What could make morality objective?

[iambiguous]

Just a reminder that examining objective morality in an ethical theory forum is one thing, taking any technical conclusions arrived at here out into the world of actual flesh and blood human interactions revolving around "conflicting goods" another thing altogether.

If I do say so myself.

So, if anyone is interested, I'd be inclined myself to explore theoretical conclusions over in the applied ethics forum: viewforum.php?f=7

Given a particular context likely to be familiar to most of us here.

Thanks. So far I've not seen anything to distinguish ethics - 'moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity' - from moral theory. My blinkered, no doubt. I'll have a look at the applied ethics forum. Any OP recommendations?

I always start with abortion here. It's an issue that literally revolves around life and death. And it's always popping up in the news...so most are familiar with it. Plus, it was the issue that prompted me to abandon the belief that theoretically, principled or otherwise, it is possible in a No God world to demonstrate the existence of an objective morality.

I start at the OP here -- https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121 -- in regard to it myself. I've also contributed posts on this -- viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34731&start=540 -- thread.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So VA may be (if unwittingly) advocating a form of virtue ethics. But that can never establish the existence of moral facts and objectivity. It cannot be a fact that we should be empathetic. Many of us just think - for good reason - that it's a good idea.

Nah, my morality-proper -eliminate evil to enable its related goods- has nothing to do with virtue per se albeit there are some overlap.

These example of virtues [good] are way off from my specific taxonomy of 'evil acts'.
What are examples of virtues?
Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.

Ben Franklin's '13 Virtues' path to personal perfection
Then he considered various virtues that, if mastered, would counteract his unwanted behavior. His list of 13: Temperance, Silence, Order, Resolution, Frugality, Industry, Sincerity, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Tranquility, Chastity and Humility.

All facts are conditioned upon a human-based FSK [objective].
As such it is possible for human-based virtue FSK facts which are objective.
I have not deliberated on this and I am not interested in that at present.

But - totally agree with your patient critique. But sadly, it will make no difference. VA is impermeable to reason.

I have provided tons of philosophical reasonings to support my arguments and claims.

You? nothing, zilch!!

You say your moral theory has little or nothing to do with virtue ethics. But the empathy that you assume we need to promote is a virtue.

And you ignore the fact that the choice and nature of the virtue - or 'goodness' - that we should promote are matters of opinion, and therefore subjective. You can't explain why we should promote empathy. You just assume we should, and ignore or deny the assumption.

You've backed yourself up against a wall, through which reasoned argument just can't penetrate.

You think you have a checkmate point?
Nah, don't be so arrogant when you are only exposing your ignorance.

Empathy may contribute to some virtues but my point is its relevance to morality per se.
Note empathy when defective can be detrimental to one's well-being, so some degrees of modulation is necessary to ensure efficiency and optimality.

Thus my point,
1. Morality-proper is eliminating [inhibiting] evil acts to enable its related goods.
2. Killing of humans by humans is one very significant evil act.
3. To eliminate [inhibit] 2, there is the moral fact of 'oughtness-not-to-kill-humans'
4. Empathy [mirror neurons] is one element that contribute to reinforce 3.

So, yes, it is imperative we must promote mindful 'empathy' by facilitating the spontaneous natural expression of its full potential in respect of the above.

There is no individual's opinions, beliefs and judgment in the above premises;
premise 2, 3 and 4 are leveraged on the human-based-scientific-facts and when inputted into a credible moral FSK enable objective moral facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just an observation on VA's claim that mirror neurons are good things, because they programme us to empathise with others.

But the function of mirror neurons is to induce and, as it were, reward imitation. And empathy - 'the ability to understand and share the feelings of another' - need not have morally right or good results. One could empathise with a murderer.

Strawman again!
When have I ever stated mirror neurons are absolutely good.
Note my point on empathy and its reservations above.

Only a psychopath and those with mental illness of the like will 'empathize' with the killing of a human by a murderer and this is contradictory to morality-proper.

I've certainly been guilty of assuming that empathy is a good thing - a virtue. Note to self.

That reflect your typical ignorance from a very shallow and narrow database of knowledge.

What you need to be enlightened and changed is notably your assumption, "morality is not objective" which is based on ignorance.

[Peter Holmes]

1. Morality-proper is eliminating [inhibiting] evil acts to enable its related goods.

What are evil and good? Is there any evidence for their existence? And why should evil be eliminated or inhibited, and good enabled? This seems to be a metaphysical or religious claim.

2. Killing of humans by humans is one very significant evil act.

Why is it evil for humans to kill humans? What makes it evil? And is it a fact that it's evil?

3. To eliminate [inhibit] 2, there is the moral fact of 'oughtness-not-to-kill-humans'

What is the evidence for this claim, or for the existence of any moral fact?

4. Empathy [mirror neurons] is one element that contribute to reinforce 3.

Like any scientific fact, the existence of mirror neurons has no moral significance.

So here is this 'argument' for moral objectivity:

1 Morality-proper is eliminating/inhibiting evil acts and enabling good [acts].
2 It is evil for humans to kill humans.
3 There is the moral fact of oughtness-not-to-kill-humans.
4 Mirror neurons programme us for empathy, which enhances oughtness-not-to-kill-humans.

And, supposedly, none of these claims expresses an individual's beliefs, judgements or opinions. And, supposedly, claims 2, 3 and 4 are based on scientific evidence.

Then, supposedly, these supposed scientific facts are fed into a credible moral framework and system of knowledge, which produces moral facts. (Though claim 3 renders that operation otiose.)

Perhaps it's better to leave this intellectually tortured mess where it is: beyond repair.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. Morality-proper is eliminating [inhibiting] evil acts to enable its related goods.

What are evil and good? Is there any evidence for their existence? And why should evil be eliminated or inhibited, and good enabled? This seems to be a metaphysical or religious claim.

That is your problem with your archaic and dogmatic thinking.

Note the current trend in philosophy ...

• Since World War II, moral, political, and legal philosophers have become increasingly interested in the concept of evil. This interest has been partly motivated by ascriptions of ‘evil’ by laymen, social scientists, journalists, and politicians as they try to understand and respond to various atrocities and horrors, such as genocides, terrorist attacks, mass murders, and tortures and killing sprees by psychopathic serial killers. It seems that we cannot capture the moral significance of these actions and their perpetrators by calling them ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ or even ‘very very wrong’ or ‘very very bad.’
  We need the concept of evil.
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

I define 'evil' as;
What is evil is not-Good relative to evil.
What is evil is any human act or thoughts that is a net-negative to the well-being of the individual and to humanity towards the preservation of the human species.
For example, the killing of humans by humans is a significant evil act, i.e. if permitted as principle would have the potential to exterminate the human species which go against the natural program [in general] of "the preservation of the human species." [this need detailed elaboration].

When this evil act, example of humans killing human is morally inhibited, its related 'good' will follow consequently. [there are details to this, will skip them here]. At the least there will be no way of the human species being exterminated by premeditated killings.

2. Killing of humans by humans is one very significant evil act.

Why is it evil for humans to kill humans? What makes it evil? And is it a fact that it's evil?

Note above, i.e. re the potential of the extermination of the human species via WMDs [nuclear, biological, etc.].

3. To eliminate [inhibit] 2, there is the moral fact of 'oughtness-not-to-kill-humans'

What is the evidence for this claim, or for the existence of any moral fact?

As a clue, the majority of humans do not go about killing other humans.
[Assuming you are normal] Why is that you do not go about killing another human?
As inferred, there are neural inhibitors that are preventing you from killing another human despite the fact that you [and all humans] are programmed with an oughtness-to-kill for food.
The present of the 'oughtness not to kill humans' can be tested via brainwashing and it is weakened in those who are psychopaths.


Who said so? your father?
When the mirror neurons as a scientific-biological fact is inputted into a human based moral FSK, it has moral significance; when inputted into a human-based psychiatric FSK, it has psychiatric significance.



It is not enabling good [acts] but enabling good effects and consequences, e.g. none or minimal murders, rapes, and other evil acts, thus generating happiness, peace, harmony, and the likes.

The rest of your views are merely babbling without any counter arguments to the premises above.

[Peter Holmes]

A question for so-called-anti-realists and idealists:

Do you think quantum indeterminacy didn't exist before humans perceived, knew about and described it - and that it wouldn't exist had it not been perceived, known about and described?

If not, then I suggest your philosophical/ontological position is untenable.

[Skepdick]

A question for so-called-anti-realists and idealists:

Do you think quantum indeterminacy didn't exist before humans perceived, knew about and described it - and that it wouldn't exist had it not been perceived, known about and described?

Quantum indeterminacy is the incompleteness of the descriptions of quantum systems.

So you are asking whether the incompleteness of the descriptions of quantum systems existed before the man-made descriptions of quantum systems existed?!?

Did any description of you exist before you existed?

If not, then I suggest your philosophical/ontological position is untenable.

It's perfectly consistent with the anthropic principle. Fuck you very much.

[Iwannaplato]

This science-biological-FSK fact of mirror neurons are inputted into the neuro-psychological -FSK, the neuro-psychiatric-FSK in their deliberation of empathy. Thus mirror neurons as a basis of empathy would be a neuro-psychological fact.
It is obvious the subject of psychology and psychiatry has to be confined within their Framework and Systems constituted by their various Associations as their authority, if not how else.
Do you dispute the above?

We accept this for the sake of argument and mirror it in relation to aggression...
This science-biological-FSK fact of neuronal patterns related to aggression and violence are inputted into the neuro-psychological -FSK, the neuro-psychiatric-FSK in their deliberation of aggression and violence. Thus mirror neurons as a basis of aggression and violence would be a neuro-psychological fact.
It is obvious the subject of psychology and psychiatry has to be confined within their Framework and Systems constituted by their various Associations as their authority, if not how else.
Does VA dispute the above? (he acknowledges that there is an oughtness to kill)

Thus when the science-biological-FSK fact of mirror neurons are inputted into a human-based moral FSK, then mirror-neurons as a basis of empathy is an objective moral fact.
So, morality is objective in this sense.

We accept this also and use it to mirror for aggression/violence
Thus when the science-biological-FSK fact of neurons associated with aggression/violence are inputted into a human-based moral FSK, then the neurons are a basis of aggression/violence is an objective moral fact.
So, morality is objective in this sense.
Does VA dispute this?

Btw, it is not just empathy an element of morality that is a moral fact, but rather all elements of morality must be traceable to something ultimately physical and empirical which can be verified and justified as scientifically objective within the human-based scientific-FSK. In this case, morality is objective overall.

We accept this and use it as a mirror for aggression/violence..
Btw, it is not just aggression/violence is an element of morality that is a moral fact, but rather all elements of morality must be traceable to something ultimately physical and empirical which can be verified and justified as scientifically objective within the human-based scientific-FSK. In this case, morality is objective overall.

Now we note something that VA does not take up....
Current brains have these two sets of neuronal patterns, those for empathy and those for aggression/violence.
They are in specific ratios of influence. This is an objective fact. An objective moral fact, based on the neuroscience FSK.

For some reason VA want to change the amount of influence, the ratio of influence of these neuronal patterns.

This is going against the objective moral fact of the presence of these two neuronal patterns in the brain in the degrees of influence they currently have over attitudes and behavior.

To enhance one, but not the other, would be going against the objective fact (neuroscience FSK) of their current degrees of influence.
Does VA dispute this?

On what ground does he want to go against the objective moral fact of their degrees of influence (neuroscience FSK)????????

[Peter Holmes]

A question for so-called-anti-realists and idealists:

Do you think quantum systems didn't exist before humans perceived, knew about and incompletely described them - and that they wouldn't exist had they not been perceived, known about and incompletely described?

If not, then I suggest your philosophical/ontological position is untenable.

[Skepdick]

A question for so-called-anti-realists and idealists:

Do you think quantum systems didn't exist before humans perceived, knew about and incompletely described them - and that they wouldn't exist had they not been perceived, known about and incompletely described?

If not, then I suggest your philosophical/ontological position is untenable.

A question for the so-called realists.

Do you think assertions like "X did or didn't exists" existed before humans asserted their existence?
Do you think questions like "Does X exist?" existed before humans asked them?

No humans - no questions or assertions.

No humans - no such notions as "beforeness" or "afterness", "past" or "future"

Unless, of course you believe that time is "real".

[Veritas Aequitas]

A question for so-called-anti-realists and idealists:

Do you think quantum systems didn't exist before humans perceived, knew about and incompletely described them - and that they wouldn't exist had they not been perceived, known about and incompletely described?

If not, then I suggest your philosophical/ontological position is untenable.

All facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned upon a human-based-FSK.
The facts of quantum systems are conditioned upon a human-based-QM-FSK.
Therefore, if there are no humans, there is no human-based-QM-FSK to enable QM systems to be realized, then perceived, known and described.

Note "realized" from entanglement and emergence which PH do not have a clue at all.

Here is another more specific argument;
All facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned upon a human-based-FSK.
All facts, truths and knowledge of the Big-Bang are conditioned upon a human-based-Cosmological-Physics-FSK.
The human-based facts of quantum systems are conditioned upon the Big-Bang which is conditioned upon the human-based-Cosmological-Physics-FSK.

Since the human-based facts of quantum systems are conditioned upon the Big-Bang which is conditioned upon the human-based-Cosmological-Physics-FSK, they don't exists if there are no humans to realize this QM reality that is subsequently perceived, known and described.

As I had insisted the proclivity for the existence of an ultimate reality [illusory] that is independent of the human conditions, i.e. philosophical idealism is driven psychologically as an evolutionary default.

Philosophical Realists are trapped in a the Spider Monkey Syndrome, i.e. unable to shift paradigms or toggle between them where necessary.
https://mikepalma.wordpress.com/2010/09 ... y-or-myth/

[Peter Holmes]

A question for so-called-anti-realists and idealists:

Do you think quantum systems didn't exist before humans perceived, knew about and incompletely described them - and that they wouldn't exist had they not been perceived, known about and incompletely described?

If not, then I suggest your philosophical/ontological position is untenable.

All facts, truths and knowledge are conditioned upon a human-based-FSK.
The facts of quantum systems are conditioned upon a human-based-QM-FSK.
Therefore, if there are no humans, there is no human-based-QM-FSK to enable QM systems to be realized, then perceived, known and described.

That doesn't answer the question. Do you think quantum systems didn't exist before humans perceived, knew about and described them - and that they wouldn't exist had they not been perceived, known about and described?

No need to rehearse your fsk argument. Please answer the question honestly.

[Skepdick]

That doesn't answer the question. Do you think quantum systems didn't exist before humans perceived, knew about and described them - and that they wouldn't exist had they not been perceived, known about and described?

What do questions containing the word "before" even mean if we take humans out of the picture?
What or where is "the past"? Where does it exist, except in memories?

[Peter Holmes]

A question for so-called-anti-realists and idealists - and for VA, if you find it difficult to answer my question about quantum systems:

Do you think that quantum systems didn't exist before they were entangled with, emerged, realised, known about and incompletely described by humans, within the human-based quantum mechanics framework and system of knowledge? And do you think quantum systems wouldn't exist had all that stuff not occurred?

If not, then I suggest your philosophical/ontological position is untenable.

[Skepdick]

A question for so-called-anti-realists and idealists - and for VA, if you find it difficult to answer my question about quantum systems:

Do you think that quantum systems didn't exist before they were entangled with, emerged, realised, known about and incompletely described by humans, within the human-based quantum mechanics framework and system of knowledge? And do you think quantum systems wouldn't exist had all that stuff not occurred?

Why is the so-called realist (a.k.a ontologist) dodging the question?

What do questions containing the word "before" mean if we take humans out of the picture?
What or where is "the past"?
Where does The Big Bang exist?
Where does history exist?
Where is the dinner you had yesterday?
Where is the breath you took 10 seconds ago?
Where is the thought you thought 2 seconds ago?

If not, then I suggest your philosophical/ontological position is untenable.

Anti-realism is not an ontological position. Anti-realism rejects ontological positions.

The ontological tradition is a theology like any other.