What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Note the normal process to Justified True [Moral] Belief within a moral framework and system.

• 1. First we review and analyze what is experienced and our intuition on the matter.
  2. From our intuition we use abductive reasoning to form a problem statement.
  3. Therefrom we formulate a hypothesis
  4. We then rely on Inductive reasoning and induction to verify and justify the hypothesis to a thesis.
  5. The thesis is a factual conclusion of a supposedly qualified moral fact.

To be conclusive we need the verify and justify the hypothesis empirically and philosophically.
So what is wrong with the above?

1 Knowledge is not justified true belief. So putative moral knowledge isn't justified true belief either.

2 To repeat, how can we carry out your #4? How can we empirically test and verify (or, therefore, falsify) a moral assertion, such as 'humans killing humans is morally wrong'? What experiments could we do, and what sort of information would they provide? What would the experimental data consist of? What would be the premise(s) in an inductive argument with that moral conclusion?

3 Instead of saying this is how we establish a moral fact, please actually demonstrate it in operation. By all means use your go-to supposed moral fact: humans killing humans is morally wrong.

(Btw, your point about FSKs borrowing facts from other FSKs is irrelevant. None of those borrowed facts enatails or even induces a moral conclusion.)

(And btw, my objection to the 'what everyone wants' claim has nothing to do with the ad populum fallacy. That you think it does speaks volumes.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note the normal process to Justified True [Moral] Belief within a moral framework and system.

• 1. First we review and analyze what is experienced and our intuition on the matter.
  2. From our intuition we use abductive reasoning to form a problem statement.
  3. Therefrom we formulate a hypothesis
  4. We then rely on Inductive reasoning and induction to verify and justify the hypothesis to a thesis.
  5. The thesis is a factual conclusion of a supposedly qualified moral fact.

To be conclusive we need the verify and justify the hypothesis empirically and philosophically.
So what is wrong with the above?

1 Knowledge is not justified true belief. So putative moral knowledge isn't justified true belief either.

I understand 'Gettier' which is going after 'pure' and 'perfect' knowledge which is not practical nor realistic.

JTB as 'knowledge' example scientific knowledge which is justified to be true within the scientific framework and system is the best we have and has high utilities that are beneficial to the well being of humanity [with awareness of whatever negatives it has].
Even then as the very best, scientific knowledge is merely at best 'polished conjectures.'


If knowledge is not JTB - the best we have, then what else is 'knowledge'.

2 To repeat, how can we carry out your #4?
How can we empirically test and verify (or, therefore, falsify) a moral assertion, such as 'humans killing humans is morally wrong'?
What experiments could we do, and what sort of information would they provide? What would the experimental data consist of? What would be the premise(s) in an inductive argument with that moral conclusion?

Personally you can test this Justified True Moral Fact as morally-wrong yourself within a Moral Framework and System, i.e.

• 1. As a normal person [not diagnosed as mentally ill], would you volunteer to be kill? Surely it is a NO!'
  If someone seriously threaten to kill you, would feel uneasy and you'll take preventive actions and condemns the evil intentions your intended killer? Surely this is a 'YES!'
  
  In the above example, you would have some inherent norm that you will not kill yourself and would ensure no one kill you.
  Surely, you would assess it is "wrong" [not right] that you would kill yourself or that someone wanting to kill you.
  So there is an element of 'wrongness' against some inherent norms within you.
  This wrongness when dealt within a moral framework and system is a moral wrongness, thus morally wrong, in this case is personal.

As far as the above, to you, killing is morally wrong as a justified true belief, i.e. really-real based on your personal conviction. This is obviously a subjective belief of very high personal conviction.

You can then extrapolate that to the 'normal' people closest and closer to you and that you know very well, they would have the same personal conviction like you.
Do you dispute this? I don't see any possible dispute, if they are all normal people.
The more people you are convinced have the same beliefs as you, the greater the objectivity that 'killing humans' is morally wrong within a moral FSK and the closer to an inductive conclusion.
To ensure they are not lying, you can subject to a lie detector test of the highest precision possible, e.g. physiological, neural, etc.

To get more reliable inductive conclusion all you need to do is to survey and test as many of the 7+ billion people on earth to generate the highest possible confidence level.

The above inductive conclusion will confirm the existence of the real moral facts as a physical-mental state within humans, justified within a moral framework and system.

• Note when the above is dealt within the legal framework, "murder is a serious crime and punishable' enacted in laws of the land is a legal fact.

3 Instead of saying this is how we establish a moral fact, please actually demonstrate it in operation. By all means use your go-to supposed moral fact: humans killing humans is morally wrong.

Note the above inductive tests, first on a personal basis, then to the people you know well and then to the public and as many as necessary to support an inductive conclusion with the highest possible confidence level in a scientific [social] basis.

(Btw, your point about FSKs borrowing facts from other FSKs is irrelevant. None of those borrowed facts entails or even induces a moral conclusion.)

I have already explained a '1000' times on this.
I will not bother to explain more times, as such I'll leave it to your own opinion, to each their own.

(And btw, my objection to the 'what everyone wants' claim has nothing to do with the ad populum fallacy. That you think it does speaks volumes.)

In principle, if I were to based [which you were expecting of me] on the majority's opinion that is not justified and verified empirically and philosophically, that would involved an ad populum fallacy.

[Peter Holmes]

Note the normal process to Justified True [Moral] Belief within a moral framework and system.

• 1. First we review and analyze what is experienced and our intuition on the matter.
  2. From our intuition we use abductive reasoning to form a problem statement.
  3. Therefrom we formulate a hypothesis
  4. We then rely on Inductive reasoning and induction to verify and justify the hypothesis to a thesis.
  5. The thesis is a factual conclusion of a supposedly qualified moral fact.

To be conclusive we need the verify and justify the hypothesis empirically and philosophically.
So what is wrong with the above?

1 Knowledge is not justified true belief. So putative moral knowledge isn't justified true belief either.

I understand 'Gettier' which is going after 'pure' and 'perfect' knowledge which is not practical nor realistic.

JTB as 'knowledge' example scientific knowledge which is justified to be true within the scientific framework and system is the best we have and has high utilities that are beneficial to the well being of humanity [with awareness of whatever negatives it has].
Even then as the very best, scientific knowledge is merely at best 'polished conjectures.'


If knowledge is not JTB - the best we have, then what else is 'knowledge'.

2 To repeat, how can we carry out your #4?
How can we empirically test and verify (or, therefore, falsify) a moral assertion, such as 'humans killing humans is morally wrong'?
What experiments could we do, and what sort of information would they provide? What would the experimental data consist of? What would be the premise(s) in an inductive argument with that moral conclusion?

Personally you can test this Justified True Moral Fact as morally-wrong yourself within a Moral Framework and System, i.e.

• 1. As a normal person [not diagnosed as mentally ill], would you volunteer to be kill? Surely it is a NO!'
  If someone seriously threaten to kill you, would feel uneasy and you'll take preventive actions and condemns the evil intentions your intended killer? Surely this is a 'YES!'
  
  In the above example, you would have some inherent norm that you will not kill yourself and would ensure no one kill you.
  Surely, you would assess it is "wrong" [not right] that you would kill yourself or that someone wanting to kill you.
  So there is an element of 'wrongness' against some inherent norms within you.
  This wrongness when dealt within a moral framework and system is a moral wrongness, thus morally wrong, in this case is personal.

As far as the above, to you, killing is morally wrong as a justified true belief, i.e. really-real based on your personal conviction. This is obviously a subjective belief of very high personal conviction.

You can then extrapolate that to the 'normal' people closest and closer to you and that you know very well, they would have the same personal conviction like you.
Do you dispute this? I don't see any possible dispute, if they are all normal people.
The more people you are convinced have the same beliefs as you, the greater the objectivity that 'killing humans' is morally wrong within a moral FSK and the closer to an inductive conclusion.
To ensure they are not lying, you can subject to a lie detector test of the highest precision possible, e.g. physiological, neural, etc.

To get more reliable inductive conclusion all you need to do is to survey and test as many of the 7+ billion people on earth to generate the highest possible confidence level.

The above inductive conclusion will confirm the existence of the real moral facts as a physical-mental state within humans, justified within a moral framework and system.

• Note when the above is dealt within the legal framework, "murder is a serious crime and punishable' enacted in laws of the land is a legal fact.

3 Instead of saying this is how we establish a moral fact, please actually demonstrate it in operation. By all means use your go-to supposed moral fact: humans killing humans is morally wrong.

Note the above inductive tests, first on a personal basis, then to the people you know well and then to the public and as many as necessary to support an inductive conclusion with the highest possible confidence level in a scientific [social] basis.

(Btw, your point about FSKs borrowing facts from other FSKs is irrelevant. None of those borrowed facts entails or even induces a moral conclusion.)

I have already explained a '1000' times on this.
I will not bother to explain more times, as such I'll leave it to your own opinion, to each their own.

(And btw, my objection to the 'what everyone wants' claim has nothing to do with the ad populum fallacy. That you think it does speaks volumes.)

In principle, if I were to based [which you were expecting of me] on the majority's opinion that is not justified and verified empirically and philosophically, that would involved an ad populum fallacy.

1 As I've explained, in trying to show that the JTB definition of knowledge is incorrect or inadequate, Gettier actually recycled the mistake at its heart - the assumed necessity of the truth-condition: S knows that p iff p is true - which demonstrates the myth of propositions at work. But anyway, your definition of so-called moral knowledge as 'justified true moral belief' is a complete conceptual mess.

2 As I've explained, the fact that I don't want to be killed - does NOT entail the conclusion that killing people is morally wrong. And the inductive conclusion that people don't want to be killed has no moral implication either. I don't understand why you keep stating this falsehood. Can it really be that you don't understand the issue? Do you really think that 'what people don't want' constitutes (if only partly) moral wrongness?

3 Don't lie. You haven't demonstrated how to empirically verify or falsify a moral assertion, such as 'humans killing humans is morally wrong', You just say there are moral facts within a moral framework and system of knowledge. Blah, blah, blah.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 As I've explained, in trying to show that the JTB definition of knowledge is incorrect or inadequate, Gettier actually recycled the mistake at its heart - the assumed necessity of the truth-condition: S knows that p iff p is true - which demonstrates the myth of propositions at work. But anyway, your definition of so-called moral knowledge as 'justified true moral belief' is a complete conceptual mess.

Without any sound justification to why it is a mess, that is only noises.

2 As I've explained, the fact that I don't want to be killed - does NOT entail the conclusion that killing people is morally wrong. And the inductive conclusion that people don't want to be killed has no moral implication either. I don't understand why you keep stating this falsehood. Can it really be that you don't understand the issue? Do you really think that 'what people don't want' constitutes (if only partly) moral wrongness?

I posted this in the other thread, re morally wrong,

• Yes, moral assertions are merely assertions [thoughts, talks, description, expressions] related to moral facts [intuited or justified as real].
  
  But claims of Moral facts must be justified and verified within a moral FSK/FSR, thus moral facts has their corresponding real referent.
  These Justified True Moral facts are adopted as moral standards within the Moral Framework and System.
  Where moral assertions or actual acts do not conform to the moral standard, there are variances/ deviations from the moral standard, which can be regarded as morally wrong [your preferred use].
  
  What is critical is not on the term 'morally wrong' but the force that the variance [moral gap] from the moral standard must trigger one to strive for moral progress towards the moral standard i.e. the moral fact.

3 Don't lie. You haven't demonstrated how to empirically verify or falsify a moral assertion, such as 'humans killing humans is morally wrong', You just say there are moral facts within a moral framework and system of knowledge. Blah, blah, blah.

I have not dealt with any moral assertions where assertions are merely thoughts and talking.
I have don't prefer the statement and assertion 'humans killing humans is morally wrong'. That is your rhetoric due to ignorance which I go along with your understanding.

What I have done over various threads is verifying and justifying the moral fact, there is an 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' program within all humans as represented by its mental state and the supporting physical referents [neurons, brain, physical body].

As above, it is the adopting the above fact as a moral standard within a moral FSK/FSR that we can derive whether moral assertions and actual actions are at variance with the moral standard.

When the moral standard is 'no human ought-not-to-kill-humans', then any assertions of intent to kill humans or actual acts of killing of humans are variances or deviations from standard. You can use your term it is morally wrong but that is not significant to me.

If there are no justified true moral facts as moral standards, it is like one is operating a steam boiler without a thermostat.
This is what happened with Hitler and other genocidals and evil prone people with no moral standards as guides and thus having a free-for-all to commit evil whenever they wish to do so.

[Peter Holmes]

1 As I've explained, in trying to show that the JTB definition of knowledge is incorrect or inadequate, Gettier actually recycled the mistake at its heart - the assumed necessity of the truth-condition: S knows that p iff p is true - which demonstrates the myth of propositions at work. But anyway, your definition of so-called moral knowledge as 'justified true moral belief' is a complete conceptual mess.

Without any sound justification to why it is a mess, that is only noises.

2 As I've explained, the fact that I don't want to be killed - does NOT entail the conclusion that killing people is morally wrong. And the inductive conclusion that people don't want to be killed has no moral implication either. I don't understand why you keep stating this falsehood. Can it really be that you don't understand the issue? Do you really think that 'what people don't want' constitutes (if only partly) moral wrongness?

I posted this in the other thread, re morally wrong,

• Yes, moral assertions are merely assertions [thoughts, talks, description, expressions] related to moral facts [intuited or justified as real].
  
  But claims of Moral facts must be justified and verified within a moral FSK/FSR, thus moral facts has their corresponding real referent.
  These Justified True Moral facts are adopted as moral standards within the Moral Framework and System.
  Where moral assertions or actual acts do not conform to the moral standard, there are variances/ deviations from the moral standard, which can be regarded as morally wrong [your preferred use].
  
  What is critical is not on the term 'morally wrong' but the force that the variance [moral gap] from the moral standard must trigger one to strive for moral progress towards the moral standard i.e. the moral fact.

3 Don't lie. You haven't demonstrated how to empirically verify or falsify a moral assertion, such as 'humans killing humans is morally wrong', You just say there are moral facts within a moral framework and system of knowledge. Blah, blah, blah.

I have not dealt with any moral assertions where assertions are merely thoughts and talking.
I have don't prefer the statement and assertion 'humans killing humans is morally wrong'. That is your rhetoric due to ignorance which I go along with your understanding.

What I have done over various threads is verifying and justifying the moral fact, there is an 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' program within all humans as represented by its mental state and the supporting physical referents [neurons, brain, physical body].

As above, it is the adopting the above fact as a moral standard within a moral FSK/FSR that we can derive whether moral assertions and actual actions are at variance with the moral standard.

When the moral standard is 'no human ought-not-to-kill-humans', then any assertions of intent to kill humans or actual acts of killing of humans are variances or deviations from standard. You can use your term it is morally wrong but that is not significant to me.

If there are no justified true moral facts as moral standards, it is like one is operating a steam boiler without a thermostat.
This is what happened with Hitler and other genocidals and evil prone people with no moral standards as guides and thus having a free-for-all to commit evil whenever they wish to do so.

So let's get your argument straight.

1 We're 'programmed' with ought-not-to-kill. And that's an objectively verifiable fact about human nature.

2 In line with this 'programming', we adopt the moral standard 'ought-not-to-kill' - 'within a moral FSK/FSR'.

3 Then moral rightness and wrongness are conformity to and variance from that standard.

And here's why your argument is shit.

1 This factual premise is highly disputed, tendentious, and anyway morally irrelevant, as would be its negation: we're 'programmed' with ought-to-kill.

2 The adoption of a moral standard - regardless of our reasons for doing so - is a matter of choice and therefore subjective. The moral FSK/FSR is your question-begging invention, and it does nothing to establish that there are moral facts.

3 Consistency of behaviour with a standard - action A is consistent with standard B - has no moral implication. And if moral rightness and wrongness - moral judgement - don't enter into claims and arguments, then those claims and argument aren't about morality, how ever factual and empirically verifiable they may be.

I doubt there's any chance you'll even understand these objections, let alone bother actually to think about and address them seriously. But hey, why bother with genuinely critical thinking when you have a tenet of faith to defend?

[Skepdick]

So let's get your argument straight.

1 We're 'programmed' with ought-not-to-kill. And that's an objectively verifiable fact about human nature.

2 In line with this 'programming', we adopt the moral standard 'ought-not-to-kill' - 'within a moral FSK/FSR'.

3 Then moral rightness and wrongness are conformity to and variance from that standard.

And here's why your argument is shit.

1 This factual premise is highly disputed, tendentious, and anyway morally irrelevant, as would be its negation: we're 'programmed' with ought-to-kill.

2 The adoption of a moral standard - regardless of our reasons for doing so - is a matter of choice and therefore subjective. The moral FSK/FSR is your question-begging invention, and it does nothing to establish that there are moral facts.

3 Consistency of behaviour with a standard - action A is consistent with standard B - has no moral implication. And if moral rightness and wrongness - moral judgement - don't enter into claims and arguments, then those claims and argument aren't about morality, how ever factual and empirically verifiable they may be.

I doubt there's any chance you'll even understand these objections, let alone bother actually to think about and address them seriously. But hey, why bother with genuinely critical thinking when you have a tenet of faith to defend?

Just because an argument is shit it doesn't mean the conclusion is false.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy

Think of it as critique on your "critical thinking".

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 As I've explained, in trying to show that the JTB definition of knowledge is incorrect or inadequate, Gettier actually recycled the mistake at its heart - the assumed necessity of the truth-condition: S knows that p iff p is true - which demonstrates the myth of propositions at work. But anyway, your definition of so-called moral knowledge as 'justified true moral belief' is a complete conceptual mess.

Without any sound justification to why it is a mess, that is only noises.

2 As I've explained, the fact that I don't want to be killed - does NOT entail the conclusion that killing people is morally wrong. And the inductive conclusion that people don't want to be killed has no moral implication either. I don't understand why you keep stating this falsehood. Can it really be that you don't understand the issue? Do you really think that 'what people don't want' constitutes (if only partly) moral wrongness?

I posted this in the other thread, re morally wrong,

• Yes, moral assertions are merely assertions [thoughts, talks, description, expressions] related to moral facts [intuited or justified as real].
  
  But claims of Moral facts must be justified and verified within a moral FSK/FSR, thus moral facts has their corresponding real referent.
  These Justified True Moral facts are adopted as moral standards within the Moral Framework and System.
  Where moral assertions or actual acts do not conform to the moral standard, there are variances/ deviations from the moral standard, which can be regarded as morally wrong [your preferred use].
  
  What is critical is not on the term 'morally wrong' but the force that the variance [moral gap] from the moral standard must trigger one to strive for moral progress towards the moral standard i.e. the moral fact.

3 Don't lie. You haven't demonstrated how to empirically verify or falsify a moral assertion, such as 'humans killing humans is morally wrong', You just say there are moral facts within a moral framework and system of knowledge. Blah, blah, blah.

I have not dealt with any moral assertions where assertions are merely thoughts and talking.
I have don't prefer the statement and assertion 'humans killing humans is morally wrong'. That is your rhetoric due to ignorance which I go along with your understanding.

What I have done over various threads is verifying and justifying the moral fact, there is an 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' program within all humans as represented by its mental state and the supporting physical referents [neurons, brain, physical body].

As above, it is the adopting the above fact as a moral standard within a moral FSK/FSR that we can derive whether moral assertions and actual actions are at variance with the moral standard.

When the moral standard is 'no human ought-not-to-kill-humans', then any assertions of intent to kill humans or actual acts of killing of humans are variances or deviations from standard. You can use your term it is morally wrong but that is not significant to me.

If there are no justified true moral facts as moral standards, it is like one is operating a steam boiler without a thermostat.
This is what happened with Hitler and other genocidals and evil prone people with no moral standards as guides and thus having a free-for-all to commit evil whenever they wish to do so.

So let's get your argument straight.

1 We're 'programmed' with ought-not-to-kill. And that's an objectively verifiable fact about human nature.

2 In line with this 'programming', we adopt the moral standard 'ought-not-to-kill' - 'within a moral FSK/FSR'.

3 Then moral rightness and wrongness are conformity to and variance from that standard.

And here's why your argument is shit.

1 This factual premise is highly disputed, tendentious, and anyway morally irrelevant, as would be its negation: we're 'programmed' with ought-to-kill.

All you can say is No! No! No! but without any solid justifications why my proposals are irrational and nonsense. Your resistance to new realistic views is merely psychological, see,

WHAT IS THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND RESISTANCE TO CHANGE?

There is no way to support ALL humans are programmed to kill humans.
However as inferred inductively and verifiable, all humans are programmed with the 'ought-not-to-kill-humans'.
I have already demonstrated the proofs to that. You can personally prove that with yourself.

HINT: btw, in a survey of philosophers, 56% would agree with the above in principle, i.e. there are moral facts, thus moral realism.
Only 28% are moral anti-realist and it is likely those that agree with your kindergarten thinking [inherited from the LPs] are much lesser.

2 The adoption of a moral standard - regardless of our reasons for doing so - is a matter of choice and therefore subjective. The moral FSK/FSR is your question-begging invention, and it does nothing to establish that there are moral facts.

The acceptance of the moral standard is based on fact, i.e. moral facts.

E.g. when a ship's captain accept the 'lighthouse' as a standard to guide his ship, that is because of the verified facts of the geography of the surrounding of rocks and other dangers within the surrounding.

3 Consistency of behaviour with a standard - action A is consistent with standard B - has no moral implication. And if moral rightness and wrongness - moral judgement - don't enter into claims and arguments, then those claims and argument aren't about morality, how ever factual and empirically verifiable they may be.

I have defined 'morality' and all the above activities are related to morality as defined.

Note,
Murder is legally wrong. It is legally wrong because murder is a deviation from the standards of what is wrong via laws within a politico-legal framework.

Murder is also a deviation within the moral framework and system within the human psyche monitored by one's personal conscience via the inherent moral function within all humans.
Morality as defined is a personal issue managed within one's responsibility supported by humanity within a moral framework and system.

I doubt there's any chance you'll even understand these objections, let alone bother actually to think about and address them seriously. But hey, why bother with genuinely critical thinking when you have a tenet of faith to defend?

You are the one who is unable to understand [not necessary agree] with what I had presented which is based on extensively research from a wide range of knowledge. i.e. Eastern and Western philosophy, neurosciences, psychology, anthropology, etc.

All you got is the linguistic perspective of 'fact is fact,' fact is a 'feature of reality' and 'state of affairs'. There is no room for you to progress on that archaic claim.

In terms of philosophy, your objections are kindergarten stuffs.
I on the other hand had raised so many fundamental issues, e.g. Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism but you are totally ignorant what this serious contentious issue is about.
If you unable to progress from your kindergarten to qualify to grade school, that is your business, not mine.

[Peter Holmes]

Without any sound justification to why it is a mess, that is only noises.


I posted this in the other thread, re morally wrong,

• Yes, moral assertions are merely assertions [thoughts, talks, description, expressions] related to moral facts [intuited or justified as real].
  
  But claims of Moral facts must be justified and verified within a moral FSK/FSR, thus moral facts has their corresponding real referent.
  These Justified True Moral facts are adopted as moral standards within the Moral Framework and System.
  Where moral assertions or actual acts do not conform to the moral standard, there are variances/ deviations from the moral standard, which can be regarded as morally wrong [your preferred use].
  
  What is critical is not on the term 'morally wrong' but the force that the variance [moral gap] from the moral standard must trigger one to strive for moral progress towards the moral standard i.e. the moral fact.

I have not dealt with any moral assertions where assertions are merely thoughts and talking.
I have don't prefer the statement and assertion 'humans killing humans is morally wrong'. That is your rhetoric due to ignorance which I go along with your understanding.

What I have done over various threads is verifying and justifying the moral fact, there is an 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' program within all humans as represented by its mental state and the supporting physical referents [neurons, brain, physical body].

As above, it is the adopting the above fact as a moral standard within a moral FSK/FSR that we can derive whether moral assertions and actual actions are at variance with the moral standard.

When the moral standard is 'no human ought-not-to-kill-humans', then any assertions of intent to kill humans or actual acts of killing of humans are variances or deviations from standard. You can use your term it is morally wrong but that is not significant to me.

If there are no justified true moral facts as moral standards, it is like one is operating a steam boiler without a thermostat.
This is what happened with Hitler and other genocidals and evil prone people with no moral standards as guides and thus having a free-for-all to commit evil whenever they wish to do so.

So let's get your argument straight.

1 We're 'programmed' with ought-not-to-kill. And that's an objectively verifiable fact about human nature.

2 In line with this 'programming', we adopt the moral standard 'ought-not-to-kill' - 'within a moral FSK/FSR'.

3 Then moral rightness and wrongness are conformity to and variance from that standard.

And here's why your argument is shit.

1 This factual premise is highly disputed, tendentious, and anyway morally irrelevant, as would be its negation: we're 'programmed' with ought-to-kill.

All you can say is No! No! No! but without any solid justifications why my proposals are irrational and nonsense. Your resistance to new realistic views is merely psychological, see,

WHAT IS THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND RESISTANCE TO CHANGE?

There is no way to support ALL humans are programmed to kill humans.
However as inferred inductively and verifiable, all humans are programmed with the 'ought-not-to-kill-humans'.
I have already demonstrated the proofs to that. You can personally prove that with yourself.

HINT: btw, in a survey of philosophers, 56% would agree with the above in principle, i.e. there are moral facts, thus moral realism.
Only 28% are moral anti-realist and it is likely those that agree with your kindergarten thinking [inherited from the LPs] are much lesser.

2 The adoption of a moral standard - regardless of our reasons for doing so - is a matter of choice and therefore subjective. The moral FSK/FSR is your question-begging invention, and it does nothing to establish that there are moral facts.

The acceptance of the moral standard is based on fact, i.e. moral facts.

E.g. when a ship's captain accept the 'lighthouse' as a standard to guide his ship, that is because of the verified facts of the geography of the surrounding of rocks and other dangers within the surrounding.

3 Consistency of behaviour with a standard - action A is consistent with standard B - has no moral implication. And if moral rightness and wrongness - moral judgement - don't enter into claims and arguments, then those claims and argument aren't about morality, how ever factual and empirically verifiable they may be.

I have defined 'morality' and all the above activities are related to morality as defined.

Note,
Murder is legally wrong. It is legally wrong because murder is a deviation from the standards of what is wrong via laws within a politico-legal framework.

Murder is also a deviation within the moral framework and system within the human psyche monitored by one's personal conscience via the inherent moral function within all humans.
Morality as defined is a personal issue managed within one's responsibility supported by humanity within a moral framework and system.

I doubt there's any chance you'll even understand these objections, let alone bother actually to think about and address them seriously. But hey, why bother with genuinely critical thinking when you have a tenet of faith to defend?

You are the one who is unable to understand [not necessary agree] with what I had presented which is based on extensively research from a wide range of knowledge. i.e. Eastern and Western philosophy, neurosciences, psychology, anthropology, etc.

All you got is the linguistic perspective of 'fact is fact,' fact is a 'feature of reality' and 'state of affairs'. There is no room for you to progress on that archaic claim.

In terms of philosophy, your objections are kindergarten stuffs.
I on the other hand had raised so many fundamental issues, e.g. Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism but you are totally ignorant what this serious contentious issue is about.
If you unable to progress from your kindergarten to qualify to grade school, that is your business, not mine.

1 Same mistake. The expression 'moral fact' is a grammatical misattribution. For example, the assertion 'we're 'programmed' with ought-not-kill' says NOTHING about morality, so it isn't even a moral assertion, let alone an assertion of a moral fact. Your confusion is linguistic.

2 There's empirical evidence for the existence and practical value of lighthouses. Your quaint analogy - between moral standards and lighthouses - fails at every point of comparison.

[Sculptor]

So let's get your argument straight.

1 We're 'programmed' with ought-not-to-kill. And that's an objectively verifiable fact about human nature.

2 In line with this 'programming', we adopt the moral standard 'ought-not-to-kill' - 'within a moral FSK/FSR'.

3 Then moral rightness and wrongness are conformity to and variance from that standard.

And here's why your argument is shit.

1 This factual premise is highly disputed, tendentious, and anyway morally irrelevant, as would be its negation: we're 'programmed' with ought-to-kill.

All you can say is No! No! No! but without any solid justifications why my proposals are irrational and nonsense. Your resistance to new realistic views is merely psychological, see,

WHAT IS THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND RESISTANCE TO CHANGE?

There is no way to support ALL humans are programmed to kill humans.
However as inferred inductively and verifiable, all humans are programmed with the 'ought-not-to-kill-humans'.
I have already demonstrated the proofs to that. You can personally prove that with yourself.

HINT: btw, in a survey of philosophers, 56% would agree with the above in principle, i.e. there are moral facts, thus moral realism.
Only 28% are moral anti-realist and it is likely those that agree with your kindergarten thinking [inherited from the LPs] are much lesser.

2 The adoption of a moral standard - regardless of our reasons for doing so - is a matter of choice and therefore subjective. The moral FSK/FSR is your question-begging invention, and it does nothing to establish that there are moral facts.

The acceptance of the moral standard is based on fact, i.e. moral facts.

E.g. when a ship's captain accept the 'lighthouse' as a standard to guide his ship, that is because of the verified facts of the geography of the surrounding of rocks and other dangers within the surrounding.

3 Consistency of behaviour with a standard - action A is consistent with standard B - has no moral implication. And if moral rightness and wrongness - moral judgement - don't enter into claims and arguments, then those claims and argument aren't about morality, how ever factual and empirically verifiable they may be.

I have defined 'morality' and all the above activities are related to morality as defined.

Note,
Murder is legally wrong. It is legally wrong because murder is a deviation from the standards of what is wrong via laws within a politico-legal framework.

Murder is also a deviation within the moral framework and system within the human psyche monitored by one's personal conscience via the inherent moral function within all humans.
Morality as defined is a personal issue managed within one's responsibility supported by humanity within a moral framework and system.

I doubt there's any chance you'll even understand these objections, let alone bother actually to think about and address them seriously. But hey, why bother with genuinely critical thinking when you have a tenet of faith to defend?

You are the one who is unable to understand [not necessary agree] with what I had presented which is based on extensively research from a wide range of knowledge. i.e. Eastern and Western philosophy, neurosciences, psychology, anthropology, etc.

All you got is the linguistic perspective of 'fact is fact,' fact is a 'feature of reality' and 'state of affairs'. There is no room for you to progress on that archaic claim.

In terms of philosophy, your objections are kindergarten stuffs.
I on the other hand had raised so many fundamental issues, e.g. Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism but you are totally ignorant what this serious contentious issue is about.
If you unable to progress from your kindergarten to qualify to grade school, that is your business, not mine.

1 Same mistake. The expression 'moral fact' is a grammatical misattribution. For example, the assertion 'we're 'programmed' with ought-not-kill' says NOTHING about morality, so it isn't even a moral assertion, let alone an assertion of a moral fact. Your confusion is linguistic.

It's also empirically false too.
We'd have never left the Savanna of Olduvai Gorge were it true.

2 There's empirical evidence for the existence and practical value of lighthouses. Your quaint analogy - between moral standards and lighthouses - fails at every point of comparison.

And like all moral injunctions the practicality of lighthouses are also dependant on arbirary values. In particular the welfare of ships in this case, which is not a necessary or objective stance to take.

[Skepdick]

And like all moral injunctions the practicality of lighthouses are also dependant on arbirary values. In particular the welfare of ships in this case, which is not a necessary or objective stance to take.

Everything in Physics and Modern mathematics depends the choice-axiom. So everything in Physics and Mathematics hinges on arbitrary values.

That doesn't prevent physicists from making objective claims about the world.

You are confusing the meaning of 'objective' which is contingent upon observers with the Philosophical/idealised meaning of "objective" which is incoherent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are the one who is unable to understand [not necessary agree] with what I had presented which is based on extensively research from a wide range of knowledge. i.e. Eastern and Western philosophy, neurosciences, psychology, anthropology, etc.

All you got is the linguistic perspective of 'fact is fact,' fact is a 'feature of reality' and 'state of affairs'. There is no room for you to progress on that archaic claim.

In terms of philosophy, your objections are kindergarten stuffs.
I on the other hand had raised so many fundamental issues, e.g. Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism but you are totally ignorant what this serious contentious issue is about.
If you unable to progress from your kindergarten to qualify to grade school, that is your business, not mine.

1 Same mistake. The expression 'moral fact' is a grammatical misattribution. For example, the assertion 'we're 'programmed' with ought-not-kill' says NOTHING about morality, so it isn't even a moral assertion, let alone an assertion of a moral fact. Your confusion is linguistic.

2 There's empirical evidence for the existence and practical value of lighthouses. Your quaint analogy - between moral standards and lighthouses - fails at every point of comparison.

2. I have already provided empirical evidences [mentally and physically] in verifying and justifying there are justified true moral facts within a moral framework and system.

Your knowledge of "what is morality" is too shallow, narrow, dogmatic and bigoted.
Suggest you do more research on what is morality.

Hint [only]:
I started extensive research [late last year] full-time on the subject of "what is morality and ethics" as a top up to my previous Kantian Morality and Ethics I did some time ago.
My new directory of 'Morality & Ethics' in my PC now has >1200 files in >60 folders.
You? you don't seem to have researched further other than being constipated with and insisting 'fact is fact' from the linguistic perspective inherited from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And like all moral injunctions the practicality of lighthouses are also dependant on arbirary values. In particular the welfare of ships in this case, which is not a necessary or objective stance to take.

How come you are SO stupid? [literally unintelligent with low IQ in this sense]

Lighthouses are placed in the strategic location based on facts, i.e. based on empirical evidences of the factual and actual cliffs, rocks, corals and other dangers where ships has to pass to get to their destinations. This is very objective.

The fixed lighthouse in this case is analogy similar to the fixed moral standards that human has to navigate their behavior in relation to the moral standards which are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system, culminating as justified true moral facts.

The welfare of the ships in important but irrelevant to this analogy.
In any case the welfare of the ships are not arbitrary values but involved human lives and physical assets with objective values.

[Peter Holmes]

You are the one who is unable to understand [not necessary agree] with what I had presented which is based on extensively research from a wide range of knowledge. i.e. Eastern and Western philosophy, neurosciences, psychology, anthropology, etc.

All you got is the linguistic perspective of 'fact is fact,' fact is a 'feature of reality' and 'state of affairs'. There is no room for you to progress on that archaic claim.

In terms of philosophy, your objections are kindergarten stuffs.
I on the other hand had raised so many fundamental issues, e.g. Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism but you are totally ignorant what this serious contentious issue is about.
If you unable to progress from your kindergarten to qualify to grade school, that is your business, not mine.

1 Same mistake. The expression 'moral fact' is a grammatical misattribution. For example, the assertion 'we're 'programmed' with ought-not-kill' says NOTHING about morality, so it isn't even a moral assertion, let alone an assertion of a moral fact. Your confusion is linguistic.

2 There's empirical evidence for the existence and practical value of lighthouses. Your quaint analogy - between moral standards and lighthouses - fails at every point of comparison.

2. I have already provided empirical evidences [mentally and physically] in verifying and justifying there are justified true moral facts within a moral framework and system.

Your knowledge of "what is morality" is too shallow, narrow, dogmatic and bigoted.
Suggest you do more research on what is morality.

Hint [only]:
I started extensive research [late last year] full-time on the subject of "what is morality and ethics" as a top up to my previous Kantian Morality and Ethics I did some time ago.
My new directory of 'Morality & Ethics' in my PC now has >1200 files in >60 folders.
You? you don't seem to have researched further other than being constipated with and insisting 'fact is fact' from the linguistic perspective inherited from the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists.

Extraordinary. All that research, and you can't do the one thing you need to do, which is to show how a moral assertion can be empirically verified or falsified. All you've done is invent a question-begging 'moral framework and system of knowledge'; claim there are moral facts within it, which you insist must be verified empirically and philosophically, though you've failed to provide one example; and finally say we should adopt that non-existent moral fact as a standard.

The grandeur of your self-delusion is off the scale. I expect you've actually won this argument by a landslide, and it's only the shallow, narrow, dogmatic and bigoted who can't see it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Extraordinary. All that research, and you can't do the one thing you need to do, which is to show how a moral assertion can be empirically verified or falsified. All you've done is invent a question-begging 'moral framework and system of knowledge'; claim there are moral facts within it, which you insist must be verified empirically and philosophically, though you've failed to provide one example; and finally say we should adopt that non-existent moral fact as a standard.

The grandeur of your self-delusion is off the scale. I expect you've actually won this argument by a landslide, and it's only the shallow, narrow, dogmatic and bigoted who can't see it.

Grandeur?? I stated it is only a hint. It will be very tedious to make a serious claim here.
At least, I have the basis to state your views on morality are very restricted low level kindergarten stuffs re morality and ethics.

I suggest you do more extensive research on 'what is moral and ethics' and you will understand you current views are merely kindergarten stuffs of morality. It it really laughable you are so arrogant banking on with so little stuff [kindergarten materials].

I am not hoping to win any argument, if there is any winning to be won, it would be worthless especially over kindergarten stuffs.

What I am interested is to expand my own database of knowledge surrounding the subject of morality and ethics, which I believe I have been reasonable successful on this.
I don't give a damn to your kindergarten stuffs on morality.

Btw, what I have presented so far is not the full range of knowledge I have re Morality and Ethics. I have kept some very fundamental ones inside my sleeves for my own purpose.

Note this small range of subjects related to ethics,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
and I believe you have merely scratch the surface. You are even ignorant of your stance within MetaEthics which I have informed you is 'Non-Cogntivism' - yet you are suspicious of this label due to ignorance.

I have covered >90% of the listed below; there are more elsewhere.

Normative ethics
Consequentialism Utilitarianism Deontology Kantian ethics Ethics of care Existentialist ethics Particularism Pragmatic ethics Role ethics Virtue ethics Eudaimonism

Applied ethics
Animal ethics Bioethics Business ethics Discourse ethics Engineering ethics Environmental ethics Legal ethics Machine ethics Media ethics Medical ethics Nursing ethics Professional ethics Sexual ethics Ethics of artificial intelligence Ethics of eating meat Ethics of technology Ethics of terraforming Ethics of uncertain sentience

Meta-ethics
Cognitivism Moral realism Ethical naturalism Ethical non-naturalism Ethical subjectivism Ideal observer theory Divine command theory Error theory Non-cognitivism Emotivism Expressivism Quasi-realism Universal prescriptivism Moral universalism Value monism – Value pluralism Moral relativism Moral nihilism Moral rationalism Ethical intuitionism Moral skepticism

Concepts
Autonomy Axiology Conscience Consent Equality Free will Good and evil Good Evil Happiness Ideal Immorality Justice Liberty Morality Norm Freedom Suffering or Pain Stewardship Sympathy Trust Value Virtue Wrongfull

Philosophers
Laozi Socrates Plato Aristotle Diogenes Valluvar Cicero Confucius Augustine of Hippo Mencius Mozi Xunzi Thomas Aquinas Baruch Spinoza David Hume Immanuel Kant Georg W. F. Hegel Arthur Schopenhauer Jeremy Bentham John Stuart Mill Søren Kierkegaard Henry Sidgwick Friedrich Nietzsche G. E. Moore Karl BarthPaul TillichDietrich BonhoefferPhilippa FootJohn RawlsJohn DeweyBernard WilliamsJ. L. MackieG. E. M. AnscombeWilliam FrankenaAlasdair MacIntyreR. M. HarePeter SingerDerek ParfitThomas NagelRobert Merrihew AdamsCharles TaylorJoxe AzurmendiChristine KorsgaardMartha Nussbaummore...

Related articles
Casuistry Christian ethics Descriptive ethics Ethics in religion Evolutionary ethics Feminist ethics History of ethics Ideology Islamic ethics Jewish ethics Moral psychology Philosophy of law Political philosophy Population ethics Social philosophy

Here is an Outline that cover a reasonable range of what is Ethics and Morality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_ethics

[Peter Holmes]

Extraordinary. All that research, and you can't do the one thing you need to do, which is to show how a moral assertion can be empirically verified or falsified. All you've done is invent a question-begging 'moral framework and system of knowledge'; claim there are moral facts within it, which you insist must be verified empirically and philosophically, though you've failed to provide one example; and finally say we should adopt that non-existent moral fact as a standard.

The grandeur of your self-delusion is off the scale. I expect you've actually won this argument by a landslide, and it's only the shallow, narrow, dogmatic and bigoted who can't see it.

Grandeur?? I stated it is only a hint. It will be very tedious to make a serious claim here.
At least, I have the basis to state your views on morality are very restricted low level kindergarten stuffs re morality and ethics.

I suggest you do more extensive research on 'what is moral and ethics' and you will understand you current views are merely kindergarten stuffs of morality. It it really laughable you are so arrogant banking on with so little stuff [kindergarten materials].

I am not hoping to win any argument, if there is any winning to be won, it would be worthless especially over kindergarten stuffs.

What I am interested is to expand my own database of knowledge surrounding the subject of morality and ethics, which I believe I have been reasonable successful on this.
I don't give a damn to your kindergarten stuffs on morality.

Btw, what I have presented so far is not the full range of knowledge I have re Morality and Ethics. I have kept some very fundamental ones inside my sleeves for my own purpose.

Note this small range of subjects related to ethics,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
and I believe you have merely scratch the surface. You are even ignorant of your stance within MetaEthics which I have informed you is 'Non-Cogntivism' - yet you are suspicious of this label due to ignorance.

I have covered >90% of the listed below; there are more elsewhere.

Normative ethics
Consequentialism Utilitarianism Deontology Kantian ethics Ethics of care Existentialist ethics Particularism Pragmatic ethics Role ethics Virtue ethics Eudaimonism

Applied ethics
Animal ethics Bioethics Business ethics Discourse ethics Engineering ethics Environmental ethics Legal ethics Machine ethics Media ethics Medical ethics Nursing ethics Professional ethics Sexual ethics Ethics of artificial intelligence Ethics of eating meat Ethics of technology Ethics of terraforming Ethics of uncertain sentience

Meta-ethics
Cognitivism Moral realism Ethical naturalism Ethical non-naturalism Ethical subjectivism Ideal observer theory Divine command theory Error theory Non-cognitivism Emotivism Expressivism Quasi-realism Universal prescriptivism Moral universalism Value monism – Value pluralism Moral relativism Moral nihilism Moral rationalism Ethical intuitionism Moral skepticism

Concepts
Autonomy Axiology Conscience Consent Equality Free will Good and evil Good Evil Happiness Ideal Immorality Justice Liberty Morality Norm Freedom Suffering or Pain Stewardship Sympathy Trust Value Virtue Wrongfull

Philosophers
Laozi Socrates Plato Aristotle Diogenes Valluvar Cicero Confucius Augustine of Hippo Mencius Mozi Xunzi Thomas Aquinas Baruch Spinoza David Hume Immanuel Kant Georg W. F. Hegel Arthur Schopenhauer Jeremy Bentham John Stuart Mill Søren Kierkegaard Henry Sidgwick Friedrich Nietzsche G. E. Moore Karl BarthPaul TillichDietrich BonhoefferPhilippa FootJohn RawlsJohn DeweyBernard WilliamsJ. L. MackieG. E. M. AnscombeWilliam FrankenaAlasdair MacIntyreR. M. HarePeter SingerDerek ParfitThomas NagelRobert Merrihew AdamsCharles TaylorJoxe AzurmendiChristine KorsgaardMartha Nussbaummore...

Related articles
Casuistry Christian ethics Descriptive ethics Ethics in religion Evolutionary ethics Feminist ethics History of ethics Ideology Islamic ethics Jewish ethics Moral psychology Philosophy of law Political philosophy Population ethics Social philosophy

Here is an Outline that cover a reasonable range of what is Ethics and Morality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_ethics

Extraordinary. All that research, and you can't do the one thing you need to do, which is to show how a moral assertion can be empirically verified or falsified. All you've done is invent a question-begging 'moral framework and system of knowledge'; claim there are moral facts within it, which you insist must be verified empirically and philosophically, though you've failed to provide one example; and finally say we should adopt that non-existent moral fact as a standard. And notice the 'should' in the previous sentence. Why 'should' we adopt any moral standard? Is it a fact that we should, or only an opinion? Answer: at the bottom of any moral argument there's a moral judgement, which is therefore subjective.