An Inference: Moral Facts Exist??

[Veritas Aequitas]

In a counter to the moral-facts-deniers,
below is a clue for further reflection that moral facts exist;

• 1. Chattel Slavery is a moral issue
  2. The statistics of reduction in chattel slavery since >20,000 years ago is a moral fact.
  3. This moral fact of reduction has to be due to a moral process.
  4. This moral process has its own moral properties and function
  5. This moral properties and functions are moral facts.
  6. Therefore moral facts exist.

The above justify there are moral facts and what is to be done is to investigate and justify what are the details of these moral facts.

Re 3 I believe the moral process is primarily most active in the brain of the individuals and while the cultural elements are merely secondary.

Re 4 All Moral State-of-affairs [mental] are Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30285

Re 5 There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777


Views?

[uwot]

In a counter to the moral-facts-deniers...
Views?

Suppose we were to argue about aesthetic facts.
It is a fact that when their retina is stimulated by a particular wavelength of light, at least some people see the colour red. It is not therefore a fact that the colour red exists independently of stimulated retinas.
By the same token, it is a fact that when stimulated by tales of slavery at least some people feel a sense of moral outrage. It is not therefore a fact that moral outrage exists independently of stimulated brains.
All you are saying is that some people don't approve of slavery, which I grant you is a fact.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In a counter to the moral-facts-deniers...
Views?

Suppose we were to argue about aesthetic facts.
It is a fact that when their retina is stimulated by a particular wavelength of light, at least some people see the colour red. It is not therefore a fact that the colour red exists independently of stimulated retinas.

The fact of color is more reliably grounded on the specific wavelength of each color and their ranges.

By the same token, it is a fact that when stimulated by tales of slavery at least some people feel a sense of moral outrage. It is not therefore a fact that moral outrage exists independently of stimulated brains.
All you are saying is that some people don't approve of slavery, which I grant you is a fact.

Note this analogy,
in terms of nutrition, when stimulated by various impulses, a person feels a sense of hunger and some may even lust for food [gluttony] to relieve that disturbing feeling of hunger.
Hunger in this case is merely a secondary fact so it gluttony [as evidenced].
But what is more pertinent is the primary fact of an existing Nutrition System within the body and brain in activating impulses to ensure humans take in the right nutrition to enable their survival.

Similarly when one feel moral outrage upon the knowledge of slavery, that feeling of outrage is a secondary fact.
What is primary is the fact of the existence of the Moral System or the Moral Function within the human brain/mind that is represented by systems of neural connectivity.

[uwot]

The fact of color is more reliably grounded on the specific wavelength of each color and their ranges.

You are conflating two facts. It is a fact that there is a specific wavelength of electromagnetic energy. It is also a fact that when stimulated by such waves/photons most people will report that they see red. There is nothing intrinsic in electromagnetic radiation that corresponds to redness - you can't even be certain that any two people actually have the same experience; your red might be my green.

What is primary is the fact of the existence of the Moral System or the Moral Function within the human brain/mind that is represented by systems of neural connectivity.

Well again you are conflating two facts. It is a fact that functional brains include "neural connectivity". It is also a fact that some brains are wired to respond to slavery with outrage. From what I gather you are arguing that because some brains react in a way you find appropriate to slavery, therefore slavery is wrong. Not only is that rotten logic, it ignores the fact that slave owners are not outraged by their own behaviour.

[Belinda]

Uwot wrote:

You are conflating two facts. It is a fact that there is a specific wavelength of electromagnetic energy. It is also a fact that when stimulated by such waves/photons most people will report that they see red. There is nothing intrinsic in electromagnetic radiation that corresponds to redness - you can't even be certain that any two people actually have the same experience; your red might be my green.

However it is pretty well universal that an intense red hue beside an intense green hue makes the red redder and the green greener. The relationships between hues are the same for everyone(excepting colour blind). If, as seems probable, hues are only possible as relations , and people all perceive the same relations, then it seems probable people all perceive the same hues(excepting colour blind).

Extending the importance of relations to factual relations between all measurable probabilities we have the probability people all perceive much the same predictions(excepting lack of knowledge or stupidity).

Moral tenets are predictions too. So-called facts and so-called morals both refer to future behaviour which is implicit in the structure of the claim. If there were no future there would be no facts and no morals. Factual claims and moral claims are the same reasoning structure and the same survival purpose.

[henry quirk]

slave owners are not outraged by their own behaviour

not strictly true...no slaver wants to be a slave...he'll fight to stay unleashed

slavers slave cuz they successfully redefine, in their own heads, humans into product...can't feel outrage over sellin' hairless chimps or sub-creatures

it's an on-going, rather artful, kind of self-hypnosis (it looks human, sounds human, but it ain't human...will that be cash or charge?)

[Belinda]

slave owners are not outraged by their own behaviour

not strictly true...no slaver wants to be a slave...he'll fight to stay unleashed

slavers slave cuz they successfully redefine, in their own heads, humans into product...can't feel outrage over sellin' hairless chimps or sub-creatures

it's an on-going, rather artful, kind of self-hypnosis (it looks human, sounds human, but it ain't human...will that be cash or charge?)

Yes true. The next question is 'How wide is the scope of respect for others?"

[henry quirk]

slave owners are not outraged by their own behaviour

not strictly true...no slaver wants to be a slave...he'll fight to stay unleashed

slavers slave cuz they successfully redefine, in their own heads, humans into product...can't feel outrage over sellin' hairless chimps or sub-creatures

it's an on-going, rather artful, kind of self-hypnosis (it looks human, sounds human, but it ain't human...will that be cash or charge?)

Yes true. The next question is 'How wide is the scope of respect for others?"

seems to me: respect is an individual matter (you respect a man, not mankind) and it has to be earned

and: recognizin' a man belongs to himself (and shouldn't used as property) is distinctly different from respectin' him...any number of folks in-forum I could not respect less (cuz they're garbage), but they're still people so I got no right to leash 'em

[Veritas Aequitas]

The fact of color is more reliably grounded on the specific wavelength of each color and their ranges.

You are conflating two facts. It is a fact that there is a specific wavelength of electromagnetic energy. It is also a fact that when stimulated by such waves/photons most people will report that they see red. There is nothing intrinsic in electromagnetic radiation that corresponds to redness - you can't even be certain that any two people actually have the same experience; your red might be my green.

Note the term I used, i.e. "more reliably".
I don't see any issue with assigning properties to certain range of wavelength which are identifiable and measurable.
Yes there are people with color blindness, but that is not an issue when we can refer to wavelength-range of various colors and their hues.
If a person with color-blindness disputes with the majority on what color he sees , this can be easily tested by comparing the 'color' he sees on various objects to the range of color wavelength.

For example,
The range of the generally accepted Red Color is 700–635 nm, or 430–480 THz.
Therefore it does not matter what the color-blind or color-impaired report what they see, what is the same are the range of the wavelength.
Thus if there are any disputes with color, the most objective is to measure the color wavelength emitting from the target object.

What is primary is the fact of the existence of the Moral System or the Moral Function within the human brain/mind that is represented by systems of neural connectivity.

Well again you are conflating two facts.
It is a fact that functional brains include "neural connectivity".
It is also a fact that some brains are wired to respond to slavery with outrage.
From what I gather you are arguing that because some brains react in a way you find appropriate to slavery, therefore slavery is wrong. Not only is that rotten logic, it ignores the fact that slave owners are not outraged by their own behaviour.

I don't see any problem with associating the two facts at all.
What is wrong, for example with associating your neural connectivity for sex with the sexual impulses and feelings arising from those sex related neural connectivity. For others, the sexual perversions from the norms.

Re color, the norm is, all humans are programmed with the fundamental neural connectivity to perceive the 'same' color [whatever the name] for each range of wavelength. Those who are color blind do have the inherent fundamental neural connectivity but deviate at the fringes.

Re senses, the norm is, all human are programmed with the inherent fundamental organs and neural connectivity to sense the respective senses, e.g. ears to hear, eyes to see, and the likes. But there are synaethetes whose neural wires are crossed in some points, thus a person would hear music when seeing certain colors.
What is the critical point is the fundamental organs and neural connectivities still remained in the body and brain but there is only some damage, defect or underdevelopment in certain fringe areas that caused the abnormality.

I had argued 'no human ought to enslave another' [re Chattel slavery] as the basic norm as "programmed in all humans".
As deviation from norms are common, why slave owners who are not outraged by their behavior, is because of some abnormality and underdevelopment [more likely] within their brain that deviate from the above norm of 'no slavery'.

Note it is so evident, humanity had been striving along with the inherent program of 'no slavery' to the reality and evidence of lesser and lesser chattel slavery since 30,000 years ago to the present.

Also, note Henry's point,
"not strictly true...no slaver wants to be a slave...he'll fight to stay unleashed"

[uwot]

I had argued 'no human ought to enslave another' [re Chattel slavery] as the basic norm as "programmed in all humans".

Wel, if you believe that, you are a creationist. Personally I think it more plausible that evolution has developed a species that has a range of responses to slavery. Some beliefs are more likely to result in the holder getting their leg over than others.

[henry quirk]

edited out a jumped the gun post

enjoy a picture instead...

3CDB3617-7A34-472B-BFAB-1F0C56DD0828.jpeg

not too far offa the mark, really

[KLewchuk]

In a counter to the moral-facts-deniers,
below is a clue for further reflection that moral facts exist;

• 1. Chattel Slavery is a moral issue
  2. The statistics of reduction in chattel slavery since >20,000 years ago is a moral fact.
  3. This moral fact of reduction has to be due to a moral process.
  4. This moral process has its own moral properties and function
  5. This moral properties and functions are moral facts.
  6. Therefore moral facts exist.

The above justify there are moral facts and what is to be done is to investigate and justify what are the details of these moral facts.

Re 3 I believe the moral process is primarily most active in the brain of the individuals and while the cultural elements are merely secondary.

Re 4 All Moral State-of-affairs [mental] are Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30285

Re 5 There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777


Views?

Veritas, you "assume" that chattel slavery is immoral. What is the basis for this assumption? The issue is not with the assertion that "chattel slavery" is immoral, rather you haven't defined morality. You need to do that first.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In a counter to the moral-facts-deniers,
below is a clue for further reflection that moral facts exist;

• 1. Chattel Slavery is a moral issue
  2. The statistics of reduction in chattel slavery since >20,000 years ago is a moral fact.
  3. This moral fact of reduction has to be due to a moral process.
  4. This moral process has its own moral properties and function
  5. This moral properties and functions are moral facts.
  6. Therefore moral facts exist.

The above justify there are moral facts and what is to be done is to investigate and justify what are the details of these moral facts.

Re 3 I believe the moral process is primarily most active in the brain of the individuals and while the cultural elements are merely secondary.

Re 4 All Moral State-of-affairs [mental] are Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30285

Re 5 There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777


Views?

Veritas, you "assume" that chattel slavery is immoral. What is the basis for this assumption? The issue is not with the assertion that "chattel slavery" is immoral, rather you haven't defined morality. You need to do that first.

I have defined 'morality' in a very general sense here, i.e.

• Morality is basically 'how humans ought to act morally'.
  Morally [& ethically] meant doing what is good which include avoiding what is evil.
  Evil is any act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity.

It is very necessary to explain what morality really is and for that we will need more detailed explanations, I will not go into that here.

'Chattel slavery' impinges negatively and terribly on the well-being of the individual[s].
Therefore 'chattel slavery' is immoral.
There are more complicated justifications as to why 'chattel slavery' is immoral.

I believe, beside sound justifications, it is very intuitive and common sense that chattel slavery is immoral; no normal person would want to be owned and enslaved by another human.

Note Henry's point, even;
"...no slaver wants to be a slave...he'll fight to stay unleashed"

[Veritas Aequitas]

I had argued 'no human ought to enslave another' [re Chattel slavery] as the basic norm as "programmed in all humans".

Wel, if you believe that, you are a creationist. Personally I think it more plausible that evolution has developed a species that has a range of responses to slavery. Some beliefs are more likely to result in the holder getting their leg over than others.

What??
To be a creationist, one will have to be a theist in the first place; I am NOT-a-theist.

Nope, rather, SOME humans had evolved in such deviant and evil ways that they are inclined to enslave others for their selfish interests without any empathy and compassion for the suffering of other humans. Such tendencies and acts of chattel slavery are immoral.

[uwot]

To be a creationist, one will have to be a theist in the first place; I am NOT-a-theist.

Then what is the source of whatever is "programmed in all humans"?

Nope, rather, SOME humans had evolved in such deviant and evil ways that they are inclined to enslave others for their selfish interests without any empathy and compassion for the suffering of other humans.

So are people morally responsible for how their brains are wired?