Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Example, the inherent physical moral 'machinery' 'no human ought to enslave another' was already programmed within ALL humans from the beginning but it took 100,000s of years to unfold to its current state where all sovereign nations has abolished slavery legally.

I discuss Kohlberg's theory.

1. Pre-conventional level. Authority figures set the rules. EG Daddy , or God, said slavery is bad.


2 .Conventional level. Authority figures' (Daddy's , or God's, rules abided by for the sake of societal and personal relationships.EG If I enslave Joe he will not like me and play with me. If I enslave other boys I might myself become a slave.


3. Post-Conventional level.
During the conventional level, an individual’s sense of morality is tied to personal and societal relationships. Children continue to accept the rules of authority figures, but this is now because they believe that this is necessary to ensure positive relationships and societal order.
During the postconventional level, a person’s sense of morality is defined in terms of more abstract principles and values. People now believe that some laws are unjust and should be changed or eliminated. EG The good is tied to what is the natural. EG the good is tied to human reason. EG evil is absence of good.
EG Slavery is wrong because the law that allows slavery needs changing. Slavery is wrong because all men are created equal.

Kohlberg’s theory of morality do make some sense if we confine to external empirical anthropological evidences. But such an approach is not grounded and thus has limitations.

Note:

Kohlberg’s theory has been criticized for its cultural and gendered bias toward white, upper-class men and boys. It also fails to account for inconsistencies within moral judgments.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/teach ... velopment/

What I am proposing is an inherent moral machinery within ALL human beings embedded in the DNA/RNA and unfolding gradually with evolution.

Kohlberg adapted his moral theory from Piaget.
Piaget's Theory and Stages of Cognitive Development
https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html

What drive cognitive developments in a baby-child are innate capacities [program] embedded in the DNA/RNA and the influence of social environment is very secondary.
Note ALL human babies' cognitive developments and motor skills on average similarly during the first 12 months of life regardless of their environmental influences.
In this case there must a physical machinery that drive those similar cognitive progress and development.

I mentioned the internal puberty "machinery" that triggers puberty to adulthood that is inherent in ALL humans. The essence and fundamental of this potential cannot be due to social environment.

The above is a clue to the inherent moral machinery [innate capacities] that drive a person to be progressively moral spontaneously.

Somehow you must stick to SOLEY external influences, e.g. Kohlberg's theory of morality.
Why? you need to review it yourself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Regarding the statement " eating animals and their products is wrong:



But it may be claimed that deliberately eating raw eggs when you know the flock is infested with salmonella is morally wrong as well as hygienically wrong.

Some religious laws are dietary laws for sound reasons.

It is a contemporary and popular claim that eating animals and their products is morally wrong because of the fact that animal based foodstuffs are ecologically unsustainable.

Even if it's true that eating animals is unhygienic or economically unsustainable, the claim that it's morally wrong to eat animals is a separate matter from the hygiene or sustainability of doing so. There's no necessary connection between facts and moral opinions.

The necessary causal connection between 'facts' and 'moral opinions' is maintaining life. In the case of social animals maintaining the life of the tribe.

When you banked on the connection from 'facts' and 'moral opinion' then you will be entrapped into Peter Holmes' bastardized philosophy of 'what is fact'.
But general facts cannot be equated directly with opinions.

What you need to argue for is 'moral facts exist', period! .. why? to maintain life.

[Belinda]

Even if it's true that eating animals is unhygienic or economically unsustainable, the claim that it's morally wrong to eat animals is a separate matter from the hygiene or sustainability of doing so. There's no necessary connection between facts and moral opinions.

The necessary causal connection between 'facts' and 'moral opinions' is maintaining life. In the case of social animals maintaining the life of the tribe.

When you banked on the connection from 'facts' and 'moral opinion' then you will be entrapped into Peter Holmes' bastardized philosophy of 'what is fact'.
But general facts cannot be equated directly with opinions.

What you need to argue for is 'moral facts exist', period! .. why? to maintain life.

But

'moral facts exist', period! .. why? to maintain life.

is a part truth. Not only so-called 'moral facts' but also all 'facts' exist to maintain life. The social status of what is considered to be factual depends upon the moving consensus of opinion.

If Peter considers it possible that facts transcend the brain-minds of social animals then he is arguing from a faith stance whereas I am an atheist regarding transcendent facts.

[Belinda]

Even if it's true that eating animals is unhygienic or economically unsustainable, the claim that it's morally wrong to eat animals is a separate matter from the hygiene or sustainability of doing so. There's no necessary connection between facts and moral opinions.

The necessary causal connection between 'facts' and 'moral opinions' is maintaining life. In the case of social animals maintaining the life of the tribe.

When you banked on the connection from 'facts' and 'moral opinion' then you will be entrapped into Peter Holmes' bastardized philosophy of 'what is fact'.
But general facts cannot be equated directly with opinions.

What you need to argue for is 'moral facts exist', period! .. why? to maintain life.

But

'moral facts exist', period! .. why? to maintain life.

is a part truth. Not only so-called 'moral facts' but also all 'facts' exist to maintain life. The social status of what is considered to be factual depends upon the moving consensus of opinion.

If Peter considers it possible that facts transcend the brain-minds of social animals then he is arguing from a faith stance whereas I am an atheist regarding transcendent facts.

[Peter Holmes]

The necessary causal connection between 'facts' and 'moral opinions' is maintaining life. In the case of social animals maintaining the life of the tribe.

When you banked on the connection from 'facts' and 'moral opinion' then you will be entrapped into Peter Holmes' bastardized philosophy of 'what is fact'.
But general facts cannot be equated directly with opinions.

What you need to argue for is 'moral facts exist', period! .. why? to maintain life.

But

'moral facts exist', period! .. why? to maintain life.

is a part truth. Not only so-called 'moral facts' but also all 'facts' exist to maintain life. The social status of what is considered to be factual depends upon the moving consensus of opinion.

If Peter considers it possible that facts transcend the brain-minds of social animals then he is arguing from a faith stance whereas I am an atheist regarding transcendent facts.

I leave talk of immanence and transcendence to mystics. But since what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, the claim that these things - such as rocks and stones and trees and dogs - are not outside the brains of social animals ... is crackers. And the claim that reality ('all-fact') exists to maintain life is also crackers. Like VA, you've been suckered by a fashionable post-modern relativism into absurd conclusions.

[Belinda]

When you banked on the connection from 'facts' and 'moral opinion' then you will be entrapped into Peter Holmes' bastardized philosophy of 'what is fact'.
But general facts cannot be equated directly with opinions.

What you need to argue for is 'moral facts exist', period! .. why? to maintain life.

But

'moral facts exist', period! .. why? to maintain life.

is a part truth. Not only so-called 'moral facts' but also all 'facts' exist to maintain life. The social status of what is considered to be factual depends upon the moving consensus of opinion.

If Peter considers it possible that facts transcend the brain-minds of social animals then he is arguing from a faith stance whereas I am an atheist regarding transcendent facts.

I leave talk of immanence and transcendence to mystics. But since what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, the claim that these things - such as rocks and stones and trees and dogs - are not outside the brains of social animals ... is crackers. And the claim that reality ('all-fact') exists to maintain life is also crackers. Like VA, you've been suckered by a fashionable post-modern relativism into absurd conclusions.

Yes, indeed Peter, 'immanence' and 'transcendence' sometimes do communicate a feeling of mystical notions. Sorry I cannot provide a more precise word than 'transcendence' to signify the Platonic world of Forms, or the Kantian noumenal world. Maybe someone else can help here.

However I don't claim what you accuse me of, that "rocks and stones and trees and dogs - are not outside the brains of social animals ... ". I believe there may be something 'out there' but that you can't know what is the rock, stone, tree, or dog in itself. Indeed differentiation between entities for all we can know may not be true of what if anything transcends the animated brain. I choose to pay little attention to what if anything transcends what can be conceived which is why I call myself an atheist with regard to transcendent 'facts'. You , however believe in the existence of transcendent 'facts' but only if they are what you choose to name as 'moral' facts.

Among your selection of entities, the dog alone exists for itself because the dog is a subject of experience.

[Peter Holmes]

But is a part truth. Not only so-called 'moral facts' but also all 'facts' exist to maintain life. The social status of what is considered to be factual depends upon the moving consensus of opinion.

If Peter considers it possible that facts transcend the brain-minds of social animals then he is arguing from a faith stance whereas I am an atheist regarding transcendent facts.

I leave talk of immanence and transcendence to mystics. But since what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, the claim that these things - such as rocks and stones and trees and dogs - are not outside the brains of social animals ... is crackers. And the claim that reality ('all-fact') exists to maintain life is also crackers. Like VA, you've been suckered by a fashionable post-modern relativism into absurd conclusions.

Yes, indeed Peter, 'immanence' and 'transcendence' sometimes do communicate a feeling of mystical notions. Sorry I cannot provide a more precise word than 'transcendence' to signify the Platonic world of Forms, or the Kantian noumenal world. Maybe someone else can help here.

However I don't claim what you accuse me of, that "rocks and stones and trees and dogs - are not outside the brains of social animals ... ". I believe there may be something 'out there' but that you can't know what is the rock, stone, tree, or dog in itself. Indeed differentiation between entities for all we can know may not be true of what if anything transcends the animated brain. I choose to pay little attention to what if anything transcends what can be conceived which is why I call myself an atheist with regard to transcendent 'facts'. You , however believe in the existence of transcendent 'facts' but only if they are what you choose to name as 'moral' facts.

Among your selection of entities, the dog alone exists for itself because the dog is a subject of experience.

Okay. You believe there may be things outside our brains, and I think there's no reason to doubt that there are, or that we have brains in the first place. I think the delusion that there are thing-in-themselves, to which we can have no access, has been and is profoundly intellectually harmful. When we say there are facts - features of reality - independent from perception or opinion, that is not a 'transcendent' claim. There are no transcendent facts, so you're an 'atheist' with regard to a fiction - as am I.

What we call a dog does not exist BECAUSE it can be experienced. That's an idealist delusion. It just exists, as do we.

[Skepdick]

Okay. You believe there may be things outside our brains, and I think there's no reason to doubt that there are, or that we have brains in the first place. I think the delusion that there are thing-in-themselves, to which we can have no access, has been and is profoundly intellectually harmful.

That's a moral claim, but you don't believe in moral facts. So you have intellectually defeated yourself.

What or where is the "harm" is tantamount to asking what or where is the "wrongness" of murder.

Congratulations. Retard.

[Terrapin Station]

It does entail a community, i.e. "what is thinking" is grounded to various FSKs. e.g. [mine]

Either

(1) It entails a community for it to be a fact that our solely-existing person has the opinion they do, in which case it wouldn't be a fact that they have the opinion they do, as there is no community

You slided in "solely-existing person" which is an impossibility in reality.

1. It entails a community [FSK] for whatever to be a fact.
In this case it require a community to confirm individual X is expressing an opinion.
Thus it is a fact that individual-X expressed [said out loud] an opinion.

Or

(2) It doesn't entail a community for it to be a fact that our solely-existing person has the opinion they do, in which case it can be a fact that they have the opinion they do.

You can't have it both ways.

Note your sliding and error between "solely-existing person" and "they."

If it doesn't entail a community [FSK] then there is no verified and justified fact that individual-X expressed an opinion.
If there is no community [FSK]in this case, it is merely via common sense that individual-X is making some noises, etc.

Note the general principle, i.e.
whatever is a fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a FSK [of various degrees of credibility].

Your above slidings has introduced the rhetorical wayward terms 'community' and 'solely-existing person.'

So last Tuesday, almost a week ago, I asked you this (I'm copy-pasting here, though with some added bolding/italicizing):

"Imagine one person exists and that's it. That one person thinks to herself--'That's a lovely sunrise.' Is it a fact that she thought to herself 'That's a lovely sunrise'?"

You had answered that it's a fact that she thinks, "That's a lovely sunrise."

Maybe you didn't understand that I was asking you to imagine a scenario where ONLY one person exists? (Although in that case how did you parse "and that's it"?)

Re "they," I routinely use "they" as a singular generic third-person pronoun.

[Skepdick]

"Imagine one person exists and that's it. That one person thinks to herself--'That's a lovely sunrise.' Is it a fact that she thought to herself 'That's a lovely sunrise'?

I am really struggling to imagine the utility or existence of language in a society of one.

I mean, it might have some utility for storing/representing/recalling experience (e.g knowledge/memory representation) - but it will have absolutely zero utility for thinking thoughts about sunsets.

[Terrapin Station]

"Imagine one person exists and that's it. That one person thinks to herself--'That's a lovely sunrise.' Is it a fact that she thought to herself 'That's a lovely sunrise'?

I am really struggling to imagine the utility or existence of language in a society of one.

I mean, it might have some utility for storing/representing/recalling experience (e.g knowledge/memory representation) - but it will have absolutely zero utility for thinking thoughts about sunsets.

If everyone but me were to disappear suddenly, I'd still be thinking things like "That's a lovely sunrise," utility or not.

[Skepdick]

If everyone but me were to disappear suddenly, I'd still be thinking things like "That's a lovely sunrise," utility or not.

You think in words?

[Terrapin Station]

If everyone but me were to disappear suddenly, I'd still be thinking things like "That's a lovely sunrise," utility or not.

You think in words?

Not only, but often enough, sure.

[Skepdick]

If everyone but me were to disappear suddenly, I'd still be thinking things like "That's a lovely sunrise," utility or not.

You think in words?

Not only, but often enough, sure.

The English expressions "lovely" and "sunrise" does not even come to mind when I enjoy moments such as the one you are describing...

Language only arises at the point where I need to communicate my emotional/mental state. And if I am the only person, I never need to do such a thing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The necessary causal connection between 'facts' and 'moral opinions' is maintaining life. In the case of social animals maintaining the life of the tribe.

When you banked on the connection from 'facts' and 'moral opinion' then you will be entrapped into Peter Holmes' bastardized philosophy of 'what is fact'.
But general facts cannot be equated directly with opinions.

What you need to argue for is 'moral facts exist', period! .. why? to maintain life.

But

'moral facts exist', period! .. why? to maintain life.

is a part truth. Not only so-called 'moral facts' but also all 'facts' exist to maintain life. The social status of what is considered to be factual depends upon the moving consensus of opinion.

If Peter considers it possible that facts transcend the brain-minds of social animals then he is arguing from a faith stance whereas I am an atheist regarding transcendent facts.

That is what I have been arguing for, i.e. facts are dependent on FSK which are dependent on humans.

It is open to question whether 'ALL man are mortal' [Aristotle] is ultimately an absolute fact that standalone without human interactions because that statement is based on human observations.