Moral Supervenience

[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!

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.

Yes, and is it not a complete no brainer!
Makes you wonder what is in people's minds to think otherwise.

[Sculptor]

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?

It's worse than that. He is not just attacking the acts of homosexuality, but the very existence of a large section of the population who never chose to be homosexual.
Who of us can claim to have chosen our sexual orientation?
I for one woke up one morning thinking about breasts, and red lips and long hair, and Yvonne oh dear Yvonne!!!!!
I did not chose to be heterosexual, that was a choice nature made for me.
Clowns like VA have been wagging their fingers at sexual desire since the dawn of time, declaring most practices to be proscribed. Don't do that, leave that alone, put that down, cover up, stop looking at that, and whatever you do don't stick that inside that hole.
Well...
Fuck VA, and the horse he rode in on.

[Sculptor]

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.

Whilst this is undoubtedly true of the Yanomami, it is certainly NOT true of many so-called "primitive tribes" such as the !Kung San.
So yeah culturally subjective just like all morality.

[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?

It's worse than that. He is not just attacking the acts of homosexuality, but the very existence of a large section of the population who never chose to be homosexual.
Who of us can claim to have chosen our sexual orientation?
I for one woke up one morning thinking about breasts, and red lips and long hair, and Yvonne oh dear Yvonne!!!!!
I did not chose to be heterosexual, that was a choice nature made for me.
Clowns like VA have been wagging their fingers at sexual desire since the dawn of time, declaring most practices to be proscribed. Don't do that, leave that alone, put that down, cover up, stop looking at that, and whatever you do don't stick that inside that hole.
Well...
Fuck VA, and the horse he rode in on.

He doesn't seem to be too keen on Muslims either, from what I've seen. But I guess that's a whole other can of worms.

[Sculptor]

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?

It's worse than that. He is not just attacking the acts of homosexuality, but the very existence of a large section of the population who never chose to be homosexual.
Who of us can claim to have chosen our sexual orientation?
I for one woke up one morning thinking about breasts, and red lips and long hair, and Yvonne oh dear Yvonne!!!!!
I did not chose to be heterosexual, that was a choice nature made for me.
Clowns like VA have been wagging their fingers at sexual desire since the dawn of time, declaring most practices to be proscribed. Don't do that, leave that alone, put that down, cover up, stop looking at that, and whatever you do don't stick that inside that hole.
Well...
Fuck VA, and the horse he rode in on.

He doesn't seem to be too keen on Muslims either, from what I've seen. But I guess that's a whole other can of worms.

There's a lot of racism here.
For my money I do not like Islam, but I do not discriminate. I think all religions are bad, and encourage bigotry and racism.

[Gary Childress]

It's worse than that. He is not just attacking the acts of homosexuality, but the very existence of a large section of the population who never chose to be homosexual.
Who of us can claim to have chosen our sexual orientation?
I for one woke up one morning thinking about breasts, and red lips and long hair, and Yvonne oh dear Yvonne!!!!!
I did not chose to be heterosexual, that was a choice nature made for me.
Clowns like VA have been wagging their fingers at sexual desire since the dawn of time, declaring most practices to be proscribed. Don't do that, leave that alone, put that down, cover up, stop looking at that, and whatever you do don't stick that inside that hole.
Well...
Fuck VA, and the horse he rode in on.

He doesn't seem to be too keen on Muslims either, from what I've seen. But I guess that's a whole other can of worms.

There's a lot of racism here.
For my money I do not like Islam, but I do not discriminate. I think all religions are bad, and encourage bigotry and racism.

Yeah. It's kind of strange. When I took philosophy at a university, I don't remember encountering so much backlash toward enlightenment ideals, however, it seems to be in fashion around here.

[Sculptor]

He doesn't seem to be too keen on Muslims either, from what I've seen. But I guess that's a whole other can of worms.

There's a lot of racism here.
For my money I do not like Islam, but I do not discriminate. I think all religions are bad, and encourage bigotry and racism.

Yeah. It's kind of strange. When I took philosophy at a university, I don't remember encountering so much backlash toward enlightenment ideals, however, it seems to be in fashion around here.

I can't think there is any one reason, but in times of strife people tend to act more tribally. This certainly was what helped Hitler to come to power.
People also cling to outdated ideas and traditional viewpoints as if the past held the answers to the present. All the progress that has been made by the likes of Harvey Milk and other campaigners for gay rights, abortion laws, woman's rights and so on seems to have been so recklessly swept aside - and for what? So that the great masses of buttoned-up can control the let your hair down brigade. Why can't they just live their own lives and leave others alone to do their own thing??? Sounds like I'm a 60s reject lol

[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.

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

Read my OP again, I qualify that with "Discuss" which imply I am inviting ideas from those interested or who are well versed in contributing their ideas on the subject.

[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.

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!

As usual Peter and you are always impulsive and stupidly bring in black skin, blue eyes .. why didn't you mention blond hair?

Note what I presented is;
While Homosexuality in principle is immoral, at the same time being homophobic is also immoral.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I believe your quote from Mead is without the appropriate context.

Morality is "ought-not-kill another human."
Therefore an 'ought-to-kill-or-maim-them-before-they-can-kill-or-maim-us' is contrary to morality thus immoral.

That Morality is "ought-not-kill another human" is inherent in all humans and this is why this primal drive will drive humans since the beginning to avoid killing other humans wherever possible and they are also driven inherently to co-operate to exploit synergy. This is so evident with the 7+ billion humans on Earth we have at the present.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

It is not that I like it, it is a reality, all humans possess a faculty or function of morality just like the 5 senses and other functions in the brain.
Since that correspond to reality with a physical referent then that is a fact - in this case a moral fact within a moral framework and system of knowledge.
So there are moral facts.
As such the moral-facts-deniers are wrong.

Generally, rules in books are not facts but merely words.
But those who believe and subscribe to the rules they are facts, albeit not universal.
This is a different topic to debate.

The ought-not_ness to kill is not a rule in a rule book, it is an mental state of active inhibition within the brain of each individual human and that is represented by a physical referent, i.e. a physical mechanism or bio-algorithm of neural networks.
This a biological fact and at the same time a moral fact within a moral framework and system of knowledge.

Get it, if not, why??

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.

It is only a mystery because you are ignorant of it.

The inherent inhibition of 'ought-not-to-kill' is right within you in your brain, that is why you are indifferent to killing any other human right at this moment you are reading.
This inhibitor is the reason why there are 7+ billion humans on Earth.

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.

I appreciate your honesty but unfortunately it is based on ignorance.

Having been researching into Morality and Ethics for a year now and still going on, I am very confident you don't have a clue of what morality-proper is as in correspondence with reality.
What you have understood is a merely a bastardized form of morality which represent whatever you like to fit in with whatever that come to your mind.

Btw, just list me a few books even one you have read on morality?

I have read [thoroughly] more than 50 books & papers on Morality and Ethics and surveyed a few hundreds books and articles.
It would be dumb of you to say I don't have a clue on what is morality.
Assuming I am of average intelligence, any average person will infer I definitely have gathered at least some clues rather than no clue at all as you think so.

My views of what is morality is upon refuting and arguing away all other interpretations of morality from all over the world. I can't do that if I am not knowledgeable and have not exhausted all interpretations of morality & ethics in existence.

If you have done a Masters or PhD degree you would have understood you need to do a literature review to find everything about the subject before you come out with your own views and 'research gap'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

As usual you are talking nonsence.
Moral fascism is an oxymoron as with moral-evil.

You seem to have forgotten we are in a Philosophical Forum where views have to be justified philosophically or simply agree to disagree if there is no consensus.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

Humans has evolved with specific parts and mechanisms for specific purposes as evident in the majority of humans. In the case of the 5 senses which has its specific function, there is Synesthesia.

• Synesthesia or synaesthesia is a perceptual phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway.
  
  In what is cited as the most accurate prevalence study so far,[53] self-referral bias was avoided by studying 500 people recruited from the communities of Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities; it showed a prevalence of 4.4%, with 9 different variations of synesthesia.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

Some synesthetes hear music or taste sugar when they see certain colors. This is a defect in the connections of neurons between the respective parts of the senses.
It is stated the prevalence of homosexuality range from 4.4% as above to more than 10%.
Within the Normal Distribution this would be regarded as a normal-abnormality.

The fact is such normal-abnormality occur within all the human functions and basic features.
Thus there is no exception for human sexuality from the majority of heterosexuality.
Homosexuality which happen to around 10% [regularly mentioned] is such a normal-abnormality.

Morality in the widest sense is related to survival of the species and the sexual function has evolved for that specific purpose. Thus any deviation from this purpose is immoral in principle.
Homosexuality is not inherently harmful albeit immoral in principle.
However as I had stated above, homophobia and being homophobic are immoral and as such, homosexuals ought-not be condemned.

Btw, homosexuality is not a serious moral issue in contrast to the various evil acts such as killing, rape, violence, corruption, cheat, stealing, etc. Thus I would prefer not to discuss the issue of homosexuality within morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

He doesn't seem to be too keen on Muslims either, from what I've seen. But I guess that's a whole other can of worms.

There's a lot of racism here.
For my money I do not like Islam, but I do not discriminate. I think all religions are bad, and encourage bigotry and racism.

Yeah. It's kind of strange. When I took philosophy at a university, I don't remember encountering so much backlash toward enlightenment ideals, however, it seems to be in fashion around here.

I believe you are leading yourself down the road of ignorance and irrationality.
It appear you and Sculptor et. al. are not voracious readers and conscious of actual critical evidences going on in the world.

One of the most critical criteria in starting any philosophical discussion is evidence, i.e. empirical evidence especially on the concept of evil leading to the serious need for morality proper.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

All my views, discussions and arguments are grounded on evidences. Show me where have I not ground my arguments on evidences.
The most critical issue within morality is "humans killing other humans" and this is so evident throughout the history of humanity, thus the need for morality to curtail and prevent more killings of humans by other humans.

You are very ignorant of the ideology of Islam. I'd spent 3 years full time researching into the ideology of Islam to understand Islam is inherently evil. Thus as a responsible citizen of the world I have a responsibility to talk about it when I cannot deal with it directly.

You, Sculptor et.al are living like ostriches and despite real evidences, imagine there are no issue with real evil and the evident inherent evil of Islam and other evil ideologies.

[Gary Childress]

Morality in the widest sense is related to survival of the species and the sexual function has evolved for that specific purpose. Thus any deviation from this purpose is immoral in principle.

So I take it playing checkers is "immoral" in principle? Certainly, that seems to deviate from the direct purpose of "survival of the species". At least I don't see how playing checkers helps with survival. I mean, we do lots of things in our spare time that are probably just as unrelated or irrelevant to survival as homosexuality (or else recreational sex) purportedly is.

Homosexuality is not inherently harmful albeit immoral in principle.
However as I had stated above, homophobia and being homophobic is immoral and such homosexuals ought-not be condemned.

So you say homosexuality is immoral in principle but homosexuals shouldn't be "condemned". What do you mean by "condemned"? Isn't calling it immoral sort of "condemnation"?