Moral Supervenience

[Veritas Aequitas]

For example all humans has the inhibition not to kill another human but psychopaths [1% of people] has defects in that particular inhibiting system and

That is not true. There are examples throughout history and right up to the present day of cohorts of people routinely massacring other human beings, without the slightest inhibition.

Yes, many of those who massacre did it, but it is only because the specific inhibitors were weakened and loosen for various reasons, e.g. mob effect, peer pressure, rage, etc.
Among those who massacre would be the psychopaths where the relevant inhibitors are physically damaged [lesions]. Note the difference.

Homicide is not a good example for discussion because all of us here -it is to be hoped- do think it is morally wrong. Something like homosexuality would be a better subject for the purposes of illustration.

It is not about homicide but the concept of "killing" another human in whatever the circumstances.
I believe no individual person would want to volunteer to be killed except the mentally ill.

Just in case you bring in wars, note soldiers go to war with the duty to kill. However normal soldiers do not want to be killed but rather believing they will not be killed and possibly could be killed. As for wars, morally there ought not be wars at all and thus humanity must strive to prevent wars so that there will be no war-based-duty-bound killings at all.

Homosexuality is a sensitive topic so I would prefer to avoid it in this case.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In fact was there not some experiment done by adult human beings on young human beings to see if the young ones (babies) could live or survive with food but without attention. That experiment, to my knowledge, led to the conclusion that attention is actually needed for human beings survival. To discover this conclusion young human beings (babies) had to be left to die, which could be classified as 'torture', and classified as 'for pleasure', as well. As this 'experiment/torture' was done just to satisfy some adult human beings curiosity, or pleasure.

Now, obviously if this story I just presented is true, then any, so called, "natural inhibition within the brain of each human being" had to be overridden by some one or some thing. And, who or what could override what is said to be NATURAL?

I have also witnessed and observed people, in this world, 'torturing human babies for pleasure', but some adult human beings just do NOT see this as being 'torture'. So, I am pretty certain what you feel sure of here is completely and utterly true and correct.

Actually, I think it likely that "normal" human beings are hard wired to be protective of babies; nothing to do with algorithms. Although we are born with the faculty for morality, what constitutes "moral" is very much a product of social conditioning, and can vary very widely between different cultures.

For the purpose of this topic, the term "algorithm" is the most appropriate analogy to describe that reality of neural sets for the functioning of the moral sense and impulses, so it is analogically a 'bio-algorithm'.

You have to apply the principles of substance and forms to morality which is common to all subjects.
The substance of morality [human nature] do not vary with different environments, conditions and cultures. It is the forms and contents of morality & ethics that vary to optimize morality.

As normal with the majority of humans, they are more cognitive of the obvious forms and by default and necessity of human nature, the majority are NOT to be too aware nor concern with of the substance and fundamentals that drive the varied forms.
It is only with the more cognitive and wiser who dig into the substance of issues in order to generate more leverage for the applied.

Take the subject of Physics for example, there is diversity of physical things all over the world which vary to the respective conditions.
However within the diversity of physical forms there is the generic substance to these forms i.e. the world of common molecules, atoms, proton, electrons, quarks which eventually lead to the ultimate as a paradox of either wave or particle subject to humans conditions.

Thus to state that 'moral' must be confined to its forms/culture/traditions is ignorance and ignoring the reality of the substance of morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I've shown you patience. Asked nicely, and all you give me is this regurgitation.
The most simple question has been ignored, and you seem to have no clue what you are saying

Who the F..k should consider your patience?
If you don't get the given clues, that is your business not my responsibility.

[Harbal]

Yes, many of those who massacre did it, but it is only because the specific inhibitors were weakened and loosen for various reasons, e.g. mob effect, peer pressure, rage, etc.
Among those who massacre would be the psychopaths where the relevant inhibitors are physically damaged [lesions]. Note the difference.

I think you are completely wrong about that. Without the constraint of social conditioning, Man is probably the most violent, brutal, and cruel creature that ever inhabited the earth. Like most social animals, we do seem to have an inhibition towards killing members of our own social group, but history informs us that we have no such inhibitions when it comes to outsiders. In fact, it seems to me that, without our social conditioning, the human male thoroughly enjoys killing. It is probably no exaggeration to say that the unprovoked killing of our rivals and competitors was very likely our default course of action, both in pre-historic times and well beyond. Killing has even been used as a source of entertainment in some cultures; Rome comes to mind.

It is not about homicide but the concept of "killing" another human in whatever the circumstances.

The killing of a human being in any circumstances is, by definition, homicide.

Homosexuality is a sensitive topic so I would prefer to avoid it in this case.

More sensitive than the topic of killing each other?

I would say it is one of the best topics for investigating the nature of morality. It is a very contentious subject for some people, but it does not have the clear cut "rights" and "wrongs" that killing has. It doesn't go against that overriding principle of not doing harm to each other in the same way as many other moral issues do, so it is more difficult to demonstrate why it is "wrong".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, many of those who massacre did it, but it is only because the specific inhibitors were weakened and loosen for various reasons, e.g. mob effect, peer pressure, rage, etc.
Among those who massacre would be the psychopaths where the relevant inhibitors are physically damaged [lesions]. Note the difference.

I think you are completely wrong about that. Without the constraint of social conditioning, Man is probably the most violent, brutal, and cruel creature that ever inhabited the earth. Like most social animals, we do seem to have an inhibition towards killing members of our own social group, but history informs us that we have no such inhibitions when it comes to outsiders. In fact, it seems to me that, without our social conditioning, the human male thoroughly enjoys killing. It is probably no exaggeration to say that the unprovoked killing of our rivals and competitors was very likely our default course of action, both in pre-historic times and well beyond. Killing has even been used as a source of entertainment in some cultures; Rome comes to mind.

The "ought-not_ness to kill another human" is inherent in human nature and this is the primal and very basic bio-neural-algorithm that is "programmed" into human nature right from the beginning.

It is only later that the tribalistic impulse emerged i.e. us versus them, where the inherent inhibition to kill another human sort of weakened.
However the cons of tribalism was overcame by the cons of larger groups via co-operation and this is a fact.

Yes, there were social conditions that subsequently inhibited killings of humans based on external peer pressures but such social conditions are also driven by the inherent fundamentals of "ought-not_ness to kill another human" as a subliminal impulse. Without this ground and the need for co-operation, the social conditions would be shaky and not have lasted till we have 7+ billion humans on Earth at present.

It is not about homicide but the concept of "killing" another human in whatever the circumstances.

The killing of a human being in any circumstances is, by definition, homicide.

Ok, agree.

Homosexuality is a sensitive topic so I would prefer to avoid it in this case.

More sensitive than the topic of killing each other?

I would say it is one of the best topics for investigating the nature of morality. It is a very contentious subject for some people, but it does not have the clear cut "rights" and "wrongs" that killing has. It doesn't go against that overriding principle of not doing harm to each other in the same way as many other moral issues do, so it is more difficult to demonstrate why it is "wrong".

Sensitive in the sense, there may be posters here who are gays but I don't think there are potential ready killers here.

Morality wise, homosexuality is morally wrong which is a moral fact.

Despite homosexuality being morally wrong as a moral principle, it is not an issue on the practical level since even if 10% of people are homosexuals there is no threat to the human species.
Therefore there is no need for any big fuss with homosexuality but the moral fact is homosexuality is morally wrong in principle.

Since it is not a serious threat to humanity, all humans has to exercise virtue ethics to be compassionate and exercise empathy to homosexuals in respecting their basic human dignity.
From this perspective, it would be immoral to be homophobic.

In contrast with homosexuality where there no killing of another human, "the killing of another human" is a serious moral issue which prevention must be prioritized towards the future.

[Harbal]

It is only later that the tribalistic impulse emerged i.e. us versus them, where the inherent inhibition to kill another human sort of weakened.
However the cons of tribalism was overcame by the cons of larger groups via co-operation and this is a fact.

It seems more likely that it is the other way round, we developed morality to stop us from wiping each other out.

Yes, there were social conditions subsequently inhibit killing based on external peer pressures but such social conditions are also driven by the inherent fundamentals of "ought-not_ness to kill another human" as a subliminal impulse.

I really do think you are wrong about that. I don't know why you think we are programmed with an "ought-not_ness to kill", when the evidence suggests quite the contrary.

Morality wise, homosexuality is morally wrong which is a moral fact.

This is why it is a much better example to discuss as an aspect of morality; it is not obviously "wrong" in the same way as murder is wrong, and therefore, to define why it is wrong will uncover more about what drives morality. And I have to say, that if you think the moral wrongness of it is both self evident and a fact, you have absolutely no understanding of what morality is, or how it works.

[Peter Holmes]

There are no moral facts - supervenient or otherwise - but only moral opinions held by people, some of whom think their own moral opinions are facts.

For example, VA thinks 'homosexuality is morally wrong which is a moral fact'.

Behold the twattish stupidity - and cruelty - of moral objectivism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is only later that the tribalistic impulse emerged i.e. us versus them, where the inherent inhibition to kill another human sort of weakened.
However the cons of tribalism was overcame by the cons of larger groups via co-operation and this is a fact.

It seems more likely that it is the other way round, we developed morality to stop us from wiping each other out.

I believe there are some fundamental issue to be trashed out here, i.e.

• 1. Definition of what is morality
  2. Nature versus Nature
  3. Substance versus form.

What is your definition of morality?

You insist morality is a-posteriori but I insist morality is inherently and primarily of Nature while the Nurture aspect is secondary to enable humans to adapt their moral contents to changing conditions.

I have not come across any literature that support your views that morality is purely a-posteriori and has nothing to do with the Nature element at all. If you insist give me some links to support your views.

Yes, there were social conditions subsequently inhibit killing based on external peer pressures but such social conditions are also driven by the inherent fundamentals of "ought-not_ness to kill another human" as a subliminal impulse.

I really do think you are wrong about that. I don't know why you think we are programmed with an "ought-not_ness to kill", when the evidence suggests quite the contrary.

The appearances of evidences may seem so, but the fundamental beyond the apparent appearances infer there is an inherent "ought-not_ness to kill."

Morality wise, homosexuality is morally wrong which is a moral fact.

This is why it is a much better example to discuss as an aspect of morality; it is not obviously "wrong" in the same way as murder is wrong, and therefore, to define why it is wrong will uncover more about what drives morality. And I have to say, that if you think the moral wrongness of it is both self evident and a fact, you have absolutely no understanding of what morality is, or how it works.

Whatever is a moral fact must be justified empirically and philosophically.
I have not provided my justification on why "Morality wise, homosexuality is morally wrong which is a moral fact."
As I had stated I do not intend to get into the details.

you have absolutely no understanding of what morality is, or how it works.

How much research have you put into the subject of morality and ethics?

Note my request from you;
I have not come across any literature that support your views that morality is purely a-posteriori and has nothing to do with the Nature element at all. If you insist give me some links to support your views.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are no moral facts - supervenient or otherwise - but only moral opinions held by people, some of whom think their own moral opinions are facts.

For example, VA thinks 'homosexuality is morally wrong which is a moral fact'.

Behold the twattish stupidity - and cruelty - of moral objectivism.

As usual you are making noises without any rational counter views. Any dumb fool can do that easily, i.e. just type and blah whatever.
The more you do it, it only reflect your low level intellectual capacity especially in such a serious discussion re morality and ethics.

[Sculptor]

I've shown you patience. Asked nicely, and all you give me is this regurgitation.
The most simple question has been ignored, and you seem to have no clue what you are saying

Who the F..k should consider your patience?
If you don't get the given clues, that is your business not my responsibility.

I thought you might want to try to convey an idea since you posted this stuff.

Sadly you seem incapable of conveying anything but your own confusion

[Sculptor]

There are no moral facts - supervenient or otherwise - but only moral opinions held by people, some of whom think their own moral opinions are facts.

For example, VA thinks 'homosexuality is morally wrong which is a moral fact'.

Behold the twattish stupidity - and cruelty - of moral objectivism.

Yes. Vile and disgusting to traduce and entire section of the human population for a thing which is utterly out of their control.
You might as well declare black skin or blue eyes as morally repugnant!

[Atla]

I'll quote Mead, the anthropologist again:

“Most primitive tribes feel that if you run across one of these subhumans from a rival group in the forest, the most appropriate thing to do is bludgeon him to death.”

As we all know, this sums up most of written history as well. Most humans don't seem to have an inherent 'ought-not-kill' towards outsiders. It's more like the contrary, an 'ought-to-kill-or-maim-them-before-they-can-kill-or-maim-us'.

We also know from VA, that these are moral facts, because DNA and stuff.

Therefore it's an objective moral fact, that we must kill or maim outsiders, before they can kill or maim us.

[Harbal]

I believe there are some fundamental issue to be trashed out here, i.e.

• 1. Definition of what is morality
  2. Nature versus Nature
  3. Substance versus form.

What is your definition of morality?

You insist morality is a-posteriori but I insist morality is inherently and primarily of Nature while the Nurture aspect is secondary to enable humans to adapt their moral contents to changing conditions.

It seems we have an inherent capacity for morality, that is the nature part. We come into the world with a rule book for morality, except it is a book full of empty pages. What we fill the pages with comes from our formative environment, that is the nurture part. It may be an objective truth -or fact, if you like- that human beings possess the faculty for morality; the rule book, but the actual rules in the book are not facts, they are just an arbitrary set of instructions. In other words, our morality as a whole, is both nature and nurture.

The appearances of evidences may seem so, but the fundamental beyond the apparent appearances infer there is an inherent "ought-not_ness to kill."

Man has metered out the most appalling violence and senseless brutality against his fellow man throughout history and right into the present day, so from whence you infer he has an inherent predisposition not to kill is certainly a mystery to me.

Whatever is a moral fact must be justified empirically and philosophically.
I have not provided my justification on why "Morality wise, homosexuality is morally wrong which is a moral fact."

I can't really respond to this. Most of it is senseless, and the rest is meaningless.

I don't say this out of malice or ill will of any kind, VA, but I honestly don't think you have a clue about what morality is, or the part it plays in human nature.

[Peter Holmes]

There are no moral facts - supervenient or otherwise - but only moral opinions held by people, some of whom think their own moral opinions are facts.

For example, VA thinks 'homosexuality is morally wrong which is a moral fact'.

Behold the twattish stupidity - and cruelty - of moral objectivism.

Yes. Vile and disgusting to traduce and entire section of the human population for a thing which is utterly out of their control.
You might as well declare black skin or blue eyes as morally repugnant!

With you. And I want to go further. Moral objectivism - the claim that there are moral facts which, of course, are therefore undeniable - is moral fascism in a thin disguise. And fascists always seem to be friends, saying what we want to hear.

[Gary Childress]

Morality wise, homosexuality is morally wrong which is a moral fact.

I would think that homosexuality is purely an act of pleasure since it doesn't result in conception. It seems to be an empirical fact that human beings derive pleasure from sex. It also seems to be an empirical fact that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone any more than heterosexuality so long as it's consensual. So, if anything, I'd say homosexuality is no more "morally wrong" than heterosexual relations that are engaged in for the purpose of pleasure. Or are you saying that indulging in pleasure is morally wrong?