-apt, neither be true or false
  5. expressing desires, opinions and beliefs
  6. Prescriptive not descriptive
  7. Not mind independent

As far as I know your views on morality conform to the above 7 elements above which make you a moral non-cognitivist.

Re 6, a moral judgment cannot be descriptive ["is"], thus it has to be prescriptive ['ought']. The other is, not descriptive but expressive.

So your views are that of a nonCognitivist within the subject of morality and ethics?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism
If not what else?

Once your position is established then you can assess whether it is objective or not in accordance to the 7 Dimensions of Objectivity and other sub-categories of objectivity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Moral subjectivism is merely the default position, given the irrationality of moral objectivism. And moral subjectivism is compatible with realism in general, and it need have no prescriptivist implication.

As I had mentioned you are lost in the natural thickets and mazes of Morality and Ethics.

From your postings [facts, state-of-affair, the case] I had condemned your views as those from the bastardized philosophy of some the logical positivists.

Here is some clues to what I had claimed, i.e. your moral views are fundamentally Emotivism NonCognitivism.
Majority of points are from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism

• Emotivism is a meta-ethical view that claims that ethical sentences do not express propositions but emotional attitudes.[1][2][3] Hence, it is colloquially known as the hurrah/boo theory.[4]
  Influenced by the growth of analytic philosophy and logical positivism in the 20th century, the theory was stated vividly by A. J. Ayer in his 1936 book Language, Truth and Logic,[5] but its development owes more to C. L. Stevenson.[6]

• Emotivism reached prominence in the early 20th century, but it was born centuries earlier.
  In 1710, George Berkeley wrote that language in general often serves to inspire feelings as well as communicate ideas.[11]
  
  Decades later, David Hume espoused ideas similar to Stevenson's later ones.[12]
  In his 1751 book An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Hume considered morality not to be related to fact but "determined by sentiment":
  
  • In moral deliberations we must be acquainted beforehand with all the objects, and all their relations to each other; and from a comparison of the whole, fix our choice or approbation. … While we are ignorant whether a man were aggressor or not, how can we determine whether the person who killed him be criminal or innocent? But after every circumstance, every relation is known, the understanding has no further room to operate, nor any object on which it could employ itself.
    The approbation or blame which then ensues, cannot be the work of the judgement, but of the heart; and is not a speculative proposition or affirmation, but an active feeling or sentiment.[13]

The above of where the "No Is from Ought" of Hume came to be, i.e. there are no moral facts but only beliefs, opinions, expressions of emotions and attitudes.

The "No Is from Ought" was adopted by the Logical Positivists to condemn moral judgments as fact_less and meaningless because they are incapable of empirical verifications.

• The emergence of logical positivism and its verifiability criterion of meaning early in the 20th century led some philosophers to conclude that ethical statements, being incapable of empirical verification, were cognitively meaningless.
  This criterion was fundamental to A.J. Ayer's defense of positivism in Language, Truth and Logic, which contains his statement of emotivism.

Ayer's view in more details;

• Ayer argues that moral judgments cannot be translated into non-ethical, empirical terms and thus cannot be verified; in this he agrees with ethical intuitionists.
  But he differs from intuitionists by discarding appeals to intuition as "worthless" for determining moral truths,[17] since the intuition of one person often contradicts that of another.
  Instead, Ayer concludes that ethical concepts are "mere pseudo-concepts":
  
  • The presence of an ethical symbol in a proposition adds nothing to its factual content.
    Thus if I say to someone, "You acted wrongly in stealing that money," I am not stating anything more than if I had simply said, "You stole that money."
    In adding that this action is wrong I am not making any further statement about it.
    I am simply evincing my moral disapproval of it.
    It is as if I had said, "You stole that money," in a peculiar tone of horror, or written it with the addition of some special exclamation marks. …
    If now I generalise my previous statement and say, "Stealing money is wrong," I produce a sentence that has no factual meaning—that is, expresses no proposition that can be either true or false.… I am merely expressing certain moral sentiments.[18]

Ayer agree with Subjectivism but he is not a Moral Subjectivists because he rejected moral statements as proposition, thus Ayer is a NonCogntivist.

• Ayer agrees with subjectivists in saying that ethical statements are necessarily related to individual attitudes, but he says they lack truth value because they cannot be properly understood as propositions about those attitudes; Ayer thinks ethical sentences are expressions, not assertions, of approval.

The above is the historical background on how you were infected with the moral-fact-denier Moral-Covid-Virus.

[Peter Holmes]

Moral subjectivism is merely the default position, given the irrationality of moral objectivism. And moral subjectivism is compatible with realism in general, and it need have no prescriptivist implication.

As I had mentioned you are lost in the natural thickets and mazes of Morality and Ethics.

From your postings [facts, state-of-affair, the case] I had condemned your views as those from the bastardized philosophy of some the logical positivists.

Here is some clues to what I had claimed, i.e. your moral views are fundamentally Emotivism NonCognitivism.
Majority of points are from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism

• Emotivism is a meta-ethical view that claims that ethical sentences do not express propositions but emotional attitudes.[1][2][3] Hence, it is colloquially known as the hurrah/boo theory.[4]
  Influenced by the growth of analytic philosophy and logical positivism in the 20th century, the theory was stated vividly by A. J. Ayer in his 1936 book Language, Truth and Logic,[5] but its development owes more to C. L. Stevenson.[6]

• Emotivism reached prominence in the early 20th century, but it was born centuries earlier.
  In 1710, George Berkeley wrote that language in general often serves to inspire feelings as well as communicate ideas.[11]
  
  Decades later, David Hume espoused ideas similar to Stevenson's later ones.[12]
  In his 1751 book An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Hume considered morality not to be related to fact but "determined by sentiment":
  
  • In moral deliberations we must be acquainted beforehand with all the objects, and all their relations to each other; and from a comparison of the whole, fix our choice or approbation. … While we are ignorant whether a man were aggressor or not, how can we determine whether the person who killed him be criminal or innocent? But after every circumstance, every relation is known, the understanding has no further room to operate, nor any object on which it could employ itself.
    The approbation or blame which then ensues, cannot be the work of the judgement, but of the heart; and is not a speculative proposition or affirmation, but an active feeling or sentiment.[13]

The above of where the "No Is from Ought" of Hume came to be, i.e. there are no moral facts but only beliefs, opinions, expressions of emotions and attitudes.

The "No Is from Ought" was adopted by the Logical Positivists to condemn moral judgments as fact_less and meaningless because they are incapable of empirical verifications.

• The emergence of logical positivism and its verifiability criterion of meaning early in the 20th century led some philosophers to conclude that ethical statements, being incapable of empirical verification, were cognitively meaningless.
  This criterion was fundamental to A.J. Ayer's defense of positivism in Language, Truth and Logic, which contains his statement of emotivism.

Ayer's view in more details;

• Ayer argues that moral judgments cannot be translated into non-ethical, empirical terms and thus cannot be verified; in this he agrees with ethical intuitionists.
  But he differs from intuitionists by discarding appeals to intuition as "worthless" for determining moral truths,[17] since the intuition of one person often contradicts that of another.
  Instead, Ayer concludes that ethical concepts are "mere pseudo-concepts":
  
  • The presence of an ethical symbol in a proposition adds nothing to its factual content.
    Thus if I say to someone, "You acted wrongly in stealing that money," I am not stating anything more than if I had simply said, "You stole that money."
    In adding that this action is wrong I am not making any further statement about it.
    I am simply evincing my moral disapproval of it.
    It is as if I had said, "You stole that money," in a peculiar tone of horror, or written it with the addition of some special exclamation marks. …
    If now I generalise my previous statement and say, "Stealing money is wrong," I produce a sentence that has no factual meaning—that is, expresses no proposition that can be either true or false.… I am merely expressing certain moral sentiments.[18]

Ayer agree with Subjectivism but he is not a Moral Subjectivists because he rejected moral statements as proposition, thus Ayer is a NonCogntivist.

• Ayer agrees with subjectivists in saying that ethical statements are necessarily related to individual attitudes, but he says they lack truth value because they cannot be properly understood as propositions about those attitudes; Ayer thinks ethical sentences are expressions, not assertions, of approval.

The above is the historical background on how you were infected with the moral-fact-denier Moral-Covid-Virus.

To repeat: the logical positivists were wrong to claim 'that ethical statements, being incapable of empirical verification, were cognitively meaningless'. But that non-factual assertions - moral or aesthetic - are indeed empirically unverifiable and unfalsifiable is a fact.

Rather than endlessly rehearse and regurgitate your research, why not concentrate on the actual question, and produce an example of a moral fact, showing why it's a state-of-affairs, rather than merely the expression of a moral opinion?

[Atla]

Is it morally right to force medicate people like VA, when their obsessive, unhinged nature starts to cause others too much distress? And can we make an objective fact out of that?

[henry quirk]

Is it morally right to force medicate people like VA, when their obsessive, unhinged nature starts to cause others too much distress? And can we make an objective fact out of that?

no...if distressed: walk away

yep...VA belongs to himself (the fact), so it would be wrong to force-medicate him (the moral fact)

easy-peazy

[Atla]

Is it morally right to force medicate people like VA, when their obsessive, unhinged nature starts to cause others too much distress? And can we make an objective fact out of that?

no...if distressed: walk away

yep...VA belongs to himself (the fact), so it would be wrong to force-medicate him (the moral fact)

easy-peazy

VA is pretty determined about reforming the world, hopefully his works will get published soon. One of his ideas was to alter the brain chemistry of agressive cavemen like you, just a little benevolent fine tuning in the head, that's all. Plus other techniques that improve the personality and behaviour. I don't think it's optional by the way. Good to see that you're fine with this stuff.

[henry quirk]

Is it morally right to force medicate people like VA, when their obsessive, unhinged nature starts to cause others too much distress? And can we make an objective fact out of that?

no...if distressed: walk away

yep...VA belongs to himself (the fact), so it would be wrong to force-medicate him (the moral fact)

easy-peazy

VA is pretty determined about reforming the world, hopefully his works will get published soon. One of his ideas was to alter the brain chemistry of agressive cavemen like you, just a little benevolent fine tuning in the head, that's all. Plus other techniques that improve the personality and behaviour. I don't think it's optional by the way. Good to see that you're fine with this stuff.

should he, or anyone, actually try to monkey 'round with my head: I'll shoot him

till then: meh

meh: better than xanax, the epitome of sticks & stones...

[Veritas Aequitas]

To repeat: the logical positivists were wrong to claim 'that ethical statements, being incapable of empirical verification, were cognitively meaningless'.
But that non-factual assertions - moral or aesthetic - are indeed empirically unverifiable and unfalsifiable is a fact.

The logical positivists comprised of philosophers with different views on morality but they all have these common views of morality, i.e.

• Moral statement, judgments are;
  1. not moral facts
  2. not state-of-affairs
  3. not propositions
  4. not truth-apt, neither be true or false
  5. expressing desires, opinions and beliefs
  6. Prescriptive [is] not descriptive [oughts]
  7. Not mind independent

Note I omitted the "meaningless" element which were claimed by SOME of the LPs, e.g. Ayer and others.

Yours views on morality are of the above [1-7] which were agreed by all the logical positivists, thus were inherited from the LPs with their notable "fact = state-of-affairs".

Rather than endlessly rehearse and regurgitate your research, why not concentrate on the actual question, and produce an example of a moral fact, showing why it's a state-of-affairs, rather than merely the expression of a moral opinion?

I have done that a '1000' times as gleaned from my extensive research into the subject of Morality and Ethics.
I am still researching into the deeper depths of Morality and Ethics. Previously I'd spent a lot of time focusing mainly on Kantian Ethics but now I have acquired a wider and deeper perspective on the subject.

As with the above, you have inherited the bastardized version of 'what is fact' 'state-of-affairs' from the LPs and is being very dogmatic about it. Thus my '1000' times demonstration that moral facts exist is not likely to get into your thick dogmatic skull due to very aggressive confirmation bias.

Note my argument on
'What is Fact?"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

The above is the general definition of 'what is fact' and there is no way it can be disputed.
So with a moral FSK,

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Btw, your path to what is morality - the nonCognitivists' view is severely hindered and is not tenable because of;

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

Thus,

What is most plausible is the default;
Moral Realism is the Default Within Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30483

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA is pretty determined about reforming the world, hopefully his works will get published soon. One of his ideas was to alter the brain chemistry of agressive cavemen like you, just a little benevolent fine tuning in the head, that's all. Plus other techniques that improve the personality and behaviour. I don't think it's optional by the way. Good to see that you're fine with this stuff.

As usual you are a very aggressive serial liar.
It is also immoral to allude such "agressive cavemen like you" to Henry and getting personal for no reason.

Your response is typical of the paranoid who upon the mentioned of "brain changes", would straightaway jump to the terror idea of "Frankenstein".

Even for anyone who had learned how to swim from not knowing how to swim, that would entail a change in brain connectivity for the better.
With the improvement of change in attitude and lesser chattel slavery at present, there would had to be a change in the brain connectivity in the present average humans from humans >10,000 years ago where there was a prevalence of chattel slavery.

So what is the issue with a change in brain neural connectivity especially if we can target the specific connectors for improvement rather than based on a hit and miss approach.

Nope!! it is NOT using chemicals but only with FOOLPROOF mental exercises to target the specific neurons for moral competence.
This is what I am proposing to improve moral competence and that is only in the future not for the present generation or even the next, but perhaps next 75-100 years when we have more knowledge of neural connectivity from the Human Genome Project.
https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project

[Peter Holmes]

To repeat: the logical positivists were wrong to claim 'that ethical statements, being incapable of empirical verification, were cognitively meaningless'.
But that non-factual assertions - moral or aesthetic - are indeed empirically unverifiable and unfalsifiable is a fact.

The logical positivists comprised of philosophers with different views on morality but they all have these common views of morality, i.e.

• Moral statement, judgments are;
  1. not moral facts
  2. not state-of-affairs
  3. not propositions
  4. not truth-apt, neither be true or false
  5. expressing desires, opinions and beliefs
  6. Prescriptive [is] not descriptive [oughts]
  7. Not mind independent

Note I omitted the "meaningless" element which were claimed by SOME of the LPs, e.g. Ayer and others.

Yours views on morality are of the above [1-7] which were agreed by all the logical positivists, thus were inherited from the LPs with their notable "fact = state-of-affairs".

Rather than endlessly rehearse and regurgitate your research, why not concentrate on the actual question, and produce an example of a moral fact, showing why it's a state-of-affairs, rather than merely the expression of a moral opinion?

I have done that a '1000' times as gleaned from my extensive research into the subject of Morality and Ethics.
I am still researching into the deeper depths of Morality and Ethics. Previously I'd spent a lot of time focusing mainly on Kantian Ethics but now I have acquired a wider and deeper perspective on the subject.

As with the above, you have inherited the bastardized version of 'what is fact' 'state-of-affairs' from the LPs and is being very dogmatic about it. Thus my '1000' times demonstration that moral facts exist is not likely to get into your thick dogmatic skull due to very aggressive confirmation bias.

Note my argument on
'What is Fact?"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

The above is the general definition of 'what is fact' and there is no way it can be disputed.
So with a moral FSK,

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Btw, your path to what is morality - the nonCognitivists' view is severely hindered and is not tenable because of;

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

Thus,

What is most plausible is the default;
Moral Realism is the Default Within Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30483

I think you've been seduced by some impressive-sounding and seemingly technical theorising. Frege's analysis is a nice example of mistaking what we say for the way things are. And speech-act theory is mired in delusions about the nature and function of language, not least of which is the myth of propositions, which, like all so-called abstract things, are misleading metaphysical fictions.

Pending evidence for the existence of a moral reality - whatever that could be - moral realism doesn't even make it to the starting post. And, as with everything else, the existence of a moral reality has nothing at all to do with language.

[Atla]

VA is pretty determined about reforming the world, hopefully his works will get published soon. One of his ideas was to alter the brain chemistry of agressive cavemen like you, just a little benevolent fine tuning in the head, that's all. Plus other techniques that improve the personality and behaviour. I don't think it's optional by the way. Good to see that you're fine with this stuff.

As usual you are a very aggressive serial liar.
It is also immoral to allude such "agressive cavemen like you" to Henry and getting personal for no reason.

Your response is typical of the paranoid who upon the mentioned of "brain changes", would straightaway jump to the terror idea of "Frankenstein".

Even for anyone who had learned how to swim from not knowing how to swim, that would entail a change in brain connectivity for the better.
With the improvement of change in attitude and lesser chattel slavery at present, there would had to be a change in the brain connectivity in the present average humans from humans >10,000 years ago where there was a prevalence of chattel slavery.

So what is the issue with a change in brain neural connectivity especially if we can target the specific connectors for improvement rather than based on a hit and miss approach.

Nope!! it is NOT using chemicals but only with FOOLPROOF mental exercises to target the specific neurons for moral competence.
This is what I am proposing to improve moral competence and that is only in the future not for the present generation or even the next, but perhaps next 75-100 years when we have more knowledge of neural connectivity from the Human Genome Project.
https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project

Oh stop whining moron, every method changes the brain chemistry, I didn't mention added chemicals.

Too bad your methods won't be used on henry, but maybe he can volunteer for early testing?

[henry quirk]

VA is pretty determined about reforming the world, hopefully his works will get published soon. One of his ideas was to alter the brain chemistry of agressive cavemen like you, just a little benevolent fine tuning in the head, that's all. Plus other techniques that improve the personality and behaviour. I don't think it's optional by the way. Good to see that you're fine with this stuff.

As usual you are a very aggressive serial liar.
It is also immoral to allude such "agressive cavemen like you" to Henry and getting personal for no reason.

Your response is typical of the paranoid who upon the mentioned of "brain changes", would straightaway jump to the terror idea of "Frankenstein".

Even for anyone who had learned how to swim from not knowing how to swim, that would entail a change in brain connectivity for the better.
With the improvement of change in attitude and lesser chattel slavery at present, there would had to be a change in the brain connectivity in the present average humans from humans >10,000 years ago where there was a prevalence of chattel slavery.

So what is the issue with a change in brain neural connectivity especially if we can target the specific connectors for improvement rather than based on a hit and miss approach.

Nope!! it is NOT using chemicals but only with FOOLPROOF mental exercises to target the specific neurons for moral competence.
This is what I am proposing to improve moral competence and that is only in the future not for the present generation or even the next, but perhaps next 75-100 years when we have more knowledge of neural connectivity from the Human Genome Project.
https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project

Oh stop whining moron, every method changes the brain chemistry, I didn't mention added chemicals.

Too bad your methods won't be used on henry, but maybe he can volunteer for early testing?

volunteer my ass...pay me

[Skepdick]

volunteer my ass...pay me

I guess we've established you are open to self-prostitution. Now we just have to negotiate a price.

[henry quirk]

volunteer my ass...pay me

I guess we've established you are open to self-prostitution. Now we just have to negotiate a price.

gimme a figure