Peter Holmes: What is Fact.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=483716 time=1607371447 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=483715 time=1607370565 user_id=15238]
[quote=Atla post_id=483714 time=1607370370 user_id=15497]

Suffice to say I aimed much higher than that with my unified picture
[/quote]

OK, so depth isn't the benchmark any more, then it goes as high as unifying all knowledge and creating utopia. Is that high enough?
[/quote]
If you are still after utopia with such enthusiasm, I would advise against unifying all knowledge, you might realize that utopia probably can't be done.
[/quote]

I take Utopia too be a direction rather than a destination. We'll see what's on the other side of the mountain when we get to the other side of the mountain. What's certain is that almost everyone knows a way to make things objectively better than they are now.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You and I subscribe to the same moral function against brutality and against slavery. These moral functions are historical-cultural not genetic. There is a history of ideas against brutality and against slavery, and this history is sufficient explanation for progression away from brutality and slavery.

Your belief that men are genetically not slavers or brutes is a dangerous belief because it tends to cause complacency. There is a possibility of atrocity in all men and a collective of slavers and brutes is worse than the same number of isolated individual brutes.

An illustration of your belief in genetic morality is as follows. Shortly after the war, a man said to me "British people could not have become Nazis; those atrocities would not have happened here".

I have always asserted ALL humans are "programmed" with the potential for evil and good.
They both operate in parallel within the human psyche.

The activeness of the potential for evil was greater in the past, but as evident, this potential for evil is slowly being inhibited by the activeness [slow unfoldment] of the potential for good.

In general, there is the increasing positive trend of the potential for good which is unfolding, albeit slowly to inhibit the past activeness of evil within. Because of the natural increasing trend that the potential for good is unfolding naturally, there will not be a trend for complacency nor indifference to evil.

At present there is an obvious trend of good overcoming evil as demonstrated by the lessening of chattel slavery since 10,000 years ago to the present. There are lesser wars, and other significant evils as argued and heavily supported with data by Steven Pinker in this thread;

Violence on a Decreasing Trend
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

[Belinda]

You and I subscribe to the same moral function against brutality and against slavery. These moral functions are historical-cultural not genetic. There is a history of ideas against brutality and against slavery, and this history is sufficient explanation for progression away from brutality and slavery.

Your belief that men are genetically not slavers or brutes is a dangerous belief because it tends to cause complacency. There is a possibility of atrocity in all men and a collective of slavers and brutes is worse than the same number of isolated individual brutes.

An illustration of your belief in genetic morality is as follows. Shortly after the war, a man said to me "British people could not have become Nazis; those atrocities would not have happened here".

I have always asserted ALL humans are "programmed" with the potential for evil and good.
They both operate in parallel within the human psyche.

The activeness of the potential for evil was greater in the past, but as evident, this potential for evil is slowly being inhibited by the activeness [slow unfoldment] of the potential for good.

In general, there is the increasing positive trend of the potential for good which is unfolding, albeit slowly to inhibit the past activeness of evil within. Because of the natural increasing trend that the potential for good is unfolding naturally, there will not be a trend for complacency nor indifference to evil.

At present there is an obvious trend of good overcoming evil as demonstrated by the lessening of chattel slavery since 10,000 years ago to the present. There are lesser wars, and other significant evils as argued and heavily supported with data by Steven Pinker in this thread;

Violence on a Decreasing Trend
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

Naturally one would like to be able to agree with you. Nevertheless it is less risky to be pessimistic about man's morally upward progress. I have just heard of a man who flew his private aeroplane from Switzerland to England and back to Switzerland for him to take lunch in England. This man's one act did environmental damage that wipes out the deliberately frugal behaviour of many poor people. And this man has a proven predisposition so to act. There are many such greedy people who care little for goods we hold in common and who take what they want and devil take the hindmost. It was ever so and I see no sign of it decreasing.

[Advocate]

[quote=Belinda post_id=483767 time=1607422168 user_id=12709]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=483749 time=1607405628 user_id=7896]
[quote=Belinda post_id=483648 time=1607334047 user_id=12709]
You and I subscribe to the same moral function against brutality and against slavery. These moral functions are historical-cultural not genetic. There is a history of ideas against brutality and against slavery, and this history is [u]sufficient[/u] explanation for progression away from brutality and slavery.

Your belief that men are genetically not slavers or brutes is a dangerous belief because it tends to cause complacency. There is a possibility of atrocity in all men and a collective of slavers and brutes is worse than the same number of isolated individual brutes.

An illustration of your belief in genetic morality is as follows. Shortly after the war, a man said to me "British people could not have become Nazis; those atrocities would not have happened here".
[/quote]
I have always asserted ALL humans are "programmed" with the potential for evil and good.
They both operate [b]in parallel[/b] within the human psyche.

The activeness of the potential for evil was greater in the past, but as evident, this potential for evil is slowly being [b]inhibited [/b]by the activeness [slow unfoldment] of the potential for good.

In general, there is the increasing positive trend of the potential for good which is unfolding, albeit slowly to inhibit the past activeness of evil within. Because of the natural increasing trend that the potential for good is unfolding naturally, there will not be a trend for complacency nor indifference to evil.

At present there is an obvious trend of good overcoming evil as demonstrated by the lessening of chattel slavery since 10,000 years ago to the present. There are lesser wars, and other significant evils as argued and heavily supported with data by Steven Pinker in this thread;

[b]Violence on a Decreasing Trend[/b]
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995
[/quote]

Naturally one would like to be able to agree with you. Nevertheless it is less risky to be pessimistic about man's morally upward progress. I have just heard of a man who flew his private aeroplane from Switzerland to England and back to Switzerland for him to take lunch in England. This man's one act did environmental damage that wipes out the deliberately frugal behaviour of many poor people. And this man has a proven predisposition so to act. There are many such greedy people who care little for goods we hold in common and who take what they want and devil take the hindmost. It was ever so and I see no sign of it decreasing.
[/quote]

The upward trajectory of human morality is apparent over time, but so is the trajectory toward extinction because the upward trajectory is an illusion, hiding all the bad with increasingly sophisticated methods of externalisation. The only real question is whether we'll end up with utopia before extinction.

[Skepdick]

hiding all the bad with increasingly sophisticated methods of externalisation.

Internalising the cost of taming entropy is equivalent to becoming Maxwell's Demon.

The only real question is whether we'll end up with utopia before extinction.

The answer is "no".

There is no extinction in utopia.

[Veritas Aequitas]

At present there is an obvious trend of good overcoming evil as demonstrated by the lessening of chattel slavery since 10,000 years ago to the present. There are lesser wars, and other significant evils as argued and heavily supported with data by Steven Pinker in this thread;

Violence on a Decreasing Trend
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

Naturally one would like to be able to agree with you. Nevertheless it is less risky to be pessimistic about man's morally upward progress.

I have just heard of a man who flew his private aeroplane from Switzerland to England and back to Switzerland for him to take lunch in England. This man's one act did environmental damage that wipes out the deliberately frugal behaviour of many poor people. And this man has a proven predisposition so to act. There are many such greedy people who care little for goods we hold in common and who take what they want and devil take the hindmost. It was ever so and I see no sign of it decreasing.

I am aware while there is a trend of decrease in evil and violence since the past, the potential for humans to make the human species extinct is very possible, given the amount of WMDs on hand in the world at present.
In addition humanity is also well aware the human species could be exterminated by a rogue asteroid appearing out of the blue and heading Earth's direction.

I have real evidences to be optimistic the once quiet inherent moral function is activating and unfolding stronger in our present phase of evolution.

When we are able to recognize the mechanisms and operation of the inherent moral function, we will be optimistic the greater development of moral competence within the individual is possible. Therefrom humanity will have a headway to expedite the unfoldment of the individual's moral competence thus of humanity to manage evil and violent to a level that is not a threat to the survival of the human species.

If humanity were to take a pessimistic stance, then it is 'whatever will be, will be'. It is likely the majority will be indifferent to bother about their own moral development.

Thus humanity at this stage must strive for very great effort to understand the inherent moral function within the brain, mind and body so as to expedite the average moral competence of humanity.
This is a reason why we need an open discussion of what is morality and how to increase the average moral competence of humanity.

Personally I believe I have covered sufficient [require more] knowledge on 'what is morality' to be optimistic about the future of morality.
I will keep researching aggressively [at least for personal interests] on how humanity can expedite the individual's moral function.

Climate change [whilst critical] on the subject of morality is at the extreme fringe of morality at present. We have to handle the priority elements of morality, i.e. the terrible evil violent acts that contribute to the near possibilities of fatalities first before we give full attention to climate change.

Btw, when a volcano erupts [which is quite often these days] the tons of dust, carbon dioxide and other dangerous gases emitted is probably equivalent to the exhaust of millions of cars in one year or more.

I believe the Earth is getting hotter because the Earth is orbiting inevitably closer and closer to the Sun. We cannot do anything about this.
Perhaps the number of nuclear tests has pushed the Earth slightly toward the Sun which would have made the Earth hotter.

I agree we must give attention to climate change, but we need to focus on what is priority in terms of morality [re this OP] first.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The upward trajectory of human morality is apparent over time, but so is the trajectory toward extinction because the upward trajectory is an illusion, hiding all the bad with increasingly sophisticated methods of externalisation. The only real question is whether we'll end up with utopia before extinction.

1. The objective trend of decrease in evil and violence since >10,000 years ago to the present, thus the increasing trend in moral competence is objective as supported by very obvious evidence.
Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995
Only the stupid will focus on the above trend itself and be happy with that state [thus apparent and illusory].
The wiser however will explore the root causes [neural and others] of the positive trend in growth of moral competence.

2. It is also objective that all humans are "programmed" with an inherent moral function which was inactive in the past but now unfolding steadily leading to the decreasing trend of evil and violent acts since >10,000 years ago.

3. As mentioned above, the potential reality is humanity is also facing the threat of possible "premature" extinction from the large quantum of WMDs humans have on hand.

4. Thus the battle on hand is to expedite the moral competence of the average person of humanity [2] so that humanity can manage and subvert [suppress] humanity's potential in triggering the WMDs on hand [3] and also to get all concern to get rid of all WMDs.

[Peter Holmes]

P1 If violence decreases, that shows that violence is morally wrong.
P2 Violence has decreased.
C Therefore, violence is morally wrong.

If so, it follows that -

P1 If violence doesn't decrease, that shows that violence is not morally wrong.

Nonsense. If violence decreases, there are reasons for why that happens. And one of the reasons is not that violence is morally wrong.

[Belinda]

What exactly is the scientific explanation of moral competence? Does knowledge of the development of moral competence in children aid philosophical understanding of moral competence?

How are we to try to ensure moral competence is in the ascendent?

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1 If violence decreases, that shows that violence is morally wrong.
P2 Violence has decreased.
C Therefore, violence is morally wrong.

If so, it follows that -

P1 If violence doesn't decrease, that shows that violence is not morally wrong.

Nonsense. If violence decreases, there are reasons for why that happens. And one of the reasons is not that violence is morally wrong.

Your above rhetorical nonsense.

The article I presented from Steven Pinker is very general which include all sort of violence and moral elements.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

In terms of what is morally wrong, we need to refer to the specific kind of violence and therefrom verify and justify it is a moral fact to be used as a moral standard.
Therefore there is no need to justify the specific type of violence is morally wrong by whether it has increase or decrease.

The decrease [must be significant] in a specific kind of violence indicate the related moral competence has improved.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What exactly is the scientific explanation of moral competence? Does knowledge of the development of moral competence in children aid philosophical understanding of moral competence?

How are we to try to ensure moral competence is in the ascendent?

By comparing the number of scientific and various research papers between 1000 years ago to the present, one can infer there is increase in intellectual competence at least as a very credible hypothesis.
Therefrom we can do various tests to confirm the above hypothesis. I don't think any one will dispute the above. Would you?

Thus if we compare the number of chattel slaves and laws banning chattel slaves from 10,000 year to the present, and since slavery is a morality issue, we can hypothesize confident there is improvement moral competence in respect of the above moral element, i.e. slavery.
The above can be concluded objectively and scientifically [social science] by verifying actual evidences.
I believe this is a sufficient scientific explanation for the increase in moral competence which can be reinforced by various testing.

We have tests for IQ albeit contentious but they are basic indications, then we have tests for EQ, we have test for various competences, sports, music, etc. so we can have tests and measurements for moral quotient [MQ] to be done very thoroughly.

The more reliable scientific explanation of moral competence is to refer to the neural mechanisms of the moral functions [represented by various sets of neural activities] to study the strength of the moral competence. We have not reach this stage yet, but it is a possibility in the future.

Where we have less and less killing of humans, rapes, violence, and other evils [as defined] then that would be one measure of moral ascendency.
I believe it is already very evident there is less killing of humans in wars as compared to since 200 [or > 5000] years ago to the present, thus an increase in moral competence relatively.

[Peter Holmes]

What exactly is the scientific explanation of moral competence? Does knowledge of the development of moral competence in children aid philosophical understanding of moral competence?

How are we to try to ensure moral competence is in the ascendent?

By comparing the number of scientific and various research papers between 1000 years ago to the present, one can infer there is increase in intellectual competence at least as a very credible hypothesis.
Therefrom we can do various tests to confirm the above hypothesis. I don't think any one will dispute the above. Would you?

Thus if we compare the number of chattel slaves and laws banning chattel slaves from 10,000 year to the present, and since slavery is a morality issue, we can hypothesize confident there is improvement moral competence in respect of the above moral element, i.e. slavery.
The above can be concluded objectively and scientifically [social science] by verifying actual evidences.
I believe this is a sufficient scientific explanation for the increase in moral competence which can be reinforced by various testing.

We have tests for IQ albeit contentious but they are basic indications, then we have tests for EQ, we have test for various competences, sports, music, etc. so we can have tests and measurements for moral quotient [MQ] to be done very thoroughly.

The more reliable scientific explanation of moral competence is to refer to the neural mechanisms of the moral functions [represented by various sets of neural activities] to study the strength of the moral competence. We have not reach this stage yet, but it is a possibility in the future.

Where we have less and less killing of humans, rapes, violence, and other evils [as defined] then that would be one measure of moral ascendency.
I believe it is already very evident there is less killing of humans in wars as compared to since 200 [or > 5000] years ago to the present, thus an increase in moral competence relatively.

The expression 'moral competence' is deceptive. If to be morally competent means to act in certain ways and believe certain things, then to assume there are moral facts by which to judge the rightness and wrongness of behaviour and opinions begs the question. Why is the shift from accepting slavery to rejecting it a shift from moral incompetence towards moral competence? Is it because it's a fact that slavery is morally wrong?

And, for example, the increase in abortions and same sex marriage is seen by many as a decline in social moral competence. In other words, we judge moral competence by our own moral values and opinions, which are subjective.

[Sculptor]

What exactly is the scientific explanation of moral competence? Does knowledge of the development of moral competence in children aid philosophical understanding of moral competence?

How are we to try to ensure moral competence is in the ascendent?

By comparing the number of scientific and various research papers between 1000 years ago to the present, one can infer there is increase in intellectual competence at least as a very credible hypothesis.
Therefrom we can do various tests to confirm the above hypothesis. I don't think any one will dispute the above. Would you?

Thus if we compare the number of chattel slaves and laws banning chattel slaves from 10,000 year to the present, and since slavery is a morality issue, we can hypothesize confident there is improvement moral competence in respect of the above moral element, i.e. slavery.
The above can be concluded objectively and scientifically [social science] by verifying actual evidences.
I believe this is a sufficient scientific explanation for the increase in moral competence which can be reinforced by various testing.

We have tests for IQ albeit contentious but they are basic indications, then we have tests for EQ, we have test for various competences, sports, music, etc. so we can have tests and measurements for moral quotient [MQ] to be done very thoroughly.

The more reliable scientific explanation of moral competence is to refer to the neural mechanisms of the moral functions [represented by various sets of neural activities] to study the strength of the moral competence. We have not reach this stage yet, but it is a possibility in the future.

Where we have less and less killing of humans, rapes, violence, and other evils [as defined] then that would be one measure of moral ascendency.
I believe it is already very evident there is less killing of humans in wars as compared to since 200 [or > 5000] years ago to the present, thus an increase in moral competence relatively.

The expression 'moral competence' is deceptive. If to be morally competent means to act in certain ways and believe certain things, then to assume there are moral facts by which to judge the rightness and wrongness of behaviour and opinions begs the question. Why is the shift from accepting slavery to rejecting it a shift from moral incompetence towards moral competence? Is it because it's a fact that slavery is morally wrong?

And, for example, the increase in abortions and same sex marriage is seen by many as a decline in social moral competence. In other words, we judge moral competence by our own moral values and opinions, which are subjective.

I think that is an example of weasel words.
Io 1940 Germany established that Jews were enemies of the state. No one was more "morally competant" than Hilter to deal with the problem.
In your own example. A claim of Moral incompetance might be brought against a legislature that allows more abortions, yet by the same token the fall in unwanted babies leading to fewer children in care could result in a claim of moral benefit.

[Belinda]

What exactly is the scientific explanation of moral competence? Does knowledge of the development of moral competence in children aid philosophical understanding of moral competence?

How are we to try to ensure moral competence is in the ascendent?

By comparing the number of scientific and various research papers between 1000 years ago to the present, one can infer there is increase in intellectual competence at least as a very credible hypothesis.
Therefrom we can do various tests to confirm the above hypothesis. I don't think any one will dispute the above. Would you?

Thus if we compare the number of chattel slaves and laws banning chattel slaves from 10,000 year to the present, and since slavery is a morality issue, we can hypothesize confident there is improvement moral competence in respect of the above moral element, i.e. slavery.
The above can be concluded objectively and scientifically [social science] by verifying actual evidences.
I believe this is a sufficient scientific explanation for the increase in moral competence which can be reinforced by various testing.

We have tests for IQ albeit contentious but they are basic indications, then we have tests for EQ, we have test for various competences, sports, music, etc. so we can have tests and measurements for moral quotient [MQ] to be done very thoroughly.

The more reliable scientific explanation of moral competence is to refer to the neural mechanisms of the moral functions [represented by various sets of neural activities] to study the strength of the moral competence. We have not reach this stage yet, but it is a possibility in the future.

Where we have less and less killing of humans, rapes, violence, and other evils [as defined] then that would be one measure of moral ascendency.
I believe it is already very evident there is less killing of humans in wars as compared to since 200 [or > 5000] years ago to the present, thus an increase in moral competence relatively.

The expression 'moral competence' is deceptive. If to be morally competent means to act in certain ways and believe certain things, then to assume there are moral facts by which to judge the rightness and wrongness of behaviour and opinions begs the question. Why is the shift from accepting slavery to rejecting it a shift from moral incompetence towards moral competence? Is it because it's a fact that slavery is morally wrong?

And, for example, the increase in abortions and same sex marriage is seen by many as a decline in social moral competence. In other words, we judge moral competence by our own moral values and opinions, which are subjective.

Veritas Aequitas believes in programmed moral competence, if I am not mistaken.VA means genetic programming. Among psychologists ever since Piaget it has been common knowledge that children advance through stages of moral competence. 'Moral competence' relates to the child's stage of decelopment. Nobody denies moral competence can develop unless the child is socialised into and through the stages. Each stage has to be learned before the child can progress to the next stage.

Some societies own cultures of belief that inhibit full development of moral competence, and adults have never been socialised into the adult stage of moral competence.Nazi Germany was like this, and children were deliberately stopped at level 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_ ... evelopment

[Peter Holmes]

By comparing the number of scientific and various research papers between 1000 years ago to the present, one can infer there is increase in intellectual competence at least as a very credible hypothesis.
Therefrom we can do various tests to confirm the above hypothesis. I don't think any one will dispute the above. Would you?

Thus if we compare the number of chattel slaves and laws banning chattel slaves from 10,000 year to the present, and since slavery is a morality issue, we can hypothesize confident there is improvement moral competence in respect of the above moral element, i.e. slavery.
The above can be concluded objectively and scientifically [social science] by verifying actual evidences.
I believe this is a sufficient scientific explanation for the increase in moral competence which can be reinforced by various testing.

We have tests for IQ albeit contentious but they are basic indications, then we have tests for EQ, we have test for various competences, sports, music, etc. so we can have tests and measurements for moral quotient [MQ] to be done very thoroughly.

The more reliable scientific explanation of moral competence is to refer to the neural mechanisms of the moral functions [represented by various sets of neural activities] to study the strength of the moral competence. We have not reach this stage yet, but it is a possibility in the future.

Where we have less and less killing of humans, rapes, violence, and other evils [as defined] then that would be one measure of moral ascendency.
I believe it is already very evident there is less killing of humans in wars as compared to since 200 [or > 5000] years ago to the present, thus an increase in moral competence relatively.

The expression 'moral competence' is deceptive. If to be morally competent means to act in certain ways and believe certain things, then to assume there are moral facts by which to judge the rightness and wrongness of behaviour and opinions begs the question. Why is the shift from accepting slavery to rejecting it a shift from moral incompetence towards moral competence? Is it because it's a fact that slavery is morally wrong?

And, for example, the increase in abortions and same sex marriage is seen by many as a decline in social moral competence. In other words, we judge moral competence by our own moral values and opinions, which are subjective.

Veritas Aequitas believes in programmed moral competence, if I am not mistaken.VA means genetic programming. Among psychologists ever since Piaget it has been common knowledge that children advance through stages of moral competence. 'Moral competence' relates to the child's stage of decelopment. Nobody denies moral competence can develop unless the child is socialised into and through the stages. Each stage has to be learned before the child can progress to the next stage.

Some societies own cultures of belief that inhibit full development of moral competence, and adults have never been socialised into the adult stage of moral competence.Nazi Germany was like this, and children were deliberately stopped at level 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_ ... evelopment

My point is this. To say that human moral competence is increasing assumes there is an objective moral standard against which to measure it. And the same goes for the claim that arc of the moral universe tends towards justice. What constitutes social justice is a matter of opinion. For me, it's economic equality for everyone, because equal opportunity can only come from equal outcomes. But that's just my opinion.

What's called moral competence, programmed or not, developmental or not, assumes a standard of moral rightness and wrongness as given. And there's the rub.