What could make morality objective?

[Sculptor]

Scientific facts/truths are inferred from a specific Scientific FSK.
In a way, all FSKs are represented by subjects, i.e. a Scientific FSK is represented by scientists.
However whatever in inferred by the subjects are conditioned upon the FSK and not the individual subjects.
Since they are not conditioned by the individual subjects' opinion and beliefs, scientific facts/truth are objective.
Whilst scientific facts are objective, [do you deny they are objective?], they are ultimately based on interSUBJECTive consensus, thus essentially subjective.

The Moral FSK is based on the core principles as the Scientific FSK.
If Scientific facts from a specific scientific FSK is objective - intersubjective,
then, moral facts from a specific moral FSK is objective - intersubjective.

This moral fact is not the opinion nor belief of any individual subject.
Since 'no human ought to damage his/her health' is a moral fact, therefore it is objective.

Can you demonstrate why the above moral fact is not objective?

Answer the question, "What is objectively morally wrong with damaging your health?"

I have already done so above.

You have only justified that with your personal opinions. You FSK is subjective, and so everything that emerges from it is also.
Your argument rests on an unfounded assumption that human life has great value. All value judgements are subjective, therefore every statement that relies on that valuation is also subject to that opinion.

You are very ignorant of what is meant by 'objectivity' and in this case specifically moral objectivity. Note my thread on

• What is Moral Objectivity?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

My Personal opinions??
Note the survey that 56% of philosophers support Moral realism, thus moral facts, and that is based on the relevant specific Moral FSK.
So it is not based on a MY personal opinions.

The said Moral FSK is similar to the scientific FSK.
So are you implying the scientific FSK is subjective? Answer yes or no.
You are very ignorant on this matter.
The scientific FSK is objective whilst represented by subjects [the scientists].
Whatever is objective is by definition intersubjective ultimately.

I assert that the world would be a better place for the evolution of the living world if there were no humans at all. Thus human life , far from having a value, has value only in the negative. And the removal of all humans is the only way to restore the living world.
Prove that is not objective!

It is not objective because that is only based on your personal views and not supported nor shared by other subjects.
Show me at least one or more survey where more than 50% of philosophers or [people with rational credentials] agree with your views to indicate there is some semblance of objectivity.

ROTFLMFHO

MacDonald's is the best food says VA because more people like it than other foods.

[Peter Holmes]

Answer this question. Could the claim 'no human ought to kill another' be false? And if so, what would have to be different for it to be false?
I'll wait till you answer this question.

At the present it is already happening where psychopaths with their defective 'ought-not-to kill are turned to be 'ought-to' kill another human. If you research into psychopathy, many psychopaths who killed and caught claimed they were compelled to kill by some internal forces.

So Yes, it can be false if ALL humans are programmed with an "ought-to kill humans".
This is VERY possible if there is a sudden rare mutations in the genes and DNA in the evolution of humans and by the next or two generations ALL humans born are "programmed" with an ought-to kill humans.
From there people will start killing humans.
Some will resist killing but that won't last because their resistance will weakened due to the inherent program 'ought-to' kill humans get more and more active.
The last man standing will not be able to survive by himself and VIOLA the human species will be extinct then.

The current moral facts [within a Moral FSK] as programmed can be changed in time, albeit is reality it may take 100s, 1000s or millions of years.

So yes, the moral reality, fact, truth of 'ought-not-to-kill another human is falsifiable.

Okay. This answer - which I expected - exposes the mistake in your argument. I'll try to explain it here.

1 The only features of reality that can be true or false are factual assertions - typically linguistic expressions. And 'ought-not-to-kill' programming is not a linguistic expression, so it can't be true or false. It simply either does or doesn't exist.

2 If we are programmed not to kill humans, then that is the only fact of the matter. And in that case, the appropriate factual assertion is: 'we are programmed not to kill humans'. That linguistic expression would have the truth-value 'true'.

3 Similarly, if instead we were programmed to kill humans, that would be a fact, and the factual assertion 'we are programmed to kill humans' would be true - and the factual assertion 'we are programmed not to kill humans' would then be false.

4 Notice that, in these cases, truth-value and therefore falsifiability applies to the assertions 'we are programmed not to kill humans' and 'we are programmed to kill humans'. And neither of those assertions is moral - neither says 'ought-to' or 'ought-not-to'.

5 Your mistake is this. You think that, if we're programmed not to kill humans, then the claim 'no human ought to kill another' is a factual assertion with the truth-value 'true'. But it's not a factual assertion at all. It makes a separate moral claim about killing humans.

6 If instead we were programmed to kill humans, then it would still be rational to say 'no human ought to kill another'. That moral assertion would be perfectly compatible with our programming. It wouldn't be falsified by reality, because it isn't a factual assertion with a truth-value in the first place.

Conclusion: if we were programmed to kill humans, that wouldn't falsify the moral assertion 'no human ought to kill another''. And that's because the moral assertion doesn't make a factual claim with a truth-value at all.

So there can be no contradiction between the two claims: 'we are programmed to kill humans'; and 'no human ought to kill another'. These two assertions have completely different functions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Answer this question. Could the claim 'no human ought to kill another' be false? And if so, what would have to be different for it to be false?
I'll wait till you answer this question.

At the present it is already happening where psychopaths with their defective 'ought-not-to kill are turned to be 'ought-to' kill another human. If you research into psychopathy, many psychopaths who killed and caught claimed they were compelled to kill by some internal forces.

So Yes, it can be false if ALL humans are programmed with an "ought-to kill humans".
This is VERY possible if there is a sudden rare mutations in the genes and DNA in the evolution of humans and by the next or two generations ALL humans born are "programmed" with an ought-to kill humans.
From there people will start killing humans.
Some will resist killing but that won't last because their resistance will weakened due to the inherent program 'ought-to' kill humans get more and more active.
The last man standing will not be able to survive by himself and VIOLA the human species will be extinct then.

The current moral facts [within a Moral FSK] as programmed can be changed in time, albeit is reality it may take 100s, 1000s or millions of years.

So yes, the moral reality, fact, truth of 'ought-not-to-kill another human is falsifiable.

Okay. This answer - which I expected - exposes the mistake in your argument. I'll try to explain it here.

1 The only features of reality that can be true or false are factual assertions - typically linguistic expressions. And 'ought-not-to-kill' programming is not a linguistic expression, so it can't be true or false. It simply either does or doesn't exist.

You are the one who has made the mistake philosophically.
Where in Philosophy does it declare only linguistic expression can be true or false.

Basically 'truth' is defined as;

Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Truth is a complex topic with a huge variety of issues.

Truth is one of the central subjects in philosophy. It is also one of the largest. Truth has been a topic of discussion in its own right for thousands of years. Moreover, a huge variety of issues in philosophy relate to truth, either by relying on theses about truth, or implying theses about truth.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

Scientific truths are not linguistic truths.
I suggest you read up the SEP article on "truth" and note the various perspectives of truth.
Therein your linguistic perspective is very plastic and limited.
Your are also entrapped with the outdated 'Correspondence Theory of Truth' which is ultimately unrealistic.
What concern reality is this 'Realism versus Anti-Realism' which I had always referred to.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/#ReaAntRea

Realistically, 'ought-not-to-kill' state [physical and mental] is a biological, neurological, psychological truth/fact within their specific FSK.
The 'Ought-not-to-kill' state [physical and mental] within its specific Moral FSK is a moral fact.

2 If we are programmed not to kill humans, then that is the only fact of the matter. And in that case, the appropriate factual assertion is: 'we are programmed not to kill humans'. That linguistic expression would have the truth-value 'true'.

There is no question of 'ought-to-kill another human' within human nature.

3 Similarly, if instead we were programmed to kill humans, that would be a fact, and the factual assertion 'we are programmed to kill humans would be true - and the factual assertion 'we are programmed not to kill humans' would then be false.

Note the program is 'ought-not-to-kill humans' within a moral FSK.

4 Notice that, in these cases, truth-value and therefore falsifiability applies to the assertions 'we are programmed not to kill humans' and 'we are programmed to kill humans'. And neither of those assertions is moral - neither says 'ought-to' or 'ought-not-to'.

If you want to play the language games, you will have linguistic truth-value.

In reality what we have is all humans are "programmed" with a state of oughtness of ought-not-to-kill another human. These are represented by real tensions and forces of inhibitions where if damaged will force one to kill, e.g. as in a psychopath.

5 Your mistake is this. You think that, if we're programmed not to kill humans, then the claim 'no human ought to kill another' is a factual assertion with the truth-value 'true'. But it's not a factual assertion at all. It makes a separate moral claim about killing humans.

You are the one who is making the mistake in confining the truth to the linguistic perspectives.
What I am dealing here is directly with real mental forces represented by neural connectivities and features that inhibit [thus ought-not-to] all normal humans from killing other humans.

6 If instead we were programmed to kill humans, then it would still be rational to say 'no human ought to kill another'. That moral assertion would be perfectly compatible with our programming. It wouldn't be falsified by reality, because it isn't a factual assertion with a truth-value in the first place.

There is no question of 'human programmed to kill humans' that is not human nature at present till another million years until the exceptional happened.
As I had stated the 'ought-not-to-kill' is falsified where there are damage or weakening of the 'ought-not-to-kill' inhibition that compel ought-to-kill and these are considered within the Moral FSK.

Conclusion: if we were programmed to kill humans, that wouldn't falsify the moral assertion 'no human ought to kill another''. And that's because the moral assertion doesn't make a factual claim with a truth-value at all.

So there can be no contradiction between the two claims: 'we are programmed to kill humans'; and 'no human ought to kill another'. These two assertions have completely different functions.

The above is a mess because you are confined to the linguistic perspective.

In the real empirical world perspective, the 'ought-not-to-kill' is a reality and thus is a scientific [applied] truth and a moral fact [within a moral FSK].
It is falsifiable because it is empirically possible for humans to be programmed with 'ought-to-kill' if the program is changed suddenly or evolved to it in the future.

[Peter Holmes]

At the present it is already happening where psychopaths with their defective 'ought-not-to kill are turned to be 'ought-to' kill another human. If you research into psychopathy, many psychopaths who killed and caught claimed they were compelled to kill by some internal forces.

So Yes, it can be false if ALL humans are programmed with an "ought-to kill humans".
This is VERY possible if there is a sudden rare mutations in the genes and DNA in the evolution of humans and by the next or two generations ALL humans born are "programmed" with an ought-to kill humans.
From there people will start killing humans.
Some will resist killing but that won't last because their resistance will weakened due to the inherent program 'ought-to' kill humans get more and more active.
The last man standing will not be able to survive by himself and VIOLA the human species will be extinct then.

The current moral facts [within a Moral FSK] as programmed can be changed in time, albeit is reality it may take 100s, 1000s or millions of years.

So yes, the moral reality, fact, truth of 'ought-not-to-kill another human is falsifiable.

Okay. This answer - which I expected - exposes the mistake in your argument. I'll try to explain it here.

1 The only features of reality that can be true or false are factual assertions - typically linguistic expressions. And 'ought-not-to-kill' programming is not a linguistic expression, so it can't be true or false. It simply either does or doesn't exist.

You are the one who has made the mistake philosophically.
Where in Philosophy does it declare only linguistic expression can be true or false.

Basically 'truth' is defined as;

Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Truth is a complex topic with a huge variety of issues.

Truth is one of the central subjects in philosophy. It is also one of the largest. Truth has been a topic of discussion in its own right for thousands of years. Moreover, a huge variety of issues in philosophy relate to truth, either by relying on theses about truth, or implying theses about truth.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

Scientific truths are not linguistic truths.
I suggest you read up the SEP article on "truth" and note the various perspectives of truth.
Therein your linguistic perspective is very plastic and limited.
Your are also entrapped with the outdated 'Correspondence Theory of Truth' which is ultimately unrealistic.
What concern reality is this 'Realism versus Anti-Realism' which I had always referred to.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/#ReaAntRea

Realistically, 'ought-not-to-kill' state [physical and mental] is a biological, neurological, psychological truth/fact within their specific FSK.
The 'Ought-not-to-kill' state [physical and mental] within its specific Moral FSK is a moral fact.

2 If we are programmed not to kill humans, then that is the only fact of the matter. And in that case, the appropriate factual assertion is: 'we are programmed not to kill humans'. That linguistic expression would have the truth-value 'true'.

There is no question of 'ought-to-kill another human' within human nature.

3 Similarly, if instead we were programmed to kill humans, that would be a fact, and the factual assertion 'we are programmed to kill humans would be true - and the factual assertion 'we are programmed not to kill humans' would then be false.

Note the program is 'ought-not-to-kill humans' within a moral FSK.

4 Notice that, in these cases, truth-value and therefore falsifiability applies to the assertions 'we are programmed not to kill humans' and 'we are programmed to kill humans'. And neither of those assertions is moral - neither says 'ought-to' or 'ought-not-to'.

If you want to play the language games, you will have linguistic truth-value.

In reality what we have is all humans are "programmed" with a state of oughtness of ought-not-to-kill another human. These are represented by real tensions and forces of inhibitions where if damaged will force one to kill, e.g. as in a psychopath.

5 Your mistake is this. You think that, if we're programmed not to kill humans, then the claim 'no human ought to kill another' is a factual assertion with the truth-value 'true'. But it's not a factual assertion at all. It makes a separate moral claim about killing humans.

You are the one who is making the mistake in confining the truth to the linguistic perspectives.
What I am dealing here is directly with real mental forces represented by neural connectivities and features that inhibit [thus ought-not-to] all normal humans from killing other humans.

6 If instead we were programmed to kill humans, then it would still be rational to say 'no human ought to kill another'. That moral assertion would be perfectly compatible with our programming. It wouldn't be falsified by reality, because it isn't a factual assertion with a truth-value in the first place.

There is no question of 'human programmed to kill humans' that is not human nature at present till another million years until the exceptional happened.
As I had stated the 'ought-not-to-kill' is falsified where there are damage or weakening of the 'ought-not-to-kill' inhibition that compel ought-to-kill and these are considered within the Moral FSK.

Conclusion: if we were programmed to kill humans, that wouldn't falsify the moral assertion 'no human ought to kill another''. And that's because the moral assertion doesn't make a factual claim with a truth-value at all.

So there can be no contradiction between the two claims: 'we are programmed to kill humans'; and 'no human ought to kill another'. These two assertions have completely different functions.

The above is a mess because you are confined to the linguistic perspective.

In the real empirical world perspective, the 'ought-not-to-kill' is a reality and thus is a scientific [applied] truth and a moral fact [within a moral FSK].
It is falsifiable because it is empirically possible for humans to be programmed with 'ought-to-kill' if the program is changed suddenly or evolved to it in the future.

1 What you're saying is that what humans are programmed to do is morally right, and what we're programmed not to do is morally wrong. For example, if we're programmed to kill human outsiders - as we have done for much of human history - then killing human outsiders is morally right. So that's what your argument for moral objectivity amounts to.

2 Have a really hard think about 'being stuck with linguistic truth'. What other kind of truth is there? Apart from a factual assertion, what other feature of reality can be true or false? Perhaps you have a scientific example of an empirically identified feature of reality that is true, in the sense that, if it didn't exist, it would be false. (And no, I reject correspondence theories of truth as naive.)

3 Our being programmed to kill humans wouldn't falsify the moral assertion 'humans ought not to kill humans', any more than it would verify the moral assertion 'humans ought to kill humans'. There's no logical connection between a factual assertion about human nature and a moral assertion about proper and improper behaviour - which is what morality deals with. And a moral assertion has no factual truth-value anyway.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 What you're saying is that what humans are programmed to do is morally right, and what we're programmed not to do is morally wrong. For example, if we're programmed to kill human outsiders - as we have done for much of human history - then killing human outsiders is morally right. So that's what your argument for moral objectivity amounts to.

2 Have a really hard think about 'being stuck with linguistic truth'. What other kind of truth is there? Apart from a factual assertion, what other feature of reality can be true or false? Perhaps you have a scientific example of an empirically identified feature of reality that is true, in the sense that, if it didn't exist, it would be false. (And no, I reject correspondence theories of truth as naive.)

3 Our being programmed to kill humans wouldn't falsify the moral assertion 'humans ought not to kill humans', any more than it would verify the moral assertion 'humans ought to kill humans'. There's no logical connection between a factual assertion about human nature and a moral assertion about proper and improper behaviour - which is what morality deals with. And a moral assertion has no factual truth-value anyway.

Damm.. lost my long reply to the above .. Here is the short version..

Nope!
Point is whatever ALL humans are "programmed" with will depend on context.
Where the "program" is "ought-not-to" e.g. kill humans, then killing humans would be morally wrong.
Where the "program" is "ought-to" e.g. co-operate with others, then non-cooperation would be morally wrong.

Morally and DNA-wise ALL [universally] humans are "programmed" with the ought_ness of ougth-not-to kill humans which is overriding. [note 'overriding']
However humans are also programmed with 'to kill' [non-humans] for food to survive but this 'killing for food' is not overriding since humans can obtain food without killing non-humans.

It is a fact of human nature, i.e. no humans are "programmed" to kill humans. If that is not an inherent nature, we would not have 7 billion humans on Earth and present. Humans would have been extinct long ago if humans were universally programmed to kill humans.

Because humans are endowed with the ability to kill non-humans for food, SOME humans will abuse that ability "to kill no human" in killing other humans for various reasons. But note this sort of "killing" is not overriding, thus the overriding 'ought-not-to-kill-human' force will kick in to modulate the killings.

The above is evident by the facts of history where the incidents of 'killing other humans' is much less than 'humans not killing humans' due to the inherent 'ought-not-to kill human' impulse.
Surely you cannot dispute this?
In addition, throughout human history, the trend as driven by the 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' inhibitions is progressing with less wars and the attention to reduce various types of killings of humans.

So the killing of humans which has happened and will happen is never morally right since it is against the overriding moral fact of 'ought-not-to-kill-humans'.

What is objective is the moral fact, 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' is verifiable, falsifiable and justifiable within a Moral FSK which is independent of any individual's opinion and beliefs, thus qualify to be objective.

[Peter Holmes]

1 What you're saying is that what humans are programmed to do is morally right, and what we're programmed not to do is morally wrong. For example, if we're programmed to kill human outsiders - as we have done for much of human history - then killing human outsiders is morally right. So that's what your argument for moral objectivity amounts to.

2 Have a really hard think about 'being stuck with linguistic truth'. What other kind of truth is there? Apart from a factual assertion, what other feature of reality can be true or false? Perhaps you have a scientific example of an empirically identified feature of reality that is true, in the sense that, if it didn't exist, it would be false. (And no, I reject correspondence theories of truth as naive.)

3 Our being programmed to kill humans wouldn't falsify the moral assertion 'humans ought not to kill humans', any more than it would verify the moral assertion 'humans ought to kill humans'. There's no logical connection between a factual assertion about human nature and a moral assertion about proper and improper behaviour - which is what morality deals with. And a moral assertion has no factual truth-value anyway.

Damm.. lost my long reply to the above .. Here is the short version..

Nope!
Point is whatever ALL humans are "programmed" with will depend on context.
Where the "program" is "ought-not-to" e.g. kill humans, then killing humans would be morally wrong.
Where the "program" is "ought-to" e.g. co-operate with others, then non-cooperation would be morally wrong.

Morally and DNA-wise ALL [universally] humans are "programmed" with the ought_ness of ougth-not-to kill humans which is overriding. [note 'overriding']
However humans are also programmed with 'to kill' [non-humans] for food to survive but this 'killing for food' is not overriding since humans can obtain food without killing non-humans.

It is a fact of human nature, i.e. no humans are "programmed" to kill humans. If that is not an inherent nature, we would not have 7 billion humans on Earth and present. Humans would have been extinct long ago if humans were universally programmed to kill humans.

Because humans are endowed with the ability to kill non-humans for food, SOME humans will abuse that ability "to kill no human" in killing other humans for various reasons. But note this sort of "killing" is not overriding, thus the overriding 'ought-not-to-kill-human' force will kick in to modulate the killings.

The above is evident by the facts of history where the incidents of 'killing other humans' is much less than 'humans not killing humans' due to the inherent 'ought-not-to kill human' impulse.
Surely you cannot dispute this?
In addition, throughout human history, the trend as driven by the 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' inhibitions is progressing with less wars and the attention to reduce various types of killings of humans.

So the killing of humans which has happened and will happen is never morally right since it is against the overriding moral fact of 'ought-not-to-kill-humans'.

What is objective is the moral fact, 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' is verifiable, falsifiable and justifiable within a Moral FSK which is independent of any individual's opinion and beliefs, thus qualify to be objective.

Nope. The only thng that is empirically verifiable or falsifiable is whether we're programmed not to kill humans. And that may be the case. But the moral judgement as to whether killing humans is right or wrong is a separate issue. And what makes that clear is that, if we were programmed to kill humans, that fact would not mean that killing humans is morally right. But that's precisely the conclusion of your argument.

If it's a fact that killing humans is morally wrong, then our programming - and facts about our history - are completely irrelevant. Your argument destroys itself in contradiction.

[Belinda]

1 What you're saying is that what humans are programmed to do is morally right, and what we're programmed not to do is morally wrong. For example, if we're programmed to kill human outsiders - as we have done for much of human history - then killing human outsiders is morally right. So that's what your argument for moral objectivity amounts to.

2 Have a really hard think about 'being stuck with linguistic truth'. What other kind of truth is there? Apart from a factual assertion, what other feature of reality can be true or false? Perhaps you have a scientific example of an empirically identified feature of reality that is true, in the sense that, if it didn't exist, it would be false. (And no, I reject correspondence theories of truth as naive.)

3 Our being programmed to kill humans wouldn't falsify the moral assertion 'humans ought not to kill humans', any more than it would verify the moral assertion 'humans ought to kill humans'. There's no logical connection between a factual assertion about human nature and a moral assertion about proper and improper behaviour - which is what morality deals with. And a moral assertion has no factual truth-value anyway.

Damm.. lost my long reply to the above .. Here is the short version..

Nope!
Point is whatever ALL humans are "programmed" with will depend on context.
Where the "program" is "ought-not-to" e.g. kill humans, then killing humans would be morally wrong.
Where the "program" is "ought-to" e.g. co-operate with others, then non-cooperation would be morally wrong.

Morally and DNA-wise ALL [universally] humans are "programmed" with the ought_ness of ougth-not-to kill humans which is overriding. [note 'overriding']
However humans are also programmed with 'to kill' [non-humans] for food to survive but this 'killing for food' is not overriding since humans can obtain food without killing non-humans.

It is a fact of human nature, i.e. no humans are "programmed" to kill humans. If that is not an inherent nature, we would not have 7 billion humans on Earth and present. Humans would have been extinct long ago if humans were universally programmed to kill humans.

Because humans are endowed with the ability to kill non-humans for food, SOME humans will abuse that ability "to kill no human" in killing other humans for various reasons. But note this sort of "killing" is not overriding, thus the overriding 'ought-not-to-kill-human' force will kick in to modulate the killings.

The above is evident by the facts of history where the incidents of 'killing other humans' is much less than 'humans not killing humans' due to the inherent 'ought-not-to kill human' impulse.
Surely you cannot dispute this?
In addition, throughout human history, the trend as driven by the 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' inhibitions is progressing with less wars and the attention to reduce various types of killings of humans.

So the killing of humans which has happened and will happen is never morally right since it is against the overriding moral fact of 'ought-not-to-kill-humans'.

What is objective is the moral fact, 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' is verifiable, falsifiable and justifiable within a Moral FSK which is independent of any individual's opinion and beliefs, thus qualify to be objective.

Nope. The only thng that is empirically verifiable or falsifiable is whether we're programmed not to kill humans. And that may be the case. But the moral judgement as to whether killing humans is right or wrong is a separate issue. And what makes that clear is that, if we were programmed to kill humans, that fact would not mean that killing humans is morally right. But that's precisely the conclusion of your argument.

If it's a fact that killing humans is morally wrong, then our programming - and facts about our history - are completely irrelevant. Your argument destroys itself in contradiction.

"We are programmed----". wrote Peter. What or who programmed?

If somebody or something programmed you ought you to resist this indoctrination at least until you reflect?

[Peter Holmes]

"We are programmed----". wrote Peter. What or who programmed?

If somebody or something programmed you ought you to resist this indoctrination at least until you reflect?

Belinda, this programming nonsense is VA's obsession, not mine. My point is that, even if it were true, that wouldn't mean there are moral facts.

[Belinda]

"We are programmed----". wrote Peter. What or who programmed?

If somebody or something programmed you ought you to resist this indoctrination at least until you reflect?

Belinda, this programming nonsense is VA's obsession, not mine. My point is that, even if it were true, that wouldn't mean there are moral facts.

I agree with VA we are historically a predatory species. However, we can and do evolve. In truth I can't think of any species that has evolved from predator to prey. However humans evolve mostly via the cultural not the genetic channel. 'Programmed' behaviour is more plastic when it's cultural than when its genetic.

My objection was simply about unnecessary use of the passive voice.I note VA uses it too.

[Sculptor]

This topic drones on and on.
The same arguments are recycled.
The answer is simple enough.

The only way you can make morality objective is to demand a set of strict criteria. Since it is not possible to create any criteria that are not hopelessly personally, culturally and historically SUBJECTIVE, we would be forced to create an "objective" moral system which is static, unpresponsive and culturally and historically biased. Such a scheme would soon become hopelessly out of date.

There is a very good reason why morals differ from country to country, and through history. So-called "objective" moral systems are common enough, they are called the law.
Times change, people change and morals have had to change - sometimes clinging with fingernails to the past and ruining the lives of millions, until the law finally gets changed and people can breath again until the next moral fascist wants to impose their morality onto others.

Can anyone tell me what the objective of morality is? Since there seems no clear answer to that question which is time proof, the prospect of trying to create an objectively moral framework can only result in the desolation and suffering of millions

[Peter Holmes]

This topic drones on and on.
The same arguments are recycled.
The answer is simple enough.

The only way you can make morality objective is to demand a set of strict criteria. Since it is not possible to create any criteria that are not hopelessly personally, culturally and historically SUBJECTIVE, we would be forced to create an "objective" moral system which is static, unpresponsive and culturally and historically biased. Such a scheme would soon become hopelessly out of date.

There is a very good reason why morals differ from country to country, and through history. So-called "objective" moral systems are common enough, they are called the law.
Times change, people change and morals have had to change - sometimes clinging with fingernails to the past and ruining the lives of millions, until the law finally gets changed and people can breath again until the next moral fascist wants to impose their morality onto others.

Can anyone tell me what the objective of morality is? Since there seems no clear answer to that question which is time proof, the prospect of trying to create an objectively moral framework can only result in the desolation and suffering of millions

Sorry. This business of showing moral objectivists why they're wrong has a lurid fascination for me. VA is obviously a special case, but they're all strangely addicted to - and dazzled by - the idea that there are moral facts which, unsurprisingly, happen to be their own moral opinions made manifest. I feel that ignoring them and their delusion would be like ignoring Nazis and US Republicans. They're just too dangerous.

[henry quirk]

This business of showing moral objectivists why they're wrong has a lurid fascination for me...they're all strangely addicted to - and dazzled by - the idea that there are moral facts

you're luridly fascinated; we're addicted and dazzled

we all got our crosses to bear


They're just too dangerous.

that's what we say about you anti-realists

[Peter Holmes]

This business of showing moral objectivists why they're wrong has a lurid fascination for me...they're all strangely addicted to - and dazzled by - the idea that there are moral facts

you're luridly fascinated; we're addicted and dazzled

we all got our crosses to bear


They're just too dangerous.

that's what we say about you anti-realists

QED.

[Sculptor]

This topic drones on and on.
The same arguments are recycled.
The answer is simple enough.

The only way you can make morality objective is to demand a set of strict criteria. Since it is not possible to create any criteria that are not hopelessly personally, culturally and historically SUBJECTIVE, we would be forced to create an "objective" moral system which is static, unpresponsive and culturally and historically biased. Such a scheme would soon become hopelessly out of date.

There is a very good reason why morals differ from country to country, and through history. So-called "objective" moral systems are common enough, they are called the law.
Times change, people change and morals have had to change - sometimes clinging with fingernails to the past and ruining the lives of millions, until the law finally gets changed and people can breath again until the next moral fascist wants to impose their morality onto others.

Can anyone tell me what the objective of morality is? Since there seems no clear answer to that question which is time proof, the prospect of trying to create an objectively moral framework can only result in the desolation and suffering of millions

Sorry. This business of showing moral objectivists why they're wrong has a lurid fascination for me. VA is obviously a special case, but they're all strangely addicted to - and dazzled by - the idea that there are moral facts which, unsurprisingly, happen to be their own moral opinions made manifest. I feel that ignoring them and their delusion would be like ignoring Nazis and US Republicans. They're just too dangerous.

Yes like the black beasts of the church, they will end up giving themselves license to burn people at the stake, on purely, objective and unavoidably "true" grounds.

[Sculptor]

This business of showing moral objectivists why they're wrong has a lurid fascination for me...they're all strangely addicted to - and dazzled by - the idea that there are moral facts

you're luridly fascinated; we're addicted and dazzled

we all got our crosses to bear


They're just too dangerous.

that's what we say about you anti-realists

QED.

Exactly.
Reason-blind, moronic.
And dangerous.