Moral Relativists Condone Killing of Babies for Pleasure

[Harbal]

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.

I'm sure no one is claiming that the phenomenon of morality doesn't objectively exist, at least in an abstract sense, or that the brain chemistry that gives rise to moral attitudes and feelings doesn't exist. But, surely, the relevant point here is whether moral conclusions are a matter of objective fact, or just personal preferences. Isn't that what it really comes down to? The "objectivists" say the former, and the "subjectivists" say the latter. Isn't that what is actually being argued about?

[Iwannaplato]

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

I didn't say traits weren't objective.

The patterns objectively exist, but they are not oughtnesses.

What the hell is "oughtness"?

Good question, and with this question I realized you weren't VA. Ask VA, it's one of his nouns.

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?

Yup, no change in you. I'm responding to a particular person and showing that person problems with what they've said in relation to other things they have said.

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

Yup, I agree. I mean, exactly. Pass that on to the person I am critical of here.

I'm afraid you didn't understand much of what I wrote because it was in the context of VA assertions elsewhere and likely some other assumptions. You being you, though politely, thank you.

[Skepdick]

I'm sure no one is claiming that the phenomenon of morality doesn't objectively exist, at least in an abstract sense, or that the brain chemistry that gives rise to moral attitudes and feelings doesn't exist. But, surely, the relevant point here is whether moral conclusions are a matter of objective fact, or just personal preferences. Isn't that what it really comes down to? The "objectivists" say the former, and the "subjectivists" say the latter. Isn't that what is actually being argued about?

I don't think it has anything to do with that.

The difference betwen subjective/objective evaporates soon as you shift perspective.

My subjective preferences are objective facts about me. They may be two different descriptions of the exact same phenomenon - but they are the exact same phenomenon being described.

Calling them conclusions; or premises is simply more re-description. Of the exact same underlying phenomenon.

[Harbal]

I'm sure no one is claiming that the phenomenon of morality doesn't objectively exist, at least in an abstract sense, or that the brain chemistry that gives rise to moral attitudes and feelings doesn't exist. But, surely, the relevant point here is whether moral conclusions are a matter of objective fact, or just personal preferences. Isn't that what it really comes down to? The "objectivists" say the former, and the "subjectivists" say the latter. Isn't that what is actually being argued about?

I don't think it has anything to do with that.

The difference betwen subjective/objective evaporates soon as you shift perspective.

Yes it does, so what might be a matter of moral truth to one person, may well not be a matter of truth to anyone else. Is that the situation?

My subjective preferences are objective facts about me.

Yes, I agree, but they are not facts about the things your preferences are referencing, or relating to. For example, the wrongness of stealing is a perception within you, not a quality or property of the act itself.

My subjective preferences are objective facts about me.

Do you disagree that the core of this argument is about whether moral principles or precepts are meant to describe objective/absolute moral truths? For example, were I to say that torture is wrong, am I expressing my opinion that I disapprove of torture, or am I making a factual claim about the world/the universe/objective reality, that may be either true or false?

[Skepdick]

Yes it does, so what might be a matter of moral truth to one person, may well not be a matter of truth to anyone else. Is that the situation?

That's the case with all assertions claimed to be true.

Yes, I agree, but they are not facts about the things your preferences are referencing, or relating to. For example, the wrongness of stealing is a perception within you, not a quality or property of the act itself.

Is "stealing" a fact about the act?
Is "act" a fact about the situation itself?

Do you disagree that the core of this argument is about whether moral principles or precepts are meant to describe objective/absolute moral truths?

I don't know. Is "act" meant to describe any truth?

For example, were I to say that torture is wrong, am I expressing my opinion that I disapprove of torture, or am I making a factual claim about the world/the universe/objective reality, that may be either true or false?

I don't know. Are you expressing any kind of truth when you assert "torture" ?

How do assertions relate to the world?

[Harbal]

Yes it does, so what might be a matter of moral truth to one person, may well not be a matter of truth to anyone else. Is that the situation?

That's the case with all truth.

Yes, I agree, but they are not facts about the things your preferences are referencing, or relating to. For example, the wrongness of stealing is a perception within you, not a quality or property of the act itself.

Is "stealing" a fact about the act?
Is "act" a fact about the situation itself?

Do you disagree that the core of this argument is about whether moral principles or precepts are meant to describe objective/absolute moral truths?

I don't know. Is "act" meant to describe any truth?

For example, were I to say that torture is wrong, am I expressing my opinion that I disapprove of torture, or am I making a factual claim about the world/the universe/objective reality, that may be either true or false?

I don't know. Are you expressing any kind of truth when you assert "torture" ?

How do assertions relate to the world?

Okay, I didn't really expect to get any sense out of you, but there seemed nothing to lose by having a bash. I imagine you are still trying to demonstrate the uselessness of philosophy, so I'll leave you to it. Have fun.

[Skepdick]

Okay, I didn't really expect to get any sense out of you, but there seemed nothing to lose by having a bash. I imagine you are still trying to demonstrate the uselessness of philosophy, so I'll leave you to it. Have fun.

How are you going to get any semse out of me when you can never explain the sense behind any of your double standards?

What makes some opinions true (such as the opinion "grass is green") and other opinions false?

[Harbal]

Okay, I didn't really expect to get any sense out of you, but there seemed nothing to lose by having a bash. I imagine you are still trying to demonstrate the uselessness of philosophy, so I'll leave you to it. Have fun.

How are you going to get any semse out of me when you can never explain the sense behind any of your double standards?

What makes some opinions true (such as the opinion "grass is green") and other opinions false?

I'd rather not get into a situation with someone whose sole purpose is to waste my time, so let's just leave it.

[Skepdick]

Okay, I didn't really expect to get any sense out of you, but there seemed nothing to lose by having a bash. I imagine you are still trying to demonstrate the uselessness of philosophy, so I'll leave you to it. Have fun.

How are you going to get any semse out of me when you can never explain the sense behind any of your double standards?

What makes some opinions true (such as the opinion "grass is green") and other opinions false?

I'd rather not get into a situation with someone whose sole purpose is to waste my time, so let's just leave it.

Be assured - I'd waste far less of your time than you are willing to waste yourself.

It's never my purpose as much as it's yours.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

Abstract - Deception - Exists as Real and Is a Moral Good

• 1. Whatever exists, is real, and objective is contingent upon a framework and system FS e.g. of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.
  
  2. Human nature exists, is real and objective as contingent upon the science-biology-psychology FS.
  
  3. The urge/behavior to deceive/lie/dissemble/hideacts is a significant variable within human nature.
  
  4. Therefore 'not being honest' exists as real and objective as contingent upon the science-biology-psychology FS.

Not only higher but also lower animals (never like those adjectives) engage in deception/prevarication/dissembling/hiding of their actsfrom members of their own species. Note that deception exists in many species not just to prevent predation or interspecies, but also intraspecies.

"Deception in animals" on Wikipedia
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_in_animals

"Intentional Deception" by the Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny (CARTA)
Link: https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/top ... -deception

"How Animals Cheat" by BBC Earth
Link: https://www.bbcearth.com/blog/?article= ... mals-cheat

"Animal Deception" by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Link: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/deception/

"Deceptive Behavior in Animals: Definition, Types & Examples" by Study.com
Link: https://study.com/academy/lesson/decept ... mples.html

Homo sapien children start lying/deceiving at about age two and get better at it as their Theory of Mind improves.

This means that deception/dissembling/hiding acts/lying is not only objective, but objectively good.

Moral realists who use VA's approach to determining oughtnesses and thus objective morality must condone all forms of deception between people.

For example.