Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 6:09 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:21 pm David Hume:
In whichever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts.

There is no other matter of fact in the case.
The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object.
The virtue of a pleasant act also escapes you.

We are not wild animals formed by natural selection ;nor are we artificially bred like Darwin's pigeons or pedigree dogs. Human nature is undefined. However one fact, perhaps the only fact, of human nature is we are mammals who nurture. Hume called it "sympathy".

Sympathy is the birthright of every man, and is rooted in biology, in nature not nurture. When a man lacks sympathy that condition is either pathological or is caused by
some false cognition which is often reinforced by a culture of belief.
Human nature is only a controversial when it is related to "man is made in the image of God" or there is a fixed essence of what it take to be a human being.

What is human is a subject of taxonomy of species with no certainty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
Classified as 'human'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Human nature of merely the nature of what is human;
Human nature is a concept that denotes the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

Thus human nature comprised whatever features of what is defined as 'human' and most of human features are similar to non-humans with few exceptions between higher primate and humans, example having function and sense of morality.

The point of this thread is, whatever is of human nature is grounded on facts, i.e. physical brain, neurons, algorithms, genes, DNA and quarks.
Hume recognized that feelings of sympathy or empathy are grounded on matter-of-fact of physical elements, i.e. within the anatomy of the brain which he admitted ignorance of [as expected in the 1700s].

Thus what Hume was referring to in this case was not the feelings which are emotions, but he was [indirectly] referring the physical matter of fact that generate those feelings.
At present we are familiar with the relevant physical matter of fact that support empathy [a complicated and complex process], i.e. mirror neurons being one of the elements of the empathy process.

Since the physical grounded empathy is a critical element of morality, thus there are objective moral facts which are denied by Peter & gang [relying merely on Hume's other stand i.e. god-ridden NOFI].
Feelings are emotions that are modified by the central nervous system with the result that emotions become concepts.

Sympathy is not a modified emotion with no concepts added, but is biological not cultural.I.e. as you say " referring the physical matter of fact that generate those feelings ".

Empathy is not sympathy. Sympathy is, as we agree, biological and needs no learned concepts. Empathy is conceptual and may or may not be sympathetic. Empathy can be done by a machine: sympathy can't be done by a machine. Or in other words, empathy is concept but sympathy is affect.
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Impenitent »

and all human brains are identical?

-Imp
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 6:09 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:21 pm David Hume:

The virtue of a pleasant act also escapes you.

We are not wild animals formed by natural selection ;nor are we artificially bred like Darwin's pigeons or pedigree dogs. Human nature is undefined. However one fact, perhaps the only fact, of human nature is we are mammals who nurture. Hume called it "sympathy".

Sympathy is the birthright of every man, and is rooted in biology, in nature not nurture. When a man lacks sympathy that condition is either pathological or is caused by
some false cognition which is often reinforced by a culture of belief.
Human nature is only a controversial when it is related to "man is made in the image of God" or there is a fixed essence of what it take to be a human being.

What is human is a subject of taxonomy of species with no certainty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
Classified as 'human'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Human nature of merely the nature of what is human;
Human nature is a concept that denotes the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

Thus human nature comprised whatever features of what is defined as 'human' and most of human features are similar to non-humans with few exceptions between higher primate and humans, example having function and sense of morality.

The point of this thread is, whatever is of human nature is grounded on facts, i.e. physical brain, neurons, algorithms, genes, DNA and quarks.
Hume recognized that feelings of sympathy or empathy are grounded on matter-of-fact of physical elements, i.e. within the anatomy of the brain which he admitted ignorance of [as expected in the 1700s].

Thus what Hume was referring to in this case was not the feelings which are emotions, but he was [indirectly] referring the physical matter of fact that generate those feelings.
At present we are familiar with the relevant physical matter of fact that support empathy [a complicated and complex process], i.e. mirror neurons being one of the elements of the empathy process.

Since the physical grounded empathy is a critical element of morality, thus there are objective moral facts which are denied by Peter & gang [relying merely on Hume's other stand i.e. god-ridden NOFI].
Feelings are emotions that are modified by the central nervous system with the result that emotions become concepts.

Sympathy is not a modified emotion with no concepts added, but is biological not cultural.I.e. as you say " referring the physical matter of fact that generate those feelings ".

Empathy is not sympathy. Sympathy is, as we agree, biological and needs no learned concepts. Empathy is conceptual and may or may not be sympathetic. Empathy can be done by a machine: sympathy can't be done by a machine. Or in other words, empathy is concept but sympathy is affect.
It is true and to be precise there are differences between empathy [mirroring] and sympathy [the related feelings].

Whilst empathy and sympathy are fundamentally different they both act within the same system [empathy-sympathy] but from different neural correlates.

For example, there are neural correlates that trigger hunger [the impulse of the need for food] but the related feelings of being hungry is triggered by a different set of neural correlates that express those feelings of hunger.

However in Hume's used of sympathy, it is implied empathy [the basic physical process of mirroring - the cause] is included in his used of 'sympathy' [sentiments].
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:50 am
Belinda wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 6:09 am
Human nature is only a controversial when it is related to "man is made in the image of God" or there is a fixed essence of what it take to be a human being.

What is human is a subject of taxonomy of species with no certainty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
Classified as 'human'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Human nature of merely the nature of what is human;
Human nature is a concept that denotes the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

Thus human nature comprised whatever features of what is defined as 'human' and most of human features are similar to non-humans with few exceptions between higher primate and humans, example having function and sense of morality.

The point of this thread is, whatever is of human nature is grounded on facts, i.e. physical brain, neurons, algorithms, genes, DNA and quarks.
Hume recognized that feelings of sympathy or empathy are grounded on matter-of-fact of physical elements, i.e. within the anatomy of the brain which he admitted ignorance of [as expected in the 1700s].

Thus what Hume was referring to in this case was not the feelings which are emotions, but he was [indirectly] referring the physical matter of fact that generate those feelings.
At present we are familiar with the relevant physical matter of fact that support empathy [a complicated and complex process], i.e. mirror neurons being one of the elements of the empathy process.

Since the physical grounded empathy is a critical element of morality, thus there are objective moral facts which are denied by Peter & gang [relying merely on Hume's other stand i.e. god-ridden NOFI].
Feelings are emotions that are modified by the central nervous system with the result that emotions become concepts.

Sympathy is not a modified emotion with no concepts added, but is biological not cultural.I.e. as you say " referring the physical matter of fact that generate those feelings ".

Empathy is not sympathy. Sympathy is, as we agree, biological and needs no learned concepts. Empathy is conceptual and may or may not be sympathetic. Empathy can be done by a machine: sympathy can't be done by a machine. Or in other words, empathy is concept but sympathy is affect.
It is true and to be precise there are differences between empathy [mirroring] and sympathy [the related feelings].

Whilst empathy and sympathy are fundamentally different they both act within the same system [empathy-sympathy] but from different neural correlates.

For example, there are neural correlates that trigger hunger [the impulse of the need for food] but the related feelings of being hungry is triggered by a different set of neural correlates that express those feelings of hunger.

However in Hume's used of sympathy, it is implied empathy [the basic physical process of mirroring - the cause] is included in his used of 'sympathy' [sentiments].
Hume himself was a popular man with shapely legs and a pleasant handsome face who had a jolly time with lots of friends, and also a pretty mistress in France. Hume was not a friend of John Knox.
Hume was more likely to have meant sympathy in the sense of kind feelings than in the more emotionally flat sense of empathy.
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Impenitent »

is someone rapping on the outhouse door?

no, that's John Knox

-Imp
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Iwannaplato »

Impenitent wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:06 pm is someone rapping on the outhouse door?

no, that's John Knox

-Imp
Don't be obnoxious.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here is another point from Hume alluding that there are moral facts i.e. universals within humans in all of humanity;
  • The notion of morals implies some sentiment common to all mankind, which recommends the same object to general approbation [approval or praise], and makes every man, or most men, agree in the same opinion or decision concerning it.
    It also implies some sentiment, so universal and comprehensive as to extend to all mankind, and render the actions and conduct, even of the persons the most remote, an object of applause or censure, according as they agree or disagree with that rule of right which is established.
    An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751) p. xi. Section IX: Conclusion: Part I.
Note I am not using Hume as THE authority to prove my point, rather the above is merely a clue that Hume was pointing to the right direction which agree with what I had been proposing re moral facts [FSK-ed version].

The sentiments themselves are not the moral fact per se, but that because these moral sentiments are Universal to all humans 'common to all mankind', -unknown to Hume which he admitted ignorance on this- these moral sentiments are driven by its corresponding neural correlates in the brain and body as grounded in the genes and DNA.

In this case, Hume's moral sentiments of 'sympathy' is empathy, and one clue here is empathy are linked to mirror neurons i.e. the physical neural correlates. The linkage of mirror neurons to empathy [sympathy] is not specifically and precisely identified but there is a sort of class linkage, e.g. higher intelligence and executive planning is linked to the prefrontal cortex but neuroscientists has not identified the specific neurons linkages.

My point is Hume provided a clue moral facts* [FSK-ed] are part of human nature and has a physical referent within the brain and body.

Note moral facts [FSK-ed] in this case has nothing to do with PH illusory version [non-FSK] of what is fact.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Whoever persuaded him to start writing "[FSK-ed]" is a cruel but talented prankster.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:40 am Whilst Hume reject 'ought' cannot be derived from 'is' via reason and inferences from matter of fact, Hume nevertheless admit there are moral facts based on a matter-of-fact via human nature.
There are many supporting statement in Hume's writings to support the point that moral facts are inherent in human nature.
Here is one significant one;
Hume in Treatise of Human Nature wrote:
Take any action allow'd to be vicious: Willful murder, for instance.

Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice.

In whichever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts.

There is no other matter of fact in the case.
The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object.

You can never find it, till you turn your reflexion into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action.

Here is a matter of fact; but ’tis the object of feeling, not of reason.

It lies in yourself, not in the object. 1

Treatise of Human Nature, Bk III. Pt1. s1, p. 469
As I had stated, it was unfortunate for Hume that during his time there was no knowledge of human nature in terms of the anatomy of the brain, neurosciences, genetics, molecular biology, genomics and the likes.

If Hume have had knowledge of the above, I am sure he would have adopted our current advance knowledge of the above to support his matter-of-fact underlying the feeling of the moral propensity - that lies in the human self, i.e. human nature.

The above is food for further thought by those Moral Fact Deniers, who cling to Hume's 'no ought from is' from the obvious but are ignorant of the deeper issues claimed by Hume re human nature in his Treatise of Human Nature, Bk III. Pt1. s1, p. 469.

Views?
NO.
Hume here is expressing a thing diametrically opposed to what you are pretending his view to be.
You are getting increasingly desperate.

Hume is making a point about humans being driven by their passions. This is one of Hume's major themes, and you would have known that had to ever formally studied Hume. Clearly, you have not.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 4:30 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:40 am Whilst Hume reject 'ought' cannot be derived from 'is' via reason and inferences from matter of fact, Hume nevertheless admit there are moral facts based on a matter-of-fact via human nature.
There are many supporting statement in Hume's writings to support the point that moral facts are inherent in human nature.
Here is one significant one;
Hume in Treatise of Human Nature wrote:
Take any action allow'd to be vicious: Willful murder, for instance.

Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice.

In whichever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts.

There is no other matter of fact in the case.
The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object.

You can never find it, till you turn your reflexion into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action.

Here is a matter of fact; but ’tis the object of feeling, not of reason.

It lies in yourself, not in the object. 1

Treatise of Human Nature, Bk III. Pt1. s1, p. 469
As I had stated, it was unfortunate for Hume that during his time there was no knowledge of human nature in terms of the anatomy of the brain, neurosciences, genetics, molecular biology, genomics and the likes.

If Hume have had knowledge of the above, I am sure he would have adopted our current advance knowledge of the above to support his matter-of-fact underlying the feeling of the moral propensity - that lies in the human self, i.e. human nature.

The above is food for further thought by those Moral Fact Deniers, who cling to Hume's 'no ought from is' from the obvious but are ignorant of the deeper issues claimed by Hume re human nature in his Treatise of Human Nature, Bk III. Pt1. s1, p. 469.

Views?
NO.
Hume here is expressing a thing diametrically opposed to what you are pretending his view to be.
You are getting increasingly desperate.

Hume is making a point about humans being driven by their passions. This is one of Hume's major themes, and you would have known that had to ever formally studied Hume. Clearly, you have not.
You won't get me this time!
You are definitely not well versed with Hume.
You are merely blabbering without substance.

I have dug deep into Hume;

In addition to the OP, I quoted this from Hume;
The notion of morals implies some sentiment common to all mankind, which recommends the same object to general approbation [approval or praise], and makes every man, or most men, agree in the same opinion or decision concerning it.
It also implies some sentiment, so universal and comprehensive as to extend to all mankind, and render the actions and conduct, even of the persons the most remote, an object of applause or censure, according as they agree or disagree with that rule of right which is established.
An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751) p. xi. Section IX: Conclusion: Part I.
From the above and the OP, Hume referred to moral sentiments as common, comprehensive and universal to all mankind.
If that is the case, these moral sentiments must be reducible to the DNA, genes, human brain and body, if not where else. In this sense, these moral sentiments are grounded on moral facts within the human brain and body.

Hey! read the contents I quoted from Hume slowly and try to understand them.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 4:26 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 4:30 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:40 am Whilst Hume reject 'ought' cannot be derived from 'is' via reason and inferences from matter of fact, Hume nevertheless admit there are moral facts based on a matter-of-fact via human nature.
There are many supporting statement in Hume's writings to support the point that moral facts are inherent in human nature.
Here is one significant one;



As I had stated, it was unfortunate for Hume that during his time there was no knowledge of human nature in terms of the anatomy of the brain, neurosciences, genetics, molecular biology, genomics and the likes.

If Hume have had knowledge of the above, I am sure he would have adopted our current advance knowledge of the above to support his matter-of-fact underlying the feeling of the moral propensity - that lies in the human self, i.e. human nature.

The above is food for further thought by those Moral Fact Deniers, who cling to Hume's 'no ought from is' from the obvious but are ignorant of the deeper issues claimed by Hume re human nature in his Treatise of Human Nature, Bk III. Pt1. s1, p. 469.

Views?
NO.
Hume here is expressing a thing diametrically opposed to what you are pretending his view to be.
You are getting increasingly desperate.

Hume is making a point about humans being driven by their passions. This is one of Hume's major themes, and you would have known that had to ever formally studied Hume. Clearly, you have not.
You won't get me this time!
You are definitely not well versed with Hume.
You are merely blabbering without substance.

I have dug deep into Hume;

In addition to the OP, I quoted this from Hume;
The notion of morals implies some sentiment common to all mankind, which recommends the same object to general approbation [approval or praise], and makes every man, or most men, agree in the same opinion or decision concerning it.
It also implies some sentiment, so universal and comprehensive as to extend to all mankind, and render the actions and conduct, even of the persons the most remote, an object of applause or censure, according as they agree or disagree with that rule of right which is established.
An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751) p. xi. Section IX: Conclusion: Part I.
From the above and the OP, Hume referred to moral sentiments as common, comprehensive and universal to all mankind.
If that is the case, these moral sentiments must be reducible to the DNA, genes, human brain and body, if not where else. In this sense, these moral sentiments are grounded on moral facts within the human brain and body.

Hey! read the contents I quoted from Hume slowly and try to understand them.
You must think me a fucking idiot. You can't read your own provided quote.
Did you deliberately ignore ", or most men,"? Maybe you thought I would not notice?
No matter. Elsewhere he is far more circumspect where he focuses down on the idea.
Hume agrees with me and all others here that laugh at your posts, the same thing. Humans definitely have an innate propensity to moral behaviour. We have all said that from time to time. And quoting HUme "agree or disagree with that rule of right which is established".

Yes, most men do in fact agree with the moral rules that their particular society has established. WTF do you think established means anyway?

None of this amounts to objective moral rules, but rules where their cultures' and societies' establishments have codified them.

So yes in societies where it is established that Jews and other races are subhuman, such people deserve different treatment.
And then people like you come along and declare such established views as objective and right.
Just as Hume himself regarded women and other races as lesser than white, especially white British and Scottish folk as at the top of the pile.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Peter Holmes »

Premise: It's a feature of human nature - hard-wired into our brains - that we empathise/sympathise with other human beings.

Conclusion: Therefore, it's a fact that we should empathise/sympathise with other human beings.

This is a non sequitur. And talk about evil being anything that acts to the net detriment of human welfare - and talk about processing through a credible morality framework and system of knowledge - makes no difference.

And besides - as IWP keeps pointing out - its also a feature of human nature - hard-wired into our brains - that we compete with and sometimes kill other human beings for our evolutionary/procreative advantage. So the conclusion that we should compete with and sometimes kill other human beings is also 'reasonable'. After all, it could be to the net benefit of the species that the procreatively successful succeed. Who needs wimpy humans?

'Human nature' is a fiction, so elements of human are also fictions. You pick and choose the ones that suit your ideology and/or your moral predilections.

VA thinks it's good - ie the opposite of evil - to empathise/sympathise with other humans. Et, voila - a moral fact of human nature.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 11:50 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 4:26 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 4:30 pm

NO.
Hume here is expressing a thing diametrically opposed to what you are pretending his view to be.
You are getting increasingly desperate.

Hume is making a point about humans being driven by their passions. This is one of Hume's major themes, and you would have known that had to ever formally studied Hume. Clearly, you have not.
You won't get me this time!
You are definitely not well versed with Hume.
You are merely blabbering without substance.

I have dug deep into Hume;

In addition to the OP, I quoted this from Hume;
The notion of morals implies some sentiment common to all mankind, which recommends the same object to general approbation [approval or praise], and makes every man, or most men, agree in the same opinion or decision concerning it.
It also implies some sentiment, so universal and comprehensive as to extend to all mankind, and render the actions and conduct, even of the persons the most remote, an object of applause or censure, according as they agree or disagree with that rule of right which is established.
An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751) p. xi. Section IX: Conclusion: Part I.
From the above and the OP, Hume referred to moral sentiments as common, comprehensive and universal to all mankind.
If that is the case, these moral sentiments must be reducible to the DNA, genes, human brain and body, if not where else. In this sense, these moral sentiments are grounded on moral facts within the human brain and body.

Hey! read the contents I quoted from Hume slowly and try to understand them.
You must think me a fucking idiot. You can't read your own provided quote.
Did you deliberately ignore ", or most men,"? Maybe you thought I would not notice?
No matter. Elsewhere he is far more circumspect where he focuses down on the idea.
Hume agrees with me and all others here that laugh at your posts, the same thing. Humans definitely have an innate propensity to moral behaviour. We have all said that from time to time. And quoting HUme "agree or disagree with that rule of right which is established".

Yes, most men do in fact agree with the moral rules that their particular society has established. WTF do you think established means anyway?

None of this amounts to objective moral rules, but rules where their cultures' and societies' establishments have codified them.

So yes in societies where it is established that Jews and other races are subhuman, such people deserve different treatment.
And then people like you come along and declare such established views as objective and right.
Just as Hume himself regarded women and other races as lesser than white, especially white British and Scottish folk as at the top of the pile.
In this particular case, you think you are so smart, but your counter merely show you are stupid.

Note the point again,
  • "1. The notion of morals implies some sentiment common to ALL mankind,
    2. which recommends the same object to general approbation [approval or praise],
    3. and makes every man, or most men, agree in the same opinion or decision concerning it."
1. Note "Common to ALL mankind" implies that moral sentiments [some or whatever number] exists in all humans.

2. these sentiments in all humans generate approval,

3. Hume stated 'every man' potentially can approve the moral sentiments, but it it possible most men, i.e. some may not approve of those sentiments.

If some man do not respond to those moral sentiments, it does not mean the neural correlates of moral sentiments [supposedly common in ALL mankind] do not exists in them.

Analogy:
1. All mankind are programmed with a basic sex drive within the genes and DNA.
If all pre-teens or some man or woman do not express sexual interests in their adult life, it does not mean the sexual neural correlates do not exist in their brain and body. The basic sexual neural correlates do exist in ALL humans, but in some its mechanisms is damaged or not working as intended and expressed in the majority.

2. It is the same with puberty and its sentiment which are programmed in ALL humans.
If some humans do not have a full unfoldment of their puberty potential, it does not mean the puberty neural correlates are not in their brain and body. It is just that the puberty neural correlates are damaged or weakened.

The moral sentiments common to all mankind are the objective moral facts [within a moral FSK] in terms of their neural correlates [Hume was ignorant of this due to knowledge available in his time].


There is no way you can dig yourself out of your stupidity from the above facts.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:18 pm
Premise: It's a feature of human nature - hard-wired into our brains - that we empathise/sympathise with other human beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, it's a fact that we should empathise/sympathise with other human beings.

This is a non sequitur. And talk about evil being anything that acts to the net detriment of human welfare - and talk about processing through a credible morality framework and system of knowledge - makes no difference.
Strawman!
Where did I assert in your sense that "we should empathise/sympathise with other human beings".

1. Whatever is fact, truth, knowledge and objectivity is conditioned upon a specific human based FSK.
2. Empathy is a moral element within the human based moral FSK.
3. Empathy/sympathy is supported by physical neural correlates in the brain of ALL humans.
4. There is an oughtness of empathy.
5. The oughtness of Empathy with its physical neural correlates is an objective moral fact [1,2 & 3].

I never assert "we should empathise/sympathise with other human beings" in your sense, implying there is a need of force or obligation.

Rather, what I have been proposing is for the majority of humans to recognize the existence of this natural oughtness of empathy within them in their brain and body [in the FUTURE, not now]; therefrom with the help of others, each individual should self-develop their inherent 'oughtness to empathy' to enable it to act spontaneously, not by force or under obligation.
And besides - as IWP keeps pointing out - its also a feature of human nature - hard-wired into our brains - that we compete with and sometimes kill other human beings for our evolutionary/procreative advantage. So the conclusion that we should compete with and sometimes kill other human beings is also 'reasonable'. After all, it could be to the net benefit of the species that the procreatively successful succeed. Who needs wimpy humans?
Note I raised a thread of the existence of objective evil facts within all humans.

'kill other humans via competition also reasonable' your thinking is very evil and not moral.

Yes, humans had killed many humans in the past and even at present because the inherent moral potential in all humans are not fully developed yet.
We can insist on 'human killing humans' as a principle even with exceptions; because merely a small % of exception [1% = 80 million, 0.1% = 8 million ] could lead to the extermination of the human species, e.g. when cheap WMDs are available to extremist Islamists.

Thus the foolproof mode is to promote ZERO killings of humans even this if this this an ideal, because this principle will ensure the continual striving towards ZERO killing.
If there are negatives resulting from this, they can addressed on a case by case basis.
'Human nature' is a fiction, so elements of human are also fictions. You pick and choose the ones that suit your ideology and/or your moral predilections.
Note this thread;
Human Nature & Human Universals
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40124
What is your counter to this?

Are you saying your own human nature [the oughtness to breathe, drink water, eat food,] that is common to all mankind is fiction?
VA thinks it's good - ie the opposite of evil - to empathise/sympathise with other humans. Et, voila - a moral fact of human nature.
Note my proof above why there are moral facts within human nature.

1. Human nature is a fact [human-based FSK]
2. Morality is part of human nature.
3. Therefore, there are moral facts within human nature.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Hume: Moral Fact is in Human Nature

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:18 pm And besides - as IWP keeps pointing out - its also a feature of human nature - hard-wired into our brains - that we compete with and sometimes kill other human beings for our evolutionary/procreative advantage. So the conclusion that we should compete with and sometimes kill other human beings is also 'reasonable'. After all, it could be to the net benefit of the species that the procreatively successful succeed. Who needs wimpy humans?
Here's the rub for me....his response to you around my contribution is....
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 6:36 am Note I raised a thread of the existence of objective evil facts within all humans.

'kill other humans via competition also reasonable' your thinking is very evil and not moral.
Yes, he notices that we have this pattern. He calls it evil.
He calls the mirror neuron pattern good.

So, he is not using the existence of the neuronal patterns in the brain to justify certain values.

He has values - which he never tells us the source of - and finds, using these values, good patterns in the brain: empathy
and bad patterns in the brain: violent aggression.

So, his response here shows he doesn't understand the issue no mater how many times we bring it up.

I KNOW he acknoweledges the tendencies towards violence even killing in the brain.

My point, as I am sure you understand, is that most of the time it is the existence of a pattern in the brain that leads to objective moral facts, in his arguments.

Brain pattern X -> shows that X is an objective moral fact.

But if we come to brains without already in place value judgments, we find diverse patterns that lead to different behavior. If these patterns are objective moral facts

THEN it is an objective moral fact that a mixture of empathy and aggression is best. Becuase that's what's there in the brains.

He never tells us why his assessment of what is a good brain pattern and what is a bad brain pattern is based on. But that's where morals are entering his argument. Then don't arise after looking at brains, they were there before brains were looked at.
Post Reply