From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

[Iwannaplato]

The scientific method describes the process of how knowledge about the natural world can be attained, in the most general, fundamental manner:

Observation → Question / problem → Hypothesis (tentative explanation / prediction) → Criteria for confirmation / falsification → Experimentation → Analysis → Conclusion → Reporting (publication) → Replication (peer review) → rinse & repeat

It seems to me that there is no real alternative to this approach, it's just a question of the degree to which it's followed (which is a qualitative measurement)

First, I'd want to know what you mean by degree. Do you mean in terms of the number of steps, the order of the steps, or the degree to which all of the necessary steps are carried out? I suppose I'd like to hear more about degree, which sounds quantitative, is qualitative and yet measured.

Certainly scientists have skipped step 1, observation. Often they just go from models to hypotheses. Or like Einstein from a thought experiment.

The process with Einstein also doesn't really fit the schema. It went from distribution to being accepted on deductive/mathematical and aesthetic grounds by some scientists first. This compelled others to begin looking at it more. Some parts being confirmed decades later with changes in technology.

So, experimentation was skipped before peer review. And only partially accepted there.

There are also problems with falsification...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... is-a-myth/
Some of this can be after the fact realizations that falsification is not quite what we think it is.
But there are hypoteses that, at least now, cannot be falsified, but are important and retained and hop around on that schema, skipping steps and are not necessarily falsified. This is especially true in physics.
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/articl ... nd-physics

And let's remember that the moment you have something like publication in a schema of methodology, then money and paradigmatic bias come into play in ways that are of a different kind than earlier stages. (of course research monies and thus areas of research are affected greatly by money and power (and paradigm) and this strongly affects early and late stages (such as replication) of the process.

That's some reactions off the top of my head.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As such,
"I have very strong understanding of the general theory of relativity, and I strongly believe that it is valid and accurate based on the fact that the scientists as human are the "co-creators" of those Laws of Relativity via the scientific FSK; based upon available experimental evidence, the functional technologies designed on its basis, interviews with reputable physicists and consensus among experts."

I understand what you're saying regarding humans being the co-creators of their theories, as all of our understanding of the natural world is fundamentally conceptual. It is therefore self-evident that scientific theories are man-made. I think what you're saying is that these theories are all that we can know, and we can only speculate about what is "actually real". Therefore, it makes no sense to speak of reality independent of our theoretical (scientific) knowledge about it. But I think it's incorrect to say that our knowledge of reality IS reality, because this would be a circular thought. Knowledge is a representation of reality, so it would make no sense to say that "reality is a representation of reality".

So I would assert: "Humans are the co-creators of their understanding of the reality they are in"

Reality in this case is simply defined as that which our conceptual knowledge attempts to represent.

Now, the way in which you rephrased my original statement brings up the following questions:

1) you changed "very little understanding" to "very strong understanding". Does this imply that one can't believe in something unless one has very strong understanding of it? This seems like an untenable proposition...

2) the statement in your formulation no longer says anything about my belief in the validity of the theory itself, only the fact that it was created by humans. Was this intentional or a mistake in the formulation? This, too, seems untenable to me, because clearly the fact that humans are co-creators of this theory should have no bearing on whether I believe in the validity of the theory or not. This seems like a quint-essential non sequitur.

You missed my point;

Yes, in general, "Knowledge is a representation of reality"
but in another more refined perspective, it is;
Knowledge by a subject is a representation of reality, of which the subject is a co-creator of that reality.

Take the obvious example,
If you create a chair [reality], then you have knowledge of that chair [reality] which you are the creator of.

A more refine version of co-creator or reality;
Reality is all-there-is, i.e. including you therein.
We have reality at t1 - a specific state of affairs of the universe in all there is with your therein.
Then you cough at t2.
At t3, we have a different reality [all there is] because your cough have changed reality from at t1 to t3.
Your cough had contributed subsequently to a hurricane in Florida [Chaos Theory] at t4.
You then see for your self [video report] and thus has knowledge of that hurricane at t5.

From the above sequence of events,
isn't it true that you were the co-creator [at t2] of that reality at t3 which you subsequently have knowledge of at t5?
Do you agree with the above?

The above is undeniable but you may ask,
what about when there were no humans?
You can trace this back to the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.
But note, the Big Bang is conditioned upon the Science-Physics FSK.
Since any FSK is conditioned upon human conditions,
whatever or whichever ways, it is ultimately linked to the human conditions and human as co-creators.

As Model Dependent Realism asserted it is meaningless to talk about any "true reality" that is independent of the human conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

According to Kant, to chase for such for 'true reality' [thing in itself] is chasing illusions, and being insistence and dogmatic about it is delusional.

Wittgenstein's "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" can be applied to the above.

To get a better of this truth, I suggest you read the following [quoted earlier];

Note this thread;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili

Note Kant;
Kant: Laws of Nature, We Ourselves Introduce [CPR A125]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33772

Note this post re the merging of subject with object:
viewtopic.php?p=624583#p624583

Just to clarify, I was and am referring to the scientific method, not "scientific methods":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method describes the process of how knowledge about the natural world can be attained, in the most general, fundamental manner:

Observation → Question / problem → Hypothesis (tentative explanation / prediction) → Criteria for confirmation / falsification → Experimentation → Analysis → Conclusion → Reporting (publication) → Replication (peer review) → rinse & repeat

It seems to me that there is no real alternative to this approach, it's just a question of the degree to which it's followed (which is a qualitative measurement).

The scientific method does not prescribe implementation details -- the implementation depends on the particular field of study, the nature of the particular subject / problem and so on.

With this in mind, it seems to me that the scientific method encompasses things such as paradigms, as these emerge based on the findings and established theories within particular fields of study. The fields of study in turn contain paradigms. A "paradigm" is therefore a more specific concept than a field or domain (as a field / domain can include multiple paradigms, and those can change over time).

So I think the scientific method is exactly what you're referring to when you talk about FSK's. In other words, any statement about FSK's can be changed to talk about the scientific method without losing anything, i.e.:

"the scientists as humans are the "co-creators" of those Laws of Relativity via the scientific method"

In this case, it is already clear that the scientific method is used within the context of physics, as the theory of relativity is contained within the domain of physics. To talk about "science FSK" or "physics FSK" is therefore redundant, as it would be akin to saying:

"the scientists as humans are the "co-creators" of those Laws of Relativity via the scientific method within the context of science / physics"

Now, if you think that the term "FSK" contains something that isn't already covered by the scientific method (and, by implication, the context, i.e. the field of study and its current paradigm), then what is that thing, exactly?

Also, whenever you talk about other FSK's and their degree of objectivity, what you seem to be referring to is the degree to which they follow the scientific method. So the only reason why the FIFA FSK is less objective than the science FSK is because it doesn't follow the scientific method to the same degree.

If you read the following;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
there is no mentioned of Reporting (publication) → Replication (peer review) and other matters which would be covered by the terms 'Framework' and 'System'.
I use 'framework' to cover whatever is necessary and related to the eventual scientific facts, truth and knowledge.
This will include elements of the Philosophy of Science;

• Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science.

As you note in the above, 'methods' is merely one element that is related to Science.

Note this wider aspects of Science;
Development of a Framework for the Culture of Scientific Research
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8715786/



I believe there is a significant difference between Science as conditioned to the 'scientific methods' and as conditioned to its specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or the seldom mentioned FS of Reality [FSR].

My proposed moral FSK do not involved prescriptive values, i.e. it is not to be prescribed as in being enforced upon individuals.
Whatever the objective moral facts, they are merely to be standards to guide the individual's moral progress.

If it's a standard to guide an individual's moral progress, isn't it then prescriptive by definition?

"Prescriptive" doesn't mean "enforceable". Anything that promotes or suggests a particular behavior is prescriptive.

But from what I understand, the moral facts you refer to don't promote a particular behavior in themselves. Rather, they refer to the things that drive us to behave "morally" (i.e. mirror neurons), as per your definition.

But in this case, your proposition would fit neatly inside of option 2), so I really don't think it's distinct from these two existing approaches.

All along I had learned that whatever is prescriptive in the discussion of morality involved oughts that are enforceable.
Note the typical meaning;

Prescriptive: relating to the imposition or enforcement of a rule or method. [Google]

The moral standard I present is an objective moral fact that is represented by the physical algorithm, neurons, genes, atoms, quarks and DNA. It is a moral function with potential.

Mirror neurons [not all but in some aspects] are associated with empathy which is an essential element of morality, but mirror neurons are merely a small part of the whole neural set of the moral function and moral potential in the brain.

[Alexander_Reiswich]

First, I'd want to know what you mean by degree. Do you mean in terms of the number of steps, the order of the steps, or the degree to which all of the necessary steps are carried out? I suppose I'd like to hear more about degree, which sounds quantitative, is qualitative and yet measured.

Yes, I would say that the quality (or "objectivity") of the method (not necessarily the result) is determined by which and how many of these steps have been followed (thoroughness), whether they've been implemented in the proper order (orderliness), and also how well each step was executed in detail (competence).

So for example, if you skip the part about defining the criteria for confirmation / falsification, the results will appear "murky". If you then define the criteria after getting results, you'll likely end up "reinterpreting" the original hypothesis to make them fit with the results, thus sacrificing clarity again. So by not following the steps properly, the quality of the procedure suffers. Naturally, you can also follow all the steps in their proper order and your procedure can still be low-quality if some or all the steps are executed incompetently. That's why this seems to me like a qualitative evaluation rather than a quantitative one.

Certainly scientists have skipped step 1, observation. Often they just go from models to hypotheses. Or like Einstein from a thought experiment.

The process with Einstein also doesn't really fit the schema. It went from distribution to being accepted on deductive/mathematical and aesthetic grounds by some scientists first. This compelled others to begin looking at it more. Some parts being confirmed decades later with changes in technology.

So, experimentation was skipped before peer review. And only partially accepted there.

Math (being a big part of physics) and other analytic disciplines are considered to be a priori, so without the need to be compared against empirical observations. I'm not sure if this is strictly true, though -- even within math, it's possible to come up with predictions and then "test" them through calculations. It's just that in this context we're not testing against the natural world, but rather against whatever conclusions we arrive at by honoring the axioms within that system.

So if we don't require experimentation to be necessarily empirical, it seems to me that purely analytic disciplines can also be measured by how well they follow the steps of the scientific method.

I think physics can be said to be a synthetic a priori discipline to put it in Kantian terms, in the sense that it often starts with theoretical models based on a priori deliberations, which are then tested against empirical data to confirm or falsify them.

There are also problems with falsification...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... is-a-myth/
Some of this can be after the fact realizations that falsification is not quite what we think it is.
But there are hypoteses that, at least now, cannot be falsified, but are important and retained and hop around on that schema, skipping steps and are not necessarily falsified. This is especially true in physics.
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/articl ... nd-physics

I don't think these are necessarily problems with falsification. Falsification can be impossible for "good" or "bad" reasons.

"Good" reasons are real-world constraints; data that could exist, but that we simply can't attain and possibly will never be able to attain, no matter how much we progress technologically. That said, it's always difficult to be certain about what we can't know. A couple new discoveries might change all of our current expectations.

"Bad" reasons are issues with the theory itself. Intelligent design for instance can in principle explain everything, but at the same time it explains nothing. If ID had genuine and useful explanatory and predictive power, then the fact that it's unfalsifiable (as far as we know) wouldn't automatically disqualify it. But given that it's unfalsifiable and doesn't really explain anything we can safely dismiss it as being useless.

And let's remember that the moment you have something like publication in a schema of methodology, then money and paradigmatic bias come into play in ways that are of a different kind than earlier stages. (of course research monies and thus areas of research are affected greatly by money and power (and paradigm) and this strongly affects early and late stages (such as replication) of the process.

That's some reactions off the top of my head.

Yes, this is something I would file under "competence". The publication environment must of course be unbiased, and the degree to which it isn't is the degree to which this step is not executed properly.

[Alexander_Reiswich]

You missed my point;

Yes, in general, "Knowledge is a representation of reality"
but in another more refined perspective, it is;
Knowledge by a subject is a representation of reality, of which the subject is a co-creator of that reality.

Take the obvious example,
If you create a chair [reality], then you have knowledge of that chair [reality] which you are the creator of.

A more refine version of co-creator or reality;
Reality is all-there-is, i.e. including you therein.
We have reality at t1 - a specific state of affairs of the universe in all there is with your therein.
Then you cough at t2.
At t3, we have a different reality [all there is] because your cough have changed reality from at t1 to t3.
Your cough had contributed subsequently to a hurricane in Florida [Chaos Theory] at t4.
You then see for your self [video report] and thus has knowledge of that hurricane at t5.

From the above sequence of events,
isn't it true that you were the co-creator [at t2] of that reality at t3 which you subsequently have knowledge of at t5?
Do you agree with the above?

The above is undeniable but you may ask,
what about when there were no humans?
You can trace this back to the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.
But note, the Big Bang is conditioned upon the Science-Physics FSK.
Since any FSK is conditioned upon human conditions,
whatever or whichever ways, it is ultimately linked to the human conditions and human as co-creators.

As Model Dependent Realism asserted it is meaningless to talk about any "true reality" that is independent of the human conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

According to Kant, to chase for such for 'true reality' [thing in itself] is chasing illusions, and being insistence and dogmatic about it is delusional.

Wittgenstein's "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" can be applied to the above.

To get a better of this truth, I suggest you read the following [quoted earlier];

Note this thread;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili

Note Kant;
Kant: Laws of Nature, We Ourselves Introduce [CPR A125]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33772

Note this post re the merging of subject with object:
viewtopic.php?p=624583#p624583

Fyi, the youtube link doesn't work for me (for some reason isn't supported in my region).

I think model dependent realism is a reasonable, valid approach. I just feel our discussion about it is a bit muddied, when it really shouldn't be. It's a fairly straight-forward concept, but we must differentiate between a "model" of reality (theory), empirically observed reality (data) and the concept of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself". From your descriptions, it feels to me like you're merging these concepts, but maybe that's just me...

In any case, I would be very surprised if your claim is that there is fundamentally no difference between them?

If we talk about reality in terms of the model, then I would say we're actually the creators (rather than just co-creators) of that reality.

If we talk about reality in terms of empirical data, then I would say we have clearly an influence on this reality, as we are a part of it and have the ability to interact with it. To say that we're "co-creators" of this reality is technically fair, albeit a bit poetic, possibly even hyperbolic. A more sober approach would be to simply say that we can and do influence empirical reality, which is quite undeniable.

Now, it's obvious that both the model and the data are ultimately concepts that only exist in our minds. Therefore, in the absence of subjects, neither the model, nor the data exist. This doesn't necessarily mean that "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" doesn't exist -- but without the model and the data, we can't know anything about it. Therefore, I agree with you that talking about "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" in the absence of a model is pointless, nonsensical even. However, the idea of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" is perfectly valid. Conceptually, we know that "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" exists, because it's what we're trying to describe with our models and the source of data to compare against our models. The entire point of science is to calibrate our models as closely as possible to "reality-as-it-is-in-itself". Therefore, this process is meaningful -- it's not just "chasing illusions" (even though the best we can hope for is likely just a close approximation).

In any case, with this differentiation it seems like a fairly trivial matter to me, but please let me know if you think I'm missing something.

All along I had learned that whatever is prescriptive in the discussion of morality involved oughts that are enforceable.
Note the typical meaning;
Prescriptive: relating to the imposition or enforcement of a rule or method. [Google]
The moral standard I present is an objective moral fact that is represented by the physical algorithm, neurons, genes, atoms, quarks and DNA. It is a moral function with potential.

Well, this doesn't make sense to me. For one, the term "prescriptive" describes "oughts", and "oughts" can be enforced. This stands in contrast to "is", which can't be enforced, because it already is the way it is. So if you think that the way something is, is not "good", such that you attempt to change it, then you have introduced an "ought".

However, an "ought" does not have to be enforced. You can say that something ought to be changed, but also do nothing about it. In other words, there is a continuum between simply making a prescriptive statement, and enforcing it with all the resources available to you.

But just because you don't enforce a prescriptive statement doesn't mean it's not prescriptive.

What you seem to be saying is that your moral approach is prescriptive, but since you elect it to not be enforced, it's somehow not prescriptive. That's not how it works...

Either it's descriptive and therefore simply tells us how things are, or it's prescriptive in that it tells us how things should be. So what is it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Fyi, the youtube link doesn't work for me (for some reason isn't supported in my region).

I think model dependent realism is a reasonable, valid approach. I just feel our discussion about it is a bit muddied, when it really shouldn't be. It's a fairly straight-forward concept, but we must differentiate between a "model" of reality (theory), empirically observed reality (data) and the concept of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself". From your descriptions, it feels to me like you're merging these concepts, but maybe that's just me...

In any case, I would be very surprised if your claim is that there is fundamentally no difference between them?

If we talk about reality in terms of the model, then I would say we're actually the creators (rather than just co-creators) of that reality.

If we talk about reality in terms of empirical data, then I would say we have clearly an influence on this reality, as we are a part of it and have the ability to interact with it. To say that we're "co-creators" of this reality is technically fair, albeit a bit poetic, possibly even hyperbolic. A more sober approach would be to simply say that we can and do influence empirical reality, which is quite undeniable.

Now, it's obvious that both the model and the data are ultimately concepts that only exist in our minds. Therefore, in the absence of subjects, neither the model, nor the data exist. This doesn't necessarily mean that "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" doesn't exist -- but without the model and the data, we can't know anything about it. Therefore, I agree with you that talking about "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" in the absence of a model is pointless, nonsensical even. However, the idea of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" is perfectly valid. Conceptually, we know that "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" exists, because it's what we're trying to describe with our models and the source of data to compare against our models. The entire point of science is to calibrate our models as closely as possible to "reality-as-it-is-in-itself". Therefore, this process is meaningful -- it's not just "chasing illusions" (even though the best we can hope for is likely just a close approximation).

In any case, with this differentiation it seems like a fairly trivial matter to me, but please let me know if you think I'm missing something.

I checked I can still access the youtube link;

In that link @ 54:30
He [Professor Jim Al-Khalili] stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

Noted you agree with most of my points except you postulate there is still a "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" which is independent of the model and human conditions.
This idea of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" is what drove Einstein to insist 'the moon' is still there when no one is "looking" at it.
But QM has proven and confirmed Einstein insistence above is not right,
but rather as [Professor Jim Al-Khalili] stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

While Professor Jim Al-Khalili as a QM Physicist accept this fact of the science-QM FSK, somewhere he stated he find it difficult to accept it intuitively, i.e. within the basic human-FSK e.g. his common sense.

Taking into account of Reality as ALL-there-is which inevitably encompasses all humans intricately as part and parcel of reality itself.
As such, there cannot be "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" without the human conditions.

The Eastern philosophers had realized long ago [>10,000 to 2,000 years ago], this yearning for "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" is not an epistemological nor ontological problem, but rather, it is actually a psychological problem inherent in all humans.

ALL humans have evolved with the default of "I" and the " independent external world" which is critical for its survival adapted from 4 billion years of evolution since the first living things. This is what drives the fundamental idea of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself".
The extreme idea of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" is an independent all powerful God which has salvific values to soothe the inherent existential crisis.
As such this algorithm that drives the idea of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" or mind-independent reality was and still a net-positive [more pros than cons] drive for humanity.

But as humanity evolves into the future, the cons of this idea of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" is slowly outweighing its pros [effective for the past and present]. This is why humanity must manage and modulate to optimize this inherent and unavoidable subliminal impulse of the idea of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself".

The Eastern Philosophers had introduced the modulation process and practices since 2500 years ago [note Buddhism and others], but these were too advanced for the masses.

Kant's CPR identified the idea of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" [thing-in-itself, Ding an sich ] as an illusion [albeit a useful illusion] but warned humanity not to cling to it.

• Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
  After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397

In the above, Kant is alluding to a psychological problem rather than epistemological, metaphysics or ontological, but he was not into how to avoid it on a practical basis like how the Buddhists did.

You are hanging with the idea of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" and I would advise you to take the 'psychological turn' on this to understand the WHYs of the emergence of it within yourself.

Is there any loss to humanity if we modulate the idea of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" and keep it suppressed [or optimal] to ensure it does not unceasingly mocks and torments the individual[s].

For Kant, he recommended we give up the idea of the illusory "reality-as-it-is-in-itself" except to keep it as an assumption for Science and Morality as a guide to drive them forward with advancing knowledge.

All along I had learned that whatever is prescriptive in the discussion of morality involved oughts that are enforceable.
Note the typical meaning;
Prescriptive: relating to the imposition or enforcement of a rule or method. [Google]
The moral standard I present is an objective moral fact that is represented by the physical algorithm, neurons, genes, atoms, quarks and DNA. It is a moral function with potential.

Well, this doesn't make sense to me. For one, the term "prescriptive" describes "oughts", and "oughts" can be enforced. This stands in contrast to "is", which can't be enforced, because it already is the way it is. So if you think that the way something is, is not "good", such that you attempt to change it, then you have introduced an "ought".

However, an "ought" does not have to be enforced. You can say that something ought to be changed, but also do nothing about it. In other words, there is a continuum between simply making a prescriptive statement, and enforcing it with all the resources available to you.

But just because you don't enforce a prescriptive statement doesn't mean it's not prescriptive.

What you seem to be saying is that your moral approach is prescriptive, but since you elect it to not be enforced, it's somehow not prescriptive. That's not how it works...

Either it's descriptive and therefore simply tells us how things are, or it's prescriptive in that it tells us how things should be. So what is it?

Natural 'oughts' are 'is_es' themselves.
It is a biological imperative or ought-ness that all living things must breathe, else they die.
If you categorize this as 'prescriptive' by nature, there is no need for enforcement [external] to such a natural ought-ness.
There is the ought-ness to drink and eat which are critical.

ALL humans [DNA and genes wise] are embedded with a natural ought-ness to fuck [sex] after puberty.
But this ought-ness need be enforced.

As I had argued what is enforcement is related to politics [laws], institutional rules, and the likes which are not related to morality-proper.

[Agent Smith]

Without some form of moral sense, we would've never gotten this far, oui? What are fundamental features of this so-called moral sense - we must learn, but from whom?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Without some form of moral sense, we would've never gotten this far, oui?
What are fundamental features of this so-called moral sense - we must learn, but from whom?

Have a read of the OP to get an idea of the point here.

Yes, it is evident we have some form of inherent moral sense that had driven the evident moral progress since humans first emerged. Note this clue;

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined
is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker,
in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1]

The book uses data simply documenting declining violence across time and geography.
This paints a picture of massive declines in the violence of all forms, from war, to improved treatment of children.

He highlights the role of nation-state monopolies on force, of commerce (making other people become more valuable alive than dead), of increased literacy and communication (promoting empathy), as well as a rise in a rational problem-solving orientation as possible causes of this decline in violence.

He notes that paradoxically, our impression of violence has not tracked this decline, perhaps because of increased communication,[2] and that further decline is not inevitable, but is contingent on forces harnessing our better motivations such as empathy and increases in reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature

Note 'empathy' is one critical and of the many and complex elements of morality-proper.

To have a greater understanding of the moral sense we need to dig deeper into the full mechanisms of inherent moral function and this will take time in line with the relevant knowledge and technological advances.

[Agent Smith]

Without some form of moral sense, we would've never gotten this far, oui?
What are fundamental features of this so-called moral sense - we must learn, but from whom?

Have a read of the OP to get an idea of the point here.

Yes, it is evident we have some form of inherent moral sense that had driven the evident moral progress since humans first emerged. Note this clue;

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined
is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker,
in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1]

The book uses data simply documenting declining violence across time and geography.
This paints a picture of massive declines in the violence of all forms, from war, to improved treatment of children.

He highlights the role of nation-state monopolies on force, of commerce (making other people become more valuable alive than dead), of increased literacy and communication (promoting empathy), as well as a rise in a rational problem-solving orientation as possible causes of this decline in violence.

He notes that paradoxically, our impression of violence has not tracked this decline, perhaps because of increased communication,[2] and that further decline is not inevitable, but is contingent on forces harnessing our better motivations such as empathy and increases in reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature

Note 'empathy' is one critical and of the many and complex elements of morality-proper.

To have a greater understanding of the moral sense we need to dig deeper into the full mechanisms of inherent moral function and this will take time in line with the relevant knowledge and technological advances.

We need to, as you said, carry out a thorough investigation into the matter. Any ideas as to which flavor of ethics this mora sense of ours subscribes to?