Moral Realism is the Default Within Morality

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas, if your stance is "Moral Empirical Realism with sound justifications", why don't you provide some sound justifications. You state that such acts are atrocities but you don't say why; the issue is that you haven't defined what you mean by "morality". If morality is what the gods say, well... the gods might say "sacrifice". If morality is what the community believes, well... the communities might say "sacrifice". If you want to get away from this you need to provide a definition of morality not based on revelation or community acceptance.

I believe I have provided a general definition on what is morality, here it is again;

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

The above definition is grounded on the individual[s] and humanity universally. This has nothing to do with God nor specific to 'communities.'

Killing from homicides to genocides are net-negative to the individual[s] and humanity.
Therefore killing another human is not moral.

I don't agree with any God driven morality. I believe religion is independent with morality at the fundamental level.
Since I am a moral empirical realist, I do not agree with Moral Subjectivism, i.e. morality as related to "what the communities believe."

[KLewchuk]

Veritas, if your stance is "Moral Empirical Realism with sound justifications", why don't you provide some sound justifications. You state that such acts are atrocities but you don't say why; the issue is that you haven't defined what you mean by "morality". If morality is what the gods say, well... the gods might say "sacrifice". If morality is what the community believes, well... the communities might say "sacrifice". If you want to get away from this you need to provide a definition of morality not based on revelation or community acceptance.

I believe I have provided a general definition on what is morality, here it is again;

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

The above definition is grounded on the individual[s] and humanity universally. This has nothing to do with God nor specific to 'communities.'

Killing from homicides to genocides are net-negative to the individual[s] and humanity.
Therefore killing another human is not moral.

I don't agree with any God driven morality. I believe religion is independent with morality at the fundamental level.
Since I am a moral empirical realist, I do not agree with Moral Subjectivism, i.e. morality as related to "what the communities believe."

What do you mean by "net negative"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas, if your stance is "Moral Empirical Realism with sound justifications", why don't you provide some sound justifications. You state that such acts are atrocities but you don't say why; the issue is that you haven't defined what you mean by "morality". If morality is what the gods say, well... the gods might say "sacrifice". If morality is what the community believes, well... the communities might say "sacrifice". If you want to get away from this you need to provide a definition of morality not based on revelation or community acceptance.

I believe I have provided a general definition on what is morality, here it is again;

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

The above definition is grounded on the individual[s] and humanity universally. This has nothing to do with God nor specific to 'communities.'

Killing from homicides to genocides are net-negative to the individual[s] and humanity.
Therefore killing another human is not moral.

I don't agree with any God driven morality. I believe religion is independent with morality at the fundamental level.
Since I am a moral empirical realist, I do not agree with Moral Subjectivism, i.e. morality as related to "what the communities believe."

What do you mean by "net negative"?

For every action there are always the pros and cons in their effects depending on various conditions.

"Net-negative" means taking whatever known & possible pros and cons, and conditions, the resultant is a net-negative.
As for valuation note Axiology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiology

• Axiology (from Greek ἀξία, axia, "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia) is the philosophical study of value.
  It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics,[1] philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of worth, or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics.
  The term was first used by Paul Lapie, in 1902,[2][3] and Eduard von Hartmann, in 1908.
  -wiki

[KLewchuk]

I believe I have provided a general definition on what is morality, here it is again;



The above definition is grounded on the individual[s] and humanity universally. This has nothing to do with God nor specific to 'communities.'

Killing from homicides to genocides are net-negative to the individual[s] and humanity.
Therefore killing another human is not moral.

I don't agree with any God driven morality. I believe religion is independent with morality at the fundamental level.
Since I am a moral empirical realist, I do not agree with Moral Subjectivism, i.e. morality as related to "what the communities believe."

What do you mean by "net negative"?

For every action there are always the pros and cons in their effects depending on various conditions.

"Net-negative" means taking whatever known & possible pros and cons, and conditions, the resultant is a net-negative.
As for valuation note Axiology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiology

• Axiology (from Greek ἀξία, axia, "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia) is the philosophical study of value.
  It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics,[1] philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of worth, or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics.
  The term was first used by Paul Lapie, in 1902,[2][3] and Eduard von Hartmann, in 1908.
  -wiki

So what is a "pro" and what is a "con" in relation to morality? One could posit that compliance with the revelation of god Marduk is a "pro".

[Veritas Aequitas]

What do you mean by "net negative"?

For every action there are always the pros and cons in their effects depending on various conditions.

"Net-negative" means taking whatever known & possible pros and cons, and conditions, the resultant is a net-negative.
As for valuation note Axiology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiology

• Axiology (from Greek ἀξία, axia, "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia) is the philosophical study of value.
  It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics,[1] philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of worth, or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics.
  The term was first used by Paul Lapie, in 1902,[2][3] and Eduard von Hartmann, in 1908.
  -wiki

So what is a "pro" and what is a "con" in relation to morality? One could posit that compliance with the revelation of god Marduk is a "pro".

The general rule is by default, a net-pro instead of a net-con in relation to the issues of morality and ethics.
It is like the general preference for net-profit rather than net-loss which is arrived at via a resultant of a combination of many variables, elements, sub-gains and sub-losses.

Yes, compliance with the revelations of the God of TROP
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=30583
would be a net-con for humanity at present and a critical net-con in the future.
Believers gained the pros of relief from a promise of salvation to eternal life, but ultimately humanity suffers from the terrible cons its fundamentalists like those in ISIS and elsewhere.

Note the moral dilemmas re the Trolley problems of either killing one man or five on a rail track is an issue of weighing the pros and cons to arrive a moral net-pro.

There are a tons of issues relating to moral and ethics, but the general rule is always to weigh all the known and possible pros against the cons.

[KLewchuk]

For every action there are always the pros and cons in their effects depending on various conditions.

"Net-negative" means taking whatever known & possible pros and cons, and conditions, the resultant is a net-negative.
As for valuation note Axiology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiology

• Axiology (from Greek ἀξία, axia, "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia) is the philosophical study of value.
  It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics,[1] philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of worth, or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics.
  The term was first used by Paul Lapie, in 1902,[2][3] and Eduard von Hartmann, in 1908.
  -wiki

So what is a "pro" and what is a "con" in relation to morality? One could posit that compliance with the revelation of god Marduk is a "pro".

The general rule is by default, a net-pro instead of a net-con in relation to the issues of morality and ethics.
It is like the general preference for net-profit rather than net-loss which is arrive at via a resultant of a combination of many variables and elements.

Yes, compliance with the revelations of the God of TROP
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=30583
would be a net-con for humanity at present and a critical net-con in the future.
Believers gained the pros of relief from a promise of salvation to eternal life, but ultimately humanity suffers from the terrible cons its fundamentalists like those in ISIS and elsewhere.

Note the moral dilemmas re the Trolley problems of either killing one man or five on a rail track is a issue of weighing the pros and cons to arrive a moral net-pro.

Veritas, you are going in circles... what is your basis for that fundamentalists are "cons"? What is your basis for "pros" of a promise of salvation of eternal life? If such promise is false, I could ignore my current life unwisely... would that not be a con?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So what is a "pro" and what is a "con" in relation to morality? One could posit that compliance with the revelation of god Marduk is a "pro".

The general rule is by default, a net-pro instead of a net-con in relation to the issues of morality and ethics.
It is like the general preference for net-profit rather than net-loss which is arrive at via a resultant of a combination of many variables and elements.

Yes, compliance with the revelations of the God of TROP
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=30583
would be a net-con for humanity at present and a critical net-con in the future.
Believers gained the pros of relief from a promise of salvation to eternal life, but ultimately humanity suffers from the terrible cons its fundamentalists like those in ISIS and elsewhere.

Note the moral dilemmas re the Trolley problems of either killing one man or five on a rail track is a issue of weighing the pros and cons to arrive a moral net-pro.

Veritas, you are going in circles... what is your basis for that fundamentalists are "cons"? What is your basis for "pros" of a promise of salvation of eternal life? If such promise is false, I could ignore my current life unwisely... would that not be a con?

Where are the circles?
The above are merely crude examples to the resultant of whatever pros and cons, I had no intentions to argue into the details.

Btw, I did not state a promise of salvation to eternal life is a "pro" for me.

1. Rather it is a "pro" for the believers who believe they are SAVED rather than being destined to hell. It cannot be a con for believers.

2. However I argued it is a con for humanity when believers who believed they are SAVED go on to kill non-believers and could potentially exterminate the human species, i.e. when fundamentalists get access to cheap WMDs [biological and nuclear]. Since they are assured of eternal life in heaven, the will comply with their God's command to kill all non-believers and do a favor to their bethrens in expediting their passage to heaven.

Thus from humanity's point of view, the above 1 & 2 is a potential net-con to humanity since there is a potential for the human species to be exterminated while the only con in this case will benefit only the believers and not the whole of mankind.

The promise of salvation false, it is just an illusion to soothe and relieve some inherent psychological problems, i.e. an existential crisis. When we can establish fool proof methods to deal the existential crisis, there would be no need for a promise of salvation with its potential cons to humanity.

[KLewchuk]

The general rule is by default, a net-pro instead of a net-con in relation to the issues of morality and ethics.
It is like the general preference for net-profit rather than net-loss which is arrive at via a resultant of a combination of many variables and elements.

Yes, compliance with the revelations of the God of TROP
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=30583
would be a net-con for humanity at present and a critical net-con in the future.
Believers gained the pros of relief from a promise of salvation to eternal life, but ultimately humanity suffers from the terrible cons its fundamentalists like those in ISIS and elsewhere.

Note the moral dilemmas re the Trolley problems of either killing one man or five on a rail track is a issue of weighing the pros and cons to arrive a moral net-pro.

Veritas, you are going in circles... what is your basis for that fundamentalists are "cons"? What is your basis for "pros" of a promise of salvation of eternal life? If such promise is false, I could ignore my current life unwisely... would that not be a con?

Where are the circles?
The above are merely crude examples to the resultant of whatever pros and cons, I had no intentions to argue into the details.

Btw, I did not state a promise of salvation to eternal life is a "pro" for me.

1. Rather it is a "pro" for the believers who believe they are SAVED rather than being destined to hell. It cannot be a con for believers.

2. However I argued it is a con for humanity when believers who believed they are SAVED go on to kill non-believers and could potentially exterminate the human species, i.e. when fundamentalists get access to cheap WMDs [biological and nuclear]. Since they are assured of eternal life in heaven, the will comply with their God's command to kill all non-believers and do a favor to their bethrens in expediting their passage to heaven.

Thus from humanity's point of view, the above 1 & 2 is a potential net-con to humanity since there is a potential for the human species to be exterminated while the only con in this case will benefit only the believers and not the whole of mankind.

The promise of salvation false, it is just an illusion to soothe and relieve some inherent psychological problems, i.e. an existential crisis. When we can establish fool proof methods to deal the existential crisis, there would be no need for a promise of salvation with its potential cons to humanity.

I understand you to say that that which is immoral is what is a "net negative". If I ask you what a "net negative" is, you appear to say that it is immoral. That is circular reasoning. Again, if you want to build a framework of moral philosophy you need to first start with some clear definition of what you mean by "moral".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas, you are going in circles... what is your basis for that fundamentalists are "cons"? What is your basis for "pros" of a promise of salvation of eternal life? If such promise is false, I could ignore my current life unwisely... would that not be a con?

Where are the circles?
The above are merely crude examples to the resultant of whatever pros and cons, I had no intentions to argue into the details.

Btw, I did not state a promise of salvation to eternal life is a "pro" for me.

1. Rather it is a "pro" for the believers who believe they are SAVED rather than being destined to hell. It cannot be a con for believers.

2. However I argued it is a con for humanity when believers who believed they are SAVED go on to kill non-believers and could potentially exterminate the human species, i.e. when fundamentalists get access to cheap WMDs [biological and nuclear]. Since they are assured of eternal life in heaven, the will comply with their God's command to kill all non-believers and do a favor to their bethrens in expediting their passage to heaven.

Thus from humanity's point of view, the above 1 & 2 is a potential net-con to humanity since there is a potential for the human species to be exterminated while the only con in this case will benefit only the believers and not the whole of mankind.

The promise of salvation false, it is just an illusion to soothe and relieve some inherent psychological problems, i.e. an existential crisis. When we can establish fool proof methods to deal the existential crisis, there would be no need for a promise of salvation with its potential cons to humanity.

I understand you to say that that which is immoral is what is a "net negative". If I ask you what a "net negative" is, you appear to say that it is immoral. That is circular reasoning. Again, if you want to build a framework of moral philosophy you need to first start with some clear definition of what you mean by "moral".

Nope! there will be no circularity.

What is morally net-negative must be justified empirically and philosophically with real evidences.

There is no way I will insist what is morally net-negative is merely immoral.

If I were to assert X is net-negative morally, i.e. immoral, I will justify it with the following;

• 1. Definition of what is moral and ethics - given many times.
  2. Identify all the actions involved in X - which may be many >20, 50, 100,
  2i Verify all actions empirically and philosophically,
  3. List down all the pros of each action.
  4. List down all the cons of each action
  5. Generate values for each action -Principles and Applied Axiology
  6. Provide weightage for each action - .."..
  7. Compute the resultant whether it is a net-pro [moral] or net-con [immoral].

As you can see it would be a complicated process which is why I did not detail it earlier.

[KLewchuk]

Where are the circles?
The above are merely crude examples to the resultant of whatever pros and cons, I had no intentions to argue into the details.

Btw, I did not state a promise of salvation to eternal life is a "pro" for me.

1. Rather it is a "pro" for the believers who believe they are SAVED rather than being destined to hell. It cannot be a con for believers.

2. However I argued it is a con for humanity when believers who believed they are SAVED go on to kill non-believers and could potentially exterminate the human species, i.e. when fundamentalists get access to cheap WMDs [biological and nuclear]. Since they are assured of eternal life in heaven, the will comply with their God's command to kill all non-believers and do a favor to their bethrens in expediting their passage to heaven.

Thus from humanity's point of view, the above 1 & 2 is a potential net-con to humanity since there is a potential for the human species to be exterminated while the only con in this case will benefit only the believers and not the whole of mankind.

The promise of salvation false, it is just an illusion to soothe and relieve some inherent psychological problems, i.e. an existential crisis. When we can establish fool proof methods to deal the existential crisis, there would be no need for a promise of salvation with its potential cons to humanity.

I understand you to say that that which is immoral is what is a "net negative". If I ask you what a "net negative" is, you appear to say that it is immoral. That is circular reasoning. Again, if you want to build a framework of moral philosophy you need to first start with some clear definition of what you mean by "moral".

Nope! there will be no circularity.

What is morally net-negative must be justified empirically and philosophically with real evidences.

There is no way I will insist what is morally net-negative is merely immoral.

If I were to assert X is net-negative morally, i.e. immoral, I will justify it with the following;

• 1. Definition of what is moral and ethics - given many times.
  2. Identify all the actions involved in X - which may be many >20, 50, 100,
  2i Verify all actions empirically and philosophically,
  3. List down all the pros of each action.
  4. List down all the cons of each action
  5. Generate values for each action -Principles and Applied Axiology
  6. Provide weightage for each action - .."..
  7. Compute the resultant whether it is a net-pro [moral] or net-con [immoral].

As you can see it would be a complicated process which is why I did not detail it earlier.

You still won't define morality but let me try this...you inserted something new, at least in this discussion. "Applied axiology". So, if I understand you correctly, you would say that something that has higher value is better than something that has less. Is this ladder of values relative or absolute and, if absolute, what is your measure of absolute values (note: does not need to be defined to the absurd... conceptually is fine).

[Veritas Aequitas]

I understand you to say that that which is immoral is what is a "net negative". If I ask you what a "net negative" is, you appear to say that it is immoral. That is circular reasoning. Again, if you want to build a framework of moral philosophy you need to first start with some clear definition of what you mean by "moral".

Nope! there will be no circularity.

What is morally net-negative must be justified empirically and philosophically with real evidences.

There is no way I will insist what is morally net-negative is merely immoral.

If I were to assert X is net-negative morally, i.e. immoral, I will justify it with the following;

• 1. Definition of what is moral and ethics - given many times.
  2. Identify all the actions involved in X - which may be many >20, 50, 100,
  2i Verify all actions empirically and philosophically,
  3. List down all the pros of each action.
  4. List down all the cons of each action
  5. Generate values for each action -Principles and Applied Axiology
  6. Provide weightage for each action - .."..
  7. Compute the resultant whether it is a net-pro [moral] or net-con [immoral].

As you can see it would be a complicated process which is why I did not detail it earlier.

You still won't define morality but let me try this...

What??
I have already provided to you MY definition of 'what is morality' twice or more, you did not read it??
Note the earlier post in this thread;
viewtopic.php?p=474538#p474538
with some explanations.

Here is the other;
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799

you inserted something new, at least in this discussion. "Applied axiology". So, if I understand you correctly, you would say that something that has higher value is better than something that has less. Is this ladder of values relative or absolute and, if absolute, what is your measure of absolute values (note: does not need to be defined to the absurd... conceptually is fine).

My point was merely the mentioned of 'axiology' to deal with values which are essential if we are to manage morality and ethics effectively in application. I won't go into the details of it. It will not deal with 'absolute' values but some sort of standard is needed as a guide.

[KLewchuk]

Nope! there will be no circularity.

What is morally net-negative must be justified empirically and philosophically with real evidences.

There is no way I will insist what is morally net-negative is merely immoral.

If I were to assert X is net-negative morally, i.e. immoral, I will justify it with the following;

• 1. Definition of what is moral and ethics - given many times.
  2. Identify all the actions involved in X - which may be many >20, 50, 100,
  2i Verify all actions empirically and philosophically,
  3. List down all the pros of each action.
  4. List down all the cons of each action
  5. Generate values for each action -Principles and Applied Axiology
  6. Provide weightage for each action - .."..
  7. Compute the resultant whether it is a net-pro [moral] or net-con [immoral].

As you can see it would be a complicated process which is why I did not detail it earlier.

You still won't define morality but let me try this...

What??
I have already provided to you MY definition of 'what is morality' twice or more, you did not read it??
Note the earlier post in this thread;
viewtopic.php?p=474538#p474538
with some explanations.

Here is the other;
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799

you inserted something new, at least in this discussion. "Applied axiology". So, if I understand you correctly, you would say that something that has higher value is better than something that has less. Is this ladder of values relative or absolute and, if absolute, what is your measure of absolute values (note: does not need to be defined to the absurd... conceptually is fine).

My point was merely the mentioned of 'axiology' to deal with values which are essential if we are to manage morality and ethics effectively in application. I won't go into the details of it. It will not deal with 'absolute' values but some sort of standard is needed as a guide.

Have I read them? No, at least I don't think so, unfortunately I have a day job. But I cleaved on to this:

"From the above I had defined 'morality' generally and in the widest sense as something to do with doing good and avoiding evil towards the well-being of the individual and humanity. If there is a need for details I will bring in the above elements accordingly."

If I extract your phrase "well-being", I could argue this.

Morality concerns that which influences human well being (note: I could go for "sentient beings" but for now I will stick with humans), and assumes that we ought to pursue well being (i.e. with a nod to Aristotle). That which is moral increases well being and that which is immoral decreases well being.

As a species, there are various actions which increase or decrease well being for all humans (i.e. are universal).

Therefore, I can make universal normative statements regarding well being. These statements are objective moral truths.



Methinks this is consistent with your thought but I think it is a clearer formulation.

Of course, we have not addresses what these moral truths are but we have laid an appropriate foundation to discuss them.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You still won't define morality but let me try this...

What??
I have already provided to you MY definition of 'what is morality' twice or more, you did not read it??
Note the earlier post in this thread;
viewtopic.php?p=474538#p474538
with some explanations.

Here is the other;
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799

you inserted something new, at least in this discussion. "Applied axiology". So, if I understand you correctly, you would say that something that has higher value is better than something that has less. Is this ladder of values relative or absolute and, if absolute, what is your measure of absolute values (note: does not need to be defined to the absurd... conceptually is fine).

My point was merely the mentioned of 'axiology' to deal with values which are essential if we are to manage morality and ethics effectively in application. I won't go into the details of it. It will not deal with 'absolute' values but some sort of standard is needed as a guide.

Have I read them? No, at least I don't think so, unfortunately I have a day job. But I cleaved on to this:

"From the above I had defined 'morality' generally and in the widest sense as something to do with doing good and avoiding evil towards the well-being of the individual and humanity. If there is a need for details I will bring in the above elements accordingly."

If I extract your phrase "well-being", I could argue this.

Morality concerns that which influences human well being (note: I could go for "sentient beings" but for now I will stick with humans), and assumes that we ought to pursue well being (i.e. with a nod to Aristotle). That which is moral increases well being and that which is immoral decreases well being.

As a species, there are various actions which increase or decrease well being for all humans (i.e. are universal).

Therefore, I can make universal normative statements regarding well being. These statements are objective moral truths.

Methinks this is consistent with your thought but I think it is a clearer formulation.

Of course, we have not addresses what these moral truths are but we have laid an appropriate foundation to discuss them.

As you can see it is your limitations and fault when you cry out loud I have not defined 'what is morality'.

Yes, the above is in line with my direction as to what is morality.

I have used 'well-being' in a very general sense.
There is a lot more to dig into with the concept of well-being and its related synonyms.

I have also dug deep into Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and his Eudaimonia, which is translated as 'happiness' 'well being' and 'flourishing' living a good life, living well.
Point is one cannot take the above words in terms of their general meaning but they are tied to a total way of life and way of living.

Aristotle's ideas on Ethics at most contribute only partially to 'what is morality and ethics.'