What is the Most Immoral Act?

[Veritas Aequitas]

While morality is species oriented, considerations need to be given where other species are essential to the survival of a species.
In this sense, while morality per se is confined to the human species, rational and optimal non-moral considerations must be given to other species where their extermination or reduction in numbers would have an adverse effect on the direct or global basis on the survival of the human species.

So let's get this straight. If I beat my dog with the intention of causing him pain, and there are no other considerations that would affect any human, is it your view that my act is not immoral?

Yes, your act is not immoral, i.e. not related to morality-proper as defined.

In that case, any restraint would be restricted to;
-your own sense of compassion to animals
-your conscience
-any laws that criminalize cruelty to animals [legal = politics not morality].

[Iwannaplato]

While morality is species oriented, considerations need to be given where other species are essential to the survival of a species.
In this sense, while morality per se is confined to the human species, rational and optimal non-moral considerations must be given to other species where their extermination or reduction in numbers would have an adverse effect on the direct or global basis on the survival of the human species.

So let's get this straight. If I beat my dog with the intention of causing him pain, and there are no other considerations that would affect any human, is it your view that my act is not immoral?

Yes, your act is not immoral, i.e. not related to morality-proper as defined.

In that case, any restraint would be restricted to;
-your own sense of compassion to animals

Wait! you've built objective moral facts off of tendencies to feel compassion and empathy for other humans, re mirror neurons. Well, the same systems that produce empathy for other humans produce empathy for other species. Why does that not also lead to morality?

On what grounds can you tell others that their sense that beating a dog for no reason is immoral is not using the word 'immoral' correctly?

Why could their conclusion not be based on their morality FSK or R and be considered an objective claim about morality? And when pressed why can't they say that humans, like other social animals, can be shown to exhibit compassion for animals even across species?

Humans being a type of animal and all that.

On what authority can you justify telling others that the areas of behavior their moralities cover are not covered?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is morality is conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK that specifies all the relevant conditions.

Empathy [a facilitator] is merely one element within the human-based moral FSK.
One critical condition within the human-based moral FSK is that one has to be rational.

Thus one should not apply empathy blindly [emotionally and stupidly] but rather should apply it rationally and optimally.

There are many events where blind empathy was applied to animals, here are two amongst the many.

• 'It Was Horrendous': Man Drowns Trying to Save Dog in Fast-Flowing Creek
  https://www.newsweek.com/horrendous-man ... ek-1801776
  
  10 People Who Died Trying To Save A Dog’s Life
  https://listverse.com/2017/12/10/10-peo ... dogs-life/

There are many such stupid acts like the above.
It is possible those humans who died could have the potentials to contribute greatly to humanity.

If morality is not limited to humans and so applicable to non-humans [alive], then in principle, moral humans should not kill even living organisms like bacteria and viruses. [up to millions of germs are killed naturally on a daily basis in the stomach and the human immune system; note also the use of antibiotics]

[Iwannaplato]

What is morality is conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK that specifies all the relevant conditions.

Empathy [a facilitator] is merely one element within the human-based moral FSK.

It was the only 'thing' you pointed to for a long time as a source of an objective moral fact. And objective moral fact. Not it becomes a fact after one adds rationality to it. But actually that empathy was part of a moral attitude. Now you're moving the goal posts when you don't like the conclusion. Further there is nothing irrational about feeling empathy.

One critical condition within the human-based moral FSK is that one has to be rational.

Thus one should not apply empathy blindly [emotionally and stupidly] but rather should apply it rationally and optimally.

As usual you get insulting without be completely direct about it. This implies that to consider having moral positions on animals, as ends unto themselves, is stupid.

There are many events where blind empathy was applied to animals, here are two amongst the many.

• 'It Was Horrendous': Man Drowns Trying to Save Dog in Fast-Flowing Creek
  https://www.newsweek.com/horrendous-man ... ek-1801776

Yes, you think that was stupid. But here's the problem with this argument. You are not demonstrating that feeling empathy for animals beyond simply treating them well instrumentally for the benefit of humans is either morally wrong or irrational. At the very best, you might be showing that sometimes empathy for animals could lead to problems.

But that's true about all empathy. One could endanger a group of humans while focusing too much on one humans pain. Such a scenerio does not negate the value of feeling empathy for humans as a rule. One could feel to much empathy for an imprisoned murderer and let him out and he kills again and it was considered likely by psychologists that he was still dangerous. This does not demonstrate that feeling empathy and acting on it is bad, irrational or stupid. It just shows that it could be.

10 People Who Died Trying To Save A Dog’s Life
https://listverse.com/2017/12/10/10-peo ... dogs-life/[/list]

There are many such stupid acts like the above.
It is possible those humans who died could have the potentials to contribute greatly to humanity.

Same problem. It is this kind of basic fallacious argument that you come up with with great regularity.

If morality is not limited to humans and so applicable to non-humans [alive], then in principle, moral humans should not kill even living organisms like bacteria and viruses. [up to millions of germs are killed naturally on a daily basis in the stomach and the human immune system; note also the use of antibiotics]

LOL. I don't know anyone whose mirror neurons lead them to feel empathy for bacteria or viruses. That takes some conceptual gymnastics, some string of deduction and likely faulty deduction.

Further like many consequentialists your analyses of the humans risk their lives for dogs scenarios just follows effects in a very shallow way. A better question is what does caring about animals such that this kind of situation can arise lead to in all sorts of indirect ways in culture. And that's granting that we should only look at these things in consequentialist terms.

And then you are telling us what cannot be moral based on your values. There is nothing objective about your position at all. X is important so Y is wrong. X might lead to Y so we can't have X. And not only are you saying you think it's a bad idea you are saying it cannot be a moral position. You are saying that moral positions must be 1) consequentialist and 2) evaluated ONLY based on their effects on humans. Any one having different positions are not having moral positions.

That's absurd and it's not objective. It's is based on your subjective values. There are lots of different moral FSRs out there. Good luck demonstrating that your criteria are the objective ones for what can be considered a moral FSR.

This is what you have to believe about your God.
This is what you are allowed to have in your morality, not that. So...not just that your morals are correct, but you can tell people what they cannot have in their morals.
Because some small percentage of humans have had religious type experiences during seizures, with no clear follow up on whether this leads them to be theists, then temporal lobe epilepsy is one of the main causes of theism.
Because some realists have murdered, realists are more likely to murder than non-realists. Even though there are no studies to show this and while many murders have been committed by people who believe in objective moral facts, suddenly one cannot draw the conclusion that believing in objective moral facts is more likely to make one a murderer than if you believe there are no objective moral facts.
Realists are solipsists despite this meaning that your core accusation about their 'absurd, primitive, evolutionary default, barbaric belief in a mind independent reality' is completely impossible, since that belief contradicts solipsism and...solipsism is a kind of antirealism, if not your form, and it is an issue that antirealisms tend to have to clarify given that a number of antirealisms deny the existence of unobservables.

And never, not once, the slightest admission that there is something to think about or this or that was a good point or here you made a weak argument while there is this constant barrage of weak, self-contradictory arguments and a LOT of telling people what they must think and what positions they have or must have.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It was the only 'thing' you pointed to for a long time as a source of an objective moral fact. And objective moral fact. Not it becomes a fact after one adds rationality to it.
Strawman as usual.

I wrote:

• What is morality is conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK that specifies all the relevant conditions.
  Empathy [a facilitator] is merely one element within the human-based moral FSK.

Any Framework and System will comprise many elements [simple and complex]. A moral FSK must specifies all the relevant conditions that qualifies it to be a human-based moral FSK. i.e. the constitution [explicit or implied], the methodologies and processes, assumptions, limitations and all other necessary conditions.
There are conditions that ensure moral elements [e.g. empathy] do not end up defeating the ultimate purpose of morality.

Given the above conditions, how can 'empathy' be the only element that is the 'only objective moral fact' within the human based moral FSK?
Rationality is one of the element [feature] of the moral FSK, rationality do not make the empathy element an objective moral fact.

What is objective and factual with empathy is that it is represented by specific* physical mirror neurons within an active process in the brain in connection to the body.
* not all mirror neurons are related to empathy.

The rest of the above posts are all strawman and misrepresentations. I am not wasting time to explain them.

[Iwannaplato]

While morality is species oriented, considerations need to be given where other species are essential to the survival of a species.
In this sense, while morality per se is confined to the human species, rational and optimal non-moral considerations must be given to other species where their extermination or reduction in numbers would have an adverse effect on the direct or global basis on the survival of the human species.

So let's get this straight. If I beat my dog with the intention of causing him pain, and there are no other considerations that would affect any human, is it your view that my act is not immoral?

It's actually a stronger position that that. It's that you are in error in considering it a moral issue. There's an additional meta-moral judgment that you're making a category error when you consider the issue a moral one. It's not a matter of him thinking it is moral to be brutal with animals, you would be making an error in thinking the issue is a moral one...because they are not human. The treatment of animals cannot only be a moral issue if you are focusing on how treating animals might negatively or positively affect humans. Animals can only be treated, according to him, as means in relation to us and not as ends.

[Iwannaplato]

While morality is species oriented, considerations need to be given where other species are essential to the survival of a species.
In this sense, while morality per se is confined to the human species, rational and optimal non-moral considerations must be given to other species where their extermination or reduction in numbers would have an adverse effect on the direct or global basis on the survival of the human species.

So let's get this straight. If I beat my dog with the intention of causing him pain, and there are no other considerations that would affect any human, is it your view that my act is not immoral?

It's actually a mroe extreme position that that. It's that you are in error in considering it a moral issue. There's an additional meta-moral judgment that you're making a category error when you consider the issue a moral one. It's not just a matter of him thinking it is not immoral to be brutal with animals, you would be making an error in thinking the issue is a moral one...because they are not human. The treatment of animals can only be a moral issue if you are focusing on how treating animals might negatively or positively affect humans. Animals can only be treated, according to him, as moral means in relation to us and not as moral ends.

To demonstrate this he has given examples where humans died trying to save dogs. This demonstrates not only that they acted immorally since they risked what has value (the humans) for what does not, but somehow that all moral considerations of animals as ends are wrong. His other argument was that if we consider animals as having non-instrumental moral value, then we have to not kill bacteria and viruses. So, some very odd generalizing, circular reasoning (assuming the conclusion in the justification), incomplete analysis of effects and arguing that something is entailed without the least justification.

[Iwannaplato]

I realized that my argument above related to solipsism was missing a key point. I've placed this now in a thread specifically on that topic....
viewtopic.php?p=655690#p655690

[CIN]

While morality is species oriented, considerations need to be given where other species are essential to the survival of a species.
In this sense, while morality per se is confined to the human species, rational and optimal non-moral considerations must be given to other species where their extermination or reduction in numbers would have an adverse effect on the direct or global basis on the survival of the human species.

So let's get this straight. If I beat my dog with the intention of causing him pain, and there are no other considerations that would affect any human, is it your view that my act is not immoral?

Yes, your act is not immoral, i.e. not related to morality-proper as defined.

In that case, any restraint would be restricted to;
-your own sense of compassion to animals
-your conscience
-any laws that criminalize cruelty to animals [legal = politics not morality].

Okay. And now will you please give me your definition of 'morality-proper', and explain how you arrive at it?

[Iwannaplato]

So let's get this straight. If I beat my dog with the intention of causing him pain, and there are no other considerations that would affect any human, is it your view that my act is not immoral?

Yes, your act is not immoral, i.e. not related to morality-proper as defined.

In that case, any restraint would be restricted to;
-your own sense of compassion to animals
-your conscience
-any laws that criminalize cruelty to animals [legal = politics not morality].

Okay. And now will you please give me your definition of 'morality-proper', and explain how you arrive at it?

Part of his rhetoric is to use the passive voice....

Yes, your act is not immoral, i.e. not related to morality-proper as defined.

Not 'I define morality such that considering animals as ends cannot be a moral issue.' He has the objective definition of 'moral' or 'morality-proper' , so you cannot have morals that relate to the treatment of animals (unless it hurts humans, etc.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

So let's get this straight. If I beat my dog with the intention of causing him pain, and there are no other considerations that would affect any human, is it your view that my act is not immoral?

Yes, your act is not immoral, i.e. not related to morality-proper as defined.

In that case, any restraint would be restricted to;
-your own sense of compassion to animals
-your conscience
-any laws that criminalize cruelty to animals [legal = politics not morality].

Okay. And now will you please give me your definition of 'morality-proper', and explain how you arrive at it?

If you research everything related to the current literature related to 'morality' 99% of it is not related to morality-proper.
Basically what is morality at present is related to rightness and wrongness of human acts attributed to 'what is deemed to be morality'.
Whilst morality in terms of rightness and wrongness do have some moral utilities it is too subjective, incomplete and will not facilitate moral progress at the finer levels.

In the case of rightness and wrongness, every moral act would have to be computed by each individual before they act to ensure their acts are morally right. For practice, this is a crazy idea and theory.

Note the following;

The Hedonistic Calculus

• The Hedonistic Calculus
  I. Bentham's method of estimating pleasures and pains can be applied to egoistic hedonism. With the addition of the utilitarian factor "extent" of pleasure, the hedonism can be extended to any number of persons.
  https://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/calculus.html

Casuistry - Trolley Problems
Moral competence meant studying and learning by rote based on casuistry examples and hopefully one will apply them in real life situations.
The point is in real life there are tons of complex variables and not every real life situation will fit with the learned casuistry examples.

Other modes of computation on rightness or wrongness of moral acts.
I believe there are others beside the above

Whilst morality in terms of rightness and wrongness do have some moral utilities it is too subjective, incomplete and will not facilitate moral progress at the finer levels.

What is Morality-proper
Because the above approach to morality is limited, weak and they do not facilitate effective moral progress, we need a moral approach that is effective to facilitate moral progress which is what is term 'morality-proper' to differentiate it from the ineffective moral approaches.

Morality-proper is an approach that defines Morality as
Morality is the management of evil to enable its related good to emerge.

What is evil is the negative elements that negate the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity.
What is evil must be objective, not subjective and verifiable within a human-based scientific FSK, then upon a human-based evil FSK.

When 'evil' is managed efficiently, its related 'moral good' will emerge spontaneously and correspondingly.

Whatever is a moral element must also be objective, i.e. an objective moral fact which is mainly from the human-based science-biology FSK inputted into a human-based moral FSK, thus is an objective moral fact.

All the above must be managed within a credible, reliable and objective human-based moral FSR-FSK to qualify it as morality proper.