Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

..
Moral norms are based on moral facts justified via a moral framework and system, thus more credible than the norms of many other FSKs.

Think about it. The decision to adopt a moral standard - for any reason whatsoever - is subjective. And that decision doesn't make the standard objective. It's really very simple. For example, if we adopt 'do no harm' as a rule, that doesn't mean 'do no harm' is some fact about reality.

You are so blind to the point I made above?

Whatever norms or standards that are accepted within a moral FSK are already moral facts.
I stated above and before, "moral facts justified via a moral framework and system" thus are objective, and note,
What is Philosophical Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
Since the moral fact is verified and justified within a moral FSK as objective, when adopted as a moral standard, it is still objective.

The above is the general principle.

If you specifically adopt 'do no harm' as a moral standard [rule], then you must first verified and justified 'do no harm' as a moral fact within a moral framework and system thus as objective.

So: there are moral facts; we adopt those moral facts as norms or standards; therefore, there are moral facts.

Well, QED. That's a slam-dunk. My Christmas is complete.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Think about it. The decision to adopt a moral standard - for any reason whatsoever - is subjective. And that decision doesn't make the standard objective. It's really very simple. For example, if we adopt 'do no harm' as a rule, that doesn't mean 'do no harm' is some fact about reality.

You are so blind to the point I made above?

Whatever norms or standards that are accepted within a moral FSK are already moral facts.
I stated above and before, "moral facts justified via a moral framework and system" thus are objective, and note,
What is Philosophical Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
Since the moral fact is verified and justified within a moral FSK as objective, when adopted as a moral standard, it is still objective.

The above is the general principle.

If you specifically adopt 'do no harm' as a moral standard [rule], then you must first verified and justified 'do no harm' as a moral fact within a moral framework and system thus as objective.

So: there are moral facts;
we adopt those moral facts as norms or standards;
therefore, there are moral facts.

Well, QED. That's a slam-dunk. My Christmas is complete.

You are do desperate that you are blinded.
Show me where did I make or implied the above syllogism.

My views are these;
So: there are moral facts as justified upon a moral framework and system;
we adopt those moral facts as norms or standards as a guide;
therefore, we can improve our current moral/ethical competence towards the moral standard.

What is significant is,
whether what is intuited as moral can be justified empirically and philosophically as represented by moral facts - a feature of reality, state-of-neural-affairs, that is the case of reality -all-there-is where humans are part and parcel of.

[Peter Holmes]

You are so blind to the point I made above?

Whatever norms or standards that are accepted within a moral FSK are already moral facts.
I stated above and before, "moral facts justified via a moral framework and system" thus are objective, and note,
What is Philosophical Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
Since the moral fact is verified and justified within a moral FSK as objective, when adopted as a moral standard, it is still objective.

The above is the general principle.

If you specifically adopt 'do no harm' as a moral standard [rule], then you must first verified and justified 'do no harm' as a moral fact within a moral framework and system thus as objective.

So: there are moral facts;
we adopt those moral facts as norms or standards;
therefore, there are moral facts.

Well, QED. That's a slam-dunk. My Christmas is complete.

You are do desperate that you are blinded.
Show me where did I make or implied the above syllogism.

My views are these;
So: there are moral facts as justified upon a moral framework and system;
we adopt those moral facts as norms or standards as a guide;
therefore, we can improve our current moral/ethical competence towards the moral standard.

What is significant is,
whether what is intuited as moral can be justified empirically and philosophically as represented by moral facts - a feature of reality, state-of-neural-affairs, that is the case of reality -all-there-is where humans are part and parcel of.

How many times?

A state-of-neural-affairs, if it exists, doesn't REPRESENT anything. It just IS, like any state of affairs. It's a feature of reality, which is why it can be empirically shown to exist.

But if our 'programming' not to kill to humans is such a neural state of affairs, such a feature of reality that can be empirically shown to exist, that isn't a 'moral fact' of any kind - just as, that lions are 'programmed' to kill antelopes isn't a 'moral fact' of any kind.

If we show that we're 'programmed' not to kill humans, we're not showing that it's morally wrong to kill humans - because that's a separate moral judgement. And if you want to exclude talk of moral rightness and wrongness from this whole discussion, then we're no longer talking about morality, which deals with moral rightness and wrongness, propriety and impropriety - as your standard definition of morality says.

You want to define moral rightness and wrongness as merely conformity to, and deviation from, 'programming' - which actually has no moral significance whatsoever. The facts you're talking about are not 'moral facts', because you're not talking about morality at all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So: there are moral facts;
we adopt those moral facts as norms or standards;
therefore, there are moral facts.

Well, QED. That's a slam-dunk. My Christmas is complete.

You are do desperate that you are blinded.
Show me where did I make or implied the above syllogism.

My views are these;
So: there are moral facts as justified upon a moral framework and system;
we adopt those moral facts as norms or standards as a guide;
therefore, we can improve our current moral/ethical competence towards the moral standard.

What is significant is,
whether what is intuited as moral can be justified empirically and philosophically as represented by moral facts - a feature of reality, state-of-neural-affairs, that is the case of reality -all-there-is where humans are part and parcel of.

How many times?

A state-of-neural-affairs, if it exists, doesn't REPRESENT anything. It just IS, like any state of affairs. It's a feature of reality, which is why it can be empirically shown to exist.

I have already reminded you '2000' times,
what are moral facts must be justified within a moral framework and system,
you keep ignoring this essential point.

• Note this analogy:
  Do you understand the biological fact of a state-of-neural-affairs of the sexual drive within all humans.
  The sexual drive is not represented by the sexual organs and other related parts related to sex.
  This state-of-neural-affairs [neural forces] of the sexual drive is not merely just "is."
  It is also a tension of 'ought' i.e. all normal humans has the generic sexual drive that generate sexual tensions to 'fuck'.
  This sexual drive is a biological and psychological fact within their respective FSK.
  Do you deny the above facts?

Thus the moral-drive to act morally, e.g. no humans ought to kill humans, is represented by its specific state-of-neural-affairs that is justified as a moral fact within a moral framework and system.

But if our 'programming' not to kill to humans is such a neural state of affairs, such a feature of reality that can be empirically shown to exist, that isn't a 'moral fact' of any kind - just as, that lions are 'programmed' to kill antelopes isn't a 'moral fact' of any kind.

How come you are so dumb?
As stated above,
the moral-drive to act morally, e.g. no humans ought to kill humans, is represented by its specific state-of-neural-affairs that is justified as a moral fact within a moral framework and system.

PH: "that lions are 'programmed' to kill antelopes isn't a 'moral fact' of any kind"
of course, that above is not a moral fact, because morality is confined to humans only.
The above is a biological fact of animal food and nutrition.

If we show that we're 'programmed' not to kill humans, we're not showing that it's morally wrong to kill humans - because that's a separate moral judgement. And if you want to exclude talk of moral rightness and wrongness from this whole discussion, then we're no longer talking about morality, which deals with moral rightness and wrongness, propriety and impropriety - as your standard definition of morality says.

I already stated so many times, 'humans ought-not to kill humans' is a moral fact generic to all humans.
Since it is a generic moral fact, it is not a moral judgement, i.e. personal or group judgments regarding human behaviors.

Note the definition of morality-proper.
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799

Where did I exclude moral rightness and wrongness from morality [as defined].
Moral facts relate to facts as standards or norms, thus related to moral principles, i.e. the PURE aspects of morality.
Is it only within APPLIED Morality or Ethics that we deal with moral rightness and wrongness.
If anyone or group make any moral judgment, then it has to be compared to the moral norms or standards to assess the judgment deviate from the norms or not. The result is a moral variance.

You want to define moral rightness and wrongness as merely conformity to, and deviation from, 'programming' - which actually has no moral significance whatsoever. The facts you're talking about are not 'moral facts', because you're not talking about morality at all.

You are ignorant of what is morality-proper from your very shallow and narrow knowledge of what is morality and its moral facts.

Here is how what I proposed is applied efficiently within morality.

• 1. Note, the genocide of 6 million Jews
  2. The moral fact and standard is no humans ought to be kill by humans.
  3. From the above there is a moral variance between what is actual [6 million killed] and the moral standard [ZERO killing].
  4. The moral variance of 6 million human killed from the moral standard, ZERO human killing.
  5. Thus those with moral compass, conscience and competence will naturally take preventive steps to reduce the variance.
  6. The fact is humanity being driven by the moral fact [potential] naturally has gotten rid of Nazism and strive to prevent genocides as much as possible from thereon.

The above is the PURE [i.e. moral facts] translated into real moral actions. If that is not morality in action, what is that?

Thus the point, the moral facts are inherent within all humans but most humans are not aware of the existence of those moral facts even when humanity is already practicing morality in actuality.

I have already demonstrated there are moral facts as justified within a moral framework and system.
I have also show how these moral facts as neural potentials has been expressed and practiced in real life situations and most humans are not aware of it.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Thus the point, the moral facts are inherent within all humans but most humans are not aware of the existence of those moral facts even when humanity is already practicing morality in actuality.

It is disputable that humans are inherently good. It is also however not only a matter of faith (see Saint Augustine) that good is the absence of evil, but also that good people who live to benefit others need to live in the faith that humans are inherently good.

[Peter Holmes]

You are do desperate that you are blinded.
Show me where did I make or implied the above syllogism.

My views are these;
So: there are moral facts as justified upon a moral framework and system;
we adopt those moral facts as norms or standards as a guide;
therefore, we can improve our current moral/ethical competence towards the moral standard.

What is significant is,
whether what is intuited as moral can be justified empirically and philosophically as represented by moral facts - a feature of reality, state-of-neural-affairs, that is the case of reality -all-there-is where humans are part and parcel of.

How many times?

A state-of-neural-affairs, if it exists, doesn't REPRESENT anything. It just IS, like any state of affairs. It's a feature of reality, which is why it can be empirically shown to exist.

I have already reminded you '2000' times,
what are moral facts must be justified within a moral framework and system,
you keep ignoring this essential point.

• Note this analogy:
  Do you understand the biological fact of a state-of-neural-affairs of the sexual drive within all humans.
  The sexual drive is not represented by the sexual organs and other related parts related to sex.
  This state-of-neural-affairs [neural forces] of the sexual drive is not merely just "is."
  It is also a tension of 'ought' i.e. all normal humans has the generic sexual drive that generate sexual tensions to 'fuck'.
  This sexual drive is a biological and psychological fact within their respective FSK.
  Do you deny the above facts?

Thus the moral-drive to act morally, e.g. no humans ought to kill humans, is represented by its specific state-of-neural-affairs that is justified as a moral fact within a moral framework and system.

But if our 'programming' not to kill to humans is such a neural state of affairs, such a feature of reality that can be empirically shown to exist, that isn't a 'moral fact' of any kind - just as, that lions are 'programmed' to kill antelopes isn't a 'moral fact' of any kind.

How come you are so dumb?
As stated above,
the moral-drive to act morally, e.g. no humans ought to kill humans, is represented by its specific state-of-neural-affairs that is justified as a moral fact within a moral framework and system.

PH: "that lions are 'programmed' to kill antelopes isn't a 'moral fact' of any kind"
of course, that above is not a moral fact, because morality is confined to humans only.
The above is a biological fact of animal food and nutrition.

If we show that we're 'programmed' not to kill humans, we're not showing that it's morally wrong to kill humans - because that's a separate moral judgement. And if you want to exclude talk of moral rightness and wrongness from this whole discussion, then we're no longer talking about morality, which deals with moral rightness and wrongness, propriety and impropriety - as your standard definition of morality says.

I already stated so many times, 'humans ought-not to kill humans' is a moral fact generic to all humans.
Since it is a generic moral fact, it is not a moral judgement, i.e. personal or group judgments regarding human behaviors.

Note the definition of morality-proper.
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799

Where did I exclude moral rightness and wrongness from morality [as defined].
Moral facts relate to facts as standards or norms, thus related to moral principles, i.e. the PURE aspects of morality.
Is it only within APPLIED Morality or Ethics that we deal with moral rightness and wrongness.
If anyone or group make any moral judgment, then it has to be compared to the moral norms or standards to assess the judgment deviate from the norms or not. The result is a moral variance.

You want to define moral rightness and wrongness as merely conformity to, and deviation from, 'programming' - which actually has no moral significance whatsoever. The facts you're talking about are not 'moral facts', because you're not talking about morality at all.

You are ignorant of what is morality-proper from your very shallow and narrow knowledge of what is morality and its moral facts.

Here is how what I proposed is applied efficiently within morality.

• 1. Note, the genocide of 6 million Jews
  2. The moral fact and standard is no humans ought to be kill by humans.
  3. From the above there is a moral variance between what is actual [6 million killed] and the moral standard [ZERO killing].
  4. The moral variance of 6 million human killed from the moral standard, ZERO human killing.
  5. Thus those with moral compass, conscience and competence will naturally take preventive steps to reduce the variance.
  6. The fact is humanity being driven by the moral fact [potential] naturally has gotten rid of Nazism and strive to prevent genocides as much as possible from thereon.

The above is the PURE [i.e. moral facts] translated into real moral actions. If that is not morality in action, what is that?

Thus the point, the moral facts are inherent within all humans but most humans are not aware of the existence of those moral facts even when humanity is already practicing morality in actuality.

I have already demonstrated there are moral facts as justified within a moral framework and system.
I have also show how these moral facts as neural potentials has been expressed and practiced in real life situations and most humans are not aware of it.

Wrong again. Your distinction between pure and applied morality is spurious. And you have not once demonstrated the existence of a moral fact, let alone a moral fact 'inherent in human nature'. (And the so-called 'moral FSK' is your question-begging invention, which adds nothing to your argument for moral objectivity. That all facts are 'within' an FSK does not mean there is therefore a moral FSK containing moral facts. That's a non-sequitur.)

Like any fact, a fact about our nature - for example, our being 'programmed' not to kill humans - has no moral implication, because it's morally neutral.
And the fact that whether we should or shouldn't conform to this programming is a matter of opinion demonstrates that there's no moral fact of the matter. For example, we may be 'programmed' to have sex with as many people as possible, but that need not mean it's morally right to do so.

The inference 'we're programmed not to do X; therefore X is morally wrong' doesn't follow, deductively, inductively or abductively. And that's because there's no logical connection between the two assertions. They have completely different functions.

The only way to make the connection between a factual assertion and a moral one - is to assume a moral opinion about the factual assertion, which therefore begs the question.

Sorry, but until you actually address and refute these points, your argument for the existence of 'moral facts' is not shown to be sound.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wrong again. Your distinction between pure and applied morality is spurious. And you have not once demonstrated the existence of a moral fact, let alone a moral fact 'inherent in human nature'. (And the so-called 'moral FSK' is your question-begging invention, which adds nothing to your argument for moral objectivity. That all facts are 'within' an FSK does not mean there is therefore a moral FSK containing moral facts. That's a non-sequitur.)

Like any fact, a fact about our nature - for example, our being 'programmed' not to kill humans - has no moral implication, because it's morally neutral.
And the fact that whether we should or shouldn't conform to this programming is a matter of opinion demonstrates that there's no moral fact of the matter. For example, we may be 'programmed' to have sex with as many people as possible, but that need not mean it's morally right to do so.

The inference 'we're programmed not to do X; therefore X is morally wrong' doesn't follow, deductively, inductively or abductively. And that's because there's no logical connection between the two assertions. They have completely different functions.

The only way to make the connection between a factual assertion and a moral one - is to assume a moral opinion about the factual assertion, which therefore begs the question.

Sorry, but until you actually address and refute these points, your argument for the existence of 'moral facts' is not shown to be sound.

I believe I have justified the existence of moral facts via a moral framework and system.
I have also explained to you the basis a '1000' times.

If you cannot cognize and understand my justifications you can just give them a pass and keep your opinions to yourself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Thus the point, the moral facts are inherent within all humans but most humans are not aware of the existence of those moral facts even when humanity is already practicing morality in actuality.

It is disputable that humans are inherently good. It is also however not only a matter of faith (see Saint Augustine) that good is the absence of evil, but also that good people who live to benefit others need to live in the faith that humans are inherently good.

ALL humans are inherently [as programmed] with the potential for 'good' and 'evil' - each term need to be defined precisely.

It is so evident both good and evil are expressed by humans.

That the majority do not go on a killing spree to kill humans [and other evil acts] is evident of the activation of the potential-of-inherent-good.
Note the evidence from babies less than 12 months old.

The Moral Life of Babies
Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/#

Here is a spontaneous expression of the inherent evil nature,
11-Year-Old Allegedly Kills Baby Brother, Camden Johnson, Out Of ‘Jealousy’
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boy-kill ... _n_4295713
Jealousy in an inherent impulse.

I read there are still younger children who express inherent evil in killing and harming others due to some spontaneous inherent impulse.

The above are evidence ALL humans are inherently "programmed" with the potential for good and evil.

[Peter Holmes]

Wrong again. Your distinction between pure and applied morality is spurious. And you have not once demonstrated the existence of a moral fact, let alone a moral fact 'inherent in human nature'. (And the so-called 'moral FSK' is your question-begging invention, which adds nothing to your argument for moral objectivity. That all facts are 'within' an FSK does not mean there is therefore a moral FSK containing moral facts. That's a non-sequitur.)

Like any fact, a fact about our nature - for example, our being 'programmed' not to kill humans - has no moral implication, because it's morally neutral.
And the fact that whether we should or shouldn't conform to this programming is a matter of opinion demonstrates that there's no moral fact of the matter. For example, we may be 'programmed' to have sex with as many people as possible, but that need not mean it's morally right to do so.

The inference 'we're programmed not to do X; therefore X is morally wrong' doesn't follow, deductively, inductively or abductively. And that's because there's no logical connection between the two assertions. They have completely different functions.

The only way to make the connection between a factual assertion and a moral one - is to assume a moral opinion about the factual assertion, which therefore begs the question.

Sorry, but until you actually address and refute these points, your argument for the existence of 'moral facts' is not shown to be sound.

I believe I have justified the existence of moral facts via a moral framework and system.
I have also explained to you the basis a '1000' times.

If you cannot cognize and understand my justifications you can just give them a pass and keep your opinions to yourself.

Thanks, but I understand your claims and argument perfectly well. And I' and others have shown your claims to be false or not shown to be true, and your argument unsound or not shown to be sound.

That you persist in making the same claims and argument, ignoring the refutations, reflects very badly on your intellectual honesty and integrity. And if you don't want your fallacies exposed, stop posting them in a public forum.

[Veritas Aequitas]

double

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe I have justified the existence of moral facts via a moral framework and system.
I have also explained to you the basis a '1000' times.

If you cannot cognize and understand my justifications you can just give them a pass and keep your opinions to yourself.

Thanks, but I understand your claims and argument perfectly well. And I' and others have shown your claims to be false or not shown to be true, and your argument unsound or not shown to be sound.

That you persist in making the same claims and argument, ignoring the refutations, reflects very badly on your intellectual honesty and integrity. And if you don't want your fallacies exposed, stop posting them in a public forum.

You and others?? i.e. the ignoramus you, Sculptor, Pantflasher et. al.
What fallacies> where??
What you have presented are merely straw men out of ignorance.

I understand when a person is ignorant with shallow and narrow range of philosophical knowledge plus they are dogmatic and bigoted, there is no way of getting my arguments and explanation to him.

I presented the analogy of the sexual drive with the moral drive within the brain and you don't have any clue to it nor provide a counter.

It is your discretion, I am not stopping you from expressing your ignorant views, it is just that I will not be responding and repeating them.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Here is a spontaneous expression of the inherent evil nature,
11-Year-Old Allegedly Kills Baby Brother, Camden Johnson, Out Of ‘Jealousy’
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boy-kill ... _n_4295713
Jealousy in an inherent impulse.

I read there are still younger children who express inherent evil in killing and harming others due to some spontaneous inherent impulse.

The above are evidence ALL humans are inherently "programmed" with the potential for good and evil.

But jealousy is not an emotion jealousy is a complex feeling.

You misunderstand the physiological difference between emotions and feelings. Emotions are defined and differentiated one from the other by repeatable and objectively observable physiological correlates. It is unknown when if ever sapiens could experience emotions that are unrefined by concepts or ,as you may like to put it "FSKs and FSBs.

While it is probable a child murderer experienced the true emotion of fear , he also possibly experienced the feeling of jealousy.

It may be considered unnecessary to conceptually separate emotions and feelings. It is necessary to separate the concepts of emotions and of feelings. This is because while emotions are probably inherent in all life forms that have endocrine systems , feelings are compounded of emotions as stated plus learning. Jealousy therefor cannot happen unless the subject has learned what she takes to be facts (FSKs or FSBs) about the object of the unpleasant emotion of fear.

The child murderer in the story was either a) brain damaged or b) suffered a learning deficit caused by some other environmental impact. I need not list all possible environmental impacts on learning as the effects of poverty and/or ignorance are already well known.

An eleven year old child who has been subjected to a rich learning environment and who is not brain damaged has learned 1. the moral stance of his mother and father
2. the law of the land and 3. his duty of care to his sibling and others. Each of these stages of moral development must be experienced as age -related stages before the next stage can be accomplished by growing children. The jealous child of two is a different case from the jealous child of eleven years because learned responses are age related and environment related.

It is well known that civilised nations don't hang child murderers but try to rehabilitate them in full knowledge the child is not any more responsible for his learned response of jealousy than he is responsible for his inherent response of fear.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Here is a spontaneous expression of the inherent evil nature,
11-Year-Old Allegedly Kills Baby Brother, Camden Johnson, Out Of ‘Jealousy’
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boy-kill ... _n_4295713
Jealousy in an inherent impulse.

I read there are still younger children who express inherent evil in killing and harming others due to some spontaneous inherent impulse.

The above are evidence ALL humans are inherently "programmed" with the potential for good and evil.

But jealousy is not an emotion jealousy is a complex feeling.

You misunderstand the physiological difference between emotions and feelings. Emotions are defined and differentiated one from the other by repeatable and objectively observable physiological correlates. It is unknown when if ever sapiens could experience emotions that are unrefined by concepts or ,as you may like to put it "FSKs and FSBs.

While it is probable a child murderer experienced the true emotion of fear , he also possibly experienced the feeling of jealousy.

It may be considered unnecessary to conceptually separate emotions and feelings. It is necessary to separate the concepts of emotions and of feelings. This is because while emotions are probably inherent in all life forms that have endocrine systems , feelings are compounded of emotions as stated plus learning. Jealousy therefor cannot happen unless the subject has learned what she takes to be facts (FSKs or FSBs) about the object of the unpleasant emotion of fear.

The child murderer in the story was either a) brain damaged or b) suffered a learning deficit caused by some other environmental impact. I need not list all possible environmental impacts on learning as the effects of poverty and/or ignorance are already well known.

An eleven year old child who has been subjected to a rich learning environment and who is not brain damaged has learned 1. the moral stance of his mother and father
2. the law of the land and 3. his duty of care to his sibling and others. Each of these stages of moral development must be experienced as age -related stages before the next stage can be accomplished by growing children. The jealous child of two is a different case from the jealous child of eleven years because learned responses are age related and environment related.

It is well known that civilised nations don't hang child murderers but try to rehabilitate them in full knowledge the child is not any more responsible for his learned response of jealousy than he is responsible for his inherent response of fear.

Jealousy is a secondary emotion.
Here is a quickie from google, [there are many more];

• Jealousy: it's in your genes
  https://www.theguardian.com/science/blo ... ousy-genes

It is logical all human will feel their surges of their emotions as emotional feelings, but what drive them to act is the inherent engines of emotions, note the etymology of 'emotion' is 'emote' to move.

You are merely speculating the 11 years old [example given] is related to nurture.
Note I gave you the case of less than 12 months babies to eliminate the elements of nurture.

It is very possible the emotional feelings can fuel the emotional engine, but that is secondary.

It is so so common to hear of people claiming they were not even aware of what they were doing during what is on hindsight recognized as an emotional surge.

Even monkeys has a sense of fairness [related to morality].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo

Moral behavior in animals - Frans de Waal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnnSjdpoBVw

I don't believe the above is primarily due to 'nurture'.

[Peter Holmes]

I believe I have justified the existence of moral facts via a moral framework and system.
I have also explained to you the basis a '1000' times.

If you cannot cognize and understand my justifications you can just give them a pass and keep your opinions to yourself.

Thanks, but I understand your claims and argument perfectly well. And I' and others have shown your claims to be false or not shown to be true, and your argument unsound or not shown to be sound.

That you persist in making the same claims and argument, ignoring the refutations, reflects very badly on your intellectual honesty and integrity. And if you don't want your fallacies exposed, stop posting them in a public forum.

You and others?? i.e. the ignoramus you, Sculptor, Pantflasher et. al.
What fallacies> where??
What you have presented are merely straw men out of ignorance.

I understand when a person is ignorant with shallow and narrow range of philosophical knowledge plus they are dogmatic and bigoted, there is no way of getting my arguments and explanation to him.

I presented the analogy of the sexual drive with the moral drive within the brain and you don't have any clue to it nor provide a counter.

It is your discretion, I am not stopping you from expressing your ignorant views, it is just that I will not be responding and repeating them.

I've just demolished your self-proclaimed correct syllogism at another post. And I'd be delighted if you profit from the exposure of your fallacious argument - and give up repeating it. Please go away and come back when you have something interesting.


Meanwhile, for anyone trying to follow this woeful story, here's the post I'm referring to.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:25 am

Here is my proper argument. (I have done a similar one in another post.)

1 There are moral facts - justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK [thus generate objectivity],

2. As such moral facts are objective.

3. Objective moral facts are imputed as moral standards within a moral system.

4. A moral system represents morality, i.e. the practices of morals in comparing to moral standards.

5. Therefore morality within is FSK is objective.[/list]

Show me where my premises are wrong and the whole argument fallacious?

Okay. Thanks for this. And here's why your argument is unsound.

1 Your premise #1 merely makes the claim that we're disputing: there are moral facts. It provides neither evidence to support the claim, nor an argument concluding with the claim. And saying that moral facts are 'justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK' - and are therefore objective - also merely makes a claim without providing either evidence or argument. So your premise #1 IS your conclusion, which means your syllogism is a question-begging fallacy.

2 Your premise #2 merely repeats the unsupported claim about objectivity in #1 and is therefore redundant.

3 Your premise #3 merely repeats the unsupported claim in #1 that there are moral facts. So the claim that we adopt these moral facts as standards within a moral system is incoherent. And anyway, the expression 'are imputed as moral standards' is unclear, if not unintelligible.

4 Your premise #4 is incoherent, because a moral system can't be said to 'represent' morality. But if there is a clear meaning inside your expression, it seems trivial and redundant.

5 Your conclusion isn't the conclusion of a syllogism, because it is merely your premise #1.

This 'argument' is a complete disaster, and you provide no evidence to support your 'premise' that there are moral facts. But hey - don't let that give you pause. The crack of doom is a long time coming.

[Sculptor]

Conclusions

Good morality is subjective nuances and takes account of circumstances and factors in mitigation.

Bad morality is objective.