Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 12:58 pm
There are people who arr philosophical realists AND moral realists at the same time.
I am an example.
I don't agree with Peter Holmes's assertion that there are no moral facts, that there are only moral opinions. That sort of thing is very easy to disprove.
Yes, Peter Holmes' assertion are mystical, illusory, nonsensical, meaningless, empty and groundless.
I have asked Peter Holmes to explain his 'what is fact' i.e. a feature of reality, that is just-is, being so, that is the case, BUT "it is just-is WHAT'? being WHAT? that is WHAT? that is beyond the empirical. He have not been able to explain it clearly.
Let us first define the word "morality".
The word "morality" means "a set of laws that a person, a group of people or everyone should follow in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal".
It is obvious "morality" is within human nature which is why the theme of 'morality' is such a prevalent topic and ethics [morality] is one of the main subject of philosophy.
Human nature is a fact [FSK].
Morality is part and parcel of human nature
Therefore, morality is a fact [FSK].
Thus, morality has to be defined based on its part of human nature.
"their highest goal"
whose? the Buddha's, Ghandi's it can also be Hitler's, evil-laden Islam's, Pol Pot; there is no reason [grounds] for you [and others] to insist who is right or who is wrong.
Morality is not about what is right or what is wrong; morality is not about opinions, beliefs and judgments of individuals or groups.
I defined
morality as 'the elimination of evil to enable its related good' to facilitate the well-being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.
What is evil must be defined and acts and thoughts of what is evil must be represented in an exhaustive list.
There are different types of morality. For example, there is social morality. Social morality pertains to how we ought to act towards other people. But not all morality is social. An example of a moral statement that is not social is "A man ought to eat healthy food". How many of you would say the truth value of that statement is up to one's wishes? None, I suppose. If that's the case, then you're moral realists -- at least when it comes to this particular moral statement ( or this particular type of morality. )
There is only universal morality within ALL humans.
The diversity surrounding 'morality' are merely is variations of expressions to achieve moral goals.
Morality can also be divided into local and universal morality. Local morality is a type of morality that applies to a single individual or a group of people but not to everyone. Universal morality is a type of morality that applies to everyone.
Moral universalism is the idea that some or all moral principles are universal, i.e. applicable to everyone. It's often confused with moral realism. Personally, I believe there are universal moral principles but I disagree that all moral principles are universal.
Note,
ALL humans ought to breathe!
What is universal with this human nature is the universal neural correlates or algorithm in the brain and body represented by physical neurons, genes, DNA, sub-atomic particles.
SOME may deliberate choose not breathe and commit suicide, but there is no denying the above physical elements driving human oughtness to breathe exist in their brain and body; the difference, they are not working as expected due to damage to the algorithm.
So, what is critical is not so much of moral principles, but rather the universal physical neural correlates that drive the moral principles.
The author of this thread appeals to be claiming that morality is a set of fixed beliefs we are born with and that the truth value of any moral proposition is determined by whether or not it is one of these fixed moral beliefs we are born with. It's reminiscent of innate conscience theory where what's good and what's bad isn't determined by the consequences of one's actions and one's highest goal but by a fixed mechanism known as "conscience" that we're all born with and that we all carry within ourselves but that we may or may not obey.
I absolutely disagree with that.
Note it is not the moral beliefs and principles that is critical but the neural correlates that drive the moral principles and beliefs.
All facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a human based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR].
There are a lot of alternative consideration in relating 'conscience to morality'. i.e. having the conscience to avoid evil acts like killing, rape, violence, torture, etc.
Let say, 'conscience' is an element of the moral FSK, thus a moral fact.
Let say, 'conscience' is an innate human function as part of human nature.
In this case, surely, what drive conscience in humans must be represented by its corresponding universal neural correlates in the brain and body of all humans.
That some humans go against and disobey their conscience or 'do not have a conscience' do not
obviate the fact that they have factual and real corresponding universal neural correlates in the brain and body of all humans; in this case, it is just that their neural correlates for conscience are not working due to under-development or damage as with psychopaths and other mental cases.
My point is;
as with conscience, there are many other moral elements of the inherent moral functions which exist factually [FSKed] in ALL humans but are of different activeness or working order in different people due to various reasons.
When humanity is able to be identify the precise
neuro-mechanisms of the inherent conscience within ALL humans
in the future [not now], then, humanity will have the opportunity to increase the present average moral quotient [MQ] of say 100 in 2023 to 2000 in 2100 or later.
Since there are physical moral facts, so, morality is Objective [FSK-ed].