What is a Moral Framework and System?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Agree with the above in a way but not their standing within the continuum of reliability relative to that of the scientific framework and system.

Any FSK that deal with "Life after death, ghosts and so forth" would be rated 1/100 relative to the scientific FSK's credibility at say 99/100 [the present standard bearer].

That always stops me in my tracks. I am unsure about whether or not science is a FSB FSK. Science is refinement of the ability of all to learn from experience. While I believe reason is at least the main highway towards reality, I am unwilling to elevate it further than one among other approaches that are utterly unknowable to us. Certainly reason is the only way on this Earth to approach reality .
I do not know what is the ontic status of probability; maybe I should rather say "the epistemic status". Confused.

Science is basically a Framework and System of Beliefs [related to scientific matters].
Science begins with beliefs, i.e. hypotheses extrapolated from various experiences.

Once the hypotheses are proven to be true, then it become scientific knowledge, as such in this sense, we refer to a scientific FSK [knowledge].
I would prefer scientific FSK [knowledge] to scientific FSB [beliefs].

Science is attempting to represent reality, thus it is also a Framework and System of Reality on scientific matters.

Thus context is critical in the usage of the above terms.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality and moral facts are dealt within a moral framework and system.
Moral facts are not simply agreements of any sort.
Moral facts are facts that must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral system.

what system would that be? wouldn't that have to be a agreed system? without human agreement there is no system to follow, is there? and just what is a moral fact anyway? something you made up? what?

the creatures in this earth sustain no "system" of morals, only humans do, and they do in self interest.

The moral system can be related to consensus within humanity or the individuals.
The digestive system of the individual need not be agreed upon.
As such there is a moral system [function] within the brain/mind of the individual.

I have spent more than a year in this 'Ethical Theory' section justifying what is a moral fact from a moral system.
I am a bit jaded to go through them at present.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Free will is the complete lack of conditioning in the use of the human will.

It has no relation to the effectiveness in the results of the exercise of that will.

I understand that definition of freewill [i.e. absolute] is insisted upon by theists only merely to bypass the Problem of Evil.
You're a theist?

As a non-theist, I don't agree with the theistic definition because it is not rational and realistic.

I don't agree with your definitions of morals and ethics.

To each their own.
As I had stated, it depend on how we define 'morality' and 'ethics'.

I believe my definitions are realistic and practical toward perpetual peace.

I believe your definitions will end up with a stalemate with no hold nor restraint on the continuation of evil.

I am skeptic and atheist.

I still don't see what you consider free will.

It Is that your apparent definitions do not contain a definitive concept and are circular.

As an atheist you need to get out of the trap set by theists in defining 'freewill' as absolute. else you will lose the argument right from the start.
The point is absolute freewill is an impossibility to be real, it is an idea and an illusion for theists to avoid the contradiction from the Problem of Evil and to justify the existence of their God

The reality with 'freewill' is humans has freewill but it is limited.
We humans has a will that is free [uninhibited] to do what we like, eat, sleep, live and have sex freely but there are limitations, e.g. normal humans are naturally inhibited from jumping off cliffs and other acts with fatal potentials.

Why do you want to counter my realistic proposals and thus get entrapped by the illusory freewill proposed by theists to save their souls?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you have any examples of moral facts verified and justified empirically and philosophically?

I had been stating the following moral fact that verified and justified empirically and philosophically, i.e.
'no human ought to kill humans'

Crudely, that fact [a mental state] exists in you and the majority at present in your brain/mind as an inhibition, that is why you and the majority do not go out and kill humans like psychopaths and others who are influenced by evil.

Humanity killed fellow men, it does it today and it will do it tomorrow.

The rule would really be: Killing humans is not convenient.

But if one thing is clear, it is that killing humans is considered convenient by all societies at all times and in all places.

It is the circumstances that determine that a society considers killing humans to be bad or good.

Do you know any convenience that is still convenient under any circumstance?

It is not about rules but rather it is about standards and norms.

The oughtness of 'no human ought to kill humans' is a fact of mental states in the brain and mind of the majority represented by a real combination and connections of neuron.
This is why the majority do not go about killing humans as they wish.

This inherent natural oughtness of 'no human ought to kill humans' which is a moral fact is adopted as a moral standard as a guide for moral improvements.

Humans being human, some humans will kill for various reasons [authorized or unauthorized murder].

Because our moral standard is ZERO killing, any human killed will be a variance from the moral standard within the moral system.
For all variances of human killed we need to track the root causes and establish preventive measures to improve the moral competence.

[Belinda]

I had been stating the following moral fact that verified and justified empirically and philosophically, i.e.
'no human ought to kill humans'

Crudely, that fact [a mental state] exists in you and the majority at present in your brain/mind as an inhibition, that is why you and the majority do not go out and kill humans like psychopaths and others who are influenced by evil.

Humanity killed fellow men, it does it today and it will do it tomorrow.

The rule would really be: Killing humans is not convenient.

But if one thing is clear, it is that killing humans is considered convenient by all societies at all times and in all places.

It is the circumstances that determine that a society considers killing humans to be bad or good.

Do you know any convenience that is still convenient under any circumstance?

It is not about rules but rather it is about standards and norms.

The oughtness of 'no human ought to kill humans' is a fact of mental states in the brain and mind of the majority represented by a real combination and connections of neuron.
This is why the majority do not go about killing humans as they wish.

This inherent natural oughtness of 'no human ought to kill humans' which is a moral fact is adopted as a moral standard as a guide for moral improvements.

Humans being human, some humans will kill for various reasons [authorized or unauthorized murder].

Because our moral standard is ZERO killing, any human killed will be a variance from the moral standard within the moral system.
For all variances of human killed we need to track the root causes and establish preventive measures to improve the moral competence.

I agree with VA a man is basically inhibited about killing another man. When the killing of another man does become the right action that is because an alternative FSB (framework and system of belief) has 'taken over' , or deliberately has 'been put in place' .
So when Trump and Co. had that helpless woman criminal killed for a 'punishment' Trump's preferred FSB was different from my FSB.
When war is declared, the national FSB is usually changed to an alternative framework and system of belief. I can remember insulting remarks British people used about Germans and Japanese during the war.These remarks are now of historical interest only, now that the current framework and system of belief is a different FSB.

[DPMartin]

The moral system can be related to consensus within humanity or the individuals.

that would be an agreed set of rules for coexistence isn't it? and that is what is known as Laws and laws are a society's agreement of what it takes for the agreed to coexist.

The digestive system of the individual need not be agreed upon.

now that depends on the society's agreement doesn't it? in democracies the individual's agreement is necessary though it may be needs for the majority of the individuals. example, the laws change from smoking marijuana is unmoral, wrong according to the law, to moral according to the law which requires individuals to agree. now if one lives in a dictatorship or monocracy where the leaders are justified by the society's agreement to do what he sees fit, then you would be correct.

As such there is a moral system [function] within the brain/mind of the individual.

that would be survival. and survival can justify to the individual survivor any act doable under the sun. no moral fiber required there, except for the possibility of the individual's sense of self worth.

I have spent more than a year in this 'Ethical Theory' section justifying what is a moral fact from a moral system.
I am a bit jaded to go through them at present.

that's to bad for you then. if you are the justifier of this theory you're work on, then maybe that in itself should tell you something.

[Sculptor]

I am surprised there are people who deny the existence of moral systems within their respective framework.

Justified True Moral facts are derivative from a Moral Framework and System just like scientific knowledge, facts & truths emerged from the scientific FSK.

Not science. Nothing like science.
More like religion

[psycho]

I had been stating the following moral fact that verified and justified empirically and philosophically, i.e.
'no human ought to kill humans'

Crudely, that fact [a mental state] exists in you and the majority at present in your brain/mind as an inhibition, that is why you and the majority do not go out and kill humans like psychopaths and others who are influenced by evil.

Humanity killed fellow men, it does it today and it will do it tomorrow.

The rule would really be: Killing humans is not convenient.

But if one thing is clear, it is that killing humans is considered convenient by all societies at all times and in all places.

It is the circumstances that determine that a society considers killing humans to be bad or good.

Do you know any convenience that is still convenient under any circumstance?

It is not about rules but rather it is about standards and norms.

The oughtness of 'no human ought to kill humans' is a fact of mental states in the brain and mind of the majority represented by a real combination and connections of neuron.
This is why the majority do not go about killing humans as they wish.

This inherent natural oughtness of 'no human ought to kill humans' which is a moral fact is adopted as a moral standard as a guide for moral improvements.

Humans being human, some humans will kill for various reasons [authorized or unauthorized murder].

Because our moral standard is ZERO killing, any human killed will be a variance from the moral standard within the moral system.
For all variances of human killed we need to track the root causes and establish preventive measures to improve the moral competence.

Standards and norms are rules.

We are social beings. Only. The state of each mind depends on its social environment. Killing is one more human act. The advisability of killing, normally, is not the result of a philosophical consideration but an instinctive reaction.

We are immersed in a society that considers killing to be a convenient act when circumstances dictate it.

That is the reason why people produce and carry deadly weapons and the vast majority of every society finds it completely normal. Every society devotes enormous resources to the production of incredibly sophisticated weaponry.

Killing is an activity that societies consider moral.

Only a small percentage of the population of each human society believes that training individuals to kill fellow men and equip many of their citizens with deadly weapons is immoral.

In my opinion this is so because societies know (they have experienced it) that killing is circumstantially convenient. In my terms, it is not considered immoral because the majority of the population is not disgusted by that fact. Killing those whom society deems deserve it does not produce displeasure.

Otherwise it would be difficult to congenial that the existence of a mental construction that governs the majority of human minds, inhibiting them from killing; against the clear evidence of the permissibility of every society with respect to the act of killing (when it is convenient and seems to be it all the time) and the production and improvement of objects whose only function is to kill.

I would love it if it wasn't like that but that's what I notice.

[psycho]

Humanity killed fellow men, it does it today and it will do it tomorrow.

The rule would really be: Killing humans is not convenient.

But if one thing is clear, it is that killing humans is considered convenient by all societies at all times and in all places.

It is the circumstances that determine that a society considers killing humans to be bad or good.

Do you know any convenience that is still convenient under any circumstance?

It is not about rules but rather it is about standards and norms.

The oughtness of 'no human ought to kill humans' is a fact of mental states in the brain and mind of the majority represented by a real combination and connections of neuron.
This is why the majority do not go about killing humans as they wish.

This inherent natural oughtness of 'no human ought to kill humans' which is a moral fact is adopted as a moral standard as a guide for moral improvements.

Humans being human, some humans will kill for various reasons [authorized or unauthorized murder].

Because our moral standard is ZERO killing, any human killed will be a variance from the moral standard within the moral system.
For all variances of human killed we need to track the root causes and establish preventive measures to improve the moral competence.

I agree with VA a man is basically inhibited about killing another man. When the killing of another man does become the right action that is because an alternative FSB (framework and system of belief) has 'taken over' , or deliberately has 'been put in place' .
So when Trump and Co. had that helpless woman criminal killed for a 'punishment' Trump's preferred FSB was different from my FSB.
When war is declared, the national FSB is usually changed to an alternative framework and system of belief. I can remember insulting remarks British people used about Germans and Japanese during the war.These remarks are now of historical interest only, now that the current framework and system of belief is a different FSB.

The assumption that a society conveniently varies its frame of reference of moral values ​​supposes a moral frame
greater than contains those partials (which are obviously not a true moral framework). Do you think that societies choose to be moral or immoral according to their convenience?

[Belinda]

It is not about rules but rather it is about standards and norms.

The oughtness of 'no human ought to kill humans' is a fact of mental states in the brain and mind of the majority represented by a real combination and connections of neuron.
This is why the majority do not go about killing humans as they wish.

This inherent natural oughtness of 'no human ought to kill humans' which is a moral fact is adopted as a moral standard as a guide for moral improvements.

Humans being human, some humans will kill for various reasons [authorized or unauthorized murder].

Because our moral standard is ZERO killing, any human killed will be a variance from the moral standard within the moral system.
For all variances of human killed we need to track the root causes and establish preventive measures to improve the moral competence.

I agree with VA a man is basically inhibited about killing another man. When the killing of another man does become the right action that is because an alternative FSB (framework and system of belief) has 'taken over' , or deliberately has 'been put in place' .
So when Trump and Co. had that helpless woman criminal killed for a 'punishment' Trump's preferred FSB was different from my FSB.
When war is declared, the national FSB is usually changed to an alternative framework and system of belief. I can remember insulting remarks British people used about Germans and Japanese during the war.These remarks are now of historical interest only, now that the current framework and system of belief is a different FSB.

The assumption that a society conveniently varies its frame of reference of moral values ​​supposes a moral frame
greater than contains those partials (which are obviously not a true moral framework). Do you think that societies choose to be moral or immoral according to their convenience?

I believe there is an ultimate framework. Societies fail to thrive if they do not act in accordance with their means of subsistence. We know cognitive dissonance often at first hand.

[psycho]

I agree with VA a man is basically inhibited about killing another man. When the killing of another man does become the right action that is because an alternative FSB (framework and system of belief) has 'taken over' , or deliberately has 'been put in place' .
So when Trump and Co. had that helpless woman criminal killed for a 'punishment' Trump's preferred FSB was different from my FSB.
When war is declared, the national FSB is usually changed to an alternative framework and system of belief. I can remember insulting remarks British people used about Germans and Japanese during the war.These remarks are now of historical interest only, now that the current framework and system of belief is a different FSB.

The assumption that a society conveniently varies its frame of reference of moral values ​​supposes a moral frame
greater than contains those partials (which are obviously not a true moral framework). Do you think that societies choose to be moral or immoral according to their convenience?

I believe there is an ultimate framework. Societies fail to thrive if they do not act in accordance with their means of subsistence.

I believe that a framework is necessary, that this framework is decided by us and that it must evolve according to the advancement of our knowledge. And it must be implemented intelligently. That is, not being a naive society about what factors form the human will.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Standards and norms are rules.

Only if you define the terms above very loosely.

"Standard" is not even synonymous with "rule".
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/standard

We are social beings. Only. The state of each mind depends on its social environment. Killing is one more human act. The advisability of killing, normally, is not the result of a philosophical consideration but an instinctive reaction.

We are immersed in a society that considers killing to be a convenient act when circumstances dictate it.

That is the reason why people produce and carry deadly weapons and the vast majority of every society finds it completely normal. Every society devotes enormous resources to the production of incredibly sophisticated weaponry.

Killing is an activity that societies consider moral.

Only a small percentage of the population of each human society believes that training individuals to kill fellow men and equip many of their citizens with deadly weapons is immoral.

In my opinion this is so because societies know (they have experienced it) that killing is circumstantially convenient. In my terms, it is not considered immoral because the majority of the population is not disgusted by that fact. Killing those whom society deems deserve it does not produce displeasure.

Otherwise it would be difficult to congenial that the existence of a mental construction that governs the majority of human minds, inhibiting them from killing; against the clear evidence of the permissibility of every society with respect to the act of killing (when it is convenient and seems to be it all the time) and the production and improvement of objects whose only function is to kill.

I would love it if it wasn't like that but that's what I notice.

Point is humans evolved early on 'like other higher animals' with a "program" of the potential-to-kill, i.e. especially for food, then self-defense.

The potential to kill in non-human animals is mitigated as an instinct, thus animals only kill on a need basis.

However humans for various reasons are driven to evolve to act beyond their instincts and endowed with limited free will and self-consciousness.
Accordingly to limit the above, NATURE subsequently endowed humans with the moral function to inhibit the potential to kill based on an uncontrollable free will.

Because the moral function is a later and newer function, it is not very active in all humans to have full control of the potential-to-kill.
This is why humans are still killing humans and killing is still acceptable in certain circumstances.

But the later moral function inherent in humans is unfolding albeit slowly and is getting more active. This is evident by the decreasing trend of humans killing humans since from long ago to the present.
Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

This is why we must recognize the moral function as a moral fact and from there find strategies to expedite its efficiency so that there will be lesser and lesser killings of humans by humans and other evil acts.

On the other hand, you have not reflect deep enough and is indifferent to any progress of morality and letting things be as they are and relying on merely laws to restraint killings of humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The moral system can be related to consensus within humanity or the individuals.

that would be an agreed set of rules for coexistence isn't it? and that is what is known as Laws and laws are a society's agreement of what it takes for the agreed to coexist.

The digestive system of the individual need not be agreed upon.

now that depends on the society's agreement doesn't it? in democracies the individual's agreement is necessary though it may be needs for the majority of the individuals. example, the laws change from smoking marijuana is unmoral, wrong according to the law, to moral according to the law which requires individuals to agree. now if one lives in a dictatorship or monocracy where the leaders are justified by the society's agreement to do what he sees fit, then you would be correct.

As such there is a moral system [function] within the brain/mind of the individual.

that would be survival. and survival can justify to the individual survivor any act doable under the sun. no moral fiber required there, except for the possibility of the individual's sense of self worth.

I have spent more than a year in this 'Ethical Theory' section justifying what is a moral fact from a moral system.
I am a bit jaded to go through them at present.

that's to bad for you then. if you are the justifier of this theory you're work on, then maybe that in itself should tell you something.

Note my response in the above post to 'Psycho'.

[Skepdick]

Standards and norms are rules.

We are social beings. Only. The state of each mind depends on its social environment. Killing is one more human act. The advisability of killing, normally, is not the result of a philosophical consideration but an instinctive reaction.

We are immersed in a society that considers killing to be a convenient act when circumstances dictate it.

That is the reason why people produce and carry deadly weapons and the vast majority of every society finds it completely normal. Every society devotes enormous resources to the production of incredibly sophisticated weaponry.

Killing is an activity that societies consider moral.

Killing is amoral.
Murder is immoral.
Self-defence is moral.

Society doesn't develop weapons - society weaponises tools.

Tools are amoral, but can be used for moral; or immoral purposes.

Logic and Mathematics can be weaponised, yet somehow logicians and mathematicians don't see themselves as purveyors of immorality.

[psycho]

Standards and norms are rules.

Only if you define the terms above very loosely.

"Standard" is not even synonymous with "rule".
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/standard

We are social beings. Only. The state of each mind depends on its social environment. Killing is one more human act. The advisability of killing, normally, is not the result of a philosophical consideration but an instinctive reaction.

We are immersed in a society that considers killing to be a convenient act when circumstances dictate it.

That is the reason why people produce and carry deadly weapons and the vast majority of every society finds it completely normal. Every society devotes enormous resources to the production of incredibly sophisticated weaponry.

Killing is an activity that societies consider moral.

Only a small percentage of the population of each human society believes that training individuals to kill fellow men and equip many of their citizens with deadly weapons is immoral.

In my opinion this is so because societies know (they have experienced it) that killing is circumstantially convenient. In my terms, it is not considered immoral because the majority of the population is not disgusted by that fact. Killing those whom society deems deserve it does not produce displeasure.

Otherwise it would be difficult to congenial that the existence of a mental construction that governs the majority of human minds, inhibiting them from killing; against the clear evidence of the permissibility of every society with respect to the act of killing (when it is convenient and seems to be it all the time) and the production and improvement of objects whose only function is to kill.

I would love it if it wasn't like that but that's what I notice.

Point is humans evolved early on 'like other higher animals' with a "program" of the potential-to-kill, i.e. especially for food, then self-defense.

The potential to kill in non-human animals is mitigated as an instinct, thus animals only kill on a need basis.

However humans for various reasons are driven to evolve to act beyond their instincts and endowed with limited free will and self-consciousness.
Accordingly to limit the above, NATURE subsequently endowed humans with the moral function to inhibit the potential to kill based on an uncontrollable free will.

Because the moral function is a later and newer function, it is not very active in all humans to have full control of the potential-to-kill.
This is why humans are still killing humans and killing is still acceptable in certain circumstances.

But the later moral function inherent in humans is unfolding albeit slowly and is getting more active. This is evident by the decreasing trend of humans killing humans since from long ago to the present.
Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

This is why we must recognize the moral function as a moral fact and from there find strategies to expedite its efficiency so that there will be lesser and lesser killings of humans by humans and other evil acts.

On the other hand, you have not reflect deep enough and is indifferent to any progress of morality and letting things be as they are and relying on merely laws to restraint killings of humans.

Animals do not kill for basic needs. Animals kill because it is convenient for them to kill. When a male lion defeats a pack leader, he eats his predecessor's cubs. That is not a basic need. At least not to my understanding. (Maybe we should clarify that you consider basic needs in animals)

I don't see how you conclude that humans have a basic instinct that prevents them from killing. What makes you think such a thing?

I still don't see what you call limited free will. And your concept of uncontrollable free will catches my attention.

When I think that I begin to understand your position and then I see that you interpret that morality is a biological function but at the same time it is determined by philosophical considerations, I am once again intrigued about what your idea will be on the subject.

In my opinion you should not trust that humanity is developing effective morality. Human aggressiveness diminishes with the stability of societies and is activated by scarcity of resources, catastrophes and perceived chaos.

One mechanism that denies our possible moral evolution is genocide.

Within this phenomenon, individuals correctly formed intellectually and morally, act with the greatest cruelty and lethality. An interesting case is the Rwanda massacre. To name a not so distant example. This is notable for the enthusiastic participation of Christian priests and nuns in that genocide.