What is a Moral Framework and System?

[psycho]

Disgust is an evolved adapted natural instinct that has survival values.
Besides prevent poisoning or dangers, disgust also has moral values.
Note the disgust for incest by the majority toward interbreeding deterrence which is a moral issue.

I believe the disgust for homosexuality is also instinctual rather than a learned attitude, thus inherently an evolved moral issue.
[THEORIZING]: What if for some abnormal event on Earth that ALL humans are born homosexuals with inhibited paternity or maternity instincts in the future?
Then the human species will be extinct in time.
There could be other possible abnormal reasons the majority could be homosexuals.
The above is the reason why there is an inherent disgust for homosexuality to ensure the human species do not go extinct.

In real life up to the current point in time, nature has insurance in terms of large numbers.
By the principles of Normal Distribution, all human variables are distributed within a continuum for one extreme to the other with the average in between.
As such in the case of sexuality, there will be homosexuality at one end of the extreme.
Thus at present, even if 10% of humans, i.e. 700 million are homosexuals, there is no threat to the human species.

Nevertheless, homosexuality is still an inherent moral issue [as insurance against the worst possibility as theorized above], but should not be condemned given it is no threat to humanity.

Disgust for homosexuality is not based on an instinctive reaction to the danger it would pose to the survival of our species. Homosexuality occurs in other species and does not result in aggressive behaviors on the part of the rest of the individuals.

One should be able to explain why personal dislike for homosexuality becomes a moral rule without the involvement of cultural factors. And how it is possible that its intensity will wear down until it is socially acceptable. From immoral action to private behavior.

On the subject of moral facts, do you think that humans are capable of determining that something is convenient, regardless of all circumstances?

Regards.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Disgust is an evolved adapted natural instinct that has survival values.
Besides prevent poisoning or dangers, disgust also has moral values.
Note the disgust for incest by the majority toward interbreeding deterrence which is a moral issue.

I believe the disgust for homosexuality is also instinctual rather than a learned attitude, thus inherently an evolved moral issue.
[THEORIZING]: What if for some abnormal event on Earth that ALL humans are born homosexuals with inhibited paternity or maternity instincts in the future?
Then the human species will be extinct in time.
There could be other possible abnormal reasons the majority could be homosexuals.
The above is the reason why there is an inherent disgust for homosexuality to ensure the human species do not go extinct.

In real life up to the current point in time, nature has insurance in terms of large numbers.
By the principles of Normal Distribution, all human variables are distributed within a continuum for one extreme to the other with the average in between.
As such in the case of sexuality, there will be homosexuality at one end of the extreme.
Thus at present, even if 10% of humans, i.e. 700 million are homosexuals, there is no threat to the human species.

Nevertheless, homosexuality is still an inherent moral issue [as insurance against the worst possibility as theorized above], but should not be condemned given it is no threat to humanity.

Disgust for homosexuality is not based on an instinctive reaction to the danger it would pose to the survival of our species. Homosexuality occurs in other species and does not result in aggressive behaviors on the part of the rest of the individuals.

One should be able to explain why personal dislike for homosexuality becomes a moral rule without the involvement of cultural factors. And how it is possible that its intensity will wear down until it is socially acceptable. From immoral action to private behavior.

On the subject of moral facts, do you think that humans are capable of determining that something is convenient, regardless of all circumstances?

Regards.

You missed my point above, i.e.

• [THEORIZING]: What if for some abnormal event on Earth that ALL humans are born homosexuals with inhibited paternity or maternity instincts in the future?
  Then the human species will be extinct in time.
  There could be other possible abnormal reasons the majority could be homosexuals.
  The above is the reason why there is an inherent disgust for homosexuality to ensure the human species do not go extinct.

Yes, homosexuality occurs in other species but the % to the whole is very minimal, thus no threat to the species.

The point with humans is the existence of freewill, thus the need to implant as sense of disgust for homosexuality.

The majority of humans are naturally heterosexuals and are driven by powerful sexual lusts toward the opposite sex naturally for the sake of the species - as confirmed by personal experiences and observations of its effects.
Personally, in the past I have had a spontaneous disgust for homosexuality i.e. not understanding how any normal person could not find the opposite sex sexually attractive but rather has sexual feeling for the same sex. Thus that invoke an "us versus them" tribalistic thinking.

It was only after much education on the knowledge of homosexuality and reading the thoughts of homosexuality and the invoking of empathy that my natural disgust for homosexuality disappeared totally.

On the subject of moral facts, do you think that humans are capable of determining that something is convenient, regardless of all circumstances?

Not sure of your point.

What I can say is all humans are necessarily "programmed" with a potential moral sense [a moral fact] whilst dormant in some, inactive in some and active in some others.
As such this inherent moral fact exists in humans regardless of all circumstances.

This inherent moral sense [moral function] had been inactive in the majority but as evident by the positive moral trend, the moral function is unfolding slowly to be more active within the majority regardless of the circumstances.

Note this thread'
Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

[psycho]

You missed my point above, i.e.

• [THEORIZING]: What if for some abnormal event on Earth that ALL humans are born homosexuals with inhibited paternity or maternity instincts in the future?
  Then the human species will be extinct in time.
  There could be other possible abnormal reasons the majority could be homosexuals.
  The above is the reason why there is an inherent disgust for homosexuality to ensure the human species do not go extinct.

Yes, homosexuality occurs in other species but the % to the whole is very minimal, thus no threat to the species.

The point with humans is the existence of freewill, thus the need to implant as sense of disgust for homosexuality.

The majority of humans are naturally heterosexuals and are driven by powerful sexual lusts toward the opposite sex naturally for the sake of the species - as confirmed by personal experiences and observations of its effects.
Personally, in the past I have had a spontaneous disgust for homosexuality i.e. not understanding how any normal person could not find the opposite sex sexually attractive but rather has sexual feeling for the same sex. Thus that invoke an "us versus them" tribalistic thinking.

It was only after much education on the knowledge of homosexuality and reading the thoughts of homosexuality and the invoking of empathy that my natural disgust for homosexuality disappeared totally.

On the subject of moral facts, do you think that humans are capable of determining that something is convenient, regardless of all circumstances?

Not sure of your point.

What I can say is all humans are necessarily "programmed" with a potential moral sense [a moral fact] whilst dormant in some, inactive in some and active in some others.
As such this inherent moral fact exists in humans regardless of all circumstances.

This inherent moral sense [moral function] had been inactive in the majority but as evident by the positive moral trend, the moral function is unfolding slowly to be more active within the majority regardless of the circumstances.

Note this thread'
Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

I don't see that free will is a viable description of reality.

Homosexuality is only seen as a threat to human survival as a result of being used politically.

Homosexuality is a human trait since there have been humans and although humans are not the brightest in the universe, they have already noticed by now that the reproduction of our species is not affected by this variation.


All humans have the ability to react with disgust. You start out with innate triggers of that reaction but triggers can be replaced. One can include any topic as a new trigger by successfully associating the new circumstance with innate triggers.

At the same time it can be seen that these mechanisms are used to make certain human groups become considered immoral for being associated with basic triggers.

The continued (unfounded) association that people with liberal ideas are pedophiles who cannibalize infants (two of the most disgusting circumstances a person can be associated with) is resulting in a significant part of American society considering liberal ideas as immoral. Not ineffective in solving social problems but immoral.

This mechanism was also used very effectively in Germany by associating Jews with the characteristics that caused the most disgust at that time.

A moral reaction does not result from ethical considerations.

Regards.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't see that free will is a viable description of reality.

Generally freewill is associated with theism, where theists used absolute freewill to justify the existence of real evil by humans. Such a freewill is not realistic.
But limited freewill can be discussed in its various context.

Homosexuality is only seen as a threat to human survival as a result of being used politically.

Homosexuality is a human trait since there have been humans and although humans are not the brightest in the universe, they have already noticed by now that the reproduction of our species is not affected by this variation.

As I had stated the possibility and reality of homosexuality in reality is in THEORY a threat to humanity.
IF for some possible reason ALL humans are born homosexuals in the future, then logically it is a threat to humanity.

But in reality, we now understand the above possible is not likely, thus homosexuality is not viewed by many as a threat to humanity. This is why at present homosexuality is accepted and recognized in many places except where there are religious fundamentalists.

All humans have the ability to react with disgust. You start out with innate triggers of that reaction but triggers can be replaced. One can include any topic as a new trigger by successfully associating the new circumstance with innate triggers.

At the same time it can be seen that these mechanisms are used to make certain human groups become considered immoral for being associated with basic triggers.

The continued (unfounded) association that people with liberal ideas are pedophiles who cannibalize infants (two of the most disgusting circumstances a person can be associated with) is resulting in a significant part of American society considering liberal ideas as immoral. Not ineffective in solving social problems but immoral.

This mechanism was also used very effectively in Germany by associating Jews with the characteristics that caused the most disgust at that time.

A moral reaction does not result from ethical considerations.

Regards.

As I had stated somewhere the secondary emotion of disgust is inherent in all humans since it has survival value on average.

Therefore if there is a feeling of disgust on something-X by the majority, the critical thinker must strive to understand its root cause and understand the original survival intent.
For example that the majority are disgusted with incest has implication to avoid a threat to humanity re abnormalities.
That the majority are disgusted with foul odor is because most of it are related to action of dangerous bacteria and diseases.
As such if the majority are disgusted with homosexuality then as critical thinkers we must trace it to its roots and understand whether such a disgust is effective in modern time.

A moral reaction does not result from ethical considerations.

Both 'moral' and 'ethics' are very loose terms.
So we need to define them precisely for consensus/disagreement before proceeding to discuss them.

For me, morality [Pure] relates to principles.
Ethics [Applied] relate to how the principles are put into practice.
As such ethical considerations result from constituted moral principles.

[Peter Holmes]

I don't see that free will is a viable description of reality.

Generally freewill is associated with theism, where theists used absolute freewill to justify the existence of real evil by humans. Such a freewill is not realistic.
But limited freewill can be discussed in its various context.

Homosexuality is only seen as a threat to human survival as a result of being used politically.

Homosexuality is a human trait since there have been humans and although humans are not the brightest in the universe, they have already noticed by now that the reproduction of our species is not affected by this variation.

As I had stated the possibility and reality of homosexuality in reality is in THEORY a threat to humanity.
IF for some possible reason ALL humans are born homosexuals in the future, then logically it is a threat to humanity.

But in reality, we now understand the above possible is not likely, thus homosexuality is not viewed by many as a threat to humanity. This is why at present homosexuality is accepted and recognized in many places except where there are religious fundamentalists.

All humans have the ability to react with disgust. You start out with innate triggers of that reaction but triggers can be replaced. One can include any topic as a new trigger by successfully associating the new circumstance with innate triggers.

At the same time it can be seen that these mechanisms are used to make certain human groups become considered immoral for being associated with basic triggers.

The continued (unfounded) association that people with liberal ideas are pedophiles who cannibalize infants (two of the most disgusting circumstances a person can be associated with) is resulting in a significant part of American society considering liberal ideas as immoral. Not ineffective in solving social problems but immoral.

This mechanism was also used very effectively in Germany by associating Jews with the characteristics that caused the most disgust at that time.

A moral reaction does not result from ethical considerations.

Regards.

As I had stated somewhere the secondary emotion of disgust is inherent in all humans since it has survival value on average.

Therefore if there is a feeling of disgust on something-X by the majority, the critical thinker must strive to understand its root cause and understand the original survival intent.
For example that the majority are disgusted with incest has implication to avoid a threat to humanity re abnormalities.
That the majority are disgusted with foul odor is because most of it are related to action of dangerous bacteria and diseases.
As such if the majority are disgusted with homosexuality then as critical thinkers we must trace it to its roots and understand whether such a disgust is effective in modern time.

A moral reaction does not result from ethical considerations.

Both 'moral' and 'ethics' are very loose terms.
So we need to define them precisely for consensus/disagreement before proceeding to discuss them.

For me, morality [Pure] relates to principles.
Ethics [Applied] relate to how the principles are put into practice.
As such ethical considerations result from constituted moral principles.

1 Claim: 'most people are disgusted by X; therefore X is morally wrong.'

Nope. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. And the empirically demonstrable truth of the premise - and its evolutionary explanation - are irrelevant.

2 If 'morality [Pure] relates to principles', then the nature of those principles is critical. If they're factual premises, they can't entail moral conclusions. And if they're moral premises, derived moral conclusions are no more factual than the premises.

Fail, fail and fail again. There are no moral facts. And the invention of a supposed 'moral framework and system of knowledge' does nothing to establish the existence of moral facts.

[psycho]

I don't see that free will is a viable description of reality.

Generally freewill is associated with theism, where theists used absolute freewill to justify the existence of real evil by humans. Such a freewill is not realistic.
But limited freewill can be discussed in its various context.

Homosexuality is only seen as a threat to human survival as a result of being used politically.

Homosexuality is a human trait since there have been humans and although humans are not the brightest in the universe, they have already noticed by now that the reproduction of our species is not affected by this variation.

As I had stated the possibility and reality of homosexuality in reality is in THEORY a threat to humanity.
IF for some possible reason ALL humans are born homosexuals in the future, then logically it is a threat to humanity.

But in reality, we now understand the above possible is not likely, thus homosexuality is not viewed by many as a threat to humanity. This is why at present homosexuality is accepted and recognized in many places except where there are religious fundamentalists.

All humans have the ability to react with disgust. You start out with innate triggers of that reaction but triggers can be replaced. One can include any topic as a new trigger by successfully associating the new circumstance with innate triggers.

At the same time it can be seen that these mechanisms are used to make certain human groups become considered immoral for being associated with basic triggers.

The continued (unfounded) association that people with liberal ideas are pedophiles who cannibalize infants (two of the most disgusting circumstances a person can be associated with) is resulting in a significant part of American society considering liberal ideas as immoral. Not ineffective in solving social problems but immoral.

This mechanism was also used very effectively in Germany by associating Jews with the characteristics that caused the most disgust at that time.

A moral reaction does not result from ethical considerations.

Regards.

As I had stated somewhere the secondary emotion of disgust is inherent in all humans since it has survival value on average.

Therefore if there is a feeling of disgust on something-X by the majority, the critical thinker must strive to understand its root cause and understand the original survival intent.
For example that the majority are disgusted with incest has implication to avoid a threat to humanity re abnormalities.
That the majority are disgusted with foul odor is because most of it are related to action of dangerous bacteria and diseases.
As such if the majority are disgusted with homosexuality then as critical thinkers we must trace it to its roots and understand whether such a disgust is effective in modern time.

A moral reaction does not result from ethical considerations.

Both 'moral' and 'ethics' are very loose terms.
So we need to define them precisely for consensus/disagreement before proceeding to discuss them.

For me, morality [Pure] relates to principles.
Ethics [Applied] relate to how the principles are put into practice.
As such ethical considerations result from constituted moral principles.

I don't understand that it is limited free will.

Moral is the group of rules where we reflect the distinction between what we consider bad and what we consider good.

Ethics is the consideration that tries to distinguish what we should include in those rules.

[psycho]

I don't see that free will is a viable description of reality.

Generally freewill is associated with theism, where theists used absolute freewill to justify the existence of real evil by humans. Such a freewill is not realistic.
But limited freewill can be discussed in its various context.

Homosexuality is only seen as a threat to human survival as a result of being used politically.

Homosexuality is a human trait since there have been humans and although humans are not the brightest in the universe, they have already noticed by now that the reproduction of our species is not affected by this variation.

As I had stated the possibility and reality of homosexuality in reality is in THEORY a threat to humanity.
IF for some possible reason ALL humans are born homosexuals in the future, then logically it is a threat to humanity.

But in reality, we now understand the above possible is not likely, thus homosexuality is not viewed by many as a threat to humanity. This is why at present homosexuality is accepted and recognized in many places except where there are religious fundamentalists.

All humans have the ability to react with disgust. You start out with innate triggers of that reaction but triggers can be replaced. One can include any topic as a new trigger by successfully associating the new circumstance with innate triggers.

At the same time it can be seen that these mechanisms are used to make certain human groups become considered immoral for being associated with basic triggers.

The continued (unfounded) association that people with liberal ideas are pedophiles who cannibalize infants (two of the most disgusting circumstances a person can be associated with) is resulting in a significant part of American society considering liberal ideas as immoral. Not ineffective in solving social problems but immoral.

This mechanism was also used very effectively in Germany by associating Jews with the characteristics that caused the most disgust at that time.

A moral reaction does not result from ethical considerations.

Regards.

As I had stated somewhere the secondary emotion of disgust is inherent in all humans since it has survival value on average.

Therefore if there is a feeling of disgust on something-X by the majority, the critical thinker must strive to understand its root cause and understand the original survival intent.
For example that the majority are disgusted with incest has implication to avoid a threat to humanity re abnormalities.
That the majority are disgusted with foul odor is because most of it are related to action of dangerous bacteria and diseases.
As such if the majority are disgusted with homosexuality then as critical thinkers we must trace it to its roots and understand whether such a disgust is effective in modern time.

A moral reaction does not result from ethical considerations.

Both 'moral' and 'ethics' are very loose terms.
So we need to define them precisely for consensus/disagreement before proceeding to discuss them.

For me, morality [Pure] relates to principles.
Ethics [Applied] relate to how the principles are put into practice.
As such ethical considerations result from constituted moral principles.

1 Claim: 'most people are disgusted by X; therefore X is morally wrong.'

Nope. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. And the empirically demonstrable truth of the premise - and its evolutionary explanation - are irrelevant.

2 If 'morality [Pure] relates to principles', then the nature of those principles is critical. If they're factual premises, they can't entail moral conclusions. And if they're moral premises, derived moral conclusions are no more factual than the premises.

Fail, fail and fail again. There are no moral facts. And the invention of a supposed 'moral framework and system of knowledge' does nothing to establish the existence of moral facts.

I understand your objection. What determines that something is morally wrong?

Why do you say that morality is based on principles? What do you consider a principle?

Why do you say this "If they're factual premises, they can't entail moral conclusions."?

[Peter Holmes]

Generally freewill is associated with theism, where theists used absolute freewill to justify the existence of real evil by humans. Such a freewill is not realistic.
But limited freewill can be discussed in its various context.


As I had stated the possibility and reality of homosexuality in reality is in THEORY a threat to humanity.
IF for some possible reason ALL humans are born homosexuals in the future, then logically it is a threat to humanity.

But in reality, we now understand the above possible is not likely, thus homosexuality is not viewed by many as a threat to humanity. This is why at present homosexuality is accepted and recognized in many places except where there are religious fundamentalists.


As I had stated somewhere the secondary emotion of disgust is inherent in all humans since it has survival value on average.

Therefore if there is a feeling of disgust on something-X by the majority, the critical thinker must strive to understand its root cause and understand the original survival intent.
For example that the majority are disgusted with incest has implication to avoid a threat to humanity re abnormalities.
That the majority are disgusted with foul odor is because most of it are related to action of dangerous bacteria and diseases.
As such if the majority are disgusted with homosexuality then as critical thinkers we must trace it to its roots and understand whether such a disgust is effective in modern time.


Both 'moral' and 'ethics' are very loose terms.
So we need to define them precisely for consensus/disagreement before proceeding to discuss them.

For me, morality [Pure] relates to principles.
Ethics [Applied] relate to how the principles are put into practice.
As such ethical considerations result from constituted moral principles.

1 Claim: 'most people are disgusted by X; therefore X is morally wrong.'

Nope. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. And the empirically demonstrable truth of the premise - and its evolutionary explanation - are irrelevant.

2 If 'morality [Pure] relates to principles', then the nature of those principles is critical. If they're factual premises, they can't entail moral conclusions. And if they're moral premises, derived moral conclusions are no more factual than the premises.

Fail, fail and fail again. There are no moral facts. And the invention of a supposed 'moral framework and system of knowledge' does nothing to establish the existence of moral facts.

I understand your objection. What determines that something is morally wrong?

Why do you say that morality is based on principles? What do you consider a principle?

Why do you say this "If they're factual premises, they can't entail moral conclusions."?

1 People decide if something is morally right or wrong - and sometimes disagree.

2 VA said 'morality relates to principles'. I think a principle is an adopted or assumed starting point. It is often a moral value or rule.

3 A factual premise can never entail a moral conclusion, which is why negating the conclusion will never produce a contradiction. To put it another way: a moral conclusion can never be deduced from a factual premise or premises.

[psycho]

1 Claim: 'most people are disgusted by X; therefore X is morally wrong.'

Nope. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. And the empirically demonstrable truth of the premise - and its evolutionary explanation - are irrelevant.

2 If 'morality [Pure] relates to principles', then the nature of those principles is critical. If they're factual premises, they can't entail moral conclusions. And if they're moral premises, derived moral conclusions are no more factual than the premises.

Fail, fail and fail again. There are no moral facts. And the invention of a supposed 'moral framework and system of knowledge' does nothing to establish the existence of moral facts.

I understand your objection. What determines that something is morally wrong?

Why do you say that morality is based on principles? What do you consider a principle?

Why do you say this "If they're factual premises, they can't entail moral conclusions."?

1 People decide if something is morally right or wrong - and sometimes disagree.

2 VA said 'morality relates to principles'. I think a principle is an adopted or assumed starting point. It is often a moral value or rule.

3 A factual premise can never entail a moral conclusion, which is why negating the conclusion will never produce a contradiction. To put it another way: a moral conclusion can never be deduced from a factual premise or premises.

So

People decide that it is moral but do not conclude it rationally?

What kind of relationship do you suppose between moral and principle? What is the origin of the principles for you?

A principles is a moral rule? They are both the same?

What determines a moral rule or principle?

What is it that leads you to conclude that something is wrong? (to you personally)

I realize that there are many questions and I apologize for that, but it is the questions that your answers create for me!

Don't feel obligated to answer everything

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated somewhere the secondary emotion of disgust is inherent in all humans since it has survival value on average.

Therefore if there is a feeling of disgust on something-X by the majority, the critical thinker must strive to understand its root cause and understand the original survival intent.
For example that the majority are disgusted with incest has implication to avoid a threat to humanity re abnormalities.
That the majority are disgusted with foul odor is because most of it are related to action of dangerous bacteria and diseases.
As such if the majority are disgusted with homosexuality then as critical thinkers we must trace it to its roots and understand whether such a disgust is effective in modern time.

A moral reaction does not result from ethical considerations.

Both 'moral' and 'ethics' are very loose terms.
So we need to define them precisely for consensus/disagreement before proceeding to discuss them.

For me, morality [Pure] relates to principles.
Ethics [Applied] relate to how the principles are put into practice.
As such ethical considerations result from constituted moral principles.

1 Claim: 'most people are disgusted by X; therefore X is morally wrong.'

Nope. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. And the empirically demonstrable truth of the premise - and its evolutionary explanation - are irrelevant.

Where did I state the above claim?
I stated above, most people are disgusted with foul odor which has survival values and this has nothing to do with morality at all.

2 If 'morality [Pure] relates to principles', then the nature of those principles is critical. If they're factual premises, they can't entail moral conclusions. And if they're moral premises, derived moral conclusions are no more factual than the premises.

Fail, fail and fail again. There are no moral facts. And the invention of a supposed 'moral framework and system of knowledge' does nothing to establish the existence of moral facts.

Note sure what you meant by moral conclusions?
You mean Judgments and Decisions related to morality?
But note,

Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615

Morality [PURE] relates to principles which are based on moral facts within a moral FSK.
But note,

There are No Moral Fact-in-Itself
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31591

Whatever the moral facts they must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically necessarily within a moral FSK.

What is a Moral Framework and System?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31603

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated somewhere the secondary emotion of disgust is inherent in all humans since it has survival value on average.

Therefore if there is a feeling of disgust on something-X by the majority, the critical thinker must strive to understand its root cause and understand the original survival intent.
For example that the majority are disgusted with incest has implication to avoid a threat to humanity re abnormalities.
That the majority are disgusted with foul odor is because most of it are related to action of dangerous bacteria and diseases.
As such if the majority are disgusted with homosexuality then as critical thinkers we must trace it to its roots and understand whether such a disgust is effective in modern time.

A moral reaction does not result from ethical considerations.

Both 'moral' and 'ethics' are very loose terms.
So we need to define them precisely for consensus/disagreement before proceeding to discuss them.

For me, morality [Pure] relates to principles.
Ethics [Applied] relate to how the principles are put into practice.
As such ethical considerations result from constituted moral principles.

I don't understand that it is limited free will.

There is no absolutely freewill, as such free will is always limited in some way.
E.g. a prisoner has some degree of freedom within his cell but his freedom is limited to his prison cell and the freedom.
Humans are free to do what they like but that is limited by his physical and other limitations.
It is the same with morality where humans are limited in some ways.

Moral is the group of rules where we reflect the distinction between what we consider bad and what we consider good.

Ethics is the consideration that tries to distinguish what we should include in those rules.

As I had stated in depend on how we define 'morality' and 'ethics'.
In some case, morality is a subset of ethics,
but generally ethics is a subset of moral & ethics.

I would not agree morality-proper involves rules which impose on individuals.
Morality is the establishment of moral principles based on moral facts and this must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
These moral principles or moral facts are to be used a GUIDEs and standards not rules that implied as sense of enforcement with threats for non-compliance.

Morality are like policies does not involved rules, but ethics may involve detail guides and also rules.

Ethics in this case are the establishment of specific guides to specific conditions, thus we have Business Ethics, Medical Ethics, etc.

[Peter Holmes]

Morality is the establishment of moral principles based on moral facts and this must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

But there are no moral facts, so there are no facts on which to base moral principles. Every single supposed moral fact turns out to be nothing more than a moral assertion, such as 'humans killing humans is morally wrong'.

There's no way to verify or falsify - empirically, philosophically, or any other way - the claim that humans killing humans is morally wrong.

As with any other moral assertion, all we can do is explain why we agree or disagree with it.

[Belinda]

If I may, I'd like to add to Veritas Aequitas's introductory post by adding some more examples of frameworks.

Examples of frameworks.
----------------------------

Human anatomy and physiology

Descriptive ornithology

Descriptive botany

Marxist interpretation of history

Cartesian dualism

Me and Not-me(See Dontaskme's posts for examples of alternative to this framework)

Ontological materialism/physicalism

Life after death, ghosts and so forth

Historiographical periodisation e.g. 'The Renaissance'

Nationalism

Relativity as extended far beyond academic discipline of physics

[Peter Holmes]

If I may, I'd like to add to Veritas Aequitas's introductory post by adding some more examples of frameworks.

Examples of frameworks.
----------------------------

Human anatomy and physiology

Descriptive ornithology

Descriptive botany

Marxist interpretation of history

Cartesian dualism

Me and Not-me(See Dontaskme's posts for examples of alternative to this framework)

Ontological materialism/physicalism

Life after death, ghosts and so forth

Historiographical periodisation e.g. 'The Renaissance'

Nationalism

Relativity as extended far beyond academic discipline of physics

If a 'principle' of Cartesian dualism is that there are two substances, mind and matter, that is a factual assertion with a truth-value: true or false. And since Cartesians have never demonstrated the existence of a substance that isn't matter, belief that it exists is irrational. And the claim that the existence of mind is a 'fact within the Cartesian framework and system of knowledge' is false, or not shown to be true. A 'framework' for describing things doesn't magically make those things exist. VA's argument for the existence of moral facts is fatuous.

If we don't sharply distinguish between the way things are and what we say about them, any spurious claims are viable - 'within this fantasy framework and system of knowledge'.

[Skepdick]

If a 'principle' of Cartesian dualism is that there are two substances, mind and matter, that is a factual assertion with a truth-value: true or false. And since Cartesians have never demonstrated the existence of a substance that isn't matter, belief that it exists is irrational

But the Cartesians insist that a demonstration has taken place, and Peter Holmes insists that a demonstration hasn't taken place.

So how might you and the cartesians agree on what a "demonstration" is?

. And the claim that the existence of mind is a 'fact within the Cartesian framework and system of knowledge' is false, or not shown to be true. A 'framework' for describing things doesn't magically make those things exist. VA's argument for the existence of moral facts is fatuous.

Seeming as "existence" is a metaphysical notion and you reject metaphysics, now you've fucked yourself twice.

How might an electrician demonstrate to you the existence of electricity?

Lets start with a simple one... why don't you go ahead and demonstrate to me that matter exists?

If we don't sharply distinguish between the way things are and what we say about them, any spurious claims are viable - 'within this fantasy framework and system of knowledge'.

You mean like you are doing now, with your spurious distinction?