Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:06 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:56 am
No, it's not a sufficient counter, never has been, and never will be.
You invented the fiction of 'a moral FSK', which begs the question, because it assumes moral cognitivism - that moral rightness and wrongness are features of reality that can be known. Fallacy.
And you ignore the fact that what makes any FSK credible is evidence from the reality that you agree exists outside any descriptive context. And from false premises, your conclusion is useless. Here it is.
P1 We 'co-create' facts through FSKs.
P2 Any FSK can 'produce' facts.
C Therefore, a moral FSK can produce moral facts.
That you don't understand why this is an appallingly bad argument - that you vainly think that rweaking it with conditions can rectify it - demonstrates a deep problem in your reasoning.
Explain precisely why P1 is false when that is precisely how objective scientific facts
emerge from the scientific FSK.
The other is you are strawmaning as usual;
I never state the terms 'rightness' nor 'wrongness' which can be very misleading,
"
that moral rightness and wrongness are features of reality that can be known"
what I am referring are the moral potentials [drives] represented by physical neurons in the brain [co-ordinated with the body] that will drive moral actions accordingly.
What makes a potential a 'moral potential'? You just throw out these claims without justification. What is a 'moral action'? An action, or a potential to act in a certain way is NOT inherently a moral action or a moral potential. Those expressions are meaningless obfuscations. And since you deny that you're talking about moral rightness and wrongness - why tf are you talking about moral action or potential? What's moral about them if they're not morally right or wrong? Utter nonsense.
Your dogmatism is very strong and rigid, thus I don't expect you to research and explore the above possibilities even when such knowledge is staring right in front of you. Note the 'not seeing the 500 pounds' "disease" you are infected with.
'Moral actions' are those actions [thoughts] that are classified a 'moral' in relation to morality as defined.
'Moral potential' is the potential that which drives moral actions and thoughts.
Analogy [explain many times]:
'Sexual actions' are those actions [thoughts] that are classified a 'sexual' in relation to sexuality as defined.
'Sexual potential' is the potential that which drives sexual actions and thought.
Beside 'sex' we can refer to "PUBERTY" 'intelligence' 'nutrition' creativity, etc.
These are all represent by the DNA, physical neural networks comprising neurons in the brain and body with other elements in the body in connection with its environment.
So why is the moral potential as with the above analogy not existing within all humans?
That the majority of people do not just go out and kill another human is due the moral potential generating the moral 'ought-not-ness to kill another human'.
Why must I talk about moral wrongness and moral rightness which are relatively kindergarten stuff and concerns with fears, threats, threat of hell, penalties, punishments, restriction of freedom, etc. Your thinking is too shallow and narrow without any optimism.
What I am talking about are about moral deviations from the moral facts as standards which are triggers for
continual moral improvements.
All the above elements are moral facts when dealt within a credible moral FSK, just as e.g. legal element when dealt within a legal FSK enable the emergence of legal facts.