What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

As usual your thinking is too narrow and shallow.

To you what is physical is this;



To you morality is specifically related to rightness and wrongness where both are very loose and ambiguous terms.

Obviously from your very narrow perspective, general moral elements cannot be physical.

However, if one view the issue of morality more widely and deeply, the elements of morality which are very evident within humanity whilst at first glance are very mental and subjective, there are fundamental physical elements that are universal in all humans that support these moral activities.

As usual, your thinking is deeply confused.

Your factual premise is that, for neurological (physical) reasons. all humans are inclined to do X and not do Y - that all humans have this 'natural potential'. This is what the word universal means. But this premise, even if true, has no moral entailment. In other words, the premise 'all humans are inclined (etc) to do X' does not entail the conclusion 'therefore, X is morally right/good'.

You use the terms 'elements of morality' and 'moral activities', though you deny that the moral rightness and wrongness of those activities is the issue, because those are 'subjective' matters. But then you explain morality-proper as being about reducing evil and promoting good - with no attempt to explain evil and goodness in other than circular ways. Why is it 'moral' to reduce evil and promote goodness?

I defined morality-proper as management [elimination, reduction and prevention] of evil to facilitate its related good.
I define [done elsewhere] evil as that which is net-negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and humanity.
What is evil and defined is presented in an exhaustive list of evil acts or moral elements.
One example the moral element is "no torturing and/or killing of babies" as a moral standard.

In this case I do not have to invoke the rightness and wrongness [loose and ambiguous terms] as the primary elements of what is morality.
If there are torturing and/or killing of babies, I would classify that as a deviation, variance or gap from the standard which need to be eliminated, reduced or prevented.

Why are you so obsessed with rightness and wrongness in relation to morality; such thinking is too shallow and ineffective to trigger and expedite moral progress.

Take the moral elements, 'no torturing and killing of babies' which is a natural potential as universal in all humans.
This natural potential is represented by its DNA code and physical neural correlates.
Because it is universal in all humans and easily cognized as such, this moral element is considered objective [i.e. independent of any individual subject's beliefs].
Based on this physical and objective element, morality is objective.

Not so. It may be a fact that humans have this 'programming', but to say this has anything to do with morality is to beg the question. And this is where your reasoning has always stumbled. As Flash puts it: you assume and deny your moral premise, eg: torturing and killing babies is immoral. You can't establish the objectivity of morality by starting with a moral premise.

As I had stated,
Whatever "is" [real, truth, knowledge, facts of X, e.g. morality,] is contingent upon a specific human-based framework and system - FS/FSERC which is objective, i.e. independent of any subject[s] beliefs.
As such in dealing with morality-proper we need a morality-proper FSERC.

I have argued there is a moral potential [supported by its physical neural correlates] within all humans that is verifiable via the scientific FSERC and thereupon the morality-proper FSERC.

I have established objectivity of morality when it is constituted within a morality-proper FSERC [as emerging naturally and improved]; the analogy is how the science FSERC is established from the universal human impulse "to know" [scientia] which is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity; the other FSERC [politics, history, language, economics, etc.] are below the standard.

So, where that universal moral potential [as "programmed"] when processed via a morality-proper FSERC is deemed to be a moral element that is objective.

There are societies that practice the killing of babies to optimize survival of the tribe within environmental constraints, but that does not obviate the actual existence of the natural and physical moral potential within those humans.

Therefore morality is objective as qualified to the list of moral elements that are justified as physically grounded and justified within a credible moral framework and system.

Nope. Your argument is, and has always been, fallacious.

Where is your justifications?

Analogy:
All humans are "programmed" with the basic sexual drive [supported by DNA and its physical neural correlates] to f..k with the opposite sex [supposedly heterosexuality] to facilitate the production of the next generation to preserve the species. This is the universal standard for all humans, thus it objective within the science-biology FSERC.

However, in real life, there are those who turned out to be asexual, homosexual, bisexual and other sexual perversions.
These variations do not necessary obviate that objective universal primary sexual potential within all humans.
It is just that its secondary features are damaged during DNA-RNA expression which results in the deviation from the norm and standard.
Therefore, despite the variation is sexual tendencies, the primary sexual neural correlates are still in existence, thus sexuality is objective at the fundamental level.

The above analogy is the same for morality, which is represented by its objective universal primary moral potential within all humans.
The variations [small %] in moral inclinations within humans is due to damage or weakness to the objective universal primary moral potential [algorithm] within all humans.
This is what happened to FDP who is morally deficient as a result of some damage or an inactive moral algorithm in the brain.

Do you have any counters for the above?

Yes. I have countered them a million times. Your claims are false, and your arguments fallacious at every turn.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As usual, your thinking is deeply confused.

Your factual premise is that, for neurological (physical) reasons. all humans are inclined to do X and not do Y - that all humans have this 'natural potential'. This is what the word universal means. But this premise, even if true, has no moral entailment. In other words, the premise 'all humans are inclined (etc) to do X' does not entail the conclusion 'therefore, X is morally right/good'.

You use the terms 'elements of morality' and 'moral activities', though you deny that the moral rightness and wrongness of those activities is the issue, because those are 'subjective' matters. But then you explain morality-proper as being about reducing evil and promoting good - with no attempt to explain evil and goodness in other than circular ways. Why is it 'moral' to reduce evil and promote goodness?

I defined morality-proper as management [elimination, reduction and prevention] of evil to facilitate its related good.
I define [done elsewhere] evil as that which is net-negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and humanity.
What is evil and defined is presented in an exhaustive list of evil acts or moral elements.
One example the moral element is "no torturing and/or killing of babies" as a moral standard.

In this case I do not have to invoke the rightness and wrongness [loose and ambiguous terms] as the primary elements of what is morality.
If there are torturing and/or killing of babies, I would classify that as a deviation, variance or gap from the standard which need to be eliminated, reduced or prevented.

Why are you so obsessed with rightness and wrongness in relation to morality; such thinking is too shallow and ineffective to trigger and expedite moral progress.

Not so. It may be a fact that humans have this 'programming', but to say this has anything to do with morality is to beg the question. And this is where your reasoning has always stumbled. As Flash puts it: you assume and deny your moral premise, eg: torturing and killing babies is immoral. You can't establish the objectivity of morality by starting with a moral premise.

As I had stated,
Whatever "is" [real, truth, knowledge, facts of X, e.g. morality,] is contingent upon a specific human-based framework and system - FS/FSERC which is objective, i.e. independent of any subject[s] beliefs.
As such in dealing with morality-proper we need a morality-proper FSERC.

I have argued there is a moral potential [supported by its physical neural correlates] within all humans that is verifiable via the scientific FSERC and thereupon the morality-proper FSERC.

I have established objectivity of morality when it is constituted within a morality-proper FSERC [as emerging naturally and improved]; the analogy is how the science FSERC is established from the universal human impulse "to know" [scientia] which is the gold standard of credibility and objectivity; the other FSERC [politics, history, language, economics, etc.] are below the standard.

So, where that universal moral potential [as "programmed"] when processed via a morality-proper FSERC is deemed to be a moral element that is objective.

There are societies that practice the killing of babies to optimize survival of the tribe within environmental constraints, but that does not obviate the actual existence of the natural and physical moral potential within those humans.

Therefore morality is objective as qualified to the list of moral elements that are justified as physically grounded and justified within a credible moral framework and system.

Nope. Your argument is, and has always been, fallacious.

Where is your justifications?

Analogy:
All humans are "programmed" with the basic sexual drive [supported by DNA and its physical neural correlates] to f..k with the opposite sex [supposedly heterosexuality] to facilitate the production of the next generation to preserve the species. This is the universal standard for all humans, thus it objective within the science-biology FSERC.

However, in real life, there are those who turned out to be asexual, homosexual, bisexual and other sexual perversions.
These variations do not necessary obviate that objective universal primary sexual potential within all humans.
It is just that its secondary features are damaged during DNA-RNA expression which results in the deviation from the norm and standard.
Therefore, despite the variation is sexual tendencies, the primary sexual neural correlates are still in existence, thus sexuality is objective at the fundamental level.

The above analogy is the same for morality, which is represented by its objective universal primary moral potential within all humans.
The variations [small %] in moral inclinations within humans is due to damage or weakness to the objective universal primary moral potential [algorithm] within all humans.
This is what happened to FDP who is morally deficient as a result of some damage or an inactive moral algorithm in the brain.

Do you have any counters for the above?

Yes. I have countered them a million times. Your claims are false, and your arguments fallacious at every turn.

You have not provided any convincing counters to the points I raised.
You raised the questions and asked me to justified my claims.
Whilst the repetitions, I have taken the trouble to present them again differently, hopefully clearer.
Can you address the above points I raised?

[Peter Holmes]

You have not provided any convincing counters to the points I raised.
You raised the questions and asked me to justified my claims.
Whilst the repetitions, I have taken the trouble to present them again differently, hopefully clearer.
Can you address the above points I raised?

There is no point. I have shown, countless times, why your claims are false and your arguments fallacious. But it makes no difference. You merely repeat the claims and arguments.

[CIN]

The only two philosophers who said anything useful on this issue were Descartes and Hume. Descartes pointed out that I think, therefore I am, but that's all I know, while Hume pointed out that I have no direct experience of my self, so I can't even be sure what kind of thing I am. So I can't know what I am, nor whether the experiences I am currently having are caused by an external world, as they appear to be, or whether this is an illusion, and they are being caused by something else that I can't detect. Hence it would be irrational for me to be either a realist or an idealist.

If you people exist, you are in the same position as me. You should therefore give up this futile argument, which can never be resolved, and talk about something else.

And that something else can therefore never be resolved either. What was the point?

One version of the point is probably that realism and antirealism just aren't important positions. That we don't need an explanation of why the world presents itself to us as it does in order to reason within the world that has represented itself. And surely most importantly, that there is no possible reason to need to discuss whether the world is really really entirely truly real in order to discuss ethics.

Thank you, Flash. You have hit the nail on the head. In ethics, we have to take the real existence of other people as axiomatic, or there will be no subject matter to discuss. And if other people, why not animals, and the rest of the physical world?

All of these metaphysical speculations are irrelevant to the study of ethics, and they shouldn't be in this part of the forum at all. I think they were introduced here by VA, and others have been unwise enough to indulge him by answering him here.

[CIN]

You have not provided any convincing counters to the points I raised.
You raised the questions and asked me to justified my claims.
Whilst the repetitions, I have taken the trouble to present them again differently, hopefully clearer.
Can you address the above points I raised?

There is no point. I have shown, countless times, why your claims are false and your arguments fallacious. But it makes no difference. You merely repeat the claims and arguments.

Peter, you will never get VA to see why he is wrong, he is incapable of grasping it. Everyone else here can see that he's wrong, and why he is wrong. In these circumstances, wouldn't it be better to simply ignore him? At least then there is a slight chance that he might get tired of talking to himself and go away.

[CIN]

The only two philosophers who said anything useful on this issue were Descartes and Hume. Descartes pointed out that I think, therefore I am, but that's all I know, while Hume pointed out that I have no direct experience of my self, so I can't even be sure what kind of thing I am. So I can't know what I am, nor whether the experiences I am currently having are caused by an external world, as they appear to be, or whether this is an illusion, and they are being caused by something else that I can't detect. Hence it would be irrational for me to be either a realist or an idealist.

If you people exist, you are in the same position as me. You should therefore give up this futile argument, which can never be resolved, and talk about something else.

Humans evolved ["programmed"] [from ancestors 3.5 billion years ago] with a sense of externalness and things existing absolutely independent from the person; this dualism is critical for basic survival, i.e. on the look out for food, threats [fatal, etc.] female to f, etc.

The problem arose when humans adopt this externalness and independence as a dogmatic ideology as an ism, i.e. philosophical realism with absoluteness. It is compounded with tribalism 'us versus them'.
This problem involved the conception of the thing-in-itself and self-in-itself which are illusory but reified as real by philosophical realists.

The issue was raised by Descartes and Hume because realists insist things exist as absolutely independent of the human conditions and mind as driven by the evolutionary default.
Kant resolved this issue by asserting the independence of things from the self is critically necessary but can only be adopted relatively [regulatively] but not absolutely & dogmatically [constitutively].

Thus, Kant resolved the issue and asserted, in general, things exist as an emergence of which the self [person, human] is somehow involved thus relative independence, so there are no absolutely mind-independent things.
This relative independence view of reality is the most optimal, which to insist dogmatically reality is absolutely independent of the human condition/mind is unrealistic and illusory.

I'll say this just once, because this isn't really the right place to say it.

You assume that humans exist. Humans are, by definition, members of the species homo sapiens. Homo sapiens is defined by DNA. DNA can only exist if the physical universe is real. By positing humans, therefore, you have implicitly assumed the truth of philosophical realism. You have thus undermined your own theory.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The only two philosophers who said anything useful on this issue were Descartes and Hume. Descartes pointed out that I think, therefore I am, but that's all I know, while Hume pointed out that I have no direct experience of my self, so I can't even be sure what kind of thing I am. So I can't know what I am, nor whether the experiences I am currently having are caused by an external world, as they appear to be, or whether this is an illusion, and they are being caused by something else that I can't detect. Hence it would be irrational for me to be either a realist or an idealist.

If you people exist, you are in the same position as me. You should therefore give up this futile argument, which can never be resolved, and talk about something else.

Humans evolved ["programmed"] [from ancestors 3.5 billion years ago] with a sense of externalness and things existing absolutely independent from the person; this dualism is critical for basic survival, i.e. on the look out for food, threats [fatal, etc.] female to f, etc.

The problem arose when humans adopt this externalness and independence as a dogmatic ideology as an ism, i.e. philosophical realism with absoluteness. It is compounded with tribalism 'us versus them'.
This problem involved the conception of the thing-in-itself and self-in-itself which are illusory but reified as real by philosophical realists.

The issue was raised by Descartes and Hume because realists insist things exist as absolutely independent of the human conditions and mind as driven by the evolutionary default.
Kant resolved this issue by asserting the independence of things from the self is critically necessary but can only be adopted relatively [regulatively] but not absolutely & dogmatically [constitutively].

Thus, Kant resolved the issue and asserted, in general, things exist as an emergence of which the self [person, human] is somehow involved thus relative independence, so there are no absolutely mind-independent things.
This relative independence view of reality is the most optimal, which to insist dogmatically reality is absolutely independent of the human condition/mind is unrealistic and illusory.

I'll say this just once, because this isn't really the right place to say it.

You assume that humans exist.
Humans are, by definition, members of the species homo sapiens. Homo sapiens is defined by DNA. DNA can only exist if the physical universe is real. By positing humans, therefore, you have implicitly assumed the truth of philosophical realism. You have thus undermined your own theory.

Assume??
Where is the real justifications for the truth of philosophical realism.

You have thus undermined your own theory.

You are ignorant of your own ignorance by insisting your ideology of philosophical realism is the ONLY WAY and not attempting to understand the weaknesses of your ideology, then weigh it against philosophical antirealism.


Here's from AI on the validity of philosophical antirealism [which cannot be ignored blindly] as genuine counter to philosophical realism;

From a survey from the whole of the internet that is accessible to you, is Philosophical Realism vs Philosophical AntiRealism one of the most contentious philosophical issue within the philosophical community.

Yes, the debate between philosophical realism and anti-realism is indeed one of the most contentious issues within the philosophical community.
This topic has been a source of ongoing discussion and debate for centuries, with philosophers offering various perspectives and arguments in support of their respective positions.

Your ignorance and ignoring to counter philosophical antirealism is just like being within a tribe of theists [faith-based] ignoring the counters of atheists [rational arguments].

I say again, philosophical realism is established from an evolutionary default necessary to facilitate basic survival which in a way is primal and primitive.
Philosophical antirealism [Kantian] is the more matured view arising from higher rational thinking as humanity rise above the basic survival and needs.

I suggest you should research more deeply into the origin and evolutionary motivation for philosophical realism to understand whatever weakness it has and determine whether there are solid justifications for philosophical realism other than basing on assumptions and blind faith that it is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Else your preference is to feel secure in an ostrich world.

Regardless, it is your discretion to discuss.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thank you, Flash. You have hit the nail on the head. In ethics, we have to take the real existence of other people as axiomatic, or there will be no subject matter to discuss. And if other people, why not animals, and the rest of the physical world?

All of these metaphysical speculations are irrelevant to the study of ethics, and they shouldn't be in this part of the forum at all. I think they were introduced here by VA, and others have been unwise enough to indulge him by answering him here.

Hey!
PH's confidence in his challenge to "What could make morality objective" is grounded on a metaphysical illusion.

PH's argument;
What is objective is based on "facts".
Morality is not based on "facts".
Therefore, morality cannot be objective.

The problem is PH's definition of fact is, "a feature of reality that is the case, state of affairs, just-is"
there is no justification of reality to PH 'what is fact' thus his 'what is fact' is grounded on an illusion.
It is that PH's is indulgence in Metaphysics and illusions that I introduced my counters to his illusory claims.

The fact is:
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

and,

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

The proper present of what is fact is this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
which contingent upon its specific human-based framework and system.

So far, no one has provided any convincing counter my claims above.

[Atla]

You assume that humans exist.

I'm not convinced he does. He sometimes pretends that humans exist, other times he doesn't even pretend, he's just all alone.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes. I have countered them a million times. Your claims are false, and your arguments fallacious at every turn.

Just show me one example where your counter is really solid and valid.

As in tennis, I have returned every shot you make but you are unable to make any effective return shot ..
so you just give up the game..

Btw, it is your discretion.

[Peter Holmes]

Yes. I have countered them a million times. Your claims are false, and your arguments fallacious at every turn.

Just show me one example where your counter is really solid and valid.

As in tennis, I have returned every shot you make but you are unable to make any effective return shot ..
so you just give up the game..

Btw, it is your discretion.

No point. You ignore or - more usually - don't understand why you are wrong.

[CIN]

You assume that humans exist.

I'm not convinced he does. He sometimes pretends that humans exist, other times he doesn't even pretend, he's just all alone.

You may be right. But he has certainly offered a theory based on the idea that our perceptions of the world are conditioned by our being human, and as I've pointed out, that assumes that there are such things as physical humans.

That's not the main problem with VA, of course. The main problem is that he conflates quite different ideas. He conflates objectivity with being in the middle of a bell curve, he conflates objectivity with evolutionary programming, he conflates evolutionary fitness with morality... He's the great conflater. And my God, does he talk. Endlessly. He and his great friend ChatGPT. (Possibly the only friend he has.)

[Atla]

You assume that humans exist.

I'm not convinced he does. He sometimes pretends that humans exist, other times he doesn't even pretend, he's just all alone.

You may be right. But he has certainly offered a theory based on the idea that our perceptions of the world are conditioned by our being human, and as I've pointed out, that assumes that there are such things as physical humans.

That's not the main problem with VA, of course. The main problem is that he conflates quite different ideas. He conflates objectivity with being in the middle of a bell curve, he conflates objectivity with evolutionary programming, he conflates evolutionary fitness with morality... He's the great conflater. And my God, does he talk. Endlessly. He and his great friend ChatGPT. (Possibly the only friend he has.)

Well the idea that our perceptions of the world are conditioned by our being human, assumes the existence of at least one human, but not necessarily more.. that's good news for a closet solipsist..

[Atla]

Well the idea that our perceptions of the world are conditioned by our being human, assumes the existence of at least one human, but not necessarily more.. that's good news for a closet solipsist..

Btw this is the true evil of Kant's philosophy. Any appearance of other human I encounter in my experience, is causally completely unrelated to anything and anyone that may or may not be "out there". For all practical purposes, Kant tried to make everyone a solipsist who just pretends sometimes that others exist, and thereby Kant tried to destroy humanity. The question is what were his motivations for that.

[Peter Holmes]

If the fact that facts are dependent on humans is dependent on humans, then, if there were no humans, it would not be a fact that facts are dependent on humans.