What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In fact, the valid moral argument, in its simplest form, is this:

P1: If there are moral facts, then there is a god.
P2: There are moral facts.
C: Therefore, there is a god.

There are loads of arguments and views that Morality is independent of theism and religion.

One example among the many;

• Ultimately, we see and foresee no pithily characterizable relationship between religion and morality.
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345965/

Morality is driven by an inherent Faculty of Morality within the brain of all humans, where it is reasonable active in some and quite dormant in the majority of people.

Evidence for the existence of 'an inherent faculty of morality within the brain of all humans' is as non-existent as evidence for the existence of a god. You're substituting one fiction for another. And, btw, faculty psychology went out with the ark.

The existence of 'an inherent faculty of morality within the brain of all humans' is a real possibility.
Generally whatever actions of humans are considered as 'moral' i.e. good has to be grounded to the human brain - if not where else?

As such we can abductively
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/
abduce the hypothesis;
There is 'an inherent faculty of morality within the brain of all humans.'

I have already presented some sample empirical evidences to justify the above but I have not presented a thorough thesis to justify the above hypothesis yet.

You on the other hand is merely waving off the above possibility without evidences and arguments based on an emotional confirmation bias driven by desperate psychology.
Do your own research and literature review on the matter to assess the possibility of the truth of my claim.

[Belinda]

In fact, the valid moral argument, in its simplest form, is this:

P1: If there are moral facts, then there is a god.
P2: There are moral facts.
C: Therefore, there is a god.

There are loads of arguments and views that Morality is independent of theism and religion.
Therefore God cannot be associated with moral facts per se.

One example among the many;

• Ultimately, we see and foresee no pithily characterizable relationship between religion and morality.
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345965/

Morality is driven by an inherent Faculty of Morality within the brain of all humans, where it is reasonable active in some and quite dormant in the majority of people.

Is the "faculty of morality" present in some other animals? Was the "faculty of morality" present in humans who were not sapiens? In other words, is the " faculty of morality" a faculty that emerged from natural selection?

If the supernatural person named God ordered that this faculty of morality be present in men did He also order that some men are bad men? There is no argument for the existence of a good and all-powerful Creator which can overcome the consequent problem of evil.

[Peter Holmes]

There are loads of arguments and views that Morality is independent of theism and religion.

One example among the many;

• Ultimately, we see and foresee no pithily characterizable relationship between religion and morality.
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345965/

Morality is driven by an inherent Faculty of Morality within the brain of all humans, where it is reasonable active in some and quite dormant in the majority of people.

Evidence for the existence of 'an inherent faculty of morality within the brain of all humans' is as non-existent as evidence for the existence of a god. You're substituting one fiction for another. And, btw, faculty psychology went out with the ark.

The existence of 'an inherent faculty of morality within the brain of all humans' is a real possibility.
Generally whatever actions of humans are considered as 'moral' i.e. good has to be grounded to the human brain - if not where else?

As such we can abductively
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/
abduce the hypothesis;
There is 'an inherent faculty of morality within the brain of all humans.'

I have already presented some sample empirical evidences to justify the above but I have not presented a thorough thesis to justify the above hypothesis yet.

You on the other hand is merely waving off the above possibility without evidences and arguments based on an emotional confirmation bias driven by desperate psychology.
Do your own research and literature review on the matter to assess the possibility of the truth of my claim.

No, the burden of proof is yours. You claim there's a moral faculty in the human brain. So you must show what and where a faculty is in the brain; what other faculties there are; and if a moral faculty is among them, in the brain. (I think this is all pseudo-scientific nonsense - but I'm open to persuasion.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

In fact, the valid moral argument, in its simplest form, is this:

P1: If there are moral facts, then there is a god.
P2: There are moral facts.
C: Therefore, there is a god.

There are loads of arguments and views that Morality is independent of theism and religion.
Therefore God cannot be associated with moral facts per se.

One example among the many;

• Ultimately, we see and foresee no pithily characterizable relationship between religion and morality.
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345965/

Morality is driven by an inherent Faculty of Morality within the brain of all humans, where it is reasonable active in some and quite dormant in the majority of people.

If the supernatural person named God ordered that this faculty of morality be present in men did He also order that some men are bad men? There is no argument for the existence of a good and all-powerful Creator which can overcome the consequent problem of evil.

As stated, morality is independent of God, i.e. theism.

Is the "faculty of morality" present in some other animals? Was the "faculty of morality" present in humans who were not sapiens? In other words, is the " faculty of morality" a faculty that emerged from natural selection?

As stated above, one empirical clue and reasoning is;

Generally whatever actions of humans are considered as 'moral' i.e. good has to be grounded to the human brain - if not where else?
Thus the existence of 'an inherent faculty of morality within the brain of all humans' is a real possibility.

The faculty of morality inherent within the brain is represented by some complex algorithm of neural networks involving the relevant parts of the brain.
One of the research part and speculated are the mirror neurons.

In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

Empathy is a critical element to support morality.

Some higher primates has mirror neurons but in smaller numbers than humans.
However this is insufficient to justify animals has a faculty of morality like humans which is represented by a complex set of neural connectivity.

I would not associate the inherent faculty of morality with natural selection.

My approach is from the perspective of morality as an emergence which is supported by empirical facts and from these facts we can investigate into the Philosophy of Morality in terms of how it is represented in the brain and the necessity of justified moral facts to ensure the moral system is efficient.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, the burden of proof is yours. You claim there's a moral faculty in the human brain. So you must show what and where a faculty is in the brain; what other faculties there are; and if a moral faculty is among them, in the brain. (I think this is all pseudo-scientific nonsense - but I'm open to persuasion.)

'Open to persuasion' that is fair enough.

Do you believe there is morality within human actions within humanity?
If so, and if you insist on condemning my hypothesis, then you have to justify your morality re utilitarianism [? or whatever] is not from the brain nor it is driven by neural network in the brain.
Or do you thing 'morality' is pseudo nonsense.

[uwot]

The existence of 'an inherent faculty of morality within the brain of all humans' is a real possibility.

I dunno. I would have thought the distinctive feature of the human brain is its capacity for yabbing about stuff. We have an unrivalled facility with language, the production, storage and processing of it, as this thread ably demonstrates. So yeah, in that sense it's in the brain that we find 'morality', in between moraine and morass, but if you look at human behaviour, there is no evidence that any inherent faculty of morality produces consistent results. Human beings are easily the most adaptable and opportunistic species that I am aware of. If you look at our mating habits, for example, while other creatures generally have a limited range of wooing strategies, be it song, dance, architecture, beauty, physique, stealth, wealth and violence, human beings use all of them. Similarly with 'morality'. It seems to me that human society is so complex that it is an entire eco-system in its own right, albeit one that depends on the rest of the planet. So within human society there are ecological niches for practically every sort of behaviour and moral response to it. Sometimes the environmental conditions change, which puts some species under stress. Frankly if religious nuts were pandas, it wouldn't only be religious nuts who gave a shit about their possible extinction. (Don't worry folks; there will be religious nuts for far longer than there will be pandas.)

[Belinda]

There are loads of arguments and views that Morality is independent of theism and religion.
Therefore God cannot be associated with moral facts per se.

One example among the many;

• Ultimately, we see and foresee no pithily characterizable relationship between religion and morality.
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345965/

Morality is driven by an inherent Faculty of Morality within the brain of all humans, where it is reasonable active in some and quite dormant in the majority of people.

If the supernatural person named God ordered that this faculty of morality be present in men did He also order that some men are bad men? There is no argument for the existence of a good and all-powerful Creator which can overcome the consequent problem of evil.

As stated, morality is independent of God, i.e. theism.

Is the "faculty of morality" present in some other animals? Was the "faculty of morality" present in humans who were not sapiens? In other words, is the " faculty of morality" a faculty that emerged from natural selection?

As stated above, one empirical clue and reasoning is;

Generally whatever actions of humans are considered as 'moral' i.e. good has to be grounded to the human brain - if not where else?
Thus the existence of 'an inherent faculty of morality within the brain of all humans' is a real possibility.

The faculty of morality inherent within the brain is represented by some complex algorithm of neural networks involving the relevant parts of the brain.
One of the research part and speculated are the mirror neurons.

In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

Empathy is a critical element to support morality.

Some higher primates has mirror neurons but in smaller numbers than humans.
However this is insufficient to justify animals has a faculty of morality like humans which is represented by a complex set of neural connectivity.

I would not associate the inherent faculty of morality with natural selection.

My approach is from the perspective of morality as an emergence which is supported by empirical facts and from these facts we can investigate into the Philosophy of Morality in terms of how it is represented in the brain and the necessity of justified moral facts to ensure the moral system is efficient.

If morality is independent of God how can believers claim God is good ? Perhaps you yourself don't claim God is good.

How do you support your claim that any faculty is " not supported by natural selection" ? I imagine you can do so only if you believe deity can intervene in history. Either morality emerged from natural selection or it emerged from supernatural intervention . It can't be both unless supernaturally-acquired morality is given to some people and not to others who have ordinary naturally- acquired morality.

Me, I believe morality is naturally-acquired and in theory is available to all who reason.You mention the necessity of empathy for morality. It is clinically understood reason is defective if the biological basis of empathy is absent perhaps by some horrid accident. My politics are left wing by which I mean all people everywhere should be given free education in reasoning and the best knowledge available; this would imply free tertiary education for all.

It is elitist to claim some people inherently are less good at reason and therefore we should not bother to teach them morality/reason. The criminal justice system in what I call civilised countries is based on equality of all men under the law, and it follows, no retribution aim when criminals are brought to justice.

[Peter Holmes]

No, the burden of proof is yours. You claim there's a moral faculty in the human brain. So you must show what and where a faculty is in the brain; what other faculties there are; and if a moral faculty is among them, in the brain. (I think this is all pseudo-scientific nonsense - but I'm open to persuasion.)

'Open to persuasion' that is fair enough.

Do you believe there is morality within human actions within humanity?
If so, and if you insist on condemning my hypothesis, then you have to justify your morality re utilitarianism [? or whatever] is not from the brain nor it is driven by neural network in the brain.
Or do you thing 'morality' is pseudo nonsense.

No, what I think is nonsense is the idea that morality is a thing of some kind that exists or occurs anywhere - inside or outside human brains or actions. That is obviously metaphysical mumbo-jumbo for which, though we've been parroting it for millennia, there's not one jot of evidence. It's part of the dualistic mentalism that's been plaguing us since we began theorising about fictional abstract things.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The existence of 'an inherent faculty of morality within the brain of all humans' is a real possibility.

I dunno. I would have thought the distinctive feature of the human brain is its capacity for yabbing about stuff. We have an unrivalled facility with language, the production, storage and processing of it, as this thread ably demonstrates. So yeah, in that sense it's in the brain that we find 'morality', in between moraine and morass, but if you look at human behaviour, there is no evidence that any inherent faculty of morality produces consistent results. Human beings are easily the most adaptable and opportunistic species that I am aware of. If you look at our mating habits, for example, while other creatures generally have a limited range of wooing strategies, be it song, dance, architecture, beauty, physique, stealth, wealth and violence, human beings use all of them. Similarly with 'morality'. It seems to me that human society is so complex that it is an entire eco-system in its own right, albeit one that depends on the rest of the planet. So within human society there are ecological niches for practically every sort of behaviour and moral response to it. Sometimes the environmental conditions change, which puts some species under stress. Frankly if religious nuts were pandas, it wouldn't only be religious nuts who gave a shit about their possible extinction. (Don't worry folks; there will be religious nuts for far longer than there will be pandas.)

As I had written earlier;

• Morality is driven by an inherent Faculty of Morality within the brain of all humans, where it is reasonable active in some and quite dormant in the majority of people.

It is because the faculty of morality is inactive in the majority that there are so much mess, terrible evil and violent acts going on between humans since the past till present and will continue to be so in the future.

But within the 'big bog of shit' in human behaviors from past to present there are glimmers of positive trends of morality evolving since 50,000 to 10,000 years ago to the present with the collective actions of humans.

Note for example the moral progress in Chattel Slaver [nb. "chattel" not other types of slavery] there are obviously improvements since 50,000 to 10,000 years ago to the present where all sovereign nation has enacted laws to make 'chattel' slavery illegal as guided by the UN Declaration on Slavery.
This is the results of the unfoldment and manifestation of the inherent Faculty of Morality within the human brain.
Besides 'slavery' there are many other moral traits where there are trends of positive morality albeit unfolding slowly over the last 50-10000 years ago to the present.

The above are the empirical facts to support the signs of an inherent faculty of morality.
Therefore it is imperative that more of humanity recognize and research into the neural algorithm and mechanisms of the inherent moral faculty to find ways to expedite the inherent moral drive within all humans to accelerate improvement in morality within future generations [btw not our present generation].

The fact is the current circumstances [social, political, communications, technology etc.] is on a trend of exponential expansion. Thus it is critical there should be a parallel increase the average moral quotient of all humans.

Those who dismiss the above possibility [supported with empirical evidence] and stick to the status quo will doomed the future generations to more sufferings from immoral acts and the possibility of the human species being exterminated by various groups of extremists.

[Sculptor]

The existence of 'an inherent faculty of morality within the brain of all humans' is a real possibility.

I dunno. I would have thought the distinctive feature of the human brain is its capacity for yabbing about stuff. We have an unrivalled facility with language, the production, storage and processing of it, as this thread ably demonstrates. So yeah, in that sense it's in the brain that we find 'morality', in between moraine and morass, but if you look at human behaviour, there is no evidence that any inherent faculty of morality produces consistent results. Human beings are easily the most adaptable and opportunistic species that I am aware of. If you look at our mating habits, for example, while other creatures generally have a limited range of wooing strategies, be it song, dance, architecture, beauty, physique, stealth, wealth and violence, human beings use all of them. Similarly with 'morality'. It seems to me that human society is so complex that it is an entire eco-system in its own right, albeit one that depends on the rest of the planet. So within human society there are ecological niches for practically every sort of behaviour and moral response to it. Sometimes the environmental conditions change, which puts some species under stress. Frankly if religious nuts were pandas, it wouldn't only be religious nuts who gave a shit about their possible extinction. (Don't worry folks; there will be religious nuts for far longer than there will be pandas.)

As I had written earlier;

• Morality is driven by an inherent Faculty of Morality within the brain of all humans, where it is reasonable active in some and quite dormant in the majority of people.

This might be true, though I would doubt the use of the word "majority" here.
I would also say that hunger is also an inherent faculty. However only fool would posit from this fact what a person might want to eat, what are their preferences, likes and dislikes. And only a damn fool would prescribe a diet on objective grounds - that is why objective morality is a fool's game.
The difficulty is greater with morals though. Since the target for eating might be as simple as health and satiation, the target for morals is wide and vacuous.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If morality is independent of God how can believers claim God is good ? Perhaps you yourself don't claim God is good.

Claiming God is good has nothing to do with morality.
Muslims claim their God-Allah is good, but Allah in the Quran exhorts Muslims to kill non-Muslims upon the slightest threat to Islam, note Quran 5:33 and loads of other evil laden verses in the Quran. The Bible also condone 'slavery' and do not make slavery an absolute sin.

How do you support your claim that any faculty is " not supported by natural selection" ? I imagine you can do so only if you believe deity can intervene in history. Either morality emerged from natural selection or it emerged from supernatural intervention . It can't be both unless supernaturally-acquired morality is given to some people and not to others who have ordinary naturally- acquired morality.

Nah, I am indifferent to link the faculty of morality to natural selection.
I don't have to.
What is reality is humans engage in moral behaviors and they definitely has to come from the brain parts that are related to morality.

Me, I believe morality is naturally-acquired and in theory is available to all who reason.You mention the necessity of empathy for morality. It is clinically understood reason is defective if the biological basis of empathy is absent perhaps by some horrid accident. My politics are left wing by which I mean all people everywhere should be given free education in reasoning and the best knowledge available; this would imply free tertiary education for all.

Nah.
Many people behave morally and good spontaneously without reasoning.
The output actions are just good.
Everyone must be educated by there is no basis that education must be free for all. One point is when things are free without effort, there is no motivation for some to do their best.

It is elitist to claim some people inherently are less good at reason and therefore we should not bother to teach them morality/reason. The criminal justice system in what I call civilised countries is based on equality of all men under the law, and it follows, no retribution aim when criminals are brought to justice.

As I had argued the faculty of morality is inherent within all humans.
It is not essential that we give free education to all to promote moral competency in each individual.
Note there are many educated people at present who are immoral, i.e. the psychopaths, the serial killer, the genocidal dictator, the rapists, etc.

To improve on the moral competency of the average person, education will play a role but not the primary role. There are many other ways to improve moral competency and they are not the typical academic sort of education.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, the burden of proof is yours. You claim there's a moral faculty in the human brain. So you must show what and where a faculty is in the brain; what other faculties there are; and if a moral faculty is among them, in the brain. (I think this is all pseudo-scientific nonsense - but I'm open to persuasion.)

'Open to persuasion' that is fair enough.

Do you believe there is morality within human actions within humanity?
If so, and if you insist on condemning my hypothesis, then you have to justify your morality re utilitarianism [? or whatever] is not from the brain nor it is driven by neural network in the brain.
Or do you thing 'morality' is pseudo nonsense.

No, what I think is nonsense is the idea that morality is a thing of some kind that exists or occurs anywhere - inside or outside human brains or actions. That is obviously metaphysical mumbo-jumbo for which, though we've been parroting it for millennia, there's not one jot of evidence. It's part of the dualistic mentalism that's been plaguing us since we began theorising about fictional abstract things.

Nah, the point is you are trapped inside the SILO of ontological moral realism, i.e. morality is a thing [like external objects or Plato's universals] that exist via floating within reality.
These days within the discussion of the Philosophy of Morality, there are rarely anyone supporting this version of ontological moral realism.
If you think so, name me one modern secular philosopher of morality who support such an ontological moral realism.
The only ones are the theists who morality is pseudo-morality and insist God commands ontological moral laws that believers must comply else they are threaten with hell fire.

Btw, whilst you are condemning the ontological moral realists to the ground, you are ignorant you are exactly like them in your claim of ontological philosophical realism.
Actually with your strawman on ontological moral realism you are actually kicking your own ass as an ontological philosophical realist.
I bet you don't understand how you ended up kicking your own ass.

The practical point is all humans must strive to be good rational moral agents for the greater good of humanity in a sustainable mode.
To do the above efficiently we need secular moral objectives [goals] which are objective moral facts [independent from personal opinions and beliefs] as verified from empirical facts and philosophical reasoning. These moral facts of absoluteness are merely guides within the moral system and they are not be enforced like political laws.

[Peter Holmes]

The practical point is all humans must strive to be good rational moral agents for the greater good of humanity in a sustainable mode.
To do the above efficiently we need secular moral objectives [goals] which are objective moral facts [independent from personal opinions and beliefs] as verified from empirical facts and philosophical reasoning. These moral facts of absoluteness are merely guides within the moral system and they are not be enforced like political laws.

Nah. That 'all humans must strive to be good rational moral agents for the greater good of humanity in a sustainable mode' is an opinion, and nothing more. And here's another opinion: 'the white race must maintain its supremacy'. And here's another opinion: 'capitalists must maintain their wealth and power'.

You can shout your opinion, bang the table, and insist that one opinion - unsurprisingly, your opinion - is the right one - as much as you like. But that doesn't mean it stops being an opinion and becomes a fact. It's tough, I know. But suck it up.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had written earlier;

• Morality is driven by an inherent Faculty of Morality within the brain of all humans, where it is reasonable active in some and quite dormant in the majority of people.

This might be true, though I would doubt the use of the word "majority" here.
I would also say that hunger is also an inherent faculty.
However only fool would posit from this fact what a person might want to eat, what are their preferences, likes and dislikes. And only a damn fool would prescribe a diet on objective grounds - that is why objective morality is a fool's game.
The difficulty is greater with morals though. Since the target for eating might be as simple as health and satiation, the target for morals is wide and vacuous.

You are the fool who is kicking his own ass due to ignorance.

Hunger is an inherent impulse from the inherent set of primal instincts.

Yes, it is not right to question another person's preference of good but there are some facts that are objective for all humans in relation to hunger.

Who will deny;
"It is imperative for all humans to eat, else they will die"
is a fact that is objective [can be easily verified from empirical evidences]. This is absolutely critical.

It is also a fact that is objective that;
All humans must eat and consume food that provide basic energy - no humans has been observed to survive on air and water alone for long.
This is also absolutely critical.

It is also a fact that is objective that;
All humans must eat and consume food with the critical essential nutrients else they will suffer from malnutrition then diseases and die.
This is critical but not as critical as the above but if done long term they will die.

It is also a fact that is objective that;
All humans must eat food with the essential vitamins.
This is critical but not as critical as the above first two but if done long term they will die.

Thus there is a diet related on the above based on objective grounds.

It is the same with the faculty of morality and its various moral facts and degrees of objectivity like that of hunger.


I'll throw the following at you as I have done for Peter;

• Nah, the point is you are trapped inside the SILO of ontological moral realism, i.e. morality is a thing [like external objects or Plato's universals] that exist via floating within reality.
  These days within the discussion of the Philosophy of Morality, there are rarely anyone supporting this version of ontological moral realism.
  If you think so, name me one modern secular philosopher of morality who support such an ontological moral realism.
  The only ones are the theists whose morality is pseudo-morality and insist God [itself is immoral] commands ontological moral laws that believers must comply else they are threaten with hell fire.
  
  Btw, whilst you are condemning the ontological moral realists to the ground, you are ignorant you are exactly like them in your claim of ontological philosophical realism.
  Actually with your strawman on ontological moral realism you are actually kicking your own ass as an ontological philosophical realist.
  I bet you don't understand how you ended up kicking your own ass.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The practical point is all humans must strive to be good rational moral agents for the greater good of humanity in a sustainable mode.
To do the above efficiently we need secular moral objectives [goals] which are objective moral facts [independent from personal opinions and beliefs] as verified from empirical facts and philosophical reasoning. These moral facts of absoluteness are merely guides within the moral system and they are not be enforced like political laws.

Nah. That 'all humans must strive to be good rational moral agents for the greater good of humanity in a sustainable mode' is an opinion, and nothing more. And here's another opinion: 'the white race must maintain its supremacy'. And here's another opinion: 'capitalists must maintain their wealth and power'.

You can shout your opinion, bang the table, and insist that one opinion - unsurprisingly, your opinion - is the right one - as much as you like. But that doesn't mean it stops being an opinion and becomes a fact. It's tough, I know. But suck it up.

Nope it is not an opinion.
It is objective because such an ought can be verified and justified from empirical evidences.
Such moral facts are justified as supervening upon empirical facts which are objective.

If you do not agree [ignorantly] with the above, are you insisting on the opposite or you are just a morally indifferent irresponsible selfish person?

Do you have a counter to my other accusation of you, i.e. 'kicking your own ass' in the following;

• Nah, the point is you are trapped inside the SILO of ontological moral realism, i.e. morality is a thing [like external objects or Plato's universals] that exist via floating within reality.
  These days within the discussion of the Philosophy of Morality, there are rarely anyone supporting this version of ontological moral realism.
  If you think so, name me one modern secular philosopher of morality who support such an ontological moral realism.
  The only ones are the theists whose morality is pseudo-morality and insist God [itself immoral] commands ontological moral laws that believers must comply else they are threaten with hell fire.
  
  Btw, whilst you are condemning the ontological moral realists to the ground, you are ignorant you are exactly like them in your claim of ontological philosophical realism.
  Actually with your strawman on ontological moral realism you are actually kicking your own ass as an ontological philosophical realist.
  I bet you don't understand how you ended up kicking your own ass.