No Humans = No Objective Moral Facts

[LuckyR]

Its about fundamental human nature.
There is no exception that there is a biological oughtness to breathe inherent with ALL humans. This is hardwired in the DNA.

Some people may decide not to breathe by asphyxiation but that is due to damage, weakness due to various reason of their inherent embedded oughtness to breathe.
So they do have the neurological 'oughtness' but it damaged.

It is the same with the neurological 'oughtness' not to kill humans which is embedded in ALL humans without exception.
There may be 2-3% who has the the urge to kill, e.g. the malignant psychopaths and others but this is due to their weak neurological 'oughtness' not to kill humans algorithm.

This is where Ethical Theory is critical in recognizing the fact of the actual physical 'oughtness' not to kill humans in all humans, and taking steps in the future [not possible now] to ensure there are no weakness in this algorithm for all newborns and then no humans will have the urge to kill humans.
There may be very exceptional cases where humans has to be killed for good reasons but this should be kept of the minimum and ideally should be ZERO.


If at present one has to steal for a greater good for the self or tribe, then go ahead but humanity must always look for prevention of such evil from its root causes in the future.

If starvation is the reason, then strive to ensure there is sufficient food [at least the basic] to go around in the future.

The point is with ethical theory, humanity must recognize it is moral fact [represented by it neural correlates] that stealing is immoral, then it has standard, physical and objective basis for prevention and elimination of the said evil.

In contrast, the moral relativists will tolerate or even encourage those who want to steal because it is their culture [e.g. gypsies, the robin hood, etc.] or because they are entitled to due to past exploitations and whatever the reasons.
Because the moral relativist do not apprehend any moral facts, there is no standard for them to promote moral improvements and prevention or elimination of the evil acts.

If only repeating one's fantasies again and again made them into fact. The reality is there is no known DNA locus specifically related to human's "oughtness" against murder. And even if there were, a mutation at that locus would create individuals who lacked this (fake) "fact".

Repeating one's fantasies?? You seem to be ignorant on this topic.
We already have the clues that empathy [a mainstay of morality, note nuances] has its objective physical correlates [scientifically verified and verifiable] represented by mirror neurons.

The inference is, whatever is basic to human nature is encoded in the DNA and the genome. It is just that at present we do not have the competence to trace it to the related codes [not necessary specific but could be a combinations of hardwired codes].

As I had stated if there is damage [mutations] to the algorithm at the DNA stage or later, there could be exceptions but it would not have made the overall intended system disappear.
What results is merely a damaged system.
For example, there could be damage to the inherent digestive system and if the person[s] is still alive, we still have an inherent digestive system albeit a damaged or not normal one.

So the fact of the ought_notness-of-killing-of-humans [not murder by any killing] still remain albeit damaged.
The fact that the Earth's population rose from 100 million in year 0 to 8.5 billion in 2024 is very evident the ought_notness-of-killing-of-humans [very adaptive] is at work.

As to your breathing analogy, plenty of humans don't have the drive to breathe, they just don't survive infancy.

For those who do not survive infancy, that do not imply they did not have the inherent physical system that triggers the drive to breathe.
They could have died for many reasons but that does not obviate the inherent physical system that triggers the drive to breathe.

So according to your red statements there are exceptions to moral "facts", thus they're not hard and fast objective, ie they're open to human subjective "interpretation". Okay. How is that substantively different from morality being subjective?

Take the analogy of the universal inherent digestive [nutritional] system in ALL human encoded in the DNA.
Here there are the objective elements [the physical and basic expressions] and the subjective elements [the preferences for type, preparation taste of food].

It is the same with the inherent moral system; there are the objective and subjective elements.
Some percentile could be exceptions with subjective preferences due to various reasons, but that does not obviate the inherent physical moral system and basic processes & algorithm [the objective moral facts] within them.
What are moral facts I argued are the the inherent physical moral system and basic processes, not the personal subjective conditional opinions, beliefs and judgments that are expressed from these basic physical system.

There are many cases where evil was committed [these were the exceptions and subjective] but the guilt was so strong and painful that they could not live with it, so they confess their crime or commit suicide.
These cases are evident there is an inherent objective [standard] moral facts [embedded] which act as objective standards that activate the conscience.

A not entirely uninteresting theory. But you saying it's so, doesn't make it so.

As an aside, stick with philosophy and morality, straying into DNA at your level of understanding isn't going to win you any points.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If only repeating one's fantasies again and again made them into fact. The reality is there is no known DNA locus specifically related to human's "oughtness" against murder. And even if there were, a mutation at that locus would create individuals who lacked this (fake) "fact".

Repeating one's fantasies?? You seem to be ignorant on this topic.
We already have the clues that empathy [a mainstay of morality, note nuances] has its objective physical correlates [scientifically verified and verifiable] represented by mirror neurons.

The inference is, whatever is basic to human nature is encoded in the DNA and the genome. It is just that at present we do not have the competence to trace it to the related codes [not necessary specific but could be a combinations of hardwired codes].

As I had stated if there is damage [mutations] to the algorithm at the DNA stage or later, there could be exceptions but it would not have made the overall intended system disappear.
What results is merely a damaged system.
For example, there could be damage to the inherent digestive system and if the person[s] is still alive, we still have an inherent digestive system albeit a damaged or not normal one.

So the fact of the ought_notness-of-killing-of-humans [not murder by any killing] still remain albeit damaged.
The fact that the Earth's population rose from 100 million in year 0 to 8.5 billion in 2024 is very evident the ought_notness-of-killing-of-humans [very adaptive] is at work.

As to your breathing analogy, plenty of humans don't have the drive to breathe, they just don't survive infancy.

For those who do not survive infancy, that do not imply they did not have the inherent physical system that triggers the drive to breathe.
They could have died for many reasons but that does not obviate the inherent physical system that triggers the drive to breathe.

So according to your red statements there are exceptions to moral "facts", thus they're not hard and fast objective, ie they're open to human subjective "interpretation". Okay. How is that substantively different from morality being subjective?

Take the analogy of the universal inherent digestive [nutritional] system in ALL human encoded in the DNA.
Here there are the objective elements [the physical and basic expressions] and the subjective elements [the preferences for type, preparation taste of food].

It is the same with the inherent moral system; there are the objective and subjective elements.
Some percentile could be exceptions with subjective preferences due to various reasons, but that does not obviate the inherent physical moral system and basic processes & algorithm [the objective moral facts] within them.
What are moral facts I argued are the the inherent physical moral system and basic processes, not the personal subjective conditional opinions, beliefs and judgments that are expressed from these basic physical system.

There are many cases where evil was committed [these were the exceptions and subjective] but the guilt was so strong and painful that they could not live with it, so they confess their crime or commit suicide.
These cases are evident there is an inherent objective [standard] moral facts [embedded] which act as objective standards that activate the conscience.

A not entirely uninteresting theory. But you saying it's so, doesn't make it so.

As an aside, stick with philosophy and morality, straying into DNA at your level of understanding isn't going to win you any points.

This is just a discussion and one can take for whatever it is worth, if nothing, just ignore it.

Btw, I took course in genetics with MIT external courses.

[FlashDangerpants]

He took a 20 hour access course on EdX that took him a month to complete and then started calling himself an MIT accredited scientist.

[Atla]

VA peaked when he argued that philosophy needed more tits. It was the one time he truly hit the nail on the head. Since then it's been all downhill for him, maybe it's time to retire.