An Inference: Moral Facts Exist??

[uwot]

if observe slavery, then enrage,
and many other if X, then y functions.

If not the same, then why?

Well, is it just just chattel slavery or is there a separate 'if X, the y function' for every moral issue? For instance, Alice squishes mosquitoes because they spread disease. Bob doesn't because they are part of an interdependent ecosystem. Which of them is mentally defective?

[Skepdick]

Well, is it just just chattel slavery or is there a separate 'if X, the y function' for every moral issue?

If X then Y is sufficient to derive paradoxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%27s_paradox

[uwot]

If X then Y is sufficient to derive paradoxes.

That's lovely Skepdick. Now can you give me a reason to give a fuck?

[Veritas Aequitas]

if observe slavery, then enrage,
and many other if X, then y functions.

If not the same, then why?

Well, is it just just chattel slavery or is there a separate 'if X, the y function' for every moral issue? For instance, Alice squishes mosquitoes because they spread disease. Bob doesn't because they are part of an interdependent ecosystem. Which of them is mentally defective?

The 'if X then Y' model is generic for all moral and immoral matters, thus;

'if X [moral or immoral] then Y.

If squishing mosquitoes does not qualify within X [moral or immoral] the the moral function is not triggered.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, is it just just chattel slavery or is there a separate 'if X, the y function' for every moral issue?

If X then Y is sufficient to derive paradoxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%27s_paradox

The above paradox is merely a side logical 'deviant' which does not warrant the total rejection of the 'if X, then Y' model which is used commonly with convincing results, e.g. IT, etc.

The resultant of 'if X then Y' must be justified and validated empirically and philosophically.

Thus the usual theists' claim 'if X, then God exists' will not pass as real until they can justified God exists as real empirically and philosophically.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is this the argument, or have I got it wrong?

P1 Moral concerns apply only to persons.
P2 Only humans are or can be persons.
C Therefore, moral concerns apply only to humans.

If so, the premises are matters of opinion or definition - with which many people disagree. They're not facts.

The above is a truism since only humans are identified as persons.
Person = a human being regarded as an individual.
https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en

It is very evident and factual, morality and ethics are very significant and consciously deliberated within humanity while traces of it are linked to some 'higher' animals.
It is only human beings who are striving to improve the average moral competence.

But in addition, I have argued;

Morality is Confined to the Human Species
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29722
As such, moral [as defined] concerns are specifically applicable only to humans but extended to other species and the external environment for the positive interests of and empathy from the human species.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

1 That moral concerns apply only to persons is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective.

I agree if what is moral concerns is merely moral judgments made by each individual is a matter of opinion, therefore subjective.
But that moral concerns in my case are moral facts that inhere in all humans as real is objective.

2 That only humans are persons is a definition, and therefore a linguistic matter. There is no fact here.

It is a definition but surely that humans exist a person is a fact.

3 Even if true, that only humans think about and try to 'improve' morality has no bearing on the scope of moral concerns.

Note the definition of "moral concerns".
If that refers to moral judgments by individuals - that is subjective.
The individual concerns in improving his moral competence is subjective.
As state above,
that there are moral facts that inhere in all humans as real is objective.

[Peter Holmes]

The above is a truism since only humans are identified as persons.
Person = a human being regarded as an individual.
https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en

It is very evident and factual, morality and ethics are very significant and consciously deliberated within humanity while traces of it are linked to some 'higher' animals.
It is only human beings who are striving to improve the average moral competence.

But in addition, I have argued;

Morality is Confined to the Human Species
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29722
As such, moral [as defined] concerns are specifically applicable only to humans but extended to other species and the external environment for the positive interests of and empathy from the human species.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

1 That moral concerns apply only to persons is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective.

I agree if what is moral concerns is merely moral judgments made by each individual is a matter of opinion, therefore subjective.
But that moral concerns in my case are moral facts that inhere in all humans as real is objective.

2 That only humans are persons is a definition, and therefore a linguistic matter. There is no fact here.

It is a definition but surely that humans exist a person is a fact.

3 Even if true, that only humans think about and try to 'improve' morality has no bearing on the scope of moral concerns.

Note the definition of "moral concerns".
If that refers to moral judgments by individuals - that is subjective.
The individual concerns in improving his moral competence is subjective.
As state above,
that there are moral facts that inhere in all humans as real is objective.

So your claim is: there are moral facts that inhere in all humans as real.

And you think an example is our programming not to kill each other, so that 'humans ought not to kill humans' is a moral fact - a true factual assertion.

But it follows that, if humans were programmed to kill each other, 'humans ought to kill each other' would be a moral fact - a true factual assertion.

And if human males were programmed to rape the females of conquered tribes, then 'males ought to rape conquered females' would be a moral fact - a true factual assertion.

Being programmed to think X is/isn't morally wrong doesn't make it a fact that X is/isn't morally wrong. Indeed, if it were a fact that X is/isn't morally wrong, then our programming and behaviour would have no bearing on the morality of X.

You need to abandon the inherence/programming argument, because it's a dud.

[uwot]

The 'if X then Y' model is generic for all moral and immoral matters, thus;

'if X [moral or immoral] then Y.

If squishing mosquitoes does not qualify within X [moral or immoral] the the moral function is not triggered.

So if morality is decided by the response of an appropriately evolved human being, how do you decide which people are those whose response we should consider appropriate?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

1 That moral concerns apply only to persons is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective.

I agree if what is moral concerns is merely moral judgments made by each individual is a matter of opinion, therefore subjective.
But that moral concerns in my case are moral facts that inhere in all humans as real is objective.

2 That only humans are persons is a definition, and therefore a linguistic matter. There is no fact here.

It is a definition but surely that humans exist a person is a fact.

3 Even if true, that only humans think about and try to 'improve' morality has no bearing on the scope of moral concerns.

Note the definition of "moral concerns".
If that refers to moral judgments by individuals - that is subjective.
The individual concerns in improving his moral competence is subjective.
As state above,
that there are moral facts that inhere in all humans as real is objective.

So your claim is: there are moral facts that inhere in all humans as real.

And you think an example is our programming not to kill each other, so that 'humans ought not to kill humans' is a moral fact - a true factual assertion.

But it follows that, if humans were programmed to kill each other, 'humans ought to kill each other' would be a moral fact - a true factual assertion.

And if human males were programmed to rape the females of conquered tribes, then 'males ought to rape conquered females' would be a moral fact - a true factual assertion.

If it can be empirically and philosophically justified with evidence that ALL humans are "programmed" to kill each other, then, yes, that would be a fact and truth.
BUT that would not a a true fact of Morality/Ethics within a Moral Framework.
RATHER it would be a fact of EVIL.

It would be the same if ALL human males [or even females] were "programmed" to rape females of conquered tribes, then that would be a fact, but that would be a fact of EVIL.

As I had stated MANY TIMES, facts are justified to its respective Framework.
What is moral facts are justified from the Moral Framework with its very precise definition of what is Moral/Ethical.

Killing and raping are not morally positive within the definition of what is moral/ethical.

There are no solid grounds that justify killing and raping are "programmed" as moral obligations.

Rather killing and raping are deviations, considered as 'evil' from the norms of no-killing and no-raping. They are rejected by all normal humans and this is reflected in laws from all sovereign nations. It is only that inherent morality is slowly unfolding within the consciousness of the majority to recognize these moral facts - you being one of the dogmatic moral-fact-denier.

Being programmed to think X is/isn't morally wrong doesn't make it a fact that X is/isn't morally wrong. Indeed, if it were a fact that X is/isn't morally wrong, then our programming and behaviour would have no bearing on the morality of X.

You need to abandon the inherence/programming argument, because it's a dud.

Nope, it is not being programmed to think X is morally wrong.
Rather all humans are programmed with the potential of ought-not-to kill and other moral oughts as mental states [neural algorithm] which is dormant, inactive, unfolding and active. This is the inherent factor.

Thinking of whether X is morally wrong or right is not morality-proper. That is merely a fact of the ability to think and process of thinking.

A psychopath can think, reason and judge that X is wrong and ought-not to be done, but he may not be able to control his impulse to kill another human because his inherent moral function [the moral fact] is damaged in some area.

So, what is critical is not 'the morality of X' but what is fact [moral] is that mental moral state of inhibition existing in the brain/mind of the person in not-doing-X.

Reflect on you own mental state [assuming you are normal] at present - there is some existing mental state and condition that is preventing you from killing another human or raping another human and committing other terrible evils.
The existence of such a mental state of inhibition is real and factual in you and this is represented by an active neural algorithm of neural connections.
Such real and factual mental states when deliberated within the moral framework are the moral facts.

If for some reason you are knock seriously on the head such that the neurons of that inhibiting mental states is damaged, you could like be turned into a psychopath with the potential to commit evil.
However there is no denying that identified moral fact [the neural inhibition set that inhibit killing another human] is still existing in your brain, but only that it is damaged.

Get it?
You need to shift paradigm from your rigid dogmatic merely linguistic processing of what is fact to the reality of the above.

Btw, your rejection and counter of moral facts is only applicable to claims by theists who claim morality is objective grounded on a real God is its commands, plus claims by the platonists who claimed there are eternal moral facts [forms and universals] floating eternally in reality.

Your denial of moral facts and moral objectivity has no impact at all on the typical moral realists and my moral-empirical-realism which I have given various empirical and philosophical justifications.
You need to abandon such denial because your claims against the typical moral realism is a dud based on ignorance and dogmatism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The 'if X then Y' model is generic for all moral and immoral matters, thus;

'if X [moral or immoral] then Y.

If squishing mosquitoes does not qualify within X [moral or immoral] the the moral function is not triggered.

So if morality is decided by the response of an appropriately evolved human being, how do you decide which people are those whose response we should consider appropriate?

Those who do not show any propensities to commit evil acts of any kind are morally competent. However there is no need for much attention to be focused on them in this case since they are not threat to humanity.
The ones who should be of concerns are the morally incompetent and those with potential to commit evil acts, plus how to deal with them.

There are a wide types of evil acts of degrees of evil_ness and there are also degrees of moral competence, Moral Quotient.

At present, those with potential to commit evil can be identified and assess within psychiatry. Obviously there is no way to identify every of those with potential for evil.

As mentioned somewhere, it is a bit too late to "cure" with those who are identified as evil prone or has that potential to be actively evil. The only effective means is to establish criminal laws to deter the evil prone from committing evil acts but they often failed to deter the hardcore evil prones.

The most effective solution is to strive to improve the moral competence [MQ] of future generation with the best FOOLPROOF strategies such that their inherent moral functions are active and efficient to manage their inherent evil potentials.

[Peter Holmes]

I agree if what is moral concerns is merely moral judgments made by each individual is a matter of opinion, therefore subjective.
But that moral concerns in my case are moral facts that inhere in all humans as real is objective.


It is a definition but surely that humans exist a person is a fact.


Note the definition of "moral concerns".
If that refers to moral judgments by individuals - that is subjective.
The individual concerns in improving his moral competence is subjective.
As state above,
that there are moral facts that inhere in all humans as real is objective.

So your claim is: there are moral facts that inhere in all humans as real.

And you think an example is our programming not to kill each other, so that 'humans ought not to kill humans' is a moral fact - a true factual assertion.

But it follows that, if humans were programmed to kill each other, 'humans ought to kill each other' would be a moral fact - a true factual assertion.

And if human males were programmed to rape the females of conquered tribes, then 'males ought to rape conquered females' would be a moral fact - a true factual assertion.

If it can be empirically and philosophically justified with evidence that ALL humans are "programmed" to kill each other, then, yes, that would be a fact and truth.
BUT that would not a a true fact of Morality/Ethics within a Moral Framework.
RATHER it would be a fact of EVIL.

It would be the same if ALL human males [or even females] were "programmed" to rape females of conquered tribes, then that would be a fact, but that would be a fact of EVIL.

As I had stated MANY TIMES, facts are justified to its respective Framework.
What is moral facts are justified from the Moral Framework with its very precise definition of what is Moral/Ethical.

Killing and raping are not morally positive within the definition of what is moral/ethical.

There are no solid grounds that justify killing and raping are "programmed" as moral obligations.

Rather killing and raping are deviations, considered as 'evil' from the norms of no-killing and no-raping. They are rejected by all normal humans and this is reflected in laws from all sovereign nations. It is only that inherent morality is slowly unfolding within the consciousness of the majority to recognize these moral facts - you being one of the dogmatic moral-fact-denier.

Being programmed to think X is/isn't morally wrong doesn't make it a fact that X is/isn't morally wrong. Indeed, if it were a fact that X is/isn't morally wrong, then our programming and behaviour would have no bearing on the morality of X.

You need to abandon the inherence/programming argument, because it's a dud.

Nope, it is not being programmed to think X is morally wrong.
Rather all humans are programmed with the potential of ought-not-to kill and other moral oughts as mental states [neural algorithm] which is dormant, inactive, unfolding and active. This is the inherent factor.

Thinking of whether X is morally wrong or right is not morality-proper. That is merely a fact of the ability to think and process of thinking.

A psychopath can think, reason and judge that X is wrong and ought-not to be done, but he may not be able to control his impulse to kill another human because his inherent moral function [the moral fact] is damaged in some area.

So, what is critical is not 'the morality of X' but what is fact [moral] is that mental moral state of inhibition existing in the brain/mind of the person in not-doing-X.

Reflect on you own mental state [assuming you are normal] at present - there is some existing mental state and condition that is preventing you from killing another human or raping another human and committing other terrible evils.
The existence of such a mental state of inhibition is real and factual in you and this is represented by an active neural algorithm of neural connections.
Such real and factual mental states when deliberated within the moral framework are the moral facts.

If for some reason you are knock seriously on the head such that the neurons of that inhibiting mental states is damaged, you could like be turned into a psychopath with the potential to commit evil.
However there is no denying that identified moral fact [the neural inhibition set that inhibit killing another human] is still existing in your brain, but only that it is damaged.

Get it?
You need to shift paradigm from your rigid dogmatic merely linguistic processing of what is fact to the reality of the above.

Btw, your rejection and counter of moral facts is only applicable to claims by theists who claim morality is objective grounded on a real God is its commands, plus claims by the platonists who claimed there are eternal moral facts [forms and universals] floating eternally in reality.

Your denial of moral facts and moral objectivity has no impact at all on the typical moral realists and my moral-empirical-realism which I have given various empirical and philosophical justifications.
You need to abandon such denial because your claims against the typical moral realism is a dud based on ignorance and dogmatism.

So, this isn't about what we think is morally right or wrong - but what we're programmed to do. But that is still a dud argument.

Being programmed to do Y or not to do X doesn't mean it's a fact that Y is morally right and X is morally wrong. For example, being programmed to kill outsiders wouldn't make killing outsiders morally right.

You're making a fundamental mistake.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, this isn't about what we think is morally right or wrong - but what we're programmed to do. But that is still a dud argument.

Being programmed to do Y or not to do X doesn't mean it's a fact that Y is morally right and X is morally wrong. For example, being programmed to kill outsiders wouldn't make killing outsiders morally right.

You're making a fundamental mistake.

Why do you keep bring in "killing outsiders" which is irrelevant to morality per se. So there is no question of whether it is morally right or wrong to kill outsiders.
Most of the time you are deflecting, going off tangent and inventing straw-men.

1. As I had stated ALL humans are "programmed" with a moral function as a potential; dormant & inactive in many, and active in various degrees within humans.

2. One of the inhibiting impulse within this inherent moral function is the "program" of 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' which is primary.
This is empirically evident by the majority and you yourself who do not simply kill on sight of other humans, especially on one's family, kin and tribe. This is the "Categorical Imperative."

3. To ensure survival, all humans are also programmed with "to kill for food" which is dormant in many and active in some.
All humans are not programmed to kill another humans whether it is outsiders or otherwise.

4. To ensure survival, all humans are also programmed to 'fight or flight' but as evident, flight is preferred to avoid the risk of dying and then only to fight and the last resort and killing is only the last resort.

5. As you can see, killing another human is a derivative from 2 and 4. This is the Hypothetical Imperative and very conditional. So there is no question of whether it is morally right or wrong to kill outsiders.

6. However the existence of the real 'program' 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' which is primary and categorical is an inherent moral fact.

7. Note I have read all over and many moral philosophers do not agree with the question of 'X is morally right or wrong' which can be very misleading to deviate one from morality proper.

8. What is critical with Morality and Ethics is whether the moral agent has a high degree of moral competence that is spontaneously aligned with the flow of the inherent moral function.

9. To deliberate whether X is morally right or wrong is fire-fighting and too late which is merely good for discussion but has no effective impact on real moral progress.
Where in practice do you encounter people carry a "moral calculator" with them at all times to determine whether every moral relevant action is morally right or wrong before they act?

Fact is you are morally ignorant and morally dysfunctional.

[uwot]

There are a wide types of evil acts of degrees of evil_ness and there are also degrees of moral competence, Moral Quotient.

To judge an individual's moral competence by their response to evil acts is circular and therefore useless. Your alternative:

...those with potential to commit evil can be identified and assess within psychiatry.

Completely undermines your claim that morality can be identified by responses anyway.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are a wide types of evil acts of degrees of evil_ness and there are also degrees of moral competence, Moral Quotient.

To judge an individual's moral competence by their response to evil acts is circular and therefore useless. Your alternative:

Where did I state judging one's moral competence [moral quotient] is based solely on evil acts?

It is the same with, we do not measure a person's Intelligence Quotient [IQ] based on his stupidity. Regular stupid mistakes do no indicate low intelligence but they are not the basis to measure one's IQ.
Therefore we do not measure a person's Moral Intelligence [moral competence, quotient] based solely on the evil acts he has committed.

...those with potential to commit evil can be identified and assess within psychiatry.

Completely undermines your claim that morality can be identified by responses anyway.

What is the problem with the above?

Morality and Ethics is related to human mental activities which inevitably will involve human responses. Surely you cannot be so ignorant of this point.

For example, it is proven with evidence those suffering from psychopathy has a high possibility of responses in committing evil acts [defined] due to damage [irreversible in most cases] in their moral system in the brain.
The identification of psychopathy is very objective especially with advances in psychiatry and psychology as aided with the neurosciences.
Since there is high correlation between evil acts and morality, special attention should be given to objective psychopathy.

It is not only psychopathy but there are many other psychiatric issues [within DSM-V] that has various degrees of correlation with morality in terms of their potential to commit evil acts [defined].

[uwot]

What is the problem with the above?

Suppose you can discover a way to positively identify everyone with a "potential to commit evil acts [defined]". Who gets to define "evil acts"? And what do you do about potential evil act committers?