Thinking 'X is Morally Wrong' is not Moral Per Se

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter is confused in thinking that,
I am claiming;
"Being programmed to think "X is morally wrong" does make it a fact that "X is morally wrong"."

I have already explained to Peter's his confusion a '1000' times but he is not getting it, so here it is again as an OP so I don't have to repeat it another '1000' times.

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 and a fact, i.e. a moral fact.

Thinking of whether X is morally wrong or right is not morality-proper. That is merely a fact of the ability to think and a 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.
Such a mental state is a real thing and is represented by its respective physical set of connecting neuron within a neural-algorithm and its processes.

Reflect on you own mental state [assuming you are normal] at present - there is some existing mental state and condition that is preventing/inhibiting 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 of 'ought-not-ness' when deliberated within the moral framework are the moral facts.

If for some reason you are knocked seriously on the head such that the neurons of that inhibiting mental states are damaged, you could likely 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.

So there are moral facts and morality is objective in relation to these moral facts.

[Peter Holmes]

This OP demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

Being programmed not to do X - say, not to kill people - has no moral significance whatsoever. Being programmed not to kill people doesn't mean killing people is morally wrong - just as being programmed to kill people wouldn't mean killing people is morally right.

If we're programmed not to do X, then that's a fact about our nature. But it doesn't entail the moral conclusion 'doing X is morally wrong'. There may be facts about our nature, but none are moral facts, because there's no such thing as a moral fact.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This OP demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

Being programmed not to do X - say, not to kill people - has no moral significance whatsoever. Being programmed not to kill people doesn't mean killing people is morally wrong - just as being programmed to kill people wouldn't mean killing people is morally right.

If we're programmed not to do X, then that's a fact about our nature. But it doesn't entail the moral conclusion 'doing X is morally wrong'. There may be facts about our nature, but none are moral facts, because there's no such thing as a moral fact.

My reply to the above is here;
viewtopic.php?p=474873#p474873

What is below is more pertinent to the point;

I have been reading all over extensively and deeply into ethical theories and practices and the normal standard understanding within the majority moral philosophers is the following;

• The conclusions of ethical naturalism can be arrived at only from within an acquired ethical outlook, not from a scientific account of human nature.
  The ethical evaluations are made from within an ethical outlook [framework], an outlook which already has its own conceptions of the virtues ...
  Rosalind Hursthouse

This 'acquired ethical outlook' is the Moral & Ethical Framework & System of Knowledge I had been referring to > '1000' times.

As mentioned above, one cannot conflate the Moral FSK with the Scientific FSK.

But you are so ignorant and limited that you insist on conflating your bastardized LPs inherited linguistic FSK with the Moral FSK.

The Moral FSK is not easy to understand because it involves Mind-Independent Objectivity with mind-dependent elements of the brain/mind and not the obvious external objects.

The Moral FSK is equivalent to the Psychology FSK with its psychological facts and judgments that involve only matter of the human brain and mind that is internal and not external to the brain/mind like physical objects;

• They [conclusions of ethical evaluations] depend on our interests and desires because their subject matter is us, namely, [humans as] animals that have interests and desires, just as the true judgements about the psychology or practices of human beings do.
  Rosalind Hursthouse

[Peter Holmes]

This OP demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

Being programmed not to do X - say, not to kill people - has no moral significance whatsoever. Being programmed not to kill people doesn't mean killing people is morally wrong - just as being programmed to kill people wouldn't mean killing people is morally right.

If we're programmed not to do X, then that's a fact about our nature. But it doesn't entail the moral conclusion 'doing X is morally wrong'. There may be facts about our nature, but none are moral facts, because there's no such thing as a moral fact.

My reply to the above is here;
viewtopic.php?p=474873#p474873

What is below is more pertinent to the point;

I have been reading all over extensively and deeply into ethical theories and practices and the normal standard understanding within the majority moral philosophers is the following;

• The conclusions of ethical naturalism can be arrived at only from within an acquired ethical outlook, not from a scientific account of human nature.
  The ethical evaluations are made from within an ethical outlook [framework], an outlook which already has its own conceptions of the virtues ...
  Rosalind Hursthouse

This 'acquired ethical outlook' is the Moral & Ethical Framework & System of Knowledge I had been referring to > '1000' times.

As mentioned above, one cannot conflate the Moral FSK with the Scientific FSK.

But you are so ignorant and limited that you insist on conflating your bastardized LPs inherited linguistic FSK with the Moral FSK.

The Moral FSK is not easy to understand because it involves Mind-Independent Objectivity with mind-dependent elements of the brain/mind and not the obvious external objects.

The Moral FSK is equivalent to the Psychology FSK with its psychological facts and judgments that involve only matter of the human brain and mind that is internal and not external to the brain/mind like physical objects;

• They [conclusions of ethical evaluations] depend on our interests and desires because their subject matter is us, namely, [humans as] animals that have interests and desires, just as the true judgements about the psychology or practices of human beings do.
  Rosalind Hursthouse

So, according to Hurthouse, '

• The conclusions of ethical naturalism can be arrived at only from within an acquired ethical outlook, not from a scientific account of human nature.
  
  If so, your claim that there are moral facts inherent in human nature is false.
  
  And if this supposed 'acquired ethical outlook' depends 'on our interests and desires', then it is subjective. It's a fact that we have interests and desires, from which our moral values and judgements emerge. But that doesn't mean those values and judgements are objective - matters of fact, independent from opinion.
  
  Same mistake, over and over again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This OP demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

Being programmed not to do X - say, not to kill people - has no moral significance whatsoever. Being programmed not to kill people doesn't mean killing people is morally wrong - just as being programmed to kill people wouldn't mean killing people is morally right.

If we're programmed not to do X, then that's a fact about our nature. But it doesn't entail the moral conclusion 'doing X is morally wrong'. There may be facts about our nature, but none are moral facts, because there's no such thing as a moral fact.

My reply to the above is here;
viewtopic.php?p=474873#p474873

What is below is more pertinent to the point;

I have been reading all over extensively and deeply into ethical theories and practices and the normal standard understanding within the majority moral philosophers is the following;

• The conclusions of ethical naturalism can be arrived at only from within an acquired ethical outlook, not from a scientific account of human nature.
  The ethical evaluations are made from within an ethical outlook [framework], an outlook which already has its own conceptions of the virtues ...
  Rosalind Hursthouse

This 'acquired ethical outlook' is the Moral & Ethical Framework & System of Knowledge I had been referring to > '1000' times.

As mentioned above, one cannot conflate the Moral FSK with the Scientific FSK.

But you are so ignorant and limited that you insist on conflating your bastardized LPs inherited linguistic FSK with the Moral FSK.

The Moral FSK is not easy to understand because it involves Mind-Independent Objectivity with mind-dependent elements of the brain/mind and not the obvious external objects.

The Moral FSK is equivalent to the Psychology FSK with its psychological facts and judgments that involve only matter of the human brain and mind that is internal and not external to the brain/mind like physical objects;

• They [conclusions of ethical evaluations] depend on our interests and desires because their subject matter is us, namely, [humans as] animals that have interests and desires, just as the true judgements about the psychology or practices of human beings do.
  Rosalind Hursthouse

So, according to Hurthouse, '

• The conclusions of ethical naturalism can be arrived at only from within an acquired ethical outlook, not from a scientific account of human nature.
  
  If so, your claim that there are moral facts inherent in human nature is false.

You are lost.
I presume you think the point is false because of the phrase 'not from a scientific account of human nature.

Her point which is general knowledge it, the determination of moral facts are not directly from the scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK can only expressed scientific facts and not anything other non-scientific facts. Note her use of the specific term 'scientific account'.
Thus moral facts are expressed from a specific Moral/Ethical FSK or her term 'outlook'

Note I could make the following with the above;

• The conclusions of economics can be arrived at only from within an acquired economic outlook, not from a scientific account of human nature.
  The economic evaluations are made from within an economic outlook [framework], an outlook which already has its own conceptions of the virtues ...

The above statement can accommodate any rational subject, i.e. substitute 'economics' for e.g. psychology, mathematics, legal, geometry, politics, history, etc. thus morality and ethics.

The Moral FSK like other FSKs do depend on scientific facts to unfold what are moral facts from within their specific FSKs.
Note for example, legal facts and others do rely on scientific facts to unfold their respective facts.

Note the example of how the biological fact of 'all humans ought to breathe, else they die' is inputted into the Moral FSK to reflect the moral fact 'no human ought to stop another from breathing' which is derivative of the moral fact of 'no human ought to kill another human'.

And if this supposed 'acquired ethical outlook' depends 'on our interests and desires', then it is subjective. It's a fact that we have interests and desires, from which our moral values and judgements emerge. But that doesn't mean those values and judgements are objective - matters of fact, independent from opinion.

Same mistake, over and over again.

You have not read the second 'quote' and my explanations properly.
The point is you have not read the relevant whole book but you have arrogantly jumped to conclusion based on ignorance.

Note she mentioned the subject of morality is similar to 'psychology' [others like psychiatry] where we are 'depending' on our interests, desires, and own behaviors.
But psychologists do not generate psychological facts depending on their personal interests and desires. Rather the psychological facts [about humans interests, desires, etc.] are determined scientifically and collectively, thus objective.

'Morality' like 'psychology' and other subjects that study human behaviors are special cases where one has to study elements of mind-dependence on a mind-independent basis.

I have stated moral facts are not personal moral judgments, thinking, statements.
Moral facts are concluded from its specific FSK [outlook] in a similar approach like scientific facts are concluded from the specific scientific FSK.
Since scientific facts exist, then moral facts exist where both are justified empirically and philosophically.

Same mistake, over and over again.

Your above has no credibility.
You are just a gnat in the field of moral philosophy.
You provided no solid justified counters to the above other than relying on elements of linguistic inherited from the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists.

As I had suggested you will be better off if you make the attempt to do more research on the subject of the Philosophy of Morality/Ethics so you can offer more rational counters instead of your usual ignorant and dogmatic repetitions.

[Atla]

morality
noun

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

- a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or or society.

- the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

Morality isn't a bunch of neural algorithms, which can potentially activate in most people. These two things are merely related.

Why don't you come back when you have learned some basic English?

[Veritas Aequitas]

morality
noun

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

- a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or or society.

- the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

Morality isn't a bunch of neural algorithms, which can potentially activate in most people. These two things are merely related.

Why don't you come back when you have learned some basic English?

To emphasize and confine the definition of any term to a dictionary [English or otherwise] is very kindergatenish in a Philosophy Forum.

Why don't you come back when you have learned some basic Philosophy?

[Atla]

morality
noun

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

- a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or or society.

- the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

Morality isn't a bunch of neural algorithms, which can potentially activate in most people. These two things are merely related.

Why don't you come back when you have learned some basic English?

To emphasize and confine the definition of any term to a dictionary [English or otherwise] is very kindergatenish in a Philosophy Forum.

Why don't you come back when you have learned some basic Philosophy?

VA: By morality I mean X and the other 7.5 billion people mean Y, therefore now it means X.

You are just too stupid to understand how kindergartnerish that is.

It's also super kindergartnerish to say that you are justified, because this is a philosophy forum. It's especially important to use concepts like morality properly on a philosophy forum.

It's also super kindergartnerish that you say that I'm the one who needs to learn some basic philosophy because of that. I'm not the one using a private language.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality isn't a bunch of neural algorithms, which can potentially activate in most people. These two things are merely related.

Why don't you come back when you have learned some basic English?

To emphasize and confine the definition of any term to a dictionary [English or otherwise] is very kindergatenish in a Philosophy Forum.

Why don't you come back when you have learned some basic Philosophy?

VA: By morality I mean X and the other 7.5 billion people mean Y, therefore now it means X.

You are just too stupid to understand how kindergartnerish that is.

It's also super kindergartnerish to say that you are justified, because this is a philosophy forum. It's especially important to use concepts like morality properly on a philosophy forum.

It's also super kindergartnerish that you say that I'm the one who needs to learn some basic philosophy because of that. I'm not the one using a private language.

You are the stupid, kindergartenish and ignorant of what Philosophy really is.

Disagreements with anything between the 7.5 billion people on Earth are very natural. There are even differences between various dictionaries, e.g. between an ordinary secular dictionary and that of a theological dictionary in terms of divine matters.

What is critical within Philosophy is, whatever the definition or meaning of 'what is morality' as claimed by anyone, it must justified empirically and philosophically.
Within the various threads I have provided a wide range of justification as to what is morality to the extent of reinforcing and grounding it to neural algorithms.
Your counter is merely making noises, where are your justified counter to the point?

All you did is pointing to a definition of what is morality from a dictionary. And doing that within a philosophical forum without any justifications is relatively stupid, kindergartenish and ignorant.

[Atla]

To emphasize and confine the definition of any term to a dictionary [English or otherwise] is very kindergatenish in a Philosophy Forum.

Why don't you come back when you have learned some basic Philosophy?

VA: By morality I mean X and the other 7.5 billion people mean Y, therefore now it means X.

You are just too stupid to understand how kindergartnerish that is.

It's also super kindergartnerish to say that you are justified, because this is a philosophy forum. It's especially important to use concepts like morality properly on a philosophy forum.

It's also super kindergartnerish that you say that I'm the one who needs to learn some basic philosophy because of that. I'm not the one using a private language.

You are the stupid, kindergartenish and ignorant of what Philosophy really is.

Disagreements with anything between the 7.5 billion people on Earth are very natural. There are even differences between various dictionaries, e.g. between an ordinary secular dictionary and that of a theological dictionary in terms of divine matters.

What is critical within Philosophy is, whatever the definition or meaning of 'what is morality' as claimed by anyone, it must justified empirically and philosophically.
Within the various threads I have provided a wide range of justification as to what is morality to the extent of reinforcing and grounding it to neural algorithms.
Your counter is merely making noises, where are your justified counter to the point?

All you did is pointing to a definition of what is morality from a dictionary. And doing that within a philosophical forum without any justifications is relatively stupid, kindergartenish and ignorant.

Again you have admitted with your own words that you have no idea how to do philosophy. We already have a consensus in philosophy and in the English speaking world in general, about what 'morality' means.
If you redefine it to mean something entirely different, and think that your idiotic threads 'support' such a fallacy, then that just shows again that you are a stupid, kindergartenish, ignorant failure.

You are just making noises because you are incapable of doing actual philosophy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again you have admitted with your own words that you have no idea how to do philosophy. We already have a consensus in philosophy and in the English speaking world in general, about what 'morality' means.
If you redefine it to mean something entirely different, and think that your idiotic threads 'support' such a fallacy, then that just shows again that you are a stupid, kindergartenish, ignorant failure.

You are just making noises because you are incapable of doing actual philosophy.

How come you are so dumb to cling to consensus as absolute?
"Consensus" do not translate to truth which is demonstrated in the famous 'Flat Earth Theory' the Geocentric Theory and many others which has been proven wrong or revised upon new evidences.

As for the definition of 'what is morality' the dictionary provide a very general definition but there are loads of views of 'what is morality' within the Philosophy community.
Note this thread I raised;

Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737

I provided my own definition of morality therein as;
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799

Your view that 'what is morality' is what the dictionary state would be very stupid relative to the serious philosophical issue of what is morality within that thread.

[Atla]

Again you have admitted with your own words that you have no idea how to do philosophy. We already have a consensus in philosophy and in the English speaking world in general, about what 'morality' means.
If you redefine it to mean something entirely different, and think that your idiotic threads 'support' such a fallacy, then that just shows again that you are a stupid, kindergartenish, ignorant failure.

You are just making noises because you are incapable of doing actual philosophy.

How come you are so dumb to cling to consensus as absolute?
"Consensus" do not translate to truth which is demonstrated in the famous 'Flat Earth Theory' the Geocentric Theory and many others which has been proven wrong or revised upon new evidences.

As for the definition of 'what is morality' the dictionary provide a very general definition but there are loads of views of 'what is morality' within the Philosophy community.
Note this thread I raised;

Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737

I provided my own definition of morality therein as;
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799

Your view that 'what is morality' is what the dictionary state would be very stupid relative to the serious philosophical issue of what is morality within that thread.

Only someone as stupid and incompetent as you would draw a parallel between a linguistic consensus, and the consensus belief about the shape of the Earth. The two are entirely different issues. With that you are showing that you not only don't know how to do philosophy, you don't even know how to speak a language.

And then you linked your inept topic called 'Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?' which demonstrates that there isn't a single dictionary, wiki page or anything out there that uses your absurdly different definition. Instead, they all use variations on the commonly accepted meaning of 'morality' I mentioned. So that would mean that you are even incapable of understanding your own posts as well. To use your wrong analogy, everyone else is talking about the shape of the Earth, and you are talking about what the Earth is made of.

Morality is indeed a serious issue, and if you have such an inability to even understand what it means, then maybe you should go play elsewhere and leave this one to the grown-ups.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Only someone as stupid and incompetent as you would draw a parallel between a linguistic consensus, and the consensus belief about the shape of the Earth. The two are entirely different issues. With that you are showing that you not only don't know how to do philosophy, you don't even know how to speak a language.

And then you linked your inept topic called 'Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?' which demonstrates that there isn't a single dictionary, wiki page or anything out there that uses your absurdly different definition. Instead, they all use variations on the commonly accepted meaning of 'morality' I mentioned. So that would mean that you are even incapable of understanding your own posts as well. To use your wrong analogy, everyone else is talking about the shape of the Earth, and you are talking about what the Earth is made of.

Morality is indeed a serious issue, and if you have such an inability to even understand what it means, then maybe you should go play elsewhere and leave this one to the grown-ups.

You are so dumb and stupid in NOT realizing the criticalness of the thread above and in insisting on clinging onto the commonly accepting meaning of 'morality' from dictionaries.
Do you know in the past [still used at times], within the philosophical lingo, what is common to the public is regarded a 'vulgar'.

• Vulgar:
  4. of, relating to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society:
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vulgar

Thus as far as philosophy is concern your insistence and dogmatism in clinging onto the dictionary meaning is relatively that of the vulgar.
I should remind myself you're on my ignore list as presenting nothing of philosophical substance but merely shitting vulgarities all the time.

[Atla]

You are so dumb and stupid in NOT realizing the criticalness of the thread above and in insisting on clinging onto the commonly accepting meaning of 'morality' from dictionaries.
Do you know in the past [still used at times], within the philosophical lingo, what is common to the public is regarded a 'vulgar'.

• Vulgar:
  4. of, relating to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society:
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vulgar

Thus as far as philosophy is concern your insistence and dogmatism in clinging onto the dictionary meaning is relatively that of the vulgar.
I should remind myself you're on my ignore list as presenting nothing of philosophical substance but merely shitting vulgarities all the time.

You are too dumb and stupid to understand that when there is a broad, commonly accepted meaning of 'morality' that pretty much everyone except you uses, then that's how the word is used. Especially in philosophy, clarity is important.

Maybe you don't understand that humans communicate in language. Actually, most of your topics are based on total misunderstandings and misuses of core philosophical concepts, and you are almost never doing any actual philosophy, you are merely deluding yourself that you are.

Why you believe that the other 7+ billion people should adapt to your weird use of English, is a mistery in itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are so dumb and stupid in NOT realizing the criticalness of the thread above and in insisting on clinging onto the commonly accepting meaning of 'morality' from dictionaries.
Do you know in the past [still used at times], within the philosophical lingo, what is common to the public is regarded a 'vulgar'.

• Vulgar:
  4. of, relating to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society:
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vulgar

Thus as far as philosophy is concern your insistence and dogmatism in clinging onto the dictionary meaning is relatively that of the vulgar.
I should remind myself you're on my ignore list as presenting nothing of philosophical substance but merely shitting vulgarities all the time.

You are too dumb and stupid to understand that when there is a broad, commonly accepted meaning of 'morality' that pretty much everyone except you uses, then that's how the word is used. Especially in philosophy, clarity is important.

Maybe you don't understand that humans communicate in language. Actually, most of your topics are based on total misunderstandings and misuses of core philosophical concepts, and you are almost never doing any actual philosophy, you are merely deluding yourself that you are.

Why you believe that the other 7+ billion people should adapt to your weird use of English, is a mistery in itself.

The point has nothing to do with English nor language.

Btw, I am not insisting the dictionaries' definition of 'what is morality' is absolutely wrong nor they are nonsense.
The point is the definition of the common meaning of 'morality' differs from one dictionary to another.

Another point is the purpose of a dictionary is not to reveal the truth within reality rather etymology is based on popular usage of a word and its supposed meaning without regard to its truth and reality.

Because this is a Philosophy Forum where truth matters, we cannot ground the definition of whatever is in reality based on merely meanings in dictionaries.
How come you are so stupid not to understand the difference between what is required in Philosophy and what is provided as meanings of "words" in dictionaries.