Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 5:14 amThere is something wrong in your thinking re Morality if you think Hitler's [one of his highest goal] genocide of the Jews is something that is
moral. [
... I feel like vomiting on such an abhorrent thought.
[..]
Thus, how can Hilter's highest goal re the genocides [harm and killings] of the Jews [6 million
] be accepted as 'morality' and is morally acceptable?
You need to review and reassess your thinking on this.
1) You are saying that genocide was
one of Hitler's highest goals. But each person has only
one highest goal. It's called
the highest goal for a reason. It refers to the goal that sits at the top of the hierarchy of goals. It's a goal that is not subordinated to any other goal. The purpose of its attainment isn't to attain some other goal.
2) If you think that Hitler's highest goal was to commit genocide, what makes you think so? I'd rather say that his highest goal was the same as the one held by everyone else, namely, to live as long as possible. His goal to commit genocide was merely a sub-goal the attainment of which he erroneously thought will help him live as long as possible.
3) Regardless of what a man's highest goal is, a decision is said to be good if and only if its consequences are such that it brings the man in question closer to the attainment of his highest goal more than the consequences of all other decisions do. As such, if you're not talking about the highest goal when talking about morality, you're not talking about morality, you're talking about something else, you're talking about social engineering or how to make people do what you want them to do regardless of whether it's good for them or not.
Nope, there is only ONE morality within human nature that is Universal in ALL human beings.
The problem is the term 'morality' is rather vague, as such, there individuals and groups who think their specific definition of 'what is morality' is that universal morality.
It's a language issue.
The word "morality" is defined as "the set of all laws that someone ought to obey". Since this "someone" can be any individual and any group of people, it follows that there is more than one morality -- one for each individual and one for each group of people. Even if all of these numerous moralities consist of the same exact laws, they still would be separate moralities rather than one and the same morality.
It is, however, true that there is only one universal morality. But you seem to be saying more than that. You seem to be saying that every non-universal morality has the same exact laws as the universal morality. I disagree with that. People aren't clones of each other.
Analogy:
There is only ONE universal 'hunger drive' in all humans to motivate them to eat [healthy] food to avoid starvation and death. This Universal hunger drive is represented by its corresponding neural correlates in the gene, DNA, brain and body of ALL humans. This is undeniable especially if you understand basis Biology.
Even if anyone were to avoid eating when feeling hungry, the physical neural correlates of hunger is still there.
As with the above analogy, there is the universal 'morality' drive to motivate them to act good instead of evil [see definition of morality above]; this universal drive is represented by neural correlates in the DNA, genes, brain, and body. This is what I meant by 'morality' is fundamentally physical that facilitates moral acts.
You know very well that each person has their own hunger drive. Your hunger drive is not my hunger drive. They are two separate drives. But they can be identical drives. And that's all you're saying. You're merely saying that human drives are identical to each other, i.e. that they are clones of each other.
Morality cannot be a set of Laws, that would be politics or personal governance.
That's
exactly what morality is. But do note that moral laws aren't man-made laws. Morality does not refer to societal laws ( i.e. laws that govern societies such as "If an American kills someone, he will go to jail" ) and personal laws ( i.e. laws that govern how humans behave such as "Peter never eats meat". ) Rather, they are laws that govern what's the best decision under given circumstances.
Nope, morally, fundamentally is not only in the brain but in the genes, DNA, brain and body. This is Pure natural morality. This cannot be subjective because these can be verified and justified via the scientific FSK [Framework and System of Knowledge] and then the moral FSK.
The word "subjective", when used to refer to a mode of existence, i.e. how something exists, or rather, where it exists, means "that which exists within subjects". Usually, the term "subject" is used to mean "mind", so the term "subjective" means "that which exists within minds". If something exists within minds, then when you get rid of all minds, you also get rid of it. But the term "subject" can also be used to refer to the entire person, which, beside including mind, also includes things such as body, DNA, etc. Since you think that morality is something within DNA, it follows that you think that morality is subjective in this broader sense. The bottom line is that you think that morality is something that exists within people. If we get rid of people, we also get rid of morality.
In the epistemological sense, the word "subjective" limits the meaning of propositions. It specifies that the truth value of the accompanying proposition is whatever people want it to be. An epistemologically subjective proposition, in other words, is one that it's true if someone wants it to be true and false if someone wants it to be false. If I want it to be true, and someone else wants it to be false, then it is both true and false. It is often said, but incorrectly so, that propositions such as "I like ice cream" are subjective in this sense, i.e. that their truth value is whatever other people think it is. But that's simply not the case. There are NO propositions that are epistemologically subjective. Every proposition is true or false depending on whether or not it corresponds to the portion of reality it is describing. In this case, the portion of reality that is being described is how much I like ice creams. Since how much I like ice creams is a portion of reality that exists within my mind -- not outside of it -- the statement is describing something that is ontologically subjective. But the proposition itself isn't epistemologically subjective. I either like ice creams or I don't. What I say or think about it is irrelevant. It's not necessarily true, e.g. I may lie about it or simply be unaware of my preferences. And the same applies to moral and aesthetic propositions.
That said, your actual stance when it comes to morality is that you think that morality is ontologically subjective ( i.e. it exists within people ) but that moral propositions are epistemologically objective ( i.e. their truth value isn't decided by whether or not people want them to be true. )
Let's compare our positions.
ME:
Morality -> ontologically objective.
Moral propositions -> epistemologically objective.
YOU:
Morality -> ontologically subjective.
Moral propositions -> epistemologically objective.
PETER HOLMES:
Morality -> ?
Moral propositions -> epistemologically subjective.
When morality is wrongly related to a set of beliefs, it is corrupted because beliefs are influenced by SO many variables [internal and external].
The word "morality" does not refer to a set of beliefs. But it also does not refer to something within DNA. It refers to a set of laws -- and laws aren't beliefs. And even then, the laws it refers to are of certain type rather than any type. Man-made laws such as societal laws ( i.e. the laws that govern how societies function ) and personal laws ( i.e. the laws that govern how individual people behave ) aren't moral laws. Moral laws are laws of the form "Under circumstances C, the best decision for person P is D."