There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

[Peter Holmes]

One more..
We ought to breathe for normal air and we are programmed to breathe.
Are there any occasion when we ought not to breathe in general?

The general principle is, if we are programmed to do X, then there is an ought_ness to do X.
It is that 'oughtness' i.e. that existence of that state-of-oughtness that is a fact within a FSK.

If anyone do not agree with, don't want, do not comply with that oughtness that is their opinion which will not extirpate that fact of oughtness in their brain and physical self.
If they don't comply with the "programmed" ought_ness to breathe, then they will die very soon thus proving that ought_ness with its own force is very real.

Where the state-of-oughtness relate to morality-proper within a moral FSK, then that is a moral fact, e.g. the state-of-ought_ness "not to kill humans".

If normal people do not comply with the real moral fact of the state-of-ought_ness "not to kill humans", their conscience will be triggered that will cause terrible mental pains to the extent that some murderers committed suicide. Such events validate that the moral fact of the state-of-ought_ness "not to kill humans" is very real.

You seem not to understand the way English speakers use the word ought.

True factual assertion: if humans don't breathe, they die. This is a fact - an empirically demonstrated feature of reality that is the case.

Now, you mistakenly think this means that humans ought to breathe. You mistakenly think the two expressions - 'if humans don't breathe, they die' and 'humans ought to breathe or they die' are synonymous - that they're interchangeable.

But they're not. They mean different things. The modal verb ought implies an obligation of some kind, as does the modal verb should. And the modal verb must in this context doesn't usually imply an obligation. 'Humans must breathe or they die' merely indicates cause and effect.

If the word ought in 'humans ought to breathe or they die' doesn't imply an obligation - as you seem to think - then this is not a moral assertion, but merely a factual, practical assertion: if humans don't breathe, they die.

Morality isn't about factually demonstrable causes and effects. It's about the rightness and wrongness, propriety and impropriety, goodness and badness, of behaviour. The definition of morality you've repeatedly cited states this unequivocally.

So your whole attempt to ground morality on facts about what humans have to do, or are programmed to do, must fail.

When and where did I claim 'humans ought to breathe or they die' is a moral assertion.
That all human beings ought, should, must or imperative to breathe else they die is a biological fact.

What I claimed is,
'no human ought to kill humans' is a moral fact verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK.
I have defined Morality-Proper basically as promoting good and avoiding evil [as defined].
The killing of another human is an evil act.

Good, so you agree that the 'oughtness' you've been talking about - with regard to, say, humans staying alive - has no moral implication. It has nothing to do with promoting good and avoiding evil. There's no connection between the biological facts and morality. Congratulations.

So now you have to explain why it's a fact that no human ought to kill humans. Why is that the case? And remember, this has nothing to do with biology.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You seem not to understand the way English speakers use the word ought.

True factual assertion: if humans don't breathe, they die. This is a fact - an empirically demonstrated feature of reality that is the case.

Now, you mistakenly think this means that humans ought to breathe. You mistakenly think the two expressions - 'if humans don't breathe, they die' and 'humans ought to breathe or they die' are synonymous - that they're interchangeable.

But they're not. They mean different things. The modal verb ought implies an obligation of some kind, as does the modal verb should. And the modal verb must in this context doesn't usually imply an obligation. 'Humans must breathe or they die' merely indicates cause and effect.

If the word ought in 'humans ought to breathe or they die' doesn't imply an obligation - as you seem to think - then this is not a moral assertion, but merely a factual, practical assertion: if humans don't breathe, they die.

Morality isn't about factually demonstrable causes and effects. It's about the rightness and wrongness, propriety and impropriety, goodness and badness, of behaviour. The definition of morality you've repeatedly cited states this unequivocally.

So your whole attempt to ground morality on facts about what humans have to do, or are programmed to do, must fail.

When and where did I claim 'humans ought to breathe or they die' is a moral assertion.
That all human beings ought, should, must or imperative to breathe else they die is a biological fact.

What I claimed is,
'no human ought to kill humans' is a moral fact verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK.
I have defined Morality-Proper basically as promoting good and avoiding evil [as defined].
The killing of another human is an evil act.

Good, so you agree that the 'oughtness' you've been talking about - with regard to, say, humans staying alive - has no moral implication. It has nothing to do with promoting good and avoiding evil. There's no connection between the biological facts and morality. Congratulations.

The oughtness of 'breathe else die' has no direct relation to morality.

Morality is only invoked if one tries to stop another from breathing which is secondary and
that is related to the primary moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans'.

So now you have to explain why it's a fact that no human ought to kill humans. Why is that the case? And remember, this has nothing to do with biology.

You are totally messed up here.

All humans are "programmed" with the factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans".
Because it is "programmed" within the brain and the human self, it is a biological fact, it is also a psychological, neuroscientific, genetic, psychological fact and as other facts within their respective FSK.

When the above scientifically justified facts are input into a moral FSK, then that real oughtness of "ought-not to kill humans" becomes a moral fact within a moral FSK.

I have explained the above a "1000" times, but your skull is so thick, it never get through for you to understand [not necessary to agree with].

[FlashDangerpants]

All humans are "programmed" with the factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans".

So...
for deontologists, the goodness of an action is determined by obedience to a rule
for urilitarians, the goodness of an action is determined by the quantity of suffering created or prevented

And for VegetableAmbulancarians the goodness of an action is determined by obedience to prgrammed instructions in the dna - but only if it is a "normal" instruction.

Is that about right?

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote:

If [it's a fact that] we're programmed not to kill humans, THAT IS NOT A MORAL FACT. It would just be a fact about human nature. And if instead we were programmed to kill humans, THAT WOULD ALSO NOT BE A MORAL FACT. It would not mean that we 'ought to kill humans'.

We ought to drink water and we are programmed to drink water. There are occasions when we ought not to drink water.
...

One more..
We ought to breathe for normal air and we are programmed to breathe.
Are there any occasion when we ought not to breathe in general?

The general principle is, if we are programmed to do X, then there is an ought_ness to do X.
It is that 'oughtness' i.e. that existence of that state-of-oughtness that is a fact within a FSK.

If anyone do not agree with, don't want, do not comply with that oughtness that is their opinion which will not extirpate that fact of oughtness in their brain and physical self.
If they don't comply with the "programmed" ought_ness to breathe, then they will die very soon thus proving that ought_ness with its own force is very real.

Where the state-of-oughtness relate to morality-proper within a moral FSK, then that is a moral fact, e.g. the state-of-ought_ness "not to kill humans".

If normal people do not comply with the real moral fact of the state-of-ought_ness "not to kill humans", their conscience will be triggered that will cause terrible mental pains to the extent that some murderers committed suicide. Such events validate that the moral fact of the state-of-ought_ness "not to kill humans" is very real.

Yes, there are also occasions when you ought not to breathe air. There are also occasions when a man ought not to be a bifurcated animal,(had two legs amputated) or a vertebrate(when he is an intelligent sentient being who has an
better alternative means of locomotion such as wheels).

The frame of reference makes all the difference and the frame of reference is always identical to the qualifying adverbial clause. As so often ,I wish there was a diagram ,to describe and explain qualifying clauses .

[Skepdick]

It would be unintellgible to discuss an "art-proper" with no reference to dance or painting or any other actual expression of art. Art as a category is made out of that stuff is it not?

Art (the category) is inhabited by paintings and expressions of art.
Exactly like Morality (the category) is inhabited by rightness and wrongness.

The paintings existed prior to the category (art).
Rightness and wrongness existed prior to the category (morality)

The langauge games of art are certainly mostly about such things as far as I can see. The doesn't seem prescriptive, nor particularly contentious.

And yet the genealogy is such that the topic of discussion caused the vocabulary into existence, not the other way around.

Our moral language games are similarly laden with rightness and wrongness through and through.

Hence why that which we speak about existed prior to us developing the vocabulary to speak about it.

I don't see much to be gained by trying crack language and concepts apart that way other than confusion. Seems to me like two ways of describing the same thing in differing contexts.

No shit! That's how language works. It's precisely the contextual difference I am speaking about.

Which is why I am using language to describe a context prior to language existing. The context in which rightness and wrongness existed prior to our vocabularies to talk about them.

In that context morality is objective.

[FlashDangerpants]

Which is why I am using language to describe a context prior to language existing. The context in which rightness and wrongness existed prior to our vocabularies to talk about them.

In that context morality is objective.

Gotta say, you could just have said that dogs for instance have a moral sense without without any apparent linguistic component if you were looking for that.

I really don't see what makes morality objective in that lot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All humans are "programmed" with the factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans".

So...
for deontologists, the goodness of an action is determined by obedience to a rule
for urilitarians, the goodness of an action is determined by the quantity of suffering created or prevented

And for VegetableAmbulancarians the goodness of an action is determined by obedience to prgrammed instructions in the dna - but only if it is a "normal" instruction.

Is that about right?

Resorting to "put downs" indicates [subliminal] insecurities and lack of confidence in your answers. You could not resist that natural negative emotional impulse.

Within morality-proper, it is not a question of obedience as implied in the pseudo-moral systems like deontology, theistic morality and others.

Within morality-proper, there is no question of goodness prior to acting.
Rather, within morality-proper, each individual [with assistance from the collective] self-develops to progress their inherent moral functions to enable the factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" to unfold progressively, be active naturally and thus to flow & act spontaneously without any sense of being consciously obedience nor obligated.

The fact that you don't run out of your house with a chopper killing humans is self-evident the above factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" is active in you [brain and self] at present.
However if that inherent factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" in you is weakened due to various reasons [very likely in your case as evident and given in your weakness in resisting put-downs] you could end up killing humans.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter Holmes wrote:



We ought to drink water and we are programmed to drink water. There are occasions when we ought not to drink water.
...

One more..
We ought to breathe for normal air and we are programmed to breathe.
Are there any occasion when we ought not to breathe in general?

The general principle is, if we are programmed to do X, then there is an ought_ness to do X.
It is that 'oughtness' i.e. that existence of that state-of-oughtness that is a fact within a FSK.

If anyone do not agree with, don't want, do not comply with that oughtness that is their opinion which will not extirpate that fact of oughtness in their brain and physical self.
If they don't comply with the "programmed" ought_ness to breathe, then they will die very soon thus proving that ought_ness with its own force is very real.

Where the state-of-oughtness relate to morality-proper within a moral FSK, then that is a moral fact, e.g. the state-of-ought_ness "not to kill humans".

If normal people do not comply with the real moral fact of the state-of-ought_ness "not to kill humans", their conscience will be triggered that will cause terrible mental pains to the extent that some murderers committed suicide. Such events validate that the moral fact of the state-of-ought_ness "not to kill humans" is very real.

Yes, there are also occasions when you ought not to breathe air. There are also occasions when a man ought not to be a bifurcated animal,(had two legs amputated) or a vertebrate(when he is an intelligent sentient being who has an
better alternative means of locomotion such as wheels).

The frame of reference makes all the difference and the frame of reference is always identical to the qualifying adverbial clause. As so often ,I wish there was a diagram ,to describe and explain qualifying clauses .

There may be occasions [a known potential threat] when one ought not to breathe air, but for how long?

[Peter Holmes]

All humans are "programmed" with the factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans".

So...
for deontologists, the goodness of an action is determined by obedience to a rule
for urilitarians, the goodness of an action is determined by the quantity of suffering created or prevented

And for VegetableAmbulancarians the goodness of an action is determined by obedience to prgrammed instructions in the dna - but only if it is a "normal" instruction.

Is that about right?

Resorting to "put downs" indicates [subliminal] insecurities and lack of confidence in your answers. You could not resist that natural negative emotional impulse.

Within morality-proper, it is not a question of obedience as implied in the pseudo-moral systems like deontology, theistic morality and others.

Within morality-proper, there is no question of goodness prior to acting.
Rather, within morality-proper, each individual [with assistance from the collective] self-develops to progress their inherent moral functions to enable the factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" to unfold progressively, be active naturally and thus to flow & act spontaneously without any sense of being consciously obedience nor obligated.

The fact that you don't run out of your house with a chopper killing humans is self-evident the above factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" is active in you [brain and self] at present.
However if that inherent factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" in you is weakened due to various reasons [very likely in your case as evident and given in your weakness in resisting put-downs] you could end up killing humans.

Ah, yes. Don't forget that widely-used and accepted phenomenon in moral theory - 'morality-proper'. After all, 67% of philosophers agree that it exists - so who are we to argue?

[Skepdick]

Gotta say, you could just have said that dogs for instance have a moral sense without without any apparent linguistic component if you were looking for that.

In what universe would that make sense exactly given your own conception

Morality is the social linguistic framework that exists only as a category relating to such things as discussions about rightness, wrongness, goodness, badness and similar topics.

IF morality is as you define it, then dogs can't possibly have any "moral" sense. Because they have no linguistic categories or discussions about such stuff.

So my original question (paraphrased) is simply: Does lack of moral sense preclude lack of sense for right and wrong?

No. Obviously!

[Sculptor]

However if that inherent factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" in you is weakened due to various reasons [very likely in your case as evident and given in your weakness in resisting put-downs] you could end up killing humans.

A key problem with you thinking is that you conflate doctrine with evidence. You do not seem to have to capacity to make distinctions of fact and opinion.
Your pronouncements are purely doctrinaire and lack evidentiality.

[Skepdick]

A key problem with you thinking is that you conflate doctrine with evidence. You do not seem to have to capacity to make distinctions of fact and opinion.
Your pronouncements are purely doctrinaire and lack evidentiality.

You don't even know what "evidence" is! You are just cargo-culting science.

Facts are linguistic social norms. Facts are a socially sanctioned and prescribed vocabulary for describing the world with.

It is prescribed to call this "red". People who violate this linguistic prescription, such as people who might choose to describe this as "blue", are morally judged to be "liars" even though, irrespective of the label used, everybody is describing the same thing.

There can be no facts without semantic policing.

red.png

[FlashDangerpants]

Gotta say, you could just have said that dogs for instance have a moral sense without without any apparent linguistic component if you were looking for that.

In what universe would that make sense exactly given your own conception

Morality is the social linguistic framework that exists only as a category relating to such things as discussions about rightness, wrongness, goodness, badness and similar topics.

IF morality is as you define it, then dogs can't possibly have any "moral" sense. Because they have no linguistic categories or discussions about such stuff.

So my original question (paraphrased) is simply: Does lack of moral sense preclude lack of sense for right and wrong?

No. Obviously!

A dog can see that you have given him fewer treats than you gave to some other dog. They can perform a quantitative calculation and an evaulation. Monkeys and babies and no doubt rabbits too can all do this sort of thing, which is of course the forming of opinions about stuff they see around them.

Similarly the animal kingdom demonstrates empathy, mercy, grudges, reciprocation, and sometimes revenge.

Are you supposing that I was somehow claiming morality was constructed ex-nihilo? The problem with morality is the trade off between all these things. Making choices between desires for fairness when what is fair in any given situation is a matter of choosing which fairness to do today, and which justice.

You comically inept pissants are still trying, but somehow failing, to prove that murder is wrong even though that's a tautology. How on earth are people like you going to find facts in a subtle controversy where competing descrriptions of what is fair come into play?

[FlashDangerpants]

All humans are "programmed" with the factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans".

So...
for deontologists, the goodness of an action is determined by obedience to a rule
for urilitarians, the goodness of an action is determined by the quantity of suffering created or prevented

And for VegetableAmbulancarians the goodness of an action is determined by obedience to prgrammed instructions in the dna - but only if it is a "normal" instruction.

Is that about right?

Resorting to "put downs" indicates [subliminal] insecurities and lack of confidence in your answers. You could not resist that natural negative emotional impulse.

Within morality-proper, it is not a question of obedience as implied in the pseudo-moral systems like deontology, theistic morality and others.

Within morality-proper, there is no question of goodness prior to acting.
Rather, within morality-proper, each individual [with assistance from the collective] self-develops to progress their inherent moral functions to enable the factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" to unfold progressively, be active naturally and thus to flow & act spontaneously without any sense of being consciously obedience nor obligated.

The fact that you don't run out of your house with a chopper killing humans is self-evident the above factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" is active in you [brain and self] at present.
However if that inherent factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" in you is weakened due to various reasons [very likely in your case as evident and given in your weakness in resisting put-downs] you could end up killing humans.

I am a magnanimous overlord so I will grant points for effort on the putdown thing.

The only note is that you should leave that sort of ironic self-sabotage to the pros, I will cheerfully ruin my own argument that way because I don't really care. But you have real difficulty working out what it is that makes an action right or wrong, and using the self-burn putdown thing to show us that you are smuggling an assumption in that matter seems like more than you wanted to do there.

[Veritas Aequitas]

However if that inherent factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" in you is weakened due to various reasons [very likely in your case as evident and given in your weakness in resisting put-downs] you could end up killing humans.

A key problem with you thinking is that you conflate doctrine with evidence. You do not seem to have to capacity to make distinctions of fact and opinion.
Your pronouncements are purely doctrinaire and lack evidentiality.

I will be very interested if you give examples so that I can improve if what you claim of me is true.