What could make morality objective?

[Iwannaplato]

If the Last Universal Cell Ancestor [LUCA] within the primordial soup did not have this inherent 'moral' inhibitors "not to kill its own kind", we would not be here to day.

• The Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) or universal most recent common ancestor (UMRCA) is the most recent population from which all organisms now living on Earth share common descent—the most recent common ancestor of all current life on Earth. -wiki

This makes it sound like killing members of one's own species is not part of descendants of LUCA. But all sorts of organisms and species have no prohibition against killing their own species, even their own young.

Whatever works - not whatever is moral - is the order of the day. Or, to be more careful, whatever did not lead to a species becoming extinct survived as patterns and traits. Some positive traits, some neutral, some not negative enough to ruin it for the species as a whole.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/do- ... n-species/
https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/mee ... -on-earth/

And while the meercats tend to outkill us, primates are pretty regular murderers.

There are many species where killing one's own species' members is much less likely. As far as we know, bats, whales, and rabbits, as a few examples, almost never kill their own species' members.

So, where does this leave us in figuring out if oughtness not to kill is an objective fact. It seems like some or even a lot of killing works fine for some species, like ours.

And for other species the oughtness not to kill is very, very dominant.

This sounds NOTHING objective morality, but rather a projection of VA's morality onto patterns in some species.

And the whole LUCA argument is at the very best radically oversimplified.

Even some bacilli will eat their own species. More complicated species murder. If one reads VA, it would seem like there is some built in rule going back in time.

But there isn't.

There are a diverse set of behavior patterns, diverse both intraspecies and interspecies.

IOW VA could, possibly, at best, make an argument that there are some....SOME restrictions on murder in a species. But there is absolutely no evidence in brains or dna or evolution that murder is an objective moral wrongdoing. Nor that eliminating murder is good, per se, for a species. In fact, there is no reason not to just let murder continue to be a facet of human behavior, if we are looking at things from a biological, genetic viewpoint. It has worked well for us up to this time to be like this. It works for other species as well.

Note: this is not me arguing that murder is good. It's me saying that the research VA puts out does not support what he thinks it does. Not if one looks at other research that is part of the same field.

He's a cherry picker.

If oughtness not to kill neurons show that not killing other humans is an objective moral fact, oughtness to kill other humans, even in murder situations are also an objective moral fact. Our species has evolved with both these neurons, which VA acknowledges, and many other species also have murder as a part of their behavior'. This would mean a mix of empathetic and violent responses is an objective moral fact. And really there is no basis for VA calling people less moral than they should be today and wanting to make us more moral in the future. Nor is there any justification for saying, given HIS argument, that murder is wrong. It's a part of the objective mix of our behavioral patterns, neurons and attitudes for thousands of years and likely long before that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA, have a think about the following two arguments.

1 If my father/mother/pet monkey says water is H2O, then (it's a fact that) water is H2O.

2 If the intersubjective consensus of chemists is that water is H2O, then (it's a fact that) water is H2O.

Do you understand why these are both non sequitur fallacies?

Strawman again!!

PH" 1 If my [PH's] father/mother/pet monkey says water is H2O, then (it's a fact that) water is H2O.
This is non-sequitur because without the chemistry-FSK, there is no way of stating 'water is H20' is a chemistry fact by your father or mother, or pet monkey [if he can talk].

PH:2 If the intersubjective consensus of chemists is that water is H2O, then (it's a fact that) water is H2O.
You missed out in qualifying 'fact' above, it should be "a science-chemistry-FSK fact," not just plain 'fact'.
Yes, water is H20 is a science-chemistry-FSK fact as conditioned by the intersubjective consensus of chemists within a science-chemistry-FSK.
note the necessary qualifications in bold above.

In this case 2, your father and mother can assert 'water is H20' [a science-chemistry-FSK fact] because science-chemistry-FSK said so.
This is objective [in reference to the science-chemistry-FSK] because it is independent of your father's or mother's personal subjective opinion, beliefs and judgment.

You seem to have a very thick skull that you cannot understand [not necessary agree with] my intentions.

I have argued there are two senses of 'what is fact'.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

As such when the term 'fact' is mentioned in your post you must qualify whether it is,
1. fact [PH's sense] - fact(PH)
2. fact [human-based-FSK] - fact (FSK)

You cannot simply state 'fact' without the above qualifications, else it will cause confusion.
So for clarity sake in this specific issues discussed, you must qualify the term 'fact' whenever it is used.

Btw, you still have not provided any authorized references to support what you meant by 'what is fact', i.e. it is based on analytic philosophy, ordinary language philosophy, Wittgenstein, Frege, Ryle, Armstrong, Strawson, or whoever that support your point.

Thus so far, that is based on your personal subjective view on 'what is fact'.

No, the point is that saying something is so doesn't make it so. And I assume you agree.

So it follows that it doesn't matter who says it's so: me, my father, my pet monkey, or a bunch of chemists. And it doesn't matter how anyone arrives at the conclusion. Saying something is so can never make it so.
Something else is required, viz, it's actually being so.

Yes, something else is required.
It is definitely not "it's actually being so" or your "just is" which is groundless and tell us nothing at all. Being so?? Being what??
To stick to this point is delusional.
There has to be a predicate to 'being so' [existing].

Something else is required, viz, it's actually being so.

You are very ignorant of the Universe and the human nature therein.
Yes, something else is required.
That 'something else' is the culmination of;
1. 13 years of history since the BB and
2. 4 billion years of evolution process conditioning human nature
3. + human nature,
5. +the process of entanglement + emergence and realization within a FSK [note FSReality]
which only then something is
6. known [epistemology] and
7. described [linguistics].

You are ignorant of the reality of elements 1-5. You need more education in these critical matters.

And you agree that knowledge and descriptions cannot produce facts. So your blather about a 'framework and system of knowledge' - and a mystical 'emergence' and 'realisation' of facts - is irrelevant. That a description of facts is always contextual and conventional doesn't mean that there are no facts 'outside' descriptions.

All you ever do is assert that what we call facts - features of reality that are or were the case - don't exist 'outside' knowledge and description - but that knowledge and description cannot produce facts. The contradiction is obvious. And you refuse to recognise it.

Note my "Framework and System of Knowledge" [note also Framework and System of Reality FSR - relevant but not mentioned often] encompasses elements 1 to 5 above before the FSK-Fact is known and described.

Show me what is so 'mystical' about,
'emergence' of human-based-FSK-facts
'Realization' of human-based-FSK-facts
Whatever emerged and realized within its specific FSK are verified and justified within the specific human-based FSK [culmination of elements 1-5 above].

Actually it is your 'fact' [PH] which is "it's actually being so" is nonsensical and mystical because you will never know what it [your fact-PH] really is.
To know what it really is, one has to fall back on a specific human-based FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK [the most reliable and credible] or other lesser FSKs. Thus ultimately a fact [FSK] can never be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Saying 'there are pink unicorns on the moon' makes it so 'in the context of the person saying it'.

Genius.

Of course there's a "pink unicorn" on the moon in the context of me saying it! Here it is.

Saying so - makes it so. That is how ostensive definitions work!

Maybe you should define what you mean by "pink unicorn"?

I believe Skpedick's version still satisfy the principle,
1. "whatever the fact, it must be conditioned upon a human-based-FSK" which is objective,
2. there are degrees of objectivity depending on the credibility and reliability of the specific FSK.

As such, when Skepdick made the following statement;

Saying that this color is "red" makes it red in the context of the person saying it.
Saying that this color is "blue" makes it blue in the context of the person saying it.
Saying that this color is "green" makes it green in the context of the person saying it.
Saying that you are a dumb cunt makes you a dumb cunt in the context of the person saying it.

The above is stated with the specific FSK implied therein taking into account elements 1-5 above within the context of the person saying it.

The above statements are valid as conditioned to the specific FSK.
But the question is whether they are credible and reliable at present, which in the above case, they are not credible and reliable in general and in public at present.

Saying that this color in terms of RGB scheme would be "red-255, Green=0, Blue=0" makes it red in the context of the person saying it.
Keying in this code will enable everyone within that specific FSK to reproduce the same color.

If the science-Physics FSK is relied upon, then the measure of the specific wavelength of that color will be enable reproduction of the same color.

[Peter Holmes]

Ostensive (pointing) definition can play a role in the business of explaining how a sign is used. But pointing at a red car to explain how the word red is used may well fail. Ostension is by no means a primitive, primary or uncomplicated method for teaching and learning the use of signs.

The assertion 'this is red' could be used - with only trivial truth-value - to teach the use of a word. Or it could be be used to make a factual claim with a truth-value. And the same goes for 'there's a pink unicorn on the moon'.

[Peter Holmes]

Elsewhere, VA says this:

'...[not] killing your own kind' is embedded as a physical algorithm [thus an objective fact] in ALL species and especially the existing species. Theoretically, Rationally and in principle, 'oughtness not-to-kill-own-kind' has to be inherent in all individuals, else, a species will be in a self-destruction mode.'

1 As Iwannaplato has repeatedly pointed out, programming to kill - including your own species - is also 'embedded' in many species. So the 'facts' are, as it were, morally neutral. Oughtness-to-kill is just as 'factual' as oughtness-not-to-kill.

2 That a species would not have survived - and may not survive - if individuals kill each other could be true. But, like any other fact, that has no moral significance. The claim that it's right or good for a species to survive is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

3 VA is, perhaps incorrigibly, unable to recognise the moral judgement at the heart of his - as of any - argument with a moral conclusion, such as: 'this is evil / morally wrong'. Notice the use of 'Theoretically, Rationally and in principle' - see if any big words stick on the wall.

[Agent Smith]

"What's the deal?"

"What do you mean 'what's the deal?'"

"Wassup?! What's going down?! Wachya doing?! What's up Doc?!"

"What am I?"

"A ... a ..."

"Yes, and what are you?"

"A ... a ..."

"Exactly!!"

"What??!!"

"The tree needs pruning."

"The dog needs a haircut!"

"Should we?"

"We should."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Elsewhere, VA says this:

'...[not] killing your own kind' is embedded as a physical algorithm [thus an objective fact] in ALL species and especially the existing species. Theoretically, Rationally and in principle, 'oughtness not-to-kill-own-kind' has to be inherent in all individuals, else, a species will be in a self-destruction mode.'

1 As Iwannaplato has repeatedly pointed out, programming to kill - including your own species - is also 'embedded' in many species. So the 'facts' are, as it were, morally neutral. Oughtness-to-kill is just as 'factual' as oughtness-not-to-kill.

Ignorance is no defence especially this is your thread.
I have already responded to the above in this thread;
viewtopic.php?p=618621#p618621

Generally,
1. The primary ought of all living things is the 'oughtness to survive' as long as possible till the inevitable.

2. the 'ought-to-kill' is a critical to fulfil the Food in the 4Fs to facilitate basic survival -1.

3. This 'ought-to-kill' is directed as non-humans so that humans can kill for food.

4. But being humans there is a possibility [due to various reasons] that such 'ought to kill' is directed at other humans would theoretical exterminate the species which would contradict 1.

5. To ensure objective 1 is sustain, evolution has programmed via adaption the 'oughtness not to kill one's kind' as a control. Despite humans have been killing each other due to Tribalism and other reasons, 'oughtness not to kill one's kind' still prevails. This evident in all the species that survive to the present. Most the species that had died out and become extinct is due to natural Catastrophy and natural events.
Which species went extinct because all were killed by their own?

6. Since morality is eliminating evil to enable its related good, and since killing another human is an evil act, the 'oughtness not to kill humans' is a moral issue.
Since this 'oughtness not to kill humans' is sustained by physical biological neural correlates, it is an objective moral fact via the human-based moral FSK.

2 That a species would not have survived - and may not survive - if individuals kill each other could be true. But, like any other fact, that has no moral significance. The claim that it's right or good for a species to survive is a matter of opinion, which is subjective.

True, individuals may have their subjective opinions on the above, but it is nature, biology, evolution that has programmed all living things especially the more complex ones with the 'oughtness not to kill one's kind' as a dominant neural algorithm over the 'ought to kill' impulse.

At present, what is morality as perceived by the majority is not morality-proper.
However if we are to survey human nature throughout its evolution, what is morality-proper is essentially the elimination of evil [as defined in this thread and elsewhere] to enable its related good to optimize the well being of the individual and that of humanity.

3 VA is, perhaps incorrigibly, unable to recognise the moral judgement at the heart of his - as of any - argument with a moral conclusion, such as: 'this is evil / morally wrong'. Notice the use of 'Theoretically, Rationally and in principle' - see if any big words stick on the wall.

I have given my explanation why humans are advancing in tackling evil via politics at present which is not very effective, thus we need to turn to develop the natural and potentially more efficient inherent moral function within all humans.
Show why this is wrong or not possible?

[Skepdick]

Ostensive (pointing) definition can play a role in the business of explaining how a sign is used. But pointing at a red car to explain how the word red is used may well fail. Ostension is by no means a primitive, primary or uncomplicated method for teaching and learning the use of signs.

The assertion 'this is red' could be used - with only trivial truth-value - to teach the use of a word. Or it could be be used to make a factual claim with a truth-value. And the same goes for 'there's a pink unicorn on the moon'.

Hey, you are the dumb lying cunt who insists that minds and abstract ideas don't exist

So I expect you to be using ALL of your linguistic terms and expressions in a concrete, non-abstract and ostensively definable manner.

Not only is ostension the "primitive, primary and uncomplicated" method for teaching the use signs - it's the only method available to anyone who rejects the existence of ideas.

Go ahead and teach us how to use the phrase "pink unicorn".

[Peter Holmes]

Can anyone provide an ostensive explanation of the words truth, knowledge, fact and objectivity? Or of the word hello? What exactly could you point at? And if we can't point at anything, why think that those words are names of things of some kind that must, therefore, exist somewhere, somehow?

[Skepdick]

Can anyone provide an ostensive explanation of the words truth, knowledge, fact and objectivity? Or of the word hello? What exactly could you point at? And if we can't point at anything, why think that those words are names of things of some kind that must, therefore, exist somewhere, somehow?

That sounds like a you-problem.

If you can't define the word "fact" ostensively, then what do you mean when you say that "facts exist"?

facts exist even if they're not described.

[Peter Holmes]

Ostension is not the primitive, primary and uncomplicated method for teaching the use of signs - precisely because nomenclaturist, representationalist or correspondence or maker/bearer theories of truth are mistaken. And if you're intellectually constipated with one of those theories, a dose of later Wittgenstein can usually loosen your brain-bowels. Assuming you have a brain.

[Skepdick]

Ostension is not the primitive, primary and uncomplicated method for teaching the use signs - precisely because nomenclaturist, representationalist or correspondence or maker/bearer theories of truth are mistaken. And if you're intellectually constipated with one of those theories, a dose of later Wittgenstein can usually loosen your brain-bowels. Assuming you have a brain.

Seeming as your brain-bowels are loosened you should have no problem showing us a fact then?

Alternatively, complete this sentence for us. "Even though facts exist, and despite having loosened brain-bowels, I Peter "Dumb Lying Cunt" Holmes cannot show you a fact because..."

[Peter Holmes]

'This painting is beautiful.'

Okay, show us the property that we call beauty. What is beauty? If we listed the properties of this painting, would or could beauty be one of them? If not, what does it mean to say the painting is beautiful? And would it be false to say instead that it's not beautiful? Or that it's ugly? Could it be a fact that the painting is beautiful - or ugly? And would agreement on the use of signs sort that out?

And, by the way - what is the thing or property that is 'being a fact'?

[Skepdick]

'This painting is beautiful.'

Okay, show us the property that we call beauty. What is beauty? If we listed the properties of this painting, would or could beauty be one of them? If not, what does it mean to say the painting is beautiful? And would it be false to say instead that it's not beautiful? Or that it's ugly? Could it be a fact that the painting is beautiful - or ugly? And would agreement on the use of signs sort that out?

And, by the way - what is the thing or property that is 'being a fact'?

Rinse. Repeat.

Please define "property" ostensively.

Alternatively, complete this sentence for us. "Even though properties exist, and despite having loosened brain-bowels, I Peter "Dumb Lying ****" Holmes cannot show you a property because..."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ostension is not the primitive, primary and uncomplicated method for teaching the use of signs - precisely because nomenclaturist, representationalist or correspondence or maker/bearer theories of truth are mistaken. And if you're intellectually constipated with one of those theories, a dose of later Wittgenstein can usually loosen your brain-bowels. Assuming you have a brain.

Wittgenstein?

Note Wittgenstein went through 3 phases, i.e.

• 1. Early-Wittgenstein -Tractatus
  
  2. Later-Wittgenstein - Philosophical Investigation
  
  3. Late -Wittgenstein - On Certainty

The Early-Wittgenstein was totally out of touch with reality and the later-Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigation, did not do any better.

However, his "On Certainty" [late Wittgenstein] is closer to reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Certainty
The genesis of On Certainty was Wittgenstein's "long interest" in two famous papers by G. E. Moore, his
1939 Proof of the External World and
earlier Defence of Common Sense (1925).[2]
Wittgenstein thought the latter was Moore's "best article", but despite that he did not think Moore's 'proof' of external reality decisive.

1939 Proof of the External World is grounded on Philosophical Realism, i.e. the same Philosophical Realism of mind-independence or human-conditions independence that you rely upon to define your 'what is fact'.