What is a right action?

[Skepdick]

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.

On the one hand you have women who want bodily autonomy.

On the other hand you have sanctimonious anti-abortion zealots.

Who do yo think has more skin in the game?

[bahman]

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'.

There is a man with a knife who is attempting to kill you. But you have a shotgun. What do you do?

[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.

On the one hand you have women who want bodily autonomy.

On the other hand you have sanctimonious anti-abortion zealots.

Who do yo think has more skin in the game?

Thank you for showing what the problem is, by asking one question.

Autonomy, all else being equal, is certainly grounds for an objective moral principle. Similarly the principle of being permitted to live is the basis of another, which, all else being equal, is objective in itself.

But when the two collide, there’s a comparison to be made in order to determine the relative gravitas of each objective principle.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

As I had stated the moral FSK I adapted from Kant's moral FSK is as credible as the scientific FSK and relies on most of its input of scientific facts from the scientific FSK.
How can you insist 'ALL human must breathe else they die' as represented by its physical referent as a matter of opinion. This is biological principle is input into the moral FSK to expose the moral fact, no human ought to kill humans.

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.

Don't make yourself look foolish and don't try to counter Kant when you do not understand [not necessary agree with] his moral theories.

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

Where did I choose any moral principles within the moral FSK?
Just as it is inherent within human nature that 'all human must breathe or else die', it is human nature that 'no human ought to kill humans' as verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK.

All your above counters are too flimsy without proper arguments and grounding and you insist is not this, cannot do that, it is a matter of opinion, blah, blah, blah.

If you want to counter my arguments effectively, just how me evidences there are many normal humans who want to die prematurely and that humans ought to kill humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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'.

There is a man with a knife who is attempting to kill you. But you have a shotgun. What do you do?

Within my moral framework and system [FSK], if the only way for me to save myself is to kill the man, then I will kill the man.

But note within the moral FSK,
there is the justified moral standard, 'no human ought to kill humans', which mean a standard of ZERO killing.
In this case of my killing one man, this reality will trigger a moral variance in contrast to the moral standard.
The moral FSK feature procedure is that all of humanity and the individuals must deal with this variance to ensure ZERO killing in the future.

The corrective action is thus to ensure in future I do not land myself in such a situation that I must kill someone. If I have to, then I have to, and the FSK will trigger humanity to find solutions to strive for ZERO killings in the future.

To strive for ZERO killings in the future, humanity will have to establish ways to ensure humans will be able to control their impulse to kill in the future. How? It is not impossible if there is a will.

But humans, being human will somehow kill humans due to various unforeseen conditions, thus, the iterative is humanity must continue to find the root causes and to establish preventive measures to strive toward the justified moral standard of ZERO killing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Your above is based on the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophy.

Your GIVEN facts are merely based on your imaginations and they are ultimately illusory.

Have your read Sellars' "Myth of the GIVEN", here are some related bits of points;

We can start with the distinction between observational and theoretical vocabularies. Many empiricists were wedded to the myth of the given, assuming that there is a privileged observation vocabulary. The meanings of observation terms were determined by their relation to what is given and were thus unrevisable or incorrigible.

...
Sellars thinks that this instrumentalist picture gets almost everything wrong. In his view the observation vocabulary/theoretical vocabulary distinction is merely methodological and is, moreover, highly malleable; it therefore possesses no particular ontological force.

There is no given[/b], so it can play no semantic role.

Meanings are functional roles in language usage, and nothing in principle prevents a term that might originally have arisen as part of a theory from acquiring a role in observation reports.
The well-trained physicist “just sees” an alpha-particle track in a cloud chamber as directly and non-inferentially as the well-trained child just sees a dog.
Furthermore, what is observable depends on the techniques and instruments employed, and these are often loaded with theoretical baggage.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sellars/

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

There should be no issue with the case of abortions.

• Kant: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

Thus as with the above IF abortion is permitted universally then there is a possibility the human race will go extinct in the future.

To ensure there is no possibility of human race going extinct, it is then necessary to have the universal maxim, i.e.
"no human abortion is permitted" as the moral standard.

But a maxim is merely a maxim [not divine nor political] thus not enforceable on individuals.
Abortion can still be done where necessary but because of the inherent moral standard, there must be necessary justifications [at least by the individual] why the abortion need to be done.
Because of the moral standard, it will drive humanity to strive to find way to prevent at the root level the need to have abortion, e.g. control wild primal sexual lusts and other medical issues.
Note the above striving for improvement is always towards the future.

[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.

As I had stated the moral FSK I adapted from Kant's moral FSK is as credible as the scientific FSK and relies on most of its input of scientific facts from the scientific FSK.
How can you insist 'ALL human must breathe else they die' as represented by its physical referent as a matter of opinion. This is biological principle is input into the moral FSK to expose the moral fact, no human ought to kill humans.

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.

Don't make yourself look foolish and don't try to counter Kant when you do not understand [not necessary agree with] his moral theories.

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

Where did I choose any moral principles within the moral FSK?
Just as it is inherent within human nature that 'all human must breathe or else die', it is human nature that 'no human ought to kill humans' as verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK.

All your above counters are too flimsy without proper arguments and grounding and you insist is not this, cannot do that, it is a matter of opinion, blah, blah, blah.

If you want to counter my arguments effectively, just how me evidences there are many normal humans who want to die prematurely and that humans ought to kill humans.

1 You seem unaware of longstanding and widespread criticism of Kant's principle: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. This permits any kind of behaviour and prohibits nothing. All you have to do is will that your maxim should become a universal law. In other words, this is a bankrupt moral principle.

2 And your stupidity about evidence is staggering. If 'normal' humans wanted to die prematurely, that wouldn't make it morally right to kill humans. So, in the same way, that 'normal' humans don't want to die prematurely doesn't make it morally wrong to kill humans. Your inability to understand this is hard to credit.

[Advocate]

>1 You seem unaware of longstanding and widespread criticism of Kant's principle: Act only according to that [b]maxim[/b] whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. This permits any kind of behaviour and prohibits nothing. All you have to do is will that your maxim should become a universal law. In other words, this is a bankrupt moral principle.

It does not. At minimum it prevents self-defeating acts and since people share a great deal of their fundamental understandings and desires, is generally actionable.

[Peter Holmes]

>1 You seem unaware of longstanding and widespread criticism of Kant's principle: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. This permits any kind of behaviour and prohibits nothing. All you have to do is will that your maxim should become a universal law. In other words, this is a bankrupt moral principle.

It does not. At minimum it prevents self-defeating acts and since people share a great deal of their fundamental understandings and desires, is generally actionable.

I don't know what a self-defeating act is, but Kant's principle allows for it as long as the actor can will that acting self-defeatingly should become a universal law. And there's no reason why that can't happen. The assumption that people have many moral opinions in common is irrelevant. Kant's principle is crap.

It's like do-as-you-would-be-done-by. Okay, unless you're a sado-masochist - or somewhere on the spectrum.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=500537 time=1614887948 user_id=15099]
[quote=Advocate post_id=500535 time=1614886274 user_id=15238]
>1 You seem unaware of longstanding and widespread criticism of Kant's principle: Act only according to that [b]maxim[/b] whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. This permits any kind of behaviour and prohibits nothing. All you have to do is will that your maxim should become a universal law. In other words, this is a bankrupt moral principle.

It does not. At minimum it prevents self-defeating acts and since people share a great deal of their fundamental understandings and desires, is generally actionable.
[/quote]
I don't know what a self-defeating act is, but Kant's principle allows for it along as the actor can will that acting self-defeatingly should become a universal law. And there's no reason why that can't happen. The assumption that people have many moral opinions in common is irrelevant. Kant's principle is crap.

It's like do-as-you-would-be-done-by. Okay, unless you're a sado-masochist - or somewhere on the spectrum.
[/quote]

What happens when a sadist and a masochist get together for sex? The masochist says "Hurt me!" and the sadist says "No!"

Willing that a self defeating idea become universal law defeats the purpose of even having rules or laws and is therefore irrelevant, but you already knew that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

As I had stated the moral FSK I adapted from Kant's moral FSK is as credible as the scientific FSK and relies on most of its input of scientific facts from the scientific FSK.
How can you insist 'ALL human must breathe else they die' as represented by its physical referent as a matter of opinion. This is biological principle is input into the moral FSK to expose the moral fact, no human ought to kill humans.

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.

Don't make yourself look foolish and don't try to counter Kant when you do not understand [not necessary agree with] his moral theories.

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

Where did I choose any moral principles within the moral FSK?
Just as it is inherent within human nature that 'all human must breathe or else die', it is human nature that 'no human ought to kill humans' as verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK.

All your above counters are too flimsy without proper arguments and grounding and you insist is not this, cannot do that, it is a matter of opinion, blah, blah, blah.

If you want to counter my arguments effectively, just how me evidences there are many normal humans who want to die prematurely and that humans ought to kill humans.

1 You seem unaware of longstanding and widespread criticism of Kant's principle: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. This permits any kind of behaviour and prohibits nothing. All you have to do is will that your maxim should become a universal law. In other words, this is a bankrupt moral principle.

Unaware??
Show me the widespread references that criticize Kant's principle {CI No.1} since you stated it is so widespread.

Re Kant's Categorical Imperative [CI] No. 1, is;
if you ever WILL an evil act [against the moral standard], it must be made universal - applicable to ALL humans, that mean you are also expecting that evil to be committed upon yourself.
If you permit killing and raping, it has to be UNIVERSAL, then you are expecting and allowing yourself to be killed and raped whilst you can do the same to others.

Therefore Kant CI No.1 implied only 'good' i.e. not evil act are permissible to be UNIVERSAL.

You are the one with bankrupt morality.
Another point is you are very ignorant of Kant's philosophies and thus do not have any credibility to critique his view unless you provide proper arguments and supporting references.

Btw, Kant CI no.1 do not standalone but is packaged with another 4 CIs.

2 And your stupidity about evidence is staggering. If 'normal' humans wanted to die prematurely, that wouldn't make it morally right to kill humans. So, in the same way, that 'normal' humans don't want to die prematurely doesn't make it morally wrong to kill humans. Your inability to understand this is hard to credit.

You are the stupid one in avoiding supporting evidences.
Isn't it the norm to ask for evidence to support any claim?

Point is there is no fact that 'normal' humans want to die prematurely.
This is not a fact that is embedded in the human DNA and human nature.
As I had requested, prove to me your claims and show evidences.

ALL 'normal' humans do not want to die prematurely as inherent within human nature. This is a biological fact, also a psychological and psychiatric fact within their respective FSK.
When the above facts are input with other inputs into a Moral FSK, the output is a justified moral fact of ought-not_ness, i.e. 'no human ought to kill humans'.

Note I have already repeated a "million" times, morality-proper do not involve the question of 'it is morally wrong or right'.

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

You are shooting at straw_men and is not addressing my argument directly.

[Skepdick]

Kant's principle allows for it as long as the actor can will that acting self-defeatingly should become a universal law. And there's no reason why that can't happen.

The reason it can't happen is because an act of will is not a mere intention - it requires doxastic commitment.

Who is there to will a principle into a law when all the supporters of the principle are dead?

[Advocate]

Why can't y'all start talking Around the subject and start taking About it?

What is necessary for morality? An understanding of what is better than now. An attempt at right action. Not intentionally causing harm...

And what is sufficient? Being generally agree. Having been tested over long periods of time. Having cultural differences in non-necessary ways...

All "What is the nature of..." questions are semantic. How do we use the term? What work do we need it to do?

[bahman]

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'.

There is a man with a knife who is attempting to kill you. But you have a shotgun. What do you do?

Within my moral framework and system [FSK], if the only way for me to save myself is to kill the man, then I will kill the man.

But note within the moral FSK,
there is the justified moral standard, 'no human ought to kill humans', which mean a standard of ZERO killing.
In this case of my killing one man, this reality will trigger a moral variance in contrast to the moral standard.
The moral FSK feature procedure is that all of humanity and the individuals must deal with this variance to ensure ZERO killing in the future.

The corrective action is thus to ensure in future I do not land myself in such a situation that I must kill someone. If I have to, then I have to, and the FSK will trigger humanity to find solutions to strive for ZERO killings in the future.

To strive for ZERO killings in the future, humanity will have to establish ways to ensure humans will be able to control their impulse to kill in the future. How? It is not impossible if there is a will.

But humans, being human will somehow kill humans due to various unforeseen conditions, thus, the iterative is humanity must continue to find the root causes and to establish preventive measures to strive toward the justified moral standard of ZERO killing.

I want to know how a single moral principle can lead to two different moral decisions?