What is a Moral Framework and System?

[psycho]

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.

Morals are the rules that indicate to each individual that he will be considered bad or good in his society.

Teaching certain individuals to kill is considered moral in almost all human societies, throughout history and today.

To subordinate the morality of the act of killing to circumstances would indicate a relativistic morality. If the morality of an act depends on the interpretation of the agent there is no way to establish a morality.

Weapons are tools made with the express intention of killing. Only very recently are disabling tools being developed. But the manufacture of deadly weapons did not decrease. It has only increased.

I emphasized that societies institutionally embrace the manufacture and development of weapons. In religious societies, weapons are blessed.

Your comment that societies do not develop weapons is surprising to me.

[bahman]

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

I don't 'conflate' the chemistry FSK with the moral FSK.
THERE IS NO MORAL FSK.
And that's because there are no moral facts.

Yes, we can empirically test for behavioral consistency with a moral standard. But to call that subjectively chosen moral standard a 'justified moral fact' begs the whole question.

How come you are so ignorant?
Justified True Moral facts are derivative from a Moral Framework and System just like scientific knowledge, facts & truths emerged from the scientific FSK.

The theistic moral approach is a theistic moral framework and system, e.g. Christianity, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.
So is the Platonist moralists with their Platonic moral FSK.
The other moral FSK are that of the deontologists, the utilitarianist, the consequentialists, the tribal moralists, and any groups that has a set of moral principles.

So what is a moral system?

What is a Moral System?
http://sites.stedwards.edu/ursery/class ... al-system/

An moral system is a system of coherent, systematic, and reasonable principles, rules, ideals, and values which work to form one’s overall perspective.
Not just any rules, of course, but moral values?

Each one of you has a moral system to some extent although most probably do not have an ethical system.

In your justification or argumentative essay you are asked to choose an ethical system (for example, utilitarian ethics, Kantian ethics, etc.) and to use that system in your essay to defend your moral rule or system.

In order to satisfactory do this, you need to understand what a moral system is.
Your moral system is your morality.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that not all moral system are equally good any more than all opinions are equally good.

The following is a dialogue, carried on by two half-baked ethicists, concerning the nature of a moral system.
.....

Evolution and Construction of Moral Systems
A moral system is an adaptive system for conflict management based on prescriptive, internalized social rules.
We decompose moral systems into the sense of fairness, moral judgments, and rules at the aggregate level.
We explore how each of these levels is constructed, including how this process is influenced by cognitive and organizational constraints and social architecture.
We consider feedback across these levels as well as the implications of partial time-scale separation for reducing uncertainty about behavioral outcomes.
We suggest that an appropriate theoretical framework for treating these issues is an extended theory of niche construction.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -85436-4_7

Just google and there are loads of leads to 'what is a moral system' within its specific framework.

Adding the term 'framework' to a moral system makes it more encompassing with other relevant features which strengthen the moral system.

What we call the moral fact is the result of our nature dictating things to us.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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)

The point is, no animals will kill like humans killing humans for pleasure, and other frivolous reasons.
I stated animal killed on a need basis, i.e. need for food when hungry [which is a basic need], self-defense, some for the optimality of survival [killing cubs which are not theirs] and the likes.

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?

Again I did not state the above.
All humans has the basic instinct to kill for food to sustain survival.
Morality is not a basic instinct, rather in later evolution phases all humans are subsequently endowed with the moral function to inhibit and modulate this basic instinct to kill so that humans do not kill humans.

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

If you reflect on your own self, you will note you have the free will to do many things without hindrance [thus uncontrollable in a sense], but you also restraint from many things that you may wish you want or dreamt to do. [thus that freewill is limited].

• For example, a person may have thoughts and impulse to commit suicide, but just cannot carried it out.
  We often read of many people having the impulse of wishing and wanting to kill another human[s] who had done evil to them [rape, torture, suppress, stress, etc.] but they do not carry out their wish and intents.
  Instead some humans even forgive those who commit evil on them.

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.

Yes morality is an inherent biological and psychological function that is "programmed" and adapted within the brain of all humans.
However, as a later evolved function, the moral function is quite dormant and not so active in the majority of humans since it emerged and even at present.

Because the moral function is a 'Johnny comes lately' and not so active YET, the more older 'kill' program is more active, thus we have humans killing humans and violence since human emerged till the present.

BUT there are evidence of an increasing trend the moral function is unfolding to be more active in the average of all humans. The evidence is presented in the thread below -have a look;
Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

• Note the trend of the decrease in slavery since 500-3000 years ago to the present.
  It is also evident there are lesser genocides at present [preventive measures taken ] as compared to the last 25 years back to the 3000 years ago.

Since the moral function is inherent in all humans and progressing as evident, we should make the effort to understand it more thoroughly and expedite the average moral competence.
Your [& the majority's] indifference or ignorance of this inherent moral function is the biggest hurdle in activating the moral function to be more active.

It is not a question of 'trust' rather humanity must put in the effort to be knowledgeable and practical in expediting the progress of the inherent moral function within all humans.

Once there is progress and increase in the average moral competence of humanity, then there will lesser and lesser evil and violence, including genocides, etc.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What we call the moral fact is the result of our nature dictating things to us.

Correct.

To add, what is moral fact [within human nature] must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.

[Skepdick]

To subordinate the morality of the act of killing to circumstances would indicate a relativistic morality. If the morality of an act depends on the interpretation of the agent there is no way to establish a morality.

Horseshit. Everything we say, do and determine in society depends on the interpretation of agents - humans.

To subordinate morality to context-free interpretation would mean accidentally stepping on an ant is immoral.

What we call "objective facts" are linguistic social norms: what we can and cannot say about the state of affairs.
What we call "objective moral facts" are behavioural social norms: what we can and cannot do to the state of affairs.

Weapons are tools made with the express intention of killing.

No, they aren't. I carry a gun with the express intention of making holes through the skull and chest of anybody trying to harm those that I love.

My goal is not to kill them. My goal is to stop them. Death is a side-effect.

[psycho]

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)

The point is, no animals will kill like humans killing humans for pleasure, and other frivolous reasons.
I stated animal killed on a need basis, i.e. need for food when hungry [which is a basic need], self-defense, some for the optimality of survival [killing cubs which are not theirs] and the likes.

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?

Again I did not state the above.
All humans has the basic instinct to kill for food to sustain survival.
Morality is not a basic instinct, rather in later evolution phases all humans are subsequently endowed with the moral function to inhibit and modulate this basic instinct to kill so that humans do not kill humans.

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

If you reflect on your own self, you will note you have the free will to do many things without hindrance [thus uncontrollable in a sense], but you also restraint from many things that you may wish you want or dreamt to do. [thus that freewill is limited].

• For example, a person may have thoughts and impulse to commit suicide, but just cannot carried it out.
  We often read of many people having the impulse of wishing and wanting to kill another human[s] who had done evil to them [rape, torture, suppress, stress, etc.] but they do not carry out their wish and intents.
  Instead some humans even forgive those who commit evil on them.

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.

Yes morality is an inherent biological and psychological function that is "programmed" and adapted within the brain of all humans.
However, as a later evolved function, the moral function is quite dormant and not so active in the majority of humans since it emerged and even at present.

Because the moral function is a 'Johnny comes lately' and not so active YET, the more older 'kill' program is more active, thus we have humans killing humans and violence since human emerged till the present.

BUT there are evidence of an increasing trend the moral function is unfolding to be more active in the average of all humans. The evidence is presented in the thread below -have a look;
Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

• Note the trend of the decrease in slavery since 500-3000 years ago to the present.
  It is also evident there are lesser genocides at present [preventive measures taken ] as compared to the last 25 years back to the 3000 years ago.

Since the moral function is inherent in all humans and progressing as evident, we should make the effort to understand it more thoroughly and expedite the average moral competence.
Your [& the majority's] indifference or ignorance of this inherent moral function is the biggest hurdle in activating the moral function to be more active.

It is not a question of 'trust' rather humanity must put in the effort to be knowledgeable and practical in expediting the progress of the inherent moral function within all humans.

Once there is progress and increase in the average moral competence of humanity, then there will lesser and lesser evil and violence, including genocides, etc.

Humans kill for convenience just like animals.

Free will is the complete lack of factors that influence the human will. Choose with complete freedom.

Any limitation in the will (not in the execution of that will) takes away the "free" part of free will.

There is nothing that corresponds to a limited free will. That is an oxymoron.

Just like uncontrollable free will.

It is something like "dark white" or "light black".

The assumption of an inherent moral function in humans needs to have some solid support.

The fact that there are fewer genocides does not explain the mechanism by which a certain population loses empathy for its fellow neighbors and considers it appropriate to kill them.

Why do you suppose that humans, aware of moral rules, act without taking them into account?

[psycho]

To subordinate the morality of the act of killing to circumstances would indicate a relativistic morality. If the morality of an act depends on the interpretation of the agent there is no way to establish a morality.

Horseshit. Everything we say, do and determine in society depends on the interpretation of agents - humans.

To subordinate morality to context-free interpretation would mean accidentally stepping on an ant is immoral.

What we call "objective facts" are linguistic social norms: what we can and cannot say about the state of affairs.
What we call "objective moral facts" are behavioural social norms: what we can and cannot do to the state of affairs.

Weapons are tools made with the express intention of killing.

No, they aren't. I carry a gun with the express intention of making holes through the skull and chest of anybody trying to harm those that I love.

My goal is not to kill them. My goal is to stop them. Death is a side-effect.

You made a distinction:

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

Apparently with the intention of emphasizing that the act of killing must be considered in context.

I share with you that morality is a synthesis that depends on human interpretation.

Using a tool, whose primary function is to kill, to solve a problem indicates that this solution seems convenient to you.

[Skepdick]

I share with you that morality is a synthesis that depends on human interpretation.

ALL determinations/assertions about anything is a synthesis that depends on human interpretation of experience.

Such that the assertion that any given act is "killing". You could always re-describe it as a physical state transition.

To quote Nietzsche. There are no facts, only interpretations.

Using a tool, whose primary function is to kill, to solve a problem indicates that this solution seems convenient to you.

Yeah, but I can engage in such sophistry too...

Determining that a tool's primary function is to kill indicates that the determination seems convenient to you.

[bahman]

What we call the moral fact is the result of our nature dictating things to us.

Correct.

To add, what is moral fact [within human nature] must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system.

It is what it is, majority rules. They follow their nature. They define moral principles and force them even to minorities.

[psycho]

I share with you that morality is a synthesis that depends on human interpretation.

ALL determinations/assertions about anything is a synthesis that depends on human interpretation of experience.

Such that the assertion that any given act is "killing". You could always re-describe it as a physical state transition.

To quote Nietzsche. There are no facts, only interpretations.

Using a tool, whose primary function is to kill, to solve a problem indicates that this solution seems convenient to you.

Yeah, but I can engage in such sophistry too...

Determining that a tool's primary function is to kill indicates that the determination seems convenient to you.

Nope. There are not only interpretations. There are interpretations with a greater correspondence to reality and others that do not correspond as much.

You could interpret any situation arbitrarily but your effectiveness as an agent would be affected in direct relation to the effectiveness of your interpretation.

You chose that tool for that solution. Like the rest of society.

Why do you consider valid to interpret that it is convenient for me, that society calls "mortal" to mortal weapons?

[Skepdick]

Nope. There are not only interpretations. There are interpretations with a greater correspondence to reality and others that do not correspond as much.

So somebody interprets the degree of correspondence of interpretations.

Got it!

You could interpret any situation arbitrarily but your effectiveness as an agent would be affected in direct relation to the effectiveness of your interpretation.

So who interprets "effectiveness"?

You chose that tool for that solution. Like the rest of society.

Are you intentionally misrepresenting me?

I explicitly stated that the purpose of using a firearm is NOT to kill. It is to stop an attacker.

Why do you consider valid to interpret that it is convenient for me, that society calls "mortal" to mortal weapons?

Well, that's an anthropomorphism. Society doesn't call anything anything. People do, and I don't know anybody that calls guns "mortal weapons".

[psycho]

Nope. There are not only interpretations. There are interpretations with a greater correspondence to reality and others that do not correspond as much.

So somebody interprets the degree of correspondence of interpretations.

Got it!

You could interpret any situation arbitrarily but your effectiveness as an agent would be affected in direct relation to the effectiveness of your interpretation.

So who interprets "effectiveness"?

You chose that tool for that solution. Like the rest of society.

Are you intentionally misrepresenting me?

I explicitly stated that the purpose of using a firearm is NOT to kill. It is to stop an attacker.

Why do you consider valid to interpret that it is convenient for me, that society calls "mortal" to mortal weapons?

Well, that's an anthropomorphism. Society doesn't call anything anything. People do, and I don't know anybody that calls guns "mortal weapons".

If your interpretation is that there is no pit on your way and then you fall into it, you can continue to interpret it as non-existent but it will hurt anyway.

If your intention is to stir the coffee. The stirred coffee proves that your interpretation of the situation was valid.

To stop something alive by killing it is to kill it.

We should not live in the same society. My experience is very different from yours.

[Skepdick]

If your interpretation is that there is no pit on your way and then you fall into it, you can continue to interpret it as non-existent but it will hurt anyway.

And if I don't fall in the pit (for whatever reason) then your interpretation was wrong.

If your intention is to stir the coffee. The stirred coffee proves that your interpretation of the situation was valid.

And if I taste it and it turns out it's hot chicory, not coffee?

To stop something alive by killing it is to kill it.

Stopping does not necessitate killing. Stopping necessitates inflicting enough trauma.

If you recover from whatever trauma I inflicted upon you - that's stopping you without killing you.

We should not live in the same society. My experience is very different from yours.

Sucks that we are stuck on the same planet.

[psycho]

If your interpretation is that there is no pit on your way and then you fall into it, you can continue to interpret it as non-existent but it will hurt anyway.

And if I don't fall in the pit (for whatever reason) then your interpretation was wrong.

If your intention is to stir the coffee. The stirred coffee proves that your interpretation of the situation was valid.

And if I taste it and it turns out it's hot chicory, not coffee?

To stop something alive by killing it is to kill it.

Stopping does not necessitate killing. Stopping necessitates inflicting enough trauma.

If you recover from whatever trauma I inflicted upon you - that's stopping you without killing you.

We should not live in the same society. My experience is very different from yours.

Sucks that we are stuck on the same planet.

Your first two responses share my idea that not all interpretations are the same.

It would be like concluding that the gillotine was not created to decapitate when it becomes dull and does not cut well.

[Skepdick]

Your first two responses share my idea that not all interpretations are the same.

It would be like concluding that the gillotine was not created to decapitate when it becomes dull and does not cut well.

It's nothing like that at all.

What the creator created something for is the business of the creator.

What the person using it for is the business of the user.

You've never used a butter knife as a screw driver? I have.