Moral Relativists Condone Killing of Babies for Pleasure

[Iwannaplato]

His lack of empathy is shining brightly

He has an us them rhetoric, where he paints the enemies in the worst terms he can come up with.
He can seem to notice the parallels in style with the Nazis he supposedly abhors.

Under different circumstances, VA would have made a great fundamentalist Muslim.

Also, fun fact: most people throughout history had little to no conception of the wider world. They had a conception of their tribe, their city, maybe their country, but hardly a conception of "humanity". So how can the moral FSEHDFKGHEFHXHNFOSEPONCVKLYDNCVKLRC-proper be about "humanity"?

because it is conditioned on the VA FSK.

[Atla]

He has an us them rhetoric, where he paints the enemies in the worst terms he can come up with.
He can seem to notice the parallels in style with the Nazis he supposedly abhors.

Under different circumstances, VA would have made a great fundamentalist Muslim.

Also, fun fact: most people throughout history had little to no conception of the wider world. They had a conception of their tribe, their city, maybe their country, but hardly a conception of "humanity". So how can the moral FSEHDFKGHEFHXHNFOSEPONCVKLYDNCVKLRC-proper be about "humanity"?

because it is conditioned on the VA FSK.

Another fun fact: VA keeps babbling something about science being the most reliable, but historically way more people subscribed to religion than science. So according to the moral FSERC, this relatively knew science fad is immoral and we should get rid of it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Norms change, which entails, given your FSK system that if something evil becomes or was the norm, then it is objectively good. Slavery was the norm, so conditioned on the FSKs of the time, it was objectively good.

So, moral realists who do not have your system could make posts like yours.....

Slavery was objectively good, then!!!!!!!!
And enjoy a fit of faux outrage.

What kind of thinking is that??

I stated,
Whatever the reality, truth, knowledge and objectivity it is contingent to a human-based FSK [prefer FSERC] of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

A moral FSERC that accept Holocaust as the norm and morally permissible cannot be credible and objective [at most negligible objectivity] because it is based on say appx. 0.0000125% [abnormal and psychotic humans] of all humans.

On the other hand a moral FSERC that rejects the holocaust [any genocide] would be supported by 99% of humans [majority] which is objective as defined.
Elsewhere I have argued the oughtnot_ness-of-no-human-killing humans is an empirical fact justifiable via the science FSERC.

What kind of thinking? Your kind of thinking. An even better example could be child labour, as it was completely normal throughout history, before the 20th century. Child labour is moral according to the moral FSERC, and the modern laws against child labour are immoral, should be abolished asap.

You are lost.

Child labor is not a specific moral issue.
Morality is not everything that is "negative".
There is a big difference between torturing and killing babies or children for pleasure and enticing one's child to cut the grass or other labor.
To be effective [Occam] morality is confined to acts that have potential of fatalities, serious harms, terrible violence, chattel slavery and the like which is to be defined within a moral FSERC.

[Atla]

What kind of thinking is that??

I stated,
Whatever the reality, truth, knowledge and objectivity it is contingent to a human-based FSK [prefer FSERC] of which the scientific FSERC is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity.

A moral FSERC that accept Holocaust as the norm and morally permissible cannot be credible and objective [at most negligible objectivity] because it is based on say appx. 0.0000125% [abnormal and psychotic humans] of all humans.

On the other hand a moral FSERC that rejects the holocaust [any genocide] would be supported by 99% of humans [majority] which is objective as defined.
Elsewhere I have argued the oughtnot_ness-of-no-human-killing humans is an empirical fact justifiable via the science FSERC.

What kind of thinking? Your kind of thinking. An even better example could be child labour, as it was completely normal throughout history, before the 20th century. Child labour is moral according to the moral FSERC, and the modern laws against child labour are immoral, should be abolished asap.

You are lost.

Child labor is not a specific moral issue.
Morality is not everything that is "negative".
There is a big difference between torturing and killing babies or children for pleasure and enticing one's child to cut the grass or other labor.
To be effective [Occam] morality is confined to acts that have potential of fatalities, serious harms, terrible violence, chattel slavery and the like which is to be defined within a moral FSERC.

Child labour is never a moral issue?
Child labour has no potential of fatalities and serious harms (like physical, psychological, education hindering)?

I.. uhh..

[Flannel Jesus]

Well, given that morality is apparently a popularity contest, according to vas moral FSK, and most people consider child labour (which doesn't mean chores, like cutting the grass, it means children working 12 hour shifts in factories instead of going to school VA) a moral problem, ethically unacceptable, VA is objectively wrong (conditioned upon his own moral fsk)

[Iwannaplato]

Another fun fact: VA keeps babbling something about science being the most reliable, but historically way more people subscribed to religion than science. So according to the moral FSERC, this relatively knew science fad is immoral and we should get rid of it.

Oh, he'll whip out that set of criteria

Criteria to assess the Credibility, Reliability of a human based FSK
Empirical evidence – direct/ secondary; weightage 0.75/1.00
Scientific method
Qualify assumptions & limitations
Verifiability
Ethical neutrality
Systematic exploration
Testability
Falsifiability
Reliability
Precision
Repeatability - reliability
Accuracy - validity
Abstractness
Predictability/ predictive power
Rely on scientific facts
Peer review
Rationality and critical thinking
Internal consistency:
Explanatory power
Predictiveness / predictive power
Paradigm shifts
Tentativeness, provisional
Theory construction and
Hypothesis testing
Intolerant of contradictory evidence
Natural- scientific models, law
s, mechanisms, and theories explain natural phenomenaNatural or Metaphysical
Systematic evidence approach
Rigorous
Purposive – clear goal in mind
Scientific knowledge assumes an order and consistency in natural systems
Operational definitions
Uncertainty – certainty
Logical arguments

But then this list of criteria is not the scientific FSK, and yet it can evaluate the scientific FSK and find it to be the best. But then how can an FSK that is not the best determine the best. And what FSK is this one anyway and how many people believe in it.

What FSK is his conclusion that moral antirealists must condone the holocaust conditioned on?

What FSK condones his use of AI?

What can't he manage to respond to what he quotes? Is there an FSK that conflates repetition of one's position with responding to someone else? I can see it's popular here.

And I love that paradigm shift is a criterion. I wonder how he applies it when evaluating and FSK.

[Flannel Jesus]

But then how can an FSK that is not the best determnine the best.

What a beautiful question.

[Atla]

The guy actually managed to leave me speechless. What a funny sensation this is.

Remember folks, child labor is not a moral issue, VA said so.

[Iwannaplato]

The guy actually managed to leave me speechless. What a funny sensation this is.

Remember folks, child labor is not a moral issue, VA said so.

And of course in the Roman Empire not only was slavery objectively moral and VA would have had to condone that, he would also have had to condone all the lovely things done in the Collosseum, because it would have been conditioned on the Roman Empire's FSK.

A large alien civilization, with more individuals than humans comes to our solar system. They like to eat biped, smart mammals and it is considered moral in their, The Gumplxhsourw civilization's, FSK.

Given that it is more objective than any of our moral FSKs we must condone it when they eat each of us slowly alive. We cannot, for reasons known only to those who adhere to the VA FSK, we couldn't fight against them.

We would just disarm when they showed us how many of them there are. I mean, it would be objectively moral to be eaten alive.

Morality, VA may blurt, is only for humans. Really? on what FSK is that 'fact' conditioned?

[Trajk Logik]

"Libertarian Moral Relativist" what is that??
You are conflating "morality" with "politics" or your personal opinions.
Politics [governance from the external] is independent of morality [internally driven].

If morality is defined as internally driven then you are admitting that it is relative to individuals.

Only in equating morality with politics do you make morality objective. Politics is the attempt to force others into a certain moral viewpoint.

Isn't the fact that you and I are disagreeing evidence that morality is subjective and internally driven? If morality were objective then we would all agree on everything without even having to explain ourselves. The existence of moral dilemmas is evidence that morality is relative to each of our goals. When I have the goal to not starve to death and you have the same goal, who gets the limited amount of food? Goals come into conflict. At that point it is survival of the fittest.

Yes you have a legal, political, social, cultural, personal voices on the evil acts of other BUT as moral relativist [no objective grounds] you don't have a MORAL SAY [voice] on the moral views of others even though those acts are 'evil'.

I have no idea what your talking about now as it seems to contradict what you said above in that morality is internally driven.

You need to define "morality" so that I know that we are not wasting our time talking past each other.

I have defined morality as the way in which others' actions either inhibit or promote my own goals. Actions that neither inhibit or promote another's goals are not moral actions and do not fall into the category of morality.

Morality is the relationship between an individual's goals and the actions of others that either inhibit or promote those goals.

How do you define "morality"?

"I react accordingly. I defend my rights to realize my goals."
That is a political or a personal move not a moral one.

Seems to me that reacting accordingly and defending my rights is internally driven and therefore, according to you, moral.

If you do not condone the torture of babies as wrong, i.e. from a moral stand point then you are referring to some sort of moral standard [grounds] to judge 'torture of babies is wrong' which is effective moral objectivism.

As normal human beings you are likely to condemn "torture of babies as wrong" but if you a moral relativist, you can only condemn it based on a personal view, a criminal/legal, social but NEVER on a moral basis because by definition as a moral relativist you cannot do that.

You moral stance is critical because that will influence how you view moral progress within humanity.

As I have said, torturing babies is inhibiting the goals of others, namely the baby and it's parents, of living a life free of torture of themselves and their loved ones, and as such - from my own internal goals would be wrong. I want to live in a society (internally driven) where torturing babies is not a common thing.

So I can have a sense of what is right or wrong for me, based on what my goals are and how others inhibit or promote them and also seek out others of like-mind, all of which is internally driven. The fact that there might be someone out there that likes to torture babies does not mean that I condone that behavior. It just means I acknowledge that is a fact of reality. I then have my own internally driven (relativistic goals) that I act on to improve the conditions of my life and my loved ones.

In defining morality as the relationship between an individual's goals and other people's actions you might say that the person that tortures a baby has that goal and to inhibit that goal would be immoral, but as a Libertarian, torturing babies directly conflicts with the idea of letting others live their lives without being tortured. Once your actions work against the goals of others you cease to moral, so torturing babies would be immoral precisely because it inhibits the goals of others and does not get the same treatment as other acts. Any act that inhibits the goals of others is immoral and does get a free pass to not be inhibited itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Libertarian Moral Relativist" what is that??
You are conflating "morality" with "politics" or your personal opinions.
Politics [governance from the external] is independent of morality [internally driven].

If morality is defined as internally driven then you are admitting that it is relative to individuals.

Obviously everything human and human nature involved an individual person.

Human nature is inherent of ALL humans and as such objective, i.e. independent of any individual opinions, beliefs or judgment.
That the imperative [the oughtness] to breathe else die is internally driven and relative in that sense, but it is objective as part of human nature of ALL humans and this can be verified and justified via science-biology.

It is the same with morality which is part of human nature, whilst is relative to the individual is present in ALL humans and as such is objective [as defined] in that sense.
It is inherent in ALL [normal not any mentally insane] humans that none will torture and kill babies for pleasure.
In this particular instance, morality is objective.
The same can be argued for other moral elements.

Only in equating morality with politics do you make morality objective. Politics is the attempt to force others into a certain moral viewpoint.

Politics and morality are independent elements.
Politics involved governance from an external authority.
Morality is autonomously self-driven and spontaneous without any external compulsion with threat of punishment or eternal Hell.
Btw, even virtue is independent from morality.
We need to apply Occam within Morality else we will end up too many variables to deal with.

Isn't the fact that you and I are disagreeing evidence that morality is subjective and internally driven? If morality were objective then we would all agree on everything without even having to explain ourselves. The existence of moral dilemmas is evidence that morality is relative to each of our goals. When I have the goal to not starve to death and you have the same goal, who gets the limited amount of food? Goals come into conflict. At that point it is survival of the fittest.

Analogy: there are a lot of disagreements within humanity, i.e. the preferences for the type of food to eat, the way the food is grown and prepared. This is subjective to the individual[s] or relative to different groups.
But all the above variations are reducible to the universal nutritional system and digestive system to seek same molecular sugar, protein, fats, minerals, vitamins to facilitate basic survival of each individuals. You cannot deny this is the objective i.e. the unity within diversity of basic universal nutrition within ALL humans.

It is the same with morality where there are universal moral principles within the brain of ALL humans, e.g. no killing of babies; but in practice there is infanticide because of the varied conditions, e.g. when food is scarce like the Eskimos and others who will practice infanticide to optimize their survival against their inherent moral impulse not to kill babies.
However, where conditions are more favorable, the ought-not-ness to kill babies will prevail.

Moral dilemmas are secondary to morality and judgments has to be made when moral dilemmas scenarios are presented. That would be fire-fighting.
The right thing to do is to prevent [aggressively] the scenarios of moral dilemmas from happening at source by increasing the average moral competence within all humans.

As such, wherever scenarios of moral dilemma happen, humanity must strive to apply continuous improvements to eliminate it or reduce evil [immoral] acts to the unavoidable minimum.

Yes you have a legal, political, social, cultural, personal voices on the evil acts of other BUT as moral relativist [no objective grounds] you don't have a MORAL SAY [voice] on the moral views of others even though those acts are 'evil'.

I have no idea what your talking about now as it seems to contradict what you said above in that morality is internally driven.

You need to define "morality" so that I know that we are not wasting our time talking past each other.

I have defined morality as the way in which others' actions either inhibit or promote my own goals. Actions that neither inhibit or promote another's goals are not moral actions and do not fall into the category of morality.

Morality is the relationship between an individual's goals and the actions of others that either inhibit or promote those goals.

How do you define "morality"?

I define morality as the management to eliminate or prevent evil acts to enable its related good to manifest.
What is evil is that which is net negative to the well-being & flourishing of the individuals & that of humanity.
Here we need to have an exhaustive [complete] list of what are defined as evil acts with different weightages and degrees, e.g. genocide [highest], slavery, rape, homicides, torture, violence, lying [low].

"I react accordingly. I defend my rights to realize my goals."
That is a political or a personal move not a moral one.

Seems to me that reacting accordingly and defending my rights is internally driven and therefore, according to you, moral.

Defending your rights is not within the definition of what is morality.
Human rights belong to the political sphere or it is personal.

If you do not condone the torture of babies as wrong, i.e. from a moral stand point then you are referring to some sort of moral standard [grounds] to judge 'torture of babies is wrong' which is effective moral objectivism.

As normal human beings you are likely to condemn "torture of babies as wrong" but if you a moral relativist, you can only condemn it based on a personal view, a criminal/legal, social but NEVER on a moral basis because by definition as a moral relativist you cannot do that.

You moral stance is critical because that will influence how you view moral progress within humanity.

As I have said, torturing babies is inhibiting the goals of others, namely the baby and it's parents, of living a life free of torture of themselves and their loved ones, and as such - from my own internal goals would be wrong. I want to live in a society (internally driven) where torturing babies is not a common thing.

So I can have a sense of what is right or wrong for me, based on what my goals are and how others inhibit or promote them and also seek out others of like-mind, all of which is internally driven. The fact that there might be someone out there that likes to torture babies does not mean that I condone that behavior. It just means I acknowledge that is a fact of reality. I then have my own internally driven (relativistic goals) that I act on to improve the conditions of my life and my loved ones.

In defining morality as the relationship between an individual's goals and other people's actions you might say that the person that tortures a baby has that goal and to inhibit that goal would be immoral, but as a Libertarian, torturing babies directly conflicts with the idea of letting others live their lives without being tortured. Once your actions work against the goals of others you cease to moral, so torturing babies would be immoral precisely because it inhibits the goals of others and does not get the same treatment as other acts. Any act that inhibits the goals of others is immoral and does get a free pass to not be inhibited itself.

Your definition of what is morality is too messy.
Morality or immorality is not about inhibiting the goals of others.
It is not easy to control others but more viable to control oneself as facilitated by the collective.

Morality is about the management of evil acts within the individual[s].
Every human must manage or self-develop to ensure the impulse to torture and kill babies does not arise within themselves.
To treat it as a crime and threaten others with punishment is politics via the legislature, police and judiciary.

All humans are programmed with the potential to kill living things and thus potentially humans.
That you [& the majority] do not go about killing humans arbitrarily is evident [as inferred] your moral function within your brain is working in this aspect.

Those [psychopaths] humans who kill humans are mentally insane where their moral function in the brain/body is damaged in contrast to what is normal.
Those who kill out of say passion are temporary insane where the inhibiting [braking] system gave way in a certain moment.

ALL humans are evolved with an inherent moral functions with different degrees of activeness within individuals, the task of humanity is to expedite the moral competence of all on an individual basis. The question is HOW? [..I have possible effective answers].

[Trajk Logik]

Obviously everything human and human nature involved an individual person.

Human nature is inherent of ALL humans and as such objective, i.e. independent of any individual opinions, beliefs or judgment.
That the imperative [the oughtness] to breathe else die is internally driven and relative in that sense, but it is objective as part of human nature of ALL humans and this can be verified and justified via science-biology.

It is the same with morality which is part of human nature, whilst is relative to the individual is present in ALL humans and as such is objective [as defined] in that sense.
It is inherent in ALL [normal not any mentally insane] humans that none will torture and kill babies for pleasure.
In this particular instance, morality is objective.
The same can be argued for other moral elements.

Then it is an objective fact that morality is subjective (relative). I can agree with that.

Name one species, besides humans, that that has members that tortures and kills babies for pleasure. None of them do because any species that does would become extinct (natural selection would filter the behavior out of existence). The fact that we have been "fine-tuned" for social behavior (limiting the amount murder and torture of other members) has nothing to do with morality being objective. As members of the same species we are more likely to agree on certain ideas about how to treat others in your group. You position falls apart when faced with real moral dilemmas. The existence of unsolvable moral dilemmas is evidence morality is relative.

Politics and morality are independent elements.
Politics involved governance from an external authority.
Morality is autonomously self-driven and spontaneous without any external compulsion with threat of punishment or eternal Hell.
Btw, even virtue is independent from morality.
We need to apply Occam within Morality else we will end up too many variables to deal with.

Right. My will to respect others rights while expecting others to respect mine is self-driven. We call this particular stance Libertarianism. When one abandons authoritarian tendencies (the need to become a threat to others that do not comply with your demands, which falls into your category of politics), one becomes a-political. Libertarians are the true liberals wanting everyone to be free from external pressures. Not Democrats with authoritarian socialist tendencies, or Republicans with authoritarian theocratic tendencies. The distinction you are making is between authoritarians and libertarians, which some would argue is a political distinction. I would agree with you in part that abandoning authoritarian tendencies would be an a-political stance.

Isn't the fact that you and I are disagreeing evidence that morality is subjective and internally driven? If morality were objective then we would all agree on everything without even having to explain ourselves. The existence of moral dilemmas is evidence that morality is relative to each of our goals. When I have the goal to not starve to death and you have the same goal, who gets the limited amount of food? Goals come into conflict. At that point it is survival of the fittest.

Analogy: there are a lot of disagreements within humanity, i.e. the preferences for the type of food to eat, the way the food is grown and prepared. This is subjective to the individual[s] or relative to different groups.
But all the above variations are reducible to the universal nutritional system and digestive system to seek same molecular sugar, protein, fats, minerals, vitamins to facilitate basic survival of each individuals. You cannot deny this is the objective i.e. the unity within diversity of basic universal nutrition within ALL humans.

This has nothing to do with morality. Food preferences has no bearing on how you treat others, which is what morality is about.

You say that morality is self-driven. Self-driven to do what exactly? Are you saying any self-driven acts whether it affects others or not is a moral act? If so, you are defining morality into meaninglessness. Which self-driven acts does "morality" encompass and which do not? Is choosing a flavor of ice cream and act of morality? If so, how?

It is the same with morality where there are universal moral principles within the brain of ALL humans, e.g. no killing of babies; but in practice there is infanticide because of the varied conditions, e.g. when food is scarce like the Eskimos and others who will practice infanticide to optimize their survival against their inherent moral impulse not to kill babies.
However, where conditions are more favorable, the ought-not-ness to kill babies will prevail.

Which is saying that morality is dependent upon the circumstances, or relative to the circumstances. When resources are plentiful then it is socially advantageous to behave in moral ways. When resources are scarce other members become competitors for those resources and social behaviors are abandoned.

Moral dilemmas are secondary to morality and judgments has to be made when moral dilemmas scenarios are presented. That would be fire-fighting.
The right thing to do is to prevent [aggressively] the scenarios of moral dilemmas from happening at source by increasing the average moral competence within all humans.

As such, wherever scenarios of moral dilemma happen, humanity must strive to apply continuous improvements to eliminate it or reduce evil [immoral] acts to the unavoidable minimum.

How is any of this going to help when (not if) there is a global disaster (massive asteroid impact, massive solar flare etc)? Your solution would involve preventing people from having babies so the world population drops to a more manageable level. The only way to enforce this is to sterilize them. Is that moral?

I guess one solution is to become an interplanetary and eventually an interstellar species. I do agree that this would be a good thing. I do believe that life is precious and appears to be a rare event in the universe (especially intelligent life), and should be preserved. Some may disagree because they view humans as a type of parasite of the planet and may spread their destructive nature to other pristine planets.

I define morality as the management to eliminate or prevent evil acts to enable its related good to manifest.
What is evil is that which is net negative to the well-being & flourishing of the individuals & that of humanity.
Here we need to have an exhaustive [complete] list of what are defined as evil acts with different weightages and degrees, e.g. genocide [highest], slavery, rape, homicides, torture, violence, lying [low].

All the evil acts you listed are acts against other peoples' goals. Being moral is acting in ways that promote others goals. Choosing a flavor of ice cream does not fall into the scope of morality as you have just defined it. You are agreeing with my definition of morality.

The problem is that violence and lying can be moral acts if they are preventing further violence (self-defense) or limiting the stress one would feel in knowing the truth. If there was a way to do what you are proposing it would have been done already. It has been attempted many times as the elites of society get together and make laws for everyone else about how to behave morally, but you just need to look at how they have all failed in one way or another to make everyone in a society happy.

Defending your rights is not within the definition of what is morality.
Human rights belong to the political sphere or it is personal.

Yet you said that WE need to have an exhaustive list of what are defined as moral acts. You keep going back and forth in saying morality is self-driven but then say that we as a group need to define what are moral acts and which are not.

Besides, it does not matter which government is in control and how they define human rights when my life is being threatened. I will defend myself and my property regardless of how some group defines human rights as. So maybe I should just dispense with the notion of "human rights" here as you seem to keep getting hung up on it. I am self-driven to protect my life and my property from others that want to take them.

Your definition of what is morality is too messy.
Morality or immorality is not about inhibiting the goals of others.

Yet all your examples above are about inhibiting (immoral) and promoting (moral) the goals of others.

It is not easy to control others but more viable to control oneself as facilitated by the collective.

Yet you said this:

Politics involved governance from an external authority.

In controlling oneself as facilitated by the collective involves the self-governance as dictated from an external authority. You keep contradicting yourself. You seem to be having a difficult time distinguishing between morality and politics.

Morality is about the management of evil acts within the individual[s].
Every human must manage or self-develop to ensure the impulse to torture and kill babies does not arise within themselves.
To treat it as a crime and threaten others with punishment is politics via the legislature, police and judiciary.

All humans are programmed with the potential to kill living things and thus potentially humans.
That you [& the majority] do not go about killing humans arbitrarily is evident [as inferred] your moral function within your brain is working in this aspect.

Those [psychopaths] humans who kill humans are mentally insane where their moral function in the brain/body is damaged in contrast to what is normal.
Those who kill out of say passion are temporary insane where the inhibiting [braking] system gave way in a certain moment.

ALL humans are evolved with an inherent moral functions with different degrees of activeness within individuals, the task of humanity is to expedite the moral competence of all on an individual basis. The question is HOW? [..I have possible effective answers].

I don't know about you, but I do not need external pressure to not torture babies. Laws are for the lawless, not for most everyone else. I am only programmed with the potential to kill other humans in very specific circumstances such as when my life is threatened.

How much do you want to bet that the answer to your question of HOW will involve the implementation of laws as you have defined it as external pressure to limit unwanted behaviors. Again, there would be no need for an answer to your question of HOW if everyone behaved morally. You wouldn't feel the need to become the external pressure on others behaviors if everyone behaved morally.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Obviously everything human and human nature involved an individual person.

Human nature is inherent of ALL humans and as such objective, i.e. independent of any individual opinions, beliefs or judgment.
That the imperative [the oughtness] to breathe else die is internally driven and relative in that sense, but it is objective as part of human nature of ALL humans and this can be verified and justified via science-biology.

It is the same with morality which is part of human nature, whilst is relative to the individual is present in ALL humans and as such is objective [as defined] in that sense.
It is inherent in ALL [normal not any mentally insane] humans that none will torture and kill babies for pleasure.
In this particular instance, morality is objective.
The same can be argued for other moral elements.

Then it is an objective fact that morality is subjective (relative). I can agree with that.

You missed my point.
Morality is objective because there is the inherent natural moral propensity in ALL humans. i.e. it is universal, thus objective which is defined as independent from the subjective views of subjects as individuals.
What is objective is the "unity" of moral potentials within the diversity of moral behaviors.

However, this universal moral unity as part of human nature is expressed differently relative to conditions. See the psychopath example that follow in the last point.

It is an objective fact morality is objective whilst expressed subjectively.

Name one species, besides humans, that that has members that tortures and kills babies for pleasure. None of them do because any species that does would become extinct (natural selection would filter the behavior out of existence). The fact that we have been "fine-tuned" for social behavior (limiting the amount murder and torture of other members) has nothing to do with morality being objective. As members of the same species we are more likely to agree on certain ideas about how to treat others in your group. You position falls apart when faced with real moral dilemmas. The existence of unsolvable moral dilemmas is evidence morality is relative.

The are many animals who would not hesitate to kill [no deliberate torture -relevant to humans only] their own babies, e.g. male crocodiles and other reptiles, etc.

1. What is objective is universal and independent of any subject's opinions, beliefs and judgement.
2. The ought-not-ness to tortures and kills babies for pleasure is a universal moral variable in humans [and all species of living things]
3. Therefore, Morality is objective [with reference to 2]

"As members of the same species we are more likely to agree on certain ideas..."
It is not that, the universal moral variables which are adaptive and a human-nature are hardwired or DNA-ed within each human individual regardless of whether one like it or not.
That such moral variables are represented by physical DNAs and neural correlates would fundamentally make it objective.

Analogy: there are a lot of disagreements within humanity, i.e. the preferences for the type of food to eat, the way the food is grown and prepared. This is subjective to the individual[s] or relative to different groups.
But all the above variations are reducible to the universal nutritional system and digestive system to seek same molecular sugar, protein, fats, minerals, vitamins to facilitate basic survival of each individuals. You cannot deny this is the objective i.e. the unity within diversity of basic universal nutrition within ALL humans.

This has nothing to do with morality. Food preferences has no bearing on how you treat others, which is what morality is about.

I highlighted the above is an analogy re "unity in diversity".
Just as there is the universal metabolic and digestive system in ALL humans, there is the universal moral system within ALL humans.
The different moral judgments and behavior are the same as the different food humans grow, prepare and consume.

You say that morality is self-driven. Self-driven to do what exactly? Are you saying any self-driven acts whether it affects others or not is a moral act? If so, you are defining morality into meaninglessness. Which self-driven acts does "morality" encompass and which do not? Is choosing a flavor of ice cream and act of morality? If so, how?

I wonder how did you think like that?
Note my following point of what is morality and the specific moral variables.
So human are self-driven to act morally which mean morality is not something that is enforced from the external with a threat of legal punishment or Hell by a God.

There is a moral potential [of varying competence] in ALL humans. As such each individual need to self-develop their moral potential so that they are morally competent naturally and spontaneous without having to make difficult moral judgments.

It is the same with morality where there are universal moral principles within the brain of ALL humans, e.g. no killing of babies; but in practice there is infanticide because of the varied conditions, e.g. when food is scarce like the Eskimos and others who will practice infanticide to optimize their survival against their inherent moral impulse not to kill babies.
However, where conditions are more favorable, the ought-not-ness to kill babies will prevail.

Which is saying that morality is dependent upon the circumstances, or relative to the circumstances. When resources are plentiful then it is socially advantageous to behave in moral ways. When resources are scarce other members become competitors for those resources and social behaviors are abandoned.

The "ought-not-ness to kill babies" is an inherent objective moral fact [universal] in ALL humans.
But the above may have to be compromised and optimize in varying conditions and environment.
The moral potential [objective] will optimize to the existing conditions.
Whilst one may goes against the moral norms of humanity, e.g. kill babies out of necessities to optimize survival, that does not obviate the real physical objective "ought-not-ness to kill babies" that is represented by its corresponding neural correlates in the brain and body.
It is at this meta-level that morality is objective which is undeniable.

Moral dilemmas are secondary to morality and judgments has to be made when moral dilemmas scenarios are presented. That would be fire-fighting.
The right thing to do is to prevent [aggressively] the scenarios of moral dilemmas from happening at source by increasing the average moral competence within all humans.

As such, wherever scenarios of moral dilemma happen, humanity must strive to apply continuous improvements to eliminate it or reduce evil [immoral] acts to the unavoidable minimum.

How is any of this going to help when (not if) there is a global disaster (massive asteroid impact, massive solar flare etc)? Your solution would involve preventing people from having babies so the world population drops to a more manageable level. The only way to enforce this is to sterilize them. Is that moral?

I guess one solution is to become an interplanetary and eventually an interstellar species. I do agree that this would be a good thing. I do believe that life is precious and appears to be a rare event in the universe (especially intelligent life), and should be preserved. Some may disagree because they view humans as a type of parasite of the planet and may spread their destructive nature to other pristine planets.

The real physical objective "ought-not-ness to kill babies" is inherent in ALL humans as human nature.
If there is a global disaster (massive asteroid impact, massive solar flare etc) that reduced resources, at our present moral level, the moral potential within the majority is not sufficiently high to be greatly effective; as such, it will be a 'dog eat dog' world, cannibalism may even emerged given our current moral development.

However, if morality is recognized as objective [morality is objective], i.e. represented by its physical neural correlates in the brain, then humanity will have the avenue to expedite the moral competence. The example is like human intelligence and the drive to increase the average human intelligence will soon be expedited with the trend of progressive AI.

When the average moral quotient [MQ] is raised from say 100 at present to 1000 [100 years' time] in the future via the recognition that morality is objective, then when an asteroid strike and resources are scarce, the individuals will work collectively to optimize baby making in alignment with the available scarce resources.
As I said, morality is not about enforcement, thus the actions will be "symphonic" & spontaneous without enforcement.

On the other hand, with the insistence of moral relativism which is moral indifference, to each their own moral, to respect and tolerate the morality of others, there is no avenue to make moral progress from fixed objective moral variables.

I define morality as the management to eliminate or prevent evil acts to enable its related good to manifest.
What is evil is that which is net negative to the well-being & flourishing of the individuals & that of humanity.
Here we need to have an exhaustive [complete] list of what are defined as evil acts with different weightages and degrees, e.g. genocide [highest], slavery, rape, homicides, torture, violence, lying [low].

All the evil acts you listed are acts against other peoples' goals. Being moral is acting in ways that promote others goals. Choosing a flavor of ice cream does not fall into the scope of morality as you have just defined it. You are agreeing with my definition of morality.

The problem is that violence and lying can be moral acts if they are preventing further violence (self-defense) or limiting the stress one would feel in knowing the truth. If there was a way to do what you are proposing it would have been done already. It has been attempted many times as the elites of society get together and make laws for everyone else about how to behave morally, but you just need to look at how they have all failed in one way or another to make everyone in a society happy.

As I had stated your view on morality is too messy.
"Being moral is acting in ways that promote others goals."
What goals? promote Hitler and Hamas to kill more Jews or promote other evil goals beside the good ones?

According to my definition,
being in a state [having achieving it] of moral competency is naturally and spontaneously not acting evil acts, thus enabling its related good as the main purpose of morality.
Making good moral judgments is secondary.
Imagine having to break sweat with each moral dilemma one faces which is frequent for many individuals.
The effective approach is develop to the best and do one's best spontaneously and move on to take corrective actions to prevent future immoral acts.

Defending your rights is not within the definition of what is morality.
Human rights belong to the political sphere or it is personal.

Yet you said that WE need to have an exhaustive list of what are defined as moral acts. You keep going back and forth in saying morality is self-driven but then say that we as a group need to define what are moral acts and which are not.

Note, intelligence is self-driven, i.e. no one can force others to be intelligent.
However, the group can facilitate to enable the individual[s] to self-develop their own intelligence. That is why we have education on a social basis.
Moral competence can be promoted along the same line as above.

Besides, it does not matter which government is in control and how they define human rights when my life is being threatened. I will defend myself and my property regardless of how some group defines human rights as. So maybe I should just dispense with the notion of "human rights" here as you seem to keep getting hung up on it. I am self-driven to protect my life and my property from others that want to take them.

But that is not morality per se, it is your personal beliefs and natural psychological instincts.
Morality is about you self-developing your moral potential so you do not commit evil acts on others.

Your definition of what is morality is too messy.
Morality or immorality is not about inhibiting the goals of others.

Yet all your examples above are about inhibiting (immoral) and promoting (moral) the goals of others.

Not killing [raping, harming] other humans is not promoting their moral goals morally.
It is more about the individual being moral and not committing evil acts.

I don't know about you, but I do not need external pressure to not torture babies. Laws are for the lawless, not for most everyone else. I am only programmed with the potential to kill other humans in very specific circumstances such as when my life is threatened.

How much do you want to bet that the answer to your question of HOW will involve the implementation of laws as you have defined it as external pressure to limit unwanted behaviors. Again, there would be no need for an answer to your question of HOW if everyone behaved morally. You wouldn't feel the need to become the external pressure on others behaviors if everyone behaved morally.

"I do not need external pressure to not torture babies."
That is because you are being moral in this specific case, the moral inhibitors [neural correlates in all humans - moral objectivity] are working effectively within you.
If there are damage to your neural moral inhibitors you could go on to kill babies as in certain extreme psychopaths.

The point is the moral inhibitors and its corresponding neural correlates in all humans proves that moral is objective [i.e. independent of individual's views].

Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

Being a malignant psychopath [killing babies and adults] merely mean the moral inhibitors and its corresponding neural correlates are merely damage, it does not obviate its objective physical existence in the brain.
This is subjectivity [varying conditions] within objectivity [fixed ground].

[Iwannaplato]

The point is the moral inhibitors and its corresponding neural correlates in all humans proves that moral is objective [i.e. independent of individual's views].

No, it doesn't. It proves we have a trait. Just as other animals have traits: tendencies in behavior that we are born with and/or are added via culture. Humans have more culture than other animals, though adult mammals will train their children not to do certain things. It's not objectively moral that bear cubs will play fight with each other or that mother bears, generally, are very gentle (by bear standards) when correcting their cubs' behavior. It is a set of traits that so far have been successful enough to be passed on. Just as not torturing and killing babies is something we tend not to do. You have said many times that morals do not apply to animals. But you have not explained the magical extra oughtness that is in our brains but not in theirs, nor why neuronal patterns are 'oughtnesses' in brains, but in animals they are not oughtnesses. It is not objectively moral for babies to find their human mother's faces more interesting than other things they can look at. It is good for the learning and emotional health of the babies to look more at their mother's faces. But it's not objectively moral to do so. Occam's Razor would suggest we do not need this extra entity - oughtnesses - to explain what can be explained more efficiently by the passing on of traits.

The patterns objectively exist, but they are not oughtnesses. We have perfectly good explanations without this additional, hallucinate oughtness that no one has seen under an electron microscope, for example, nor at any other magnification.

If anything, anything at all is a noumenon, it is your 'oughtnesses' in the brain. They cannot be seen, felt, heard.

You can only infer them. Even if you were right, one can only infer their presence. They cannot be empirically experienced, pardon the redundance.

If other people infer the existence of things this is taboo for you, and your entire metaphysical anti-realist position gets recreated. But you are allowed to infer the not sensed.

You do this despite the fact that you are adding entities - these oughtnesses - while not adding any more explanatory power.

Their are culturally centered (iow not genetically passed on patterns) oughtnesses and these are generally not even universal, let alone objectively moral.

[Skepdick]

The point is the moral inhibitors and its corresponding neural correlates in all humans proves that moral is objective [i.e. independent of individual's views].

No, it doesn't. It proves we have a trait.

Traits aren't objective? How can we say true things about them then?

The patterns objectively exist, but they are not oughtnesses.

What the hell is "oughtness"? What could "oughtness" possibly be other than a description of a prescription?

If anything, anything at all is a noumenon, it is your 'oughtnesses' in the brain. They cannot be seen, felt, heard.

You can only infer them. Even if you were right, one can only infer their presence. They cannot be empirically experienced, pardon the redundance.

Really? So how do you know anything about them? How are you talking about them?

If you can infer it - it exists as a nameless-yet-causal phenomenon. That's how information works.