From Natural Objective Facts to Objective Moral Facts

[Veritas Aequitas]

The usual complain by people like Peter Holmes, et. al. regarding moral realists claim of objective moral facts followed from Hume's;

Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739):

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs;
when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not,
I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.

The above is of the old moral paradigm.

This article demonstrate how Objective Natural Facts are linked to Objective Moral Facts in the modern era [new paradigm] linked to empirical evidences;

How Moral Facts Cause Moral Progress

The core assertion of Naturalistic Moral Realism is that Objective Moral Facts are Objective Natural Facts, in some sense.
Natural Facts are properties that can be investigated using the standard methods of the natural and social sciences (van Roojen 2015: 210).

In the literature on Naturalistic Moral Realism, there are two prominent accounts of the way in which Objective Moral Facts are Objective Natural Facts (cf. van Roojen 2015: 219 – 221).

According to one view, Objective Moral Facts are identical to Objective Natural Facts (cf. Railton 1986; Boyd 1988; Copp 2007: 137 – 142).
According to a second view, Objective Moral Facts are constituted by Objective Natural Facts (cf. Brink 1989: 157 – 159, 176 – 177; Sturgeon 1992: 98).

Identity is a symmetric relation: if x is identical to y, then y is identical to x.
However, constitution is not a symmetric relation: even if x constitutes y, it is not guaranteed that y constitutes x.
For instance: a mass of polyurethane may constitute a bowling ball, but a bowling ball does not constitute a mass of polyurethane.
The NRH [Natural Realism Hypothesis] is compatible with both theories of the relation between the Moral and the natural.

The above demonstrate how Objective Natural Facts are linked to Objective Moral Facts, but there are more advance and in depth considerations into the genes, algorithms and DNA that are corresponded to the objective moral facts.

[Harbal]

But you don't dispute that all moral values are subjective, do you, V.A.?

[henry quirk]

VA,

All you really have to say, at this point, is...

A man's life, liberty, and property are his so it's wrong to use a man's life, liberty, and property as if they were yours.

The fact leads inexorably to the moral fact.

It's my opinion those who reject the fact and moral fact are lyin' (to themselves and/or to others), but hey, that's their business. I see no obligation to go where they lead (cuz it's the abattoir).

My point: unless this is your career, it might be time to pack it in. They ain't movin', you ain't movin'. Why go on? There's no victory to be had. I'm slow (it's taken me 15 years to learn the lesson): you're brighter than me, so learn it faster.

I'm not sayin' you ought not assert or tussle, but -- trust me on this -- your opposition isn't sweatin' it, so why should you?

It's part of the game, the strategy, for them to get you on the ropes, to have you work hard. Stop lettin' 'em call your shots. You know they're wrong. Quit tryin' to prove it and just be granite.

(edited out a line from an earlier iteration of my post)

[Harbal]

A man's life, liberty, and property are his

I've heard that somewhere before, henry, I just can't quite remember where.

[henry quirk]

A man's life, liberty, and property are his

I've heard that somewhere before, henry, I just can't quite remember where.

Inside your own head, I reckon. It's a fact you know about yourself.

[Harbal]

Inside your own head, I reckon. It's a fact you know about yourself.

If you say so, henry.

[henry quirk]

Inside your own head, I reckon. It's a fact you know about yourself.

If you say so, henry.

There's only two options, pal. You are yours or you're not. Even if I'm wrong and all my thinkin' is just twaddle, it seems to me you can't go wrong seein' yourself as though you're own and respectin' the other guy as though he is his own.

Really, even if I'm absolutely wrong about a man havin' an exclusive claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property: what's the downside to it? if I respect you as the rightful owner of you, and you respect me as the rightful owner of me, even if the idea is bullshit: what's the downside for either of us?

Seems to me the only downside is for those who wanna steal from us, slave us, defraud us, etc. Those folks, of course, will reject any notion of a moral reality, or -- in the absence of a moral reality -- an ethical construct that may tie their hands.

But I don't take the objections of would-be or actual thieves, slavers, and con men seriously. I'm thinkin' you don't either.

So, again, even if all my notions of natural rights and moral reality are just bunkum, how are are we done wrong by living as those these things are reality?

[Harbal]

Inside your own head, I reckon. It's a fact you know about yourself.

If you say so, henry.

There's only two options, pal. You are yours or you're not. Even if I'm wrong and all my thinkin' is just twaddle, it seems to me you can't go wrong seein' yourself as though you're own and respectin' the other guy as though he is his own.

Really, even if I'm absolutely wrong about a man havin' an exclusive claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property: what's the downside to it? if I respect you as the rightful owner of you, and you respect me as the rightful owner of me, even if the idea is bullshit: what's the downside for either of us?

Seems to me the only downside is for those who wanna steal from us, slave us, defraud us, etc. Those folks, of course, will reject any notion of a moral reality, or -- in the absence of a moral reality -- an ethical construct that may tie their hands.

But I don't take the objections of would-be or actual thieves, slavers, and con men seriously. I'm thinkin' you don't either.

So, again, even if all my notions of natural rights and moral reality are just bunkum, how are are we done wrong by living as those these things are reality?

I absolutely respect you life, liberty and property, henry, as I know you do mine, but I wonder how confident of our right to them we would have been had we lived in Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Russia.

[henry quirk]

If you say so, henry.

There's only two options, pal. You are yours or you're not. Even if I'm wrong and all my thinkin' is just twaddle, it seems to me you can't go wrong seein' yourself as though you're own and respectin' the other guy as though he is his own.

Really, even if I'm absolutely wrong about a man havin' an exclusive claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property: what's the downside to it? if I respect you as the rightful owner of you, and you respect me as the rightful owner of me, even if the idea is bullshit: what's the downside for either of us?

Seems to me the only downside is for those who wanna steal from us, slave us, defraud us, etc. Those folks, of course, will reject any notion of a moral reality, or -- in the absence of a moral reality -- an ethical construct that may tie their hands.

But I don't take the objections of would-be or actual thieves, slavers, and con men seriously. I'm thinkin' you don't either.

So, again, even if all my notions of natural rights and moral reality are just bunkum, how are are we done wrong by living as those these things are reality?

I absolutely respect you life, liberty and property, henry, as I know you do mine, but I wonder how confident of our right to them we would have been had we lived in Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Russia.

At the very least, even if it's all bunkum, believing you are your own gives you reason to fight and resist. How much of a fight will one put up if he believes he's just meat and has no claim to himself?

No matter how you cut it: I see no downside to recognizing, or just believing, man has a right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property.

[Harbal]

At the very least, even if it's all bunkum, believing you are your own gives you reason to fight and resist. How much of a fight will one put up if he believes he's just meat and has no claim to himself?

No matter how you cut it: I see no downside to recognizing, or just believing, man has a right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property.

The society I live in grants me those rights, and I would no doubt grant them to myself in the face of any threat to my life, liberty and property. I can't quite see how nature grants them to me, though.

[henry quirk]

At the very least, even if it's all bunkum, believing you are your own gives you reason to fight and resist. How much of a fight will one put up if he believes he's just meat and has no claim to himself?

No matter how you cut it: I see no downside to recognizing, or just believing, man has a right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property.

The society I live in grants me those rights, and I would no doubt grant them to myself in the face of any threat to my life, liberty and property. I can't quite see how nature grants them to me, though.

You don't have to, and -- right now -- I'm not arguing on that. No, I'm, as I say, lookin' for the downside to believing a man has a right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property. So far, it seems, you agree there is none.

I'm gonna take that as a win.

[Harbal]

You don't have to, and -- right now -- I'm not arguing on that. No, I'm, as I say, lookin' for the downside to believing a man has a right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property. So far, it seems, you agree there is none.

I'm gonna take that as a win.

Enjoy your victory, henry.

[Dontaskme]

Inside your own head, I reckon. It's a fact you know about yourself.

Now we all know there’s no one who lives inside a head who talks to you.

Just as there’s no one who knows itself…simply because there was never any one who chose to be a self.

A self is illusory, an illusion believing it has free will is rather absurd since there is no self to whom free will would apply.

Just as no self ever chose to be a self..any apparent self must be an illusion same goes for free will.

The sense of self is a very persistent delusion an illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA,

All you really have to say, at this point, is...

A man's life, liberty, and property are his so it's wrong to use a man's life, liberty, and property as if they were yours.

The fact leads inexorably to the moral fact.

It's my opinion those who reject the fact and moral fact are lyin' (to themselves and/or to others), but hey, that's their business. I see no obligation to go where they lead (cuz it's the abattoir).

My point: unless this is your career, it might be time to pack it in. They ain't movin', you ain't movin'. Why go on? There's no victory to be had. I'm slow (it's taken me 15 years to learn the lesson): you're brighter than me, so learn it faster.

I'm not sayin' you ought not assert or tussle, but -- trust me on this -- your opposition isn't sweatin' it, so why should you?

It's part of the game, the strategy, for them to get you on the ropes, to have you work hard. Stop lettin' 'em call your shots. You know they're wrong. Quit tryin' to prove it and just be granite.

(edited out a line from an earlier iteration of my post)

It would be stupid for me to expect others who disagree with my view that they MUST accept my views.
Though not Buddhist officially, I adopt the Buddhist's principles of indifference to such expectations, else it will generate sufferings from the cycle of desires.

I do counter opposing views and this is one motivating factor to provide a basis for my main interest i.e. to expand my on database on the related subject in this case Morality & Ethics regardless of others views.

I have a very wide range of topics re Morality and Ethics but I am only discussing and throwing in ideas from a small segment only while throwing in clues on the critical matters.

[Veritas Aequitas]

At the very least, even if it's all bunkum, believing you are your own gives you reason to fight and resist. How much of a fight will one put up if he believes he's just meat and has no claim to himself?

No matter how you cut it: I see no downside to recognizing, or just believing, man has a right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property.

The society I live in grants me those rights, and I would no doubt grant them to myself in the face of any threat to my life, liberty and property.
I can't quite see how nature grants them to me, though.

"Know Thyself" - Socrates.

If you follow the above maxim, you will try to get to know your own inherent nature that is aligned with the generic human nature of ALL humans.

It is human nature [in fact the nature of all living things] is to live as long as possible till the inevitable. Nature has embedded that potential in you and all humans.
If you are not too sure of the above, try holding your breath as long as possible, if you are the normal majority [untrained] you won't be able to hold your breath for more than 30 seconds.

What is basic to all humans is 'freedom' [need precise definition] to live in optimizing one's well being.
It is from this fundamental freedom that arise the secondary elements of 'owning one self' right to property, and the likes.

If you were to research and explore on that human nature that is inherent in ALL humans, you will come to note the existence of moral elements that are represented by physical elements in terms of neural correlates, algorithm, genes, DNA, its related atoms and quarks.
These physical elements are the related moral facts, not the subjective feelings or interpretation of rightness and wrongness.