Classic Arguments Against Moral Realism is Losing Force

[Iwannaplato]

Humans are facts of reality - empirical realism [not philosophical realism].
Human nature is a fact of reality.
If human 'tendencies' are constant and universal that is a fact, i.e. a fact conditioned by the human-based human nature FSERC.

WeII, there cIearIy not constant and universaI or you wouId need to have pIans, for exampIe, to get us more empathetic.

Such human tendencies which are constant and universal fact must be represented by some sort of neural algorithm in the brain, i.e. physical biological facts.

If the constant and universal human 'tendencies' [patterns of activities and behavior] are sexual in nature, then they are facts within the human-based sexuality-FSERC as verified and justified via the science-biology-neuroscience FSERC.

If the constant and universal human 'tendencies' [patterns of activities and behavior] are moral [as defined] in nature, then they are facts within the human-based moral-FSERC as verified and justified via the science-biology-neuroscience FSERC.

What justifies the jump from research that isn't moraI to the other FSERC?

The mirror neurons are correlated with certain constant and universal human 'tendencies' [patterns of activities and behavior] regarded moral [as defined] in nature.

And so are the aggression neurons. We evoIved to have both in the ratios we have now. On what objective grounds do we decide the ration should be different?

Many species have failed. How do we know that even universal tendencies aren't a mistake?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Humans are facts of reality - empirical realism [not philosophical realism].
Human nature is a fact of reality.
If human 'tendencies' are constant and universal that is a fact, i.e. a fact conditioned by the human-based human nature FSERC.

WeII, there cIearIy not constant and universaI or you wouId need to have pIans, for exampIe, to get us more empathetic.

Such human tendencies which are constant and universal fact must be represented by some sort of neural algorithm in the brain, i.e. physical biological facts.

Not sure of your point.
Surely, the "oughtness to breathe else die" must be represented by some sort of physical algorithm in the brain and DNA codes in the genes. How else? based on cause and effect and the latest knowledge we have with neuroscience and genomics

If the constant and universal human 'tendencies' [patterns of activities and behavior] are sexual in nature, then they are facts within the human-based sexuality-FSERC as verified and justified via the science-biology-neuroscience FSERC.

If the constant and universal human 'tendencies' [patterns of activities and behavior] are moral [as defined] in nature, then they are facts within the human-based moral-FSERC as verified and justified via the science-biology-neuroscience FSERC.

What justifies the jump from research that isn't moraI to the other FSERC?

The medical FSERC imports basic scientific facts to generate medical facts.
Do you want to insist what justifies the jump before permitting a brain surgeon to do a brain surgery?
Point is there are already loads of medical preventions and surgeries done on many patients without the patients asking what justify the jump.
It is not explicit but there is some sort of assessment going on that generate confidence levels in specific medical FSERC, hospitals and doctors.

The mirror neurons are correlated with certain constant and universal human 'tendencies' [patterns of activities and behavior] regarded moral [as defined] in nature.

And so are the aggression neurons. We evoIved to have both in the ratios we have now. On what objective grounds do we decide the ration should be different?

Many species have failed. How do we know that even universal tendencies aren't a mistake?
[/quote]
I did not insist all universal tendencies is certainly not a mistake.
Universal tendencies persist optimally in according their current conditions, if these conditions changes, they may failed.

Moral standards based on universal algorithm must be verified, tested and justified.
It is unlikely for say 'the oughtnotness to torture and kill babies for pleasure' and others of similar degrees can be a mistake or failed.

I have answered the above rationally.

Most of the time you are 1, 2 or 10 steps behind my views.
Why don't you try to make the effort to think 1 or 2 steps ahead of your counters or enquiries and present them for discussion.

[Iwannaplato]

Not sure of your point.
Surely, the "oughtness to breathe else die"

It's not an oughtness, it's a drive. It's not the same as morals because we vary in morals. If neural patterns determine moral facts, then everything is fine. Because neural patterns and drives are guiding all actions and attitudes. So, we don't need to do anything about human behavior and attitudes. If you're right about what determines moral facts.

must be represented by some sort of physical algorithm in the brain and DNA codes in the genes. How else? based on cause and effect and the latest knowledge we have with neuroscience and genomics

Where you will not find the word 'oughtness'.

If the constant and universal human 'tendencies' [patterns of activities and behavior] are sexual in nature, then they are facts within the human-based sexuality-FSERC as verified and justified via the science-biology-neuroscience FSERC.

If the constant and universal human 'tendencies' [patterns of activities and behavior] are moral [as defined] in nature, then they are facts within the human-based moral-FSERC as verified and justified via the science-biology-neuroscience FSERC.

What justifies the jump from research that isn't moraI to the other FSERC?

The medical FSERC imports basic scientific facts to generate medical facts.

That's not a jump.

Do you want to insist what justifies the jump before permitting a brain surgeon to do a brain surgery?

What a hilarious false analogy. Do I think it is a jump to apply neuroscience to a neurological treatment? Come on.

Point is there are already loads of medical preventions and surgeries done on many patients without the patients asking what justify the jump.
It is not explicit but there is some sort of assessment going on that generate confidence levels in specific medical FSERC, hospitals and doctors.

This is one of the worst not even compIete arguments I have seen you make. You didn't even finish it.

The mirror neurons are correlated with certain constant and universal human 'tendencies' [patterns of activities and behavior] regarded moral [as defined] in nature.

And so are the aggression neurons. We evoIved to have both in the ratios we have now. On what objective grounds do we decide the ration should be different?

Many species have failed. How do we know that even universal tendencies aren't a mistake?
[/quote]

I did not insist all universal tendencies is certainly not a mistake.
Universal tendencies persist optimally in according their current conditions, if these conditions changes, they may failed.

Moral standards based on universal algorithm must be verified, tested and justified.
It is unlikely for say 'the oughtnotness to torture and kill babies for pleasure' and others of similar degrees can be a mistake or failed.

I have answered the above rationally.

You haven't answered it at all You just threw out some assertions. One's I heard before.

Most of the time you are 1, 2 or 10 steps behind my views.

What an idiotice empty assertion. Not even because it's wrong. You don't understand very basic stuff about how to have a discussion or how to make an argument.

Why don't you try to make the effort to think 1 or 2 steps ahead of your counters or enquiries and present them for discussion.

Why don't you stop conflating assertions with arguments and fallacies with logic?

See how stupid those kinds of remarks are.

[Iwannaplato]

But let's assume for the sake of argument that there are oughtnesses in neural patterns. Great.
We start with the oughtness to breathe. Great. We have a moral rule: you ought to breathe (I mean, unless you are a serial killer, maybe)
So, neural patterns determine moral oughts. Great.
Every action on earth was guided/driven by neural patterns/drives. Great.
So, every single actions performed on earth was based on oughtnesses. Now distinguished from breathing, these actions were not so universal.
But everyone one of the was driven by an oughtness.
So every actions was a moral fact.

You taking is to make oughts, you have to live with what is entailed: the consequences.
Men have that ought to try to get sex even if he and she are not quite ready.
There's an oughtness: try to get sex, more or less regardless.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not sure of your point.
Surely, the "oughtness to breathe else die"

It's not an oughtness, it's a drive. It's not the same as morals because we vary in morals. If neural patterns determine moral facts, then everything is fine. Because neural patterns and drives are guiding all actions and attitudes. So, we don't need to do anything about human behavior and attitudes. If you're right about what determines moral facts.

Before Bacon or before science extricated itself out of philosophy, there were no scientific-facts-proper.
As such, there must be some sort of organization and establishment by humans of a framework and system [FS] for facts to be recognized as scientific.
It is the same with other facts, e.g. economics, linguistics, social, political, historical, astrological and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

So what is wrong with a human-based moral FS that support moral facts;

Facts in general are dependent on other facts.
What wrong with moral facts relying on facts from neuroscience.

must be represented by some sort of physical algorithm in the brain and DNA codes in the genes. How else? based on cause and effect and the latest knowledge we have with neuroscience and genomics

Where you will not find the word 'oughtness'.

Once a FS, e.g. a moral FS, there is nothing wrong with language games to bring in the term 'oughtness' as qualified and understood within the moral FS.

If the constant and universal human 'tendencies' [patterns of activities and behavior] are sexual in nature, then they are facts within the human-based sexuality-FSERC as verified and justified via the science-biology-neuroscience FSERC.

If the constant and universal human 'tendencies' [patterns of activities and behavior] are moral [as defined] in nature, then they are facts within the human-based moral-FSERC as verified and justified via the science-biology-neuroscience FSERC.

What justifies the jump from research that isn't moraI to the other FSERC?

The medical FSERC imports basic scientific facts to generate medical facts.

That's not a jump.

A 'jump' means, when one type of FS facts is imported into another different FS; that is a "jump" or whatever terms it is assigned.

Do you want to insist what justifies the jump before permitting a brain surgeon to do a brain surgery?

What a hilarious false analogy. Do I think it is a jump to apply neuroscience to a neurological treatment? Come on.

The belong to different FS, one is neuroscience-neuroatomy FS and the other the medical-brain-surgery FS. It is a 'jump' as defined or whatever word you want to assign the change.

Point is there are already loads of medical preventions and surgeries done on many patients without the patients asking what justify the jump.
It is not explicit but there is some sort of assessment going on that generate confidence levels in specific medical FSERC, hospitals and doctors.

This is one of the worst not even compIete arguments I have seen you make. You didn't even finish it.

This is due to your ignorance. If you jump ahead with the points that I show above, it will make sense.

Most of the time you are 1, 2 or 10 steps behind my views.

What an idiotice empty assertion. Not even because it's wrong. You don't understand very basic stuff about how to have a discussion or how to make an argument.

That I has to do a lot of explanation like the above is the evidence.

Why don't you try to make the effort to think 1 or 2 steps ahead of your counters or enquiries and present them for discussion.

Why don't you stop conflating assertions with arguments and fallacies with logic?

See how stupid those kinds of remarks are.

Where are your evidences for your accusations?

You are so blur when I claim an inherent biological drive [biological fact] can be a moral fact.
Then I have to explain this can be done with a human-based moral framework and system just as how scientific facts [within a scientific FS] are transmuted from common sense FS and it observations.
We have discussed this FS topic for eons already.
In addition, there is the Principle of Supervenience which can cohere with this belief.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But let's assume for the sake of argument that there are oughtnesses in neural patterns. Great.
We start with the oughtness to breathe. Great. We have a moral rule: you ought to breathe (I mean, unless you are a serial killer, maybe)
So, neural patterns determine moral oughts. Great.
Every action on earth was guided/driven by neural patterns/drives. Great.
So, every single actions performed on earth was based on oughtnesses. Now distinguished from breathing, these actions were not so universal.
But everyone one of the was driven by an oughtness.
So every actions was a moral fact.

You taking is to make oughts, you have to live with what is entailed: the consequences.
Men have that ought to try to get sex even if he and she are not quite ready.
There's an oughtness: try to get sex, more or less regardless.

As stated above and many times elsewhere, we need to establish a human-based moral FS to receive input especially from the scientific FS to enable moral facts.

The outhtness to breathe [biological fact] is not a moral rule/standard [as a guide only].
When the "outhtness to breathe" [biological fact] in inputted in a human based moral FS, it is generated as a moral fact, i.e. "no humans can stop another from breathing" which is a subject of the "oughtnotness of one to kill humans" as a moral rule/standard [as a guide only].

The "oughtness to have sex" is a biological fact.
When inputted into the moral FS, the moral facts would be,
Abortion is Not Permissible, Period! [as a guide only]
viewtopic.php?t=42514&sid=5c1456c91e616 ... 7d229ecabc

'the oughtnotness to rape another human'.
the justification is tedious, I won't go into it.

[Iwannaplato]

But let's assume for the sake of argument that there are oughtnesses in neural patterns. Great.
We start with the oughtness to breathe. Great. We have a moral rule: you ought to breathe (I mean, unless you are a serial killer, maybe)
So, neural patterns determine moral oughts. Great.
Every action on earth was guided/driven by neural patterns/drives. Great.
So, every single actions performed on earth was based on oughtnesses. Now distinguished from breathing, these actions were not so universal.
But everyone one of the was driven by an oughtness.
So every actions was a moral fact.

You taking is to make oughts, you have to live with what is entailed: the consequences.
Men have that ought to try to get sex even if he and she are not quite ready.
There's an oughtness: try to get sex, more or less regardless.

As stated above and many times elsewhere, we need to establish a human-based moral FS to receive input especially from the scientific FS to enable moral facts.

Actually you didn't start talking about this until people pointed out that you were cherry picking patterns in the brain: the ones that fit your morality, and you did not acknowledge that people's spot on criticism led you to see the necessity of this.

But the real problem here is THEN THEY ARE NOT OUGHTNESSES. The oughtnesses come in later. We have patterns in the brain and the moral determines which ones are oughtnesses and which of these patterns are patterns we should not enhance or consider moral despite these being patterns in the brain.

Yet, you call them oughtnesses in the brain, despite the fact that you later realized, when it was pointed out, that it would cause problems to consider them oughtnesses, at least many of them.

Parsimony would lead one to call them patterns and not add on this utterly made up extra facet of them 'oughtnesses', a quality that science, the most accurate FSERC, considers to be 'in brains'.

The moral FSERC then decides on other than neuroscience grounds what are oughtnesses in the brain and what are not.

And The Moral FSERC is actually a set of many FSERCs. But that's a later problem in your schema.