What is a right action?

[bahman]

What is morality-proper is inherent in all humans.

Thus even if people who are not aware of the inherent principles of morality-proper, most are driven by their instincts and intuition to align with the inherent moral principles.

That is why we have the subject of moral intuitionism or ethical intuitionism.

The reality of inherent moral fact is that 'ought-not-ness to kill humans' in the brain which the main driver supporting the GLARING evidence there is an increasing trend of human populations since humans emerged.

There are many other things which inhereted to humans, such as self interests, love toward familly, love toward country, etc. and that is a barrier against what you called morality proper which is supposed to provide an answer to whether killing is good or evil. It is good if you kill for your country when your country is at war it is evil otherwise. One action two situations. I am afraid that we cannot depend on human heritage.

Generally ALL humans are "programmed" with the potential for evil and for good which both are necessary for survival under various conditions. In the absence of food, it may be necessary to be cannibals and eat the weakest, note the case of the plane crash in the Peruvian mountains.

It is evident evil was prevalent and optimal in the past and its remnants are still necessary currently, e.g. wars, but the inherent moral function is slowly unfolding towards the future to modulate and control the inherent evil.
This is evident as in;

• In his 2011 book,
  The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,
  Steven Pinker argued with relevant data and posited violence has declined significantly at Present since from the past years.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

That is why humanity must research more deeply in the underlying moral mechanism that is driving the reducing trend in violence, killings, rapes, slavery, etc. so that humanity can expedite the moral processes.
To do so, we need to establish the moral facts within a moral FSK.

Your indifference and resistance to morality-proper means you are complicit in sustaining the current level of evil within the world.

We cannot eliminate evil in human nature. To act in a situation in which evil is involved you need a moral principle. Evil might be necessary depending on the situation (the example of the plane crash). What is your moral principle that we can strive to it and derive what is the right thing to do depending on the situation?

I think you owe the definition of the good, evil, wrong, right, and moral situation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are many other things which inhereted to humans, such as self interests, love toward familly, love toward country, etc. and that is a barrier against what you called morality proper which is supposed to provide an answer to whether killing is good or evil. It is good if you kill for your country when your country is at war it is evil otherwise. One action two situations. I am afraid that we cannot depend on human heritage.

Generally ALL humans are "programmed" with the potential for evil and for good which both are necessary for survival under various conditions. In the absence of food, it may be necessary to be cannibals and eat the weakest, note the case of the plane crash in the Peruvian mountains.

It is evident evil was prevalent and optimal in the past and its remnants are still necessary currently, e.g. wars, but the inherent moral function is slowly unfolding towards the future to modulate and control the inherent evil.
This is evident as in;

• In his 2011 book,
  The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,
  Steven Pinker argued with relevant data and posited violence has declined significantly at Present since from the past years.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

That is why humanity must research more deeply in the underlying moral mechanism that is driving the reducing trend in violence, killings, rapes, slavery, etc. so that humanity can expedite the moral processes.
To do so, we need to establish the moral facts within a moral FSK.

Your indifference and resistance to morality-proper means you are complicit in sustaining the current level of evil within the world.

We cannot eliminate evil in human nature. To act in a situation in which evil is involved you need a moral principle. Evil might be necessary depending on the situation (the example of the plane crash). What is your moral principle that we can strive to it and derive what is the right thing to do depending on the situation?

Yes we cannot eliminate the inherent evil potential that is "programmed" within ALL humans.
This is why there is the inherent moral function to inhibit and modulate the inherent evil impulses.

It is thus critical that we establish [verify and justified] what are the moral facts within the inherent moral function, so that we can use the justified moral facts as moral standards.

It is from these moral standards that we are able to manage the potential evil.
If evil was necessary in rare cases, then, we must ensure it is not repeated in the future so as to meet the moral standard.
In the case of the plane crash that landed the survivals resorting to 'evil' then the solution is to prevent planes from crashing in such locations and elsewhere, plus efficient tracking, so that is no opportunity for such necessary evil to emerge.

I think you owe the definition of the good, evil, wrong, right, and moral situation.

I have done that a '1000' times already.
What is Morality-Proper
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737

What is good is not evil.
What is evil is any human act or thoughts that is a net-negative to the well being of the individual and to humanity.


What is Well-Being?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983

The terms wrong and right are not relevant to morality-proper.

[bahman]

Generally ALL humans are "programmed" with the potential for evil and for good which both are necessary for survival under various conditions. In the absence of food, it may be necessary to be cannibals and eat the weakest, note the case of the plane crash in the Peruvian mountains.

It is evident evil was prevalent and optimal in the past and its remnants are still necessary currently, e.g. wars, but the inherent moral function is slowly unfolding towards the future to modulate and control the inherent evil.
This is evident as in;

• In his 2011 book,
  The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,
  Steven Pinker argued with relevant data and posited violence has declined significantly at Present since from the past years.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

That is why humanity must research more deeply in the underlying moral mechanism that is driving the reducing trend in violence, killings, rapes, slavery, etc. so that humanity can expedite the moral processes.
To do so, we need to establish the moral facts within a moral FSK.

Your indifference and resistance to morality-proper means you are complicit in sustaining the current level of evil within the world.

We cannot eliminate evil in human nature. To act in a situation in which evil is involved you need a moral principle. Evil might be necessary depending on the situation (the example of the plane crash). What is your moral principle that we can strive to it and derive what is the right thing to do depending on the situation?

Yes we cannot eliminate the inherent evil potential that is "programmed" within ALL humans.
This is why there is the inherent moral function to inhibit and modulate the inherent evil impulses.

It is thus critical that we establish [verify and justified] what are the moral facts within the inherent moral function, so that we can use the justified moral facts as moral standards.

It is from these moral standards that we are able to manage the potential evil.
If evil was necessary in rare cases, then, we must ensure it is not repeated in the future so as to meet the moral standard.
In the case of the plane crash that landed the survivals resorting to 'evil' then the solution is to prevent planes from crashing in such locations and elsewhere, plus efficient tracking, so that is no opportunity for such necessary evil to emerge.

What is the moral principle that enables you to derive the right action in any instance?

I think you owe the definition of the good, evil, wrong, right, and moral situation.

I have done that a '1000' times already.
What is Morality-Proper
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737

What is good is not evil.
What is evil is any human act or thoughts that is a net-negative to the well being of the individual and to humanity.

What is Well-Being?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983

The terms wrong and right are not relevant to morality-proper.

Right and wrong are relevant given my definition of morality. You consider good as right and evil as wrong. Is the cannibalism in the plane crash was evil or good?

[Veritas Aequitas]

We cannot eliminate evil in human nature. To act in a situation in which evil is involved you need a moral principle. Evil might be necessary depending on the situation (the example of the plane crash). What is your moral principle that we can strive to it and derive what is the right thing to do depending on the situation?

Yes we cannot eliminate the inherent evil potential that is "programmed" within ALL humans.
This is why there is the inherent moral function to inhibit and modulate the inherent evil impulses.

It is thus critical that we establish [verify and justified] what are the moral facts within the inherent moral function, so that we can use the justified moral facts as moral standards.

It is from these moral standards that we are able to manage the potential evil.
If evil was necessary in rare cases, then, we must ensure it is not repeated in the future so as to meet the moral standard.
In the case of the plane crash that landed the survivals resorting to 'evil' then the solution is to prevent planes from crashing in such locations and elsewhere, plus efficient tracking, so that is no opportunity for such necessary evil to emerge.

What is the moral principle that enables you to derive the right action in any instance?

Btw, morality-proper is not about deciding what is morally right before taking the actions.
One can deliberate what right action to take, but that is not morality-proper.

Morality-proper is about developing one's moral competence so that one's actions will flow spontaneously in accordance to the verified inherent moral standard.

What follows is one will review one's actions to take any corrective actions in moral self-improvement where necessary.

I think you owe the definition of the good, evil, wrong, right, and moral situation.

I have done that a '1000' times already.
What is Morality-Proper
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737

What is good is not evil.
What is evil is any human act or thoughts that is a net-negative to the well being of the individual and to humanity.

What is Well-Being?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983

The terms wrong and right are not relevant to morality-proper.

Right and wrong are relevant given my definition of morality. You consider good as right and evil as wrong. Is the cannibalism in the plane crash was evil or good?

There are a loads of what is claimed to be morality.
E.g. there is morality in religions and theism, morality within different cultures, etc. these are pseudo-morality. Obviously what is right and moral within Christianity is one must obey all the commands of God. In Islam a Muslim is 'moral' if he kill non-Muslims upon the slightest threat to the religion.

Whatever your definition of morality, if not morality-proper would be pseudo-morality like those of theism and others.

Cannibalism in the plane crash was a necessary evil.
[btw, there was no killing but they ate the flesh of those who will killed in the accident and other natural reasons]
The objective of morality with justified moral standards is to prevent whatever necessary evil then from happening again in the future.

[Peter Holmes]

Morality-proper is about developing one's moral competence so that one's actions will flow spontaneously in accordance to the verified inherent moral standard.

This is mystical, quasi-religious claptrap, for which there's no evidence, empirical or otherwise.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=500105 time=1614681762 user_id=15099]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=500078 time=1614659701 user_id=7896]

Morality-proper is about developing one's moral competence so that one's actions will flow [b]spontaneously[/b] in accordance to the verified inherent moral standard.
[/quote]

This is mystical, quasi-religious claptrap, for which there's no evidence, empirical or otherwise.
[/quote]

A more generous reading would be that morality ought become so ingrained as to be intuitive.

[bahman]

Yes we cannot eliminate the inherent evil potential that is "programmed" within ALL humans.
This is why there is the inherent moral function to inhibit and modulate the inherent evil impulses.

It is thus critical that we establish [verify and justified] what are the moral facts within the inherent moral function, so that we can use the justified moral facts as moral standards.

It is from these moral standards that we are able to manage the potential evil.
If evil was necessary in rare cases, then, we must ensure it is not repeated in the future so as to meet the moral standard.
In the case of the plane crash that landed the survivals resorting to 'evil' then the solution is to prevent planes from crashing in such locations and elsewhere, plus efficient tracking, so that is no opportunity for such necessary evil to emerge.

What is the moral principle that enables you to derive the right action in any instance?

Btw, morality-proper is not about deciding what is morally right before taking the actions.
One can deliberate what right action to take, but that is not morality-proper.

Morality-proper is about developing one's moral competence so that one's actions will flow spontaneously in accordance to the verified inherent moral standard.

What follows is one will review one's actions to take any corrective actions in moral self-improvement where necessary.

What is your moral principle?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is the moral principle that enables you to derive the right action in any instance?

Btw, morality-proper is not about deciding what is morally right before taking the actions.
One can deliberate what right action to take, but that is not morality-proper.

Morality-proper is about developing one's moral competence so that one's actions will flow spontaneously in accordance to the verified inherent moral standard.

What follows is one will review one's actions to take any corrective actions in moral self-improvement where necessary.

What is your moral principle?

First there is the moral framework and system of knowledge [FSK] and reality [FSR].
Within the above we have the moral principles.

One general principle is this;
Kant: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
See:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32264

The above is merely a maxim not to derive rules and duties that are to be enforced nor imposed on individuals.
The maxim must also be verified and justified logically and necessarily. I will not go into the details of it.

From the above we determined moral facts to be used as moral standards to guide moral progress of the individuals and humanity.
These moral facts [each and every] must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK.

One of the justified moral principle is that maxim,
'no human ought-to-kill humans'.

[Peter Holmes]

First there is the moral framework and system of knowledge [FSK] and reality [FSR].
Within the above we have the moral principles.

One general principle is this;
Kant: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

First, the so-called moral FSK is your invention. It doesn't actually exist. And its principles, axioms or premises can be no more than matters of opinion.

Second, Kant's principle notoriously permits everything and prohibits nothing for an individual, which is why his irrational appeal to 'the moral law within me' is needed.

Third, the fact that we have to choose our moral principles - and can choose different ones - alone demolishes the case for moral objectivism.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=500289 time=1614758668 user_id=15099]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=500286 time=1614757395 user_id=7896]

First there is the moral framework and system of knowledge [FSK] and reality [FSR].
Within the above we have the moral principles.

One general principle is this;
Kant: Act only according to that [b]maxim[/b] whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

[/quote]

First, the so-called moral FSK is your invention. It doesn't actually exist. And its principles, axioms or premises can be no more than matters of opinion.

Second, Kant's principle notoriously permits everything and prohibits nothing for an individual, which is why his irrational appeal to 'the moral law within me' is needed.

Third, the fact that we have to choose our moral principles - and can choose different ones - alone demolishes the case for moral objectivism.
[/quote]

It does not. Objective cannot mean Entirely objective just like perfect cannot ever mean exhaustively complete. When something seems as objective fact to all humanity, that's objective enough for all intents and purposes. When something is objective enough that no one disputes it, that's objective enough for all intents and purposes. If no one in a particular discussion disagrees, that's sufficiently objective for all intents and purposes within the discussion. And etc. There is no transcendent definition of objective that is even potentially useful in reality because in reality absolute certainty is a fairytale.

Therefore, because words must have a pragmatic function to be words, moral Objectivism means objective Enough. Survival is a necessity for all morality as it is a prerequisite for all other aims, thus all forms of morality that are not sustainable are counterproductive and it's a "moral fact" that they're insufficient.

[Peter Holmes]

First there is the moral framework and system of knowledge [FSK] and reality [FSR].
Within the above we have the moral principles.

One general principle is this;
Kant: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

First, the so-called moral FSK is your invention. It doesn't actually exist. And its principles, axioms or premises can be no more than matters of opinion.

Second, Kant's principle notoriously permits everything and prohibits nothing for an individual, which is why his irrational appeal to 'the moral law within me' is needed.

Third, the fact that we have to choose our moral principles - and can choose different ones - alone demolishes the case for moral objectivism.

It does not. Objective cannot mean Entirely objective just like perfect cannot ever mean exhaustively complete. When something seems as objective fact to all humanity, that's objective enough for all intents and purposes. When something is objective enough that no one disputes it, that's objective enough for all intents and purposes. If no one in a particular discussion disagrees, that's sufficiently objective for all intents and purposes within the discussion. And etc. There is no transcendent definition of objective that is even potentially useful in reality because in reality absolute certainty is a fairytale.

Therefore, because words must have a pragmatic function to be words, moral Objectivism means objective Enough. Survival is a necessity for all morality as it is a prerequisite for all other aims, thus all forms of morality that are not sustainable are counterproductive and it's a "moral fact" that they're insufficient.

Codswallop. What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So facts are the given. And words can only mean what we use them to mean. And what we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality. So your claim that, if everyone thinks something's a fact, then it is a fact, is just plain false. And the claim that there are moral facts is incoherent, because a fact isn't something that can be moral or immoral.

[Skepdick]

Codswallop. What we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So facts are the given.

If facts are given then what do you need "objectivity" for ?!?!

[Skepdick]

Third, the fact that we have to choose our moral principles - and can choose different ones - alone demolishes the case for moral objectivism.

You still haven't chosen to kill yourself though.

Until you do, moral objectivity stands unabolished.

[commonsense]

I think the problem that presents itself is that although moral objectivism holds water, conflict arises when principles oppose each other, as in the case of abortions.

[Advocate]

[quote=commonsense post_id=500369 time=1614789921 user_id=14610]
I think the problem that presents itself is that although moral objectivism holds water, conflict arises when principles oppose each other, as in the case of abortions.
[/quote]

Only people who have their priorities straight, explicit and explicitly ordered, can really get to the bottom of a moral decision. Everyone else is doing guesses and compromise.