Peter Holmes: What is Fact.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=483873 time=1607515113 user_id=15099]
[quote=Belinda post_id=483871 time=1607513324 user_id=12709]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=483861 time=1607511104 user_id=15099]

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.
[/quote]

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
[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

As the world becomes more complex, in scale due to population growth as well as in compaction of the human world due to advancing transportation and communication technologies, more and more complex thinking skills are required. This explains both the Flynn effect and why races which are rooted in tribal societies have lower IQs. So long as things keep getting more complex and IQs grow to match, ethical understandings will also grow, and of course there's the co-evolving internal pressure of getting along with more and more people in a smaller and smaller space.

[Belinda]

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.

Yes, the standard of moral rightness or wrongness is usually taken to be the best possible natural development of individuals' potentials.

The theory relies heavily on development of the intellectual concept of justice. If an individual fails to develop to a stage of principled conscience then there is a failure of that individual's socialisation. Socialisation is usually undertaken by parents, school teachers, priests, scout masters , peers, and so forth.

There are objections to the theory of developmental stages . If you look at the wikipedia link I posted you can read these objections which are all valid.

[Peter Holmes]

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.

As the world becomes more complex, in scale due to population growth as well as in compaction of the human world due to advancing transportation and communication technologies, more and more complex thinking skills are required. This explains both the Flynn effect and why races which are rooted in tribal societies have lower IQs. So long as things keep getting more complex and IQs grow to match, ethical understandings will also grow, and of course there's the co-evolving internal pressure of getting along with more and more people in a smaller and smaller space.

What you say may be true. It may help to explain why our moral values and opinions have changed, and probably will continue to change.

My objection is to the claim that 'ethical understandings will also grow'. I may be wrong, but that seems to imply that morality is something that we can know and understand more and more about; that our ancestors' moral opinions - for example, their acceptance of slavery - came from their ignorance. And I think that's question-begging. It assumes there are moral facts that they just didn't know about.

I think there are facts about why we have the moral opinions we have. But that can never mean our moral opinions are facts.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=483886 time=1607524763 user_id=15099]
[quote=Advocate post_id=483884 time=1607523749 user_id=15238]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=483873 time=1607515113 user_id=15099]

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.
[/quote]

As the world becomes more complex, in scale due to population growth as well as in compaction of the human world due to advancing transportation and communication technologies, more and more complex thinking skills are required. This explains both the Flynn effect and why races which are rooted in tribal societies have lower IQs. So long as things keep getting more complex and IQs grow to match, ethical understandings will also grow, and of course there's the co-evolving internal pressure of getting along with more and more people in a smaller and smaller space.
[/quote]
What you say may be true. It may help to explain why our moral values and opinions have changed, and probably will continue to change.

My objection is to the claim that 'ethical understandings will also grow'. I may be wrong, but that seems to imply that morality is something that we can know and understand more and more about; that our ancestors' moral opinions - for example, their acceptance of slavery - came from their ignorance. And think that's question-begging. It assumes there are moral facts that they just didn't know about.

I think there are facts about why we have the moral opinions we have. But that can never mean our moral opinions are facts.
[/quote]

That clears right up when you understand morality as a personal understanding of the kind of behaviours, or restraints, that when carried out collectively, produce the most stable foundation for all Other purposes/intents/ends (and ethics as a formalized version). Of course both will grow. Wisdom comes from perspective, perspective comes from experience, and the more we continue, the more experiences we gather, etc... Even if moral fact is something like perfection - unrealisable, that doesn't mean it's not approachable.

[Peter Holmes]

As the world becomes more complex, in scale due to population growth as well as in compaction of the human world due to advancing transportation and communication technologies, more and more complex thinking skills are required. This explains both the Flynn effect and why races which are rooted in tribal societies have lower IQs. So long as things keep getting more complex and IQs grow to match, ethical understandings will also grow, and of course there's the co-evolving internal pressure of getting along with more and more people in a smaller and smaller space.

What you say may be true. It may help to explain why our moral values and opinions have changed, and probably will continue to change.

My objection is to the claim that 'ethical understandings will also grow'. I may be wrong, but that seems to imply that morality is something that we can know and understand more and more about; that our ancestors' moral opinions - for example, their acceptance of slavery - came from their ignorance. And think that's question-begging. It assumes there are moral facts that they just didn't know about.

I think there are facts about why we have the moral opinions we have. But that can never mean our moral opinions are facts.

That clears right up when you understand morality as a personal understanding of the kind of behaviours, or restraints, that when carried out collectively, produce the most stable foundation for all Other purposes/intents/ends (and ethics as a formalized version). Of course both will grow. Wisdom comes from perspective, perspective comes from experience, and the more we continue, the more experiences we gather, etc... Even if moral fact is something like perfection - unrealisable, that doesn't mean it's not approachable.

Sorry, but that doesn't clear anything up. The claim that we should aim for the most stable foundation for human life - and the claim that what that foundation is is a matter of fact - these are both matters of opinion, and therefore subjective.

And the claim that 'moral fact is something like perfection - unrealisable' is mystical nonsense.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=483899 time=1607531185 user_id=15099]
Sorry, but that doesn't clear anything up. The claim that we [i]should[/i] aim for the most stable foundation for human life - and the claim that what that foundation is is a matter of fact - these are both matters of opinion, and therefore subjective.

And the claim that 'moral fact is something like perfection - unrealisable' is mystical nonsense.
[/quote]

Everything is subjective in some sense, whether it is objective Enough is the question at hand. It's about those transcendent words. We can't know what perfection is because the word references the transcendent - that which is literally beyond our possible knowing. But in purely pragmatic terms, we can absolutely know which direction it is from where we are in many meaningful senses. There's no mysticism there, it's how words work.

[Peter Holmes]

Sorry, but that doesn't clear anything up. The claim that we should aim for the most stable foundation for human life - and the claim that what that foundation is is a matter of fact - these are both matters of opinion, and therefore subjective.

And the claim that 'moral fact is something like perfection - unrealisable' is mystical nonsense.

Everything is subjective in some sense, whether it is objective Enough is the question at hand. It's about those transcendent words. We can't know what perfection is because the word references the transcendent - that which is literally beyond our possible knowing. But in purely pragmatic terms, we can absolutely know which direction it is from where we are in many meaningful senses. There's no mysticism there, it's how words work.

Okay. I think the claim that words are or can be transcendent is mystical non-sense - which has been called 'woo'. Words and other signs are real things that we use in certain ways. The idea that those uses are out of our control is mystical nonsense.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=483919 time=1607535598 user_id=15099]
[quote=Advocate post_id=483905 time=1607532566 user_id=15238]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=483899 time=1607531185 user_id=15099]
Sorry, but that doesn't clear anything up. The claim that we [i]should[/i] aim for the most stable foundation for human life - and the claim that what that foundation is is a matter of fact - these are both matters of opinion, and therefore subjective.

And the claim that 'moral fact is something like perfection - unrealisable' is mystical nonsense.
[/quote]

Everything is subjective in some sense, whether it is objective Enough is the question at hand. It's about those transcendent words. We can't know what perfection is because the word references the transcendent - that which is literally beyond our possible knowing. But in purely pragmatic terms, we can absolutely know which direction it is from where we are in many meaningful senses. There's no mysticism there, it's how words work.
[/quote]
Okay. I think the claim that words are or can be transcendent is mystical non-sense - which has been called 'woo'. Words and other signs are real things that we use in certain ways. The idea that those uses are out of our control is mystical nonsense.
[/quote]

They can reference the transcendent, that's how they're real, because transcendent ideas like perfection cannot be real to us. They're beyond the capacities of our limited brains. These words are meaningful as a stand-in for that which is beyond. That's why they make sense as a direction and not as a destination. That's where the Panasonic aspect comes from.

[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.

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?

You always missed the point that had been presented a "1000" times.

The the process;

• 1. First, from empirical evidences we verify and justify there are moral facts within a moral framework and system. 'Slavery is evil is a moral fact'
  2. The moral fact is thus a standard or norms, slavery is morally wrong i.e. 'no human ought to enslave another'
  3. Thus if there are trend of lesser slaves, there is a increase in moral competence or vice-versa.

Moral competence is the ability to align with the moral standard in 2.
If there were 500,000 chattel slaves >10,000 years ago and there are only 1,000 discovered in 2020 and were free by laws banning slavery, it is so obvious there is an increase in moral competence.
What is the problem with this argument?

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.

We need to go through the above process.

1. Verify empirically and philosophically, abortion is a moral fact and is morally wrong.
2. Establish the moral fact of abortion as morally wrong as a standard within a moral framework.
3. Therefore if there is a high or increase in the number of abortions naturally [not by any coercion], then there is an decrease* in moral competence or vice-versa.

* or the inherent moral function is not yet active.

What's wrong with the above arguments?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Note my response to Peter above.
The process should be natural and do not involve coercion by laws, force or otherwise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

At a more refined levels, there are a lot of counter-arguments to Lawrence Kohlberg theories.

Btw, genes are naturally engineered eventually if the adapted nurturing behaviors are repeated consistently over >500 years. This point is not relevant here.

For the present, there are 1000-and-one ways to develop moral competence of the individuals that do not to involve the immediate engineering of the genes.

From the potentials of the Human Connectome Project, humanity could identify certain inherent neural pathways [thus Nature not Nurture] that are critical for moral competence. With such knowledge, therefrom practices and efforts [Nurture] can be focused and targeted to develop those critical neural pathways.
The direction is to develop a very strong moral conscience or moral compass such that the evil potential inherent [and unavoidable] all humans are solid suppressed.

This is how competences in sports are developed albeit via the black-box trial & error method that use principles of repetitions and visualizations to strengthen the relevant neural pathway.

Genetic engineering is one option but only if it is guaranteed to be fool proof absolutely.

[Belinda]

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

At a more refined levels, there are a lot of counter-arguments to Lawrence Kohlberg theories.

Btw, genes are naturally engineered eventually if the adapted nurturing behaviors are repeated consistently over >500 years. This point is not relevant here.

For the present, there are 1000-and-one ways to develop moral competence of the individuals that do not to involve the immediate engineering of the genes.

From the potentials of the Human Connectome Project, humanity could identify certain inherent neural pathways [thus Nature not Nurture] that are critical for moral competence. With such knowledge, therefrom practices and efforts [Nurture] can be focused and targeted to develop those critical neural pathways.
The direction is to develop a very strong moral conscience or moral compass such that the evil potential inherent [and unavoidable] all humans are solid suppressed.

This is how competences in sports are developed albeit via the black-box trial & error method that use principles of repetitions and visualizations to strengthen the relevant neural pathway.

Genetic engineering is one option but only if it is guaranteed to be fool proof absolutely.

I agree with all the above , except for the possibility genetic engineering for moral intelligence is foolproof. It's as much as we are capable of to allow individuals the justice of owning our dying processes : it would be impossible for us with justice to permanently change the genome because that would involve countless other still to be born.

I especially like the connection you draw between sports training, education, and black box.

To identify and enhance "certain neural pathways" is what good teachers and education institutions aim to do. Sadly, teaching of the humanities is normally underfunded -----typically behaviour of our greedy selfish times.

Despite lack of funding there has been progress in education for moral and emotional competences . In view of the latter, I think this does support your case for progress in this particular area, comparative international statistics needed ; and maybe the transfer of learned responses to the genetic pathway is relevant. I think it is. This is not to follow Lamarck , as maybe even the lifetimes within 500 years would not be enough. Btw that is relevant info.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree with all the above , except for the possibility genetic engineering for moral intelligence is foolproof. It's as much as we are capable of to allow individuals the justice of owning our dying processes : it would be impossible for us with justice to permanently change the genome because that would involve countless other still to be born.

The term 'fool proof' is a very loaded and heavy term which can be very complex.

What is 'fool proof' in this case is we must be absolute to the highest possibility that there will not be any possible negatives for the course of action to be taken.

It is not possible at present given the current state of the average human IQ, EQ and wisdom quotient. However when the above quotients are increased significantly in many multiples then it may be possible to ensure fool proofing strategies [at least of 98% certainty] since 100% certainty is an impossibility.

Note our present desperation and rush to gradually give the Covid19 vaccine to all humans on Earth so that we can get rid [suppress] the Covid19 viruses. [despite the risks and I don't think it is fool-proofed]

If say, we can tweak a gene or neural set up that will ensure no humans will be able to have the tendency to kill other humans and we [at a point the average quotients are high] are so sure there are no side effects and is soundly fool proofed, then I don't see why we cannot adopt such a strategy in the future [>100 years or >200]. The risk would likely be lower than that of the present rushed Covid19 vaccination program.

I especially like the connection you draw between sports training, education, and black box.

To identify and enhance "certain neural pathways" is what good teachers and education institutions aim to do. Sadly, teaching of the humanities is normally underfunded -----typically behaviour of our greedy selfish times.

Despite lack of funding there has been progress in education for moral and emotional competences . In view of the latter, I think this does support your case for progress in this particular area, comparative international statistics needed ; and maybe the transfer of learned responses to the genetic pathway is relevant. I think it is. This is not to follow Lamarck , as maybe even the lifetimes within 500 years would not be enough. Btw that is relevant info.

I am theorizing but practical wise I have some doubts, but then I am very optimistic with potential greater moral progress given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.
Note the extent that even the most primitive of people at present in some corner of the world can even use a smart phone to some degree as learned from repetitions and habituated.

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote:

"why races which are rooted in tribal societies have lower IQs. "

Not at all . Doing well in IQ tests shows nothing but how good you are at doing IQ tests.

[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?

You always missed the point that had been presented a "1000" times.

The the process;

• 1. First, from empirical evidences we verify and justify there are moral facts within a moral framework and system. 'Slavery is evil is a moral fact'
  2. The moral fact is thus a standard or norms, slavery is morally wrong i.e. 'no human ought to enslave another'
  3. Thus if there are trend of lesser slaves, there is a increase in moral competence or vice-versa.

Moral competence is the ability to align with the moral standard in 2.
If there were 500,000 chattel slaves >10,000 years ago and there are only 1,000 discovered in 2020 and were free by laws banning slavery, it is so obvious there is an increase in moral competence.
What is the problem with this argument?

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.

We need to go through the above process.

1. Verify empirically and philosophically, abortion is a moral fact and is morally wrong.
2. Establish the moral fact of abortion as morally wrong as a standard within a moral framework.
3. Therefore if there is a high or increase in the number of abortions naturally [not by any coercion], then there is an decrease* in moral competence or vice-versa.

* or the inherent moral function is not yet active.

What's wrong with the above arguments?

Think about your #1 above: 'Verify empirically and philosophically, abortion is a moral fact and is morally wrong.'

How do we empirically verify that abortion is morally wrong? Please explain the empirical process. And don't just say it's morally wrong within a moral FSK. That isn't an empirical demonstration.