Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

[FlashDangerpants]

Why not?
I have already define what is evil.
What is worse than genocide and the extinction of the human species.
If you take that at 99.9/100 then you can scale down the rest relatively to the best approximates.

What is the formula by which we can measure the exact evilness-quotient of public urination in a baptismal font before the baby is dipped into it versus after the baby has already had his dip?

First you have to review and assess whether such an act fit into the definition of what is evil.
The above act do not qualify as an evil act.

Are you saying that morality-proper has nothing to say against dipping a baby in bucket of piss?

Trivial? so far no one has raised it - in any case I am not delving into it and I know there are loads of variables and complexities to deal with such an objection.
It is an objection and there are many which I am very confident of squashing.

You are always happiest when you mark your own homework aren't you?

If you read many papers, you will note many would present the possible objections to save people the time. It is like a FAQ.

Note for example;
b]How to Derive "Ought" From "Is"[/b]: John R. Searle
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2183201?seq=1

I'm familiar with that activity, I'm rubbishing your decision to give yourself such a stupidly easy question to answer. Also your very naive take on why authors do that, it's a rhetorical technique to put the argument again in different words.

[Sculptor]

What about all the people who would join in if they were part of a crowd that got riled up to lynch a paedophile? That's human nature too isn't it?

Indeed. Pure and raw natural emotion!

Public hangings were joyful events.

Note the stadiums were full and the crowd roared when the Romans left captured-humans to be fed to lions or killed by gladiators > 2000 years ago.

One thing you are ignorant of the reducing trends of whatever killing of humans since >100,000 to the present 2010.

Trends are relative and not "objective". Morality is relative and subject to cultural, historical and personal norms.
Thank you for supporting my case.
Sorry that you have shot yourself in the foot.

shot in foot.jpg (6.48 KiB) Viewed 1789 times

[FlashDangerpants]

Indeed. Pure and raw natural emotion!

Public hangings were joyful events.

Note the stadiums were full and the crowd roared when the Romans left captured-humans to be fed to lions or killed by gladiators > 2000 years ago.

One thing you are ignorant of the reducing trends of whatever killing of humans since >100,000 to the present 2010.

Trends are relative and not "objective". Morality is relative and subject to cultural, historical and personal norms.
Thank you for supporting my case.
Sorry that you have shot yourself in the foot.shot in foot.jpg

We should send him to Immanuel Can for one of those totally edifying lectures about how many people got genocided in the 20th Century

[Skepdick]

Trends are relative and not "objective". Morality is relative and subject to cultural, historical and personal norms.
Thank you for supporting my case.
Sorry that you have shot yourself in the foot.shot in foot.jpg

Hey [redacted]. You dodged my inconvenient question because it's inconvenient, but there's no harm in trying again.

Human longevity is trending towards 75 years average life expectancy, whereas it was about 40-45 years just 200 years ago.
It's trending upwards towards "living longer"

Are you trying to tell me that this trend is not objective?


[Edited by iMod

[Sculptor]

Note the stadiums were full and the crowd roared when the Romans left captured-humans to be fed to lions or killed by gladiators > 2000 years ago.

One thing you are ignorant of the reducing trends of whatever killing of humans since >100,000 to the present 2010.

Trends are relative and not "objective". Morality is relative and subject to cultural, historical and personal norms.
Thank you for supporting my case.
Sorry that you have shot yourself in the foot.shot in foot.jpg

We should send him to Immanuel Can for one of those totally edifying lectures about how many people got genocided in the 20th Century

Trouble is they are both transmitting, they are not receiving.
The only way you could get some sense into them is with a baseball bat.
I can see it now "you are not naturally inclined to hurt people, ouch!!".

[Skepdick]

Trouble is they are both transmitting, they are not receiving.

My amplifier is on maximum! There's no signal, only noise.

The only way you could get some sense into them is with a baseball bat.
I can see it now "you are not naturally inclined to hurt people, ouch!!".

Well, no actually. Objective morality would be demonstrated when you bring your baseball bat to my gunfight.

You are neither skilled at intellect, nor violence. Try another hobby. Inadequacy maybe? You excel at that.

[Age]

You will NEVER find what 'human nature' is if you keep looking at what 'you' adults do for and to each other.

If you really want to find and discover what exactly is 'human nature', itself, then all you have to is just look at what 'you', adult human beings, do for and to new born human beings.

It really is that simple and easy.

Also, and furthermore, in regards to if killing is natural or not, then this is just as simple and easy to discover and know. Just answer this question, 'Is there absolutely ANY behavior, which is not natural?'

In fact, 'Is that absolutely ANY thing at all, which is not natural?'

If there is a behavior or thing, which is not natural, then will you inform 'us' of what 'it' is?

[FlashDangerpants]

In fact, 'Is that absolutely ANY thing at all, which is not natural?'

If there is a behavior or thing, which is not natural, then will you inform 'us' of what 'it' is?

That dude who had sex with his car's exhaust pipe. Or that other guy who married his horse. And fisting, that's unhygenic and anyway hands shouldn't fit there, that's not a glove, not natural at all.

People who enjoy golf are wrong 'uns. The trousers are unnatural, and so is the rest of the sport.

Parents who willingly and without any form of gun to their heads name their child Derek. I refuse to inhabit a universe in which that is what nature intended for us.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Indeed. Pure and raw natural emotion!
Public hangings were joyful events.

Note the stadiums were full and the crowd roared when the Romans left captured-humans to be fed to lions or killed by gladiators > 2000 years ago.

One thing you are ignorant of the reducing trends of whatever killing of humans since >100,000 to the present 2010.

How come you are so ignorant?
Surely trends are relative to something but they are not subjective, i.e. personal opinions and beliefs.

There is a trend in the increase in intelligence in the average humans since >100,000 years ago.
How can there be a trend in intelligence if there is nothing objective that is driving the trend of increase.
What is objective fact is ALL humans are "programmed" with a function and system of a potential for intelligence within the human brain.

Trends are relative and not "objective". Morality is relative and subject to cultural, historical and personal norms.
Thank you for supporting my case.

See my point above.

Whatever you claimed as the varying moral elements that are subjective to individuals and groups are driven by an objective moral function feature that is within and common to ALL humans.
It is that objective moral function that is a biological and moral fact within their respective FSK.

Seems the more your counter and dig in, the more stupid [inactive intelligence] you are.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is the formula by which we can measure the exact evilness-quotient of public urination in a baptismal font before the baby is dipped into it versus after the baby has already had his dip?

First you have to review and assess whether such an act fit into the definition of what is evil.
The above act do not qualify as an evil act.

Are you saying that morality-proper has nothing to say against dipping a baby in bucket of piss?

If the main purpose of is baptism [generally with good intention] of the baby, there is no elements of morality in that case. Note there are some people who drink human urine and camel urine for health reasons.

But if there is any intention to kill or torture the baby with glee, then that is an issue of morality, i.e. against the moral standard, 'no human ought to kill humans'.
If there are no intention to kill but if the babies died [in a way killed] from those acts frequently, then there will be some degree moral issue.

You are always happiest when you mark your own homework aren't you?

If you read many papers, you will note many would present the possible objections to save people the time. It is like a FAQ.

Note for example;
b]How to Derive "Ought" From "Is"[/b]: John R. Searle
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2183201?seq=1

I'm familiar with that activity, I'm rubbishing your decision to give yourself such a stupidly easy question to answer. Also your very naive take on why authors do that, it's a rhetorical technique to put the argument again in different words.

I am aware it is not easy to answer the objection I mentioned.

[FlashDangerpants]

First you have to review and assess whether such an act fit into the definition of what is evil.
The above act do not qualify as an evil act.

Are you saying that morality-proper has nothing to say against dipping a baby in bucket of piss?

If the main purpose of is baptism [generally with good intention] of the baby, there is no elements of morality in that case. Note there are some people who drink human urine and camel urine for health reasons.

But if there is any intention to kill or torture the baby with glee, then that is an issue of morality, i.e. against the moral standard, 'no human ought to kill humans'.

If there are no intention to kill but if the babies died [in a way killed] from those acts frequently, then there will be some degree moral issue.
The question wasn't that difficult. Let's try again.

Two men walk into a church where a baptism is about to happen. The first one whips out his penis in front of the whole congregation and pisses in the font, then he has the priest baptise the baby in the piss water. The second man waits politely until the baby has been baptised, then whips out his penis and pisses in the font.

Give us the true and actual number of units of evil that the first man has committed. Now tell us how many fewer evils the second man committed. Explain how this calculation was made.

I'm familiar with that activity, I'm rubbishing your decision to give yourself such a stupidly easy question to answer. Also your very naive take on why authors do that, it's a rhetorical technique to put the argument again in different words.

I am aware it is not easy to answer the objection I mentioned.

The question of whether it is right to kill people to prevent overpopulation? You always do the same answer for that sort of thing, it's "It'S A GUidE NOt A COmmANd!" every time. Why would you need a new answer when you can just use that to tell you that nobody has the authority to send anyone to their death?

Not that that matters, the closest thing to a difficult bit is choosing among all the easy answers to the incredibly simple test that you are setting for yourself. In case you haven't noticed, every time you investigate the truths that you can discover via DNA, you somehow end up with something that exactly matches the opinion you already had. If you had more imagination you would have realised this was a problem already.

So you should have no difficulty asking DNA what's right and wrong and getting told that there is no legitimate means to decide who to march to their death. Or you can inspect the genome and find out that everyone largely agrees with Kant's CI and so (via the magic of cherry picking those bits of human nature that suit your ends) it is evil to use millions of other people as means to an end.

All of the normal answers are available to you, because you will find anything you want with your method, it has never told you that you were previously wrong about anything, has it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you saying that morality-proper has nothing to say against dipping a baby in bucket of piss?

If the main purpose of is baptism [generally with good intention] of the baby, there is no elements of morality in that case. Note there are some people who drink human urine and camel urine for health reasons.

But if there is any intention to kill or torture the baby with glee, then that is an issue of morality, i.e. against the moral standard, 'no human ought to kill humans'.

If there are no intention to kill but if the babies died [in a way killed] from those acts frequently, then there will be some degree moral issue.
The question wasn't that difficult. Let's try again.

Two men walk into a church where a baptism is about to happen. The first one whips out his penis in front of the whole congregation and pisses in the font, then he has the priest baptise the baby in the piss water. The second man waits politely until the baby has been baptised, then whips out his penis and pisses in the font.

Give us the true and actual number of units of evil that the first man has committed. Now tell us how many fewer evils the second man committed. Explain how this calculation was made.

The above acts are not related to morality-proper.
If any and with an agreed FSK on such rating, it would be 1/100 of evilness relative to a typical genocide at 95/100.

I'm familiar with that activity, I'm rubbishing your decision to give yourself such a stupidly easy question to answer. Also your very naive take on why authors do that, it's a rhetorical technique to put the argument again in different words.

I am aware it is not easy to answer the objection I mentioned.

The question of whether it is right to kill people to prevent overpopulation? You always do the same answer for that sort of thing, it's "It'S A GUidE NOt A COmmANd!" every time. Why would you need a new answer when you can just use that to tell you that nobody has the authority to send anyone to their death?

That is not my point.
It is not a question of whether it is moral to kill people to prevent overpopulation.

My point is,
it is moral to maintain the moral standard that 'no human ought to kill humans' because this maxim will promote overpopulation which then could kill masses humans?
This would be a serious dilemma because of the maxim 'no human ought to kill humans' which 'could' end up with overpopulation but that maxim do not allow any humans to kill humans to kill to prevent overpopulation.

In contrast without the maxim, the two World Wars and other wars had actually restrained population increase after the war.

Not that that matters, the closest thing to a difficult bit is choosing among all the easy answers to the incredibly simple test that you are setting for yourself.
In case you haven't noticed, every time you investigate the truths that you can discover via DNA, you somehow end up with something that exactly matches the opinion you already had. If you had more imagination you would have realised this was a problem already.

So you should have no difficulty asking DNA what's right and wrong and getting told that there is no legitimate means to decide who to march to their death.
Or you can inspect the genome and find out that everyone largely agrees with Kant's CI and so (via the magic of cherry picking those bits of human nature that suit your ends) it is evil to use millions of other people as means to an end.

All of the normal answers are available to you, because you will find anything you want with your method, it has never told you that you were previously wrong about anything, has it?

Do you think anyone can prove God exists by examining the human DNA?

Note my principle;
what is fact is verified and justified empirically and philosophically specific to a credible framework and system of reality[FSR] and knowledge [FSK].

Why are you so anti-DNA or the genome?
If the DNA or whatever is verified and justified soundly, then it is a fact conditioned to the specific FSK.

[Sculptor]

Note the stadiums were full and the crowd roared when the Romans left captured-humans to be fed to lions or killed by gladiators > 2000 years ago.

One thing you are ignorant of the reducing trends of whatever killing of humans since >100,000 to the present 2010.

How come you are so ignorant?.

How come you do not know what morality is???
You pretend that you have found naturally objective "facts" to build up from, but you do not understand the basic history and purposes of morality. It is not, nor has it ever been determined by human behaviour. It is not genetic, but cultural.

Morality is far from genetically determined.
It's always been culturally generated; rules to assist groups cope with internal conflicts. Early and so-called "primitive" societies develped a wide and disparate range of strategies demonstating that morality was more contingent of the environmental uniqeness and ideosyncratic beliefs an ideologies that were historical and cultural.
By the time "civilisation" came along moralies shifted more to coping with unnaturally large grouping of people, and were generally engineered to overcome "gentically determined" natual tendancies. By in the main morality was devised for the elites to control the masses, and give preferential consideration to the rich and powerful. Such is still the case.
In this way morality restricts the all too human tendancy to violence to the top scum, who may dispense violence at will, whilst punishing the plebs for trying the same thing.
If you want genetically determined human morality look at Chimp society, or better still Benobo.

And you cannot base human morality on Benobos

[Skepdick]

How come you do not know what morality is???
You pretend that you have found naturally objective "facts" to build up from, but you do not understand the basic history and purposes of morality. It is not, nor has it ever been determined by human behaviour. It is not genetic, but cultural.

[redacted]. How come you don't know what culture is???

What determines culture?

And [redacted] what determines that which determines culture?

etc. etc.


[Edited by iMod

[FlashDangerpants]

If the main purpose of is baptism [generally with good intention] of the baby, there is no elements of morality in that case. Note there are some people who drink human urine and camel urine for health reasons.

But if there is any intention to kill or torture the baby with glee, then that is an issue of morality, i.e. against the moral standard, 'no human ought to kill humans'.

If there are no intention to kill but if the babies died [in a way killed] from those acts frequently, then there will be some degree moral issue.
The question wasn't that difficult. Let's try again.

Two men walk into a church where a baptism is about to happen. The first one whips out his penis in front of the whole congregation and pisses in the font, then he has the priest baptise the baby in the piss water. The second man waits politely until the baby has been baptised, then whips out his penis and pisses in the font.

Give us the true and actual number of units of evil that the first man has committed. Now tell us how many fewer evils the second man committed. Explain how this calculation was made.

The above acts are not related to morality-proper.
If any and with an agreed FSK on such rating, it would be 1/100 of evilness relative to a typical genocide at 95/100.

So the actual difference between ans evil act and a non-evil act is that you haven't decided to give the non-evil act a random badness number yet.

And the number itself is nonsense, a subjective opinion between 1 and 100 after a subjective choice has been made to issue a number, which folows no particular rule.

I am aware it is not easy to answer the objection I mentioned.

The question of whether it is right to kill people to prevent overpopulation? You always do the same answer for that sort of thing, it's "It'S A GUidE NOt A COmmANd!" every time. Why would you need a new answer when you can just use that to tell you that nobody has the authority to send anyone to their death?

That is not my point.
It is not a question of whether it is moral to kill people to prevent overpopulation.

My point is,
it is moral to maintain the moral standard that 'no human ought to kill humans' because this maxim will promote overpopulation which then could kill masses humans?
This would be a serious dilemma because of the maxim 'no human ought to kill humans' which 'could' end up with overpopulation but that maxim do not allow any humans to kill humans to kill to prevent overpopulation.

In contrast without the maxim, the two World Wars and other wars had actually restrained population increase after the war.

It's not a serious dilemma at all, unless your problem is that you actually want to say yes to all that killing.

Not that that matters, the closest thing to a difficult bit is choosing among all the easy answers to the incredibly simple test that you are setting for yourself.
In case you haven't noticed, every time you investigate the truths that you can discover via DNA, you somehow end up with something that exactly matches the opinion you already had. If you had more imagination you would have realised this was a problem already.

So you should have no difficulty asking DNA what's right and wrong and getting told that there is no legitimate means to decide who to march to their death.
Or you can inspect the genome and find out that everyone largely agrees with Kant's CI and so (via the magic of cherry picking those bits of human nature that suit your ends) it is evil to use millions of other people as means to an end.

All of the normal answers are available to you, because you will find anything you want with your method, it has never told you that you were previously wrong about anything, has it?

Do you think anyone can prove God exists by examining the human DNA?

Obviously I don't believe that, but I don't believe you can prove anything is good or bad by reading DNA either, that is your problem.

There are people who do think DNA proves their religion right. But honestly that's predictable, you're basically one of them. Your appeal to DNA as the arbiter of right and wrong for unquestionable but non-explainable reasons is a brand of fundamentalism right now.

Note my principle;
what is fact is verified and justified empirically and philosophically specific to a credible framework and system of reality[FSR] and knowledge [FSK].

Why are you so anti-DNA or the genome?
If the DNA or whatever is verified and justified soundly, then it is a fact conditioned to the specific FSK.

So I was obviously right. You have never once used all this science-like method to find anything that contradicted an opinion you already held have you?