What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I demand you stop misrepresenting me. It is obvious we are not social bees , for heaven's sake! If you were even slightly informed about linguistics you would understand how bee language differs from human language. We certainly should not act "instinctively" we should act with reason and wisdom. Spontaneity is good but should be mixed with reasoned reflection and that is why modern kids go to school.

There will always be need for liberal education now and for the foreseeable future.
There will never come a time as long as there is a free world when the child is not in need of an environment such that he or she is taught how to be autonomous and hopefully arrive at moral maturity . Never can an objective moral code be taught as sufficient as a means of arriving at adult autonomy: objective moral codes belong in museums.
Liberal education for all is necessary for any democratic regime to work.

No intention to represent you.

When one acts spontaneously and naturally it mean just 'flow' without reasoning, judgment or if need to, the minimum of reasoning for moral actions.
Yes, there will be a need for education & training to gain knowledge and skills; but the main purpose is to progress from "unconscious incompetence" "conscious incompetence" [so need education and training] to "unconscious competence".
It is just like the best professional sportsperson [and other skills] where one learn and train for years since childhood and when in competition just play spontaneously with engaging in deliberating thinking for every of their actions. In a fast game like tennis, there is no time to think what to do with a fast return from the opponents.

A small child may take a long time to learn how to ride a bicycle with trial and error, repetitions, a lot of thinking, etc. but when one [or you] is reasonable skilled in riding a bicycle, do you think and reason about how to ride a bicycle. It is just spontaneous.
It is the same with the basic moral skill set.

See Wu Wei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei
.. describing a state of personal harmony, free-flowing spontaneity and laissez-faire. It generally denotes a state of spirit or state of mind, and in Confucianism, accords with conventional morality. It has polymorphic meanings that expresses "inexertion", "inaction", or "effortless action".

There is still reasoning and judging with moral actions by individual[s] in certain scenarios but that is secondary to humanity and the species as a whole.
As far as humanity is concern the focus is to reduce the scenarios by resolving the root causes, e.g. on slavery, homicides, wars and other evil actions.

You misrepresented me [demand that you stop it]. I had never advocated an objective moral code like from a God or political authority or with an absolute ought to comply.

As stated, what is objective with morality is the inherent universal moral propensity within all humans that is physically represented by DNA and sets of neurons.
What we need is to recognize these and their functions [and moral elements] as objective moral facts so that we have a fixed objective ground to expedite moral progress within humanity within a framework and system of morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The choice of a goal for our actions - such as individual or collective well-being, flourishing, pleasure, happiness or fairness - is subjective, as is the choice of what constitutes the goal. And objectively measurable goal-consistency doesn't constitute moral objectivity.

You are so ignorant in mixing up the above elements and also delusional in clinging to philosophical realism, i.e. reality/thing exists absolutely independent of the human conditions [mind] i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
To you, anything that does not comply to the above is subjective, i.e. dependent on the subject; being ideologically dogmatic on it is delusional.

You are ignorant of these generally accepted definitions:

The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is a basic idea of philosophy, particularly epistemology and metaphysics. The understanding of this distinction has evolved through the work of countless philosophers over the centuries. There are many different definitions that have been employed to compare and contrast subjectivity and objectivity.
A general distinction can be extracted from these discussions:

Something is subjective if it is dependent on a mind (biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imagination, or conscious experience).[1] If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective.

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)

So, yes, as defined the individual[s] perspective of his own well-being, flourishing, pleasure, happiness or fairness - is subjective.

BUT on the collective basis, well-being, flourishing, pleasure, happiness or fairness are not subjective; rather they are objective because these elements can be verified and justified empirically as true universally within its specific human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS].
The above can be confirmed to be inherently universal within the science, psychology and moral FS [not based on any individual subject's opinion, beliefs and judgment], thus justified as objective.

I have already explained the above a 'million' time; your skull is very thick and the point cannot get through to you and you have not given any rational counter other than making noises that whatever you claimed, is just-is.

[Belinda]

I demand you stop misrepresenting me. It is obvious we are not social bees , for heaven's sake! If you were even slightly informed about linguistics you would understand how bee language differs from human language. We certainly should not act "instinctively" we should act with reason and wisdom. Spontaneity is good but should be mixed with reasoned reflection and that is why modern kids go to school.

There will always be need for liberal education now and for the foreseeable future.
There will never come a time as long as there is a free world when the child is not in need of an environment such that he or she is taught how to be autonomous and hopefully arrive at moral maturity . Never can an objective moral code be taught as sufficient as a means of arriving at adult autonomy: objective moral codes belong in museums.
Liberal education for all is necessary for any democratic regime to work.

No intention to represent you.

When one acts spontaneously and naturally it mean just 'flow' without reasoning, judgment or if need to, the minimum of reasoning for moral actions.
Yes, there will be a need for education & training to gain knowledge and skills; but the main purpose is to progress from "unconscious incompetence" "conscious incompetence" [so need education and training] to "unconscious competence".
It is just like the best professional sportsperson [and other skills] where one learn and train for years since childhood and when in competition just play spontaneously with engaging in deliberating thinking for every of their actions. In a fast game like tennis, there is no time to think what to do with a fast return from the opponents.

A small child may take a long time to learn how to ride a bicycle with trial and error, repetitions, a lot of thinking, etc. but when one [or you] is reasonable skilled in riding a bicycle, do you think and reason about how to ride a bicycle. It is just spontaneous.
It is the same with the basic moral skill set.

See Wu Wei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei
.. describing a state of personal harmony, free-flowing spontaneity and laissez-faire. It generally denotes a state of spirit or state of mind, and in Confucianism, accords with conventional morality. It has polymorphic meanings that expresses "inexertion", "inaction", or "effortless action".

There is still reasoning and judging with moral actions by individual[s] in certain scenarios but that is secondary to humanity and the species as a whole.
As far as humanity is concern the focus is to reduce the scenarios by resolving the root causes, e.g. on slavery, homicides, wars and other evil actions.

You misrepresented me [demand that you stop it]. I had never advocated an objective moral code like from a God or political authority or with an absolute ought to comply.

As stated, what is objective with morality is the inherent universal moral propensity within all humans that is physically represented by DNA and sets of neurons.
What we need is to recognize these and their functions [and moral elements] as objective moral facts so that we have a fixed objective ground to expedite moral progress within humanity within a framework and system of morality.

Ability to ride a bicycle, or to climb upstairs for that matter is not processed in the cerebral cortex but mostly in the cerebellum. Learning to ride a bicycle is a process of training , not a process of education which is processing ideas.

The political/religious establishment has taught you to believe that facts are set in stone. Facts are not set in tablets of stone but are at best pro tem.

[Peter Holmes]

The choice of a goal for our actions - such as individual or collective well-being, flourishing, pleasure, happiness or fairness - is subjective, as is the choice of what constitutes the goal. And objectively measurable goal-consistency doesn't constitute moral objectivity.

You are so ignorant in mixing up the above elements and also delusional in clinging to philosophical realism, i.e. reality/thing exists absolutely independent of the human conditions [mind] i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
To you, anything that does not comply to the above is subjective, i.e. dependent on the subject; being ideologically dogmatic on it is delusional.

You are ignorant of these generally accepted definitions:

No, you are unaware of the flaws in the following definitions. So I'll point them out again.

The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is a basic idea of philosophy, particularly epistemology and metaphysics. The understanding of this distinction has evolved through the work of countless philosophers over the centuries. There are many different definitions that have been employed to compare and contrast subjectivity and objectivity.
A general distinction can be extracted from these discussions:

Something is subjective if it is dependent on a mind

Note. There is no non-physical mind, so the issue of dependence on or independence from that mind is dead in the water, as is this definition of subjectivity.

(biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imagination, or conscious experience).[1]

Note. These categories are not specifically individual; for example, dependence on 'opinion' is not dependence on one person's opinion.

If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true.

This is false and philosophically crass. If I think a thing is beautiful, the assertion 'this thing is beautiful' is not subjectively true. All that can be called true is the assertion 'I think this thing is beautiful'.

For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective.

See above.

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)

So, yes, as defined the individual[s] perspective of his own well-being, flourishing, pleasure, happiness or fairness - is subjective.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. And you misread as usual. The choice of a goal, and what constitutes it, is subjective - a matter of opinion. And an opinion held by everyone is still an opinion. You seem unable to understand and process that fact. Try harder.

BUT on the collective basis, well-being, flourishing, pleasure, happiness or fairness are not subjective; rather they are objective because these elements can be verified and justified empirically as true universally within its specific human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS].

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even if everyone chose to make, say, well-being the goal of our actions and behaviour, that would still be a choice, which is subjective. So we could make a different choice.

The above can be confirmed to be inherently universal within the science, psychology and moral FS [not based on any individual subject's opinion, beliefs and judgment], thus justified as objective.

False, and deceitful. You smuggle in 'within the moral framework and system', as though such a thing exists and is analogous to, for example, a natural science practice/discourse. Cheating.

I have already explained the above a 'million' time; your skull is very thick and the point cannot get through to you and you have not given any rational counter other than making noises that whatever you claimed, is just-is.

I have explained the above 'a million times', and you resolutely refuse to understand.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ability to ride a bicycle, or to climb upstairs for that matter is not processed in the cerebral cortex but mostly in the cerebellum. Learning to ride a bicycle is a process of training , not a process of education which is processing ideas.

The 'ability to ride a bicycle' was an example of something spontaneous and yes it involved the cerebellum which is my point that it does not involved reasoning after one has learn it.
The point is in the initial stages of the learning process, the intellect and reasoning is involved. e.g. learning about the parts of the bicycle and the "how to" do the necessary actions is education in a way. If a bicycle is too simple for you to notice, note the learning and spontaneity in driving a car, a truck or a plane, which initially involve education together with motor skills.

But once, a person has master to ride a bicycle [car, etc.], there is no need for in involvement of the intellect to ride a bicycle, everything is just spontaneous, i.e. unconscious competence.

It is the same with morality and spontaneous moral actions; morality involved beliefs which has its respective neural correlates but it is also connected to the motor neurons to be translated to moral actions and inhibitions.

The main point is the 4 stages of learning which is universal and so, is applicable to morality:
Stage 1: Unconscious Incompetence. You don't know what you don't know.
Stage 2: Conscious Incompetence. You know what you don't know.
Stage 3: Conscious Competence. You know what you know.
Stage 4: Unconscious Competence. Your skills are now effortless and "automatic".
Implications for learning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence

The political/religious establishment has taught you to believe that facts are set in stone. Facts are not set in tablets of stone but are at best pro tem.

My sort of morality is independent of politics [governance] and theistic religion [god driven].

Where did I assert facts are set in stone.
I have always define facts as contingent upon a specific human based [collective of subject] framework and system.
Human naturally evolved, as such, most facts will change with the collective-of-subjects minds and conditions in time. The facts of human nutrition may change in 100,000 years?
However there are certain facts that are supposedly "permanent" in relation to the human species, e.g. the will-to-live till the inevitable in every human which is an essential element of morality.
It is undeniable that the 'will-to-live' is universal in all humans [all species of living things], thus objective [independent of any individual human's view] where morality is deductively objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The choice of a goal for our actions - such as individual or collective well-being, flourishing, pleasure, happiness or fairness - is subjective, as is the choice of what constitutes the goal. And objectively measurable goal-consistency doesn't constitute moral objectivity.

You are so ignorant in mixing up the above elements and also delusional in clinging to philosophical realism, i.e. reality/thing exists absolutely independent of the human conditions [mind] i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
To you, anything that does not comply to the above is subjective, i.e. dependent on the subject; being ideologically dogmatic on it is delusional.

You are ignorant of these generally accepted definitions:

No, you are unaware of the flaws in the following definitions. So I'll point them out again.

The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is a basic idea of philosophy, particularly epistemology and metaphysics. The understanding of this distinction has evolved through the work of countless philosophers over the centuries. There are many different definitions that have been employed to compare and contrast subjectivity and objectivity.
A general distinction can be extracted from these discussions:

Something is subjective if it is dependent on a mind

Note. There is no non-physical mind, so the issue of dependence on or independence from that mind is dead in the water, as is this definition of subjectivity.

Strawman, there is no mention of 'physical' in the link. It just refer to 'mind'.
Generally, it is very rational to believe the human mind exist as real, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

I have argued you have the false view on 'no non-physical mind' i.e.
PH's Stupidity: The "Mind" Does not Exist as Real
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40071

The above is merely your personal opinion, otherwise show the related references to support your claim, there is no human mind in relation to the definition of subjectivity and objectivity above.

I have already explained, if you don't like the term 'mind' [which is stupid to reject it] then use the term 'human conditions' or a sentient being.

(biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imagination, or conscious experience).[1]

Note. These categories are not specifically individual; for example, dependence on 'opinion' is not dependence on one person's opinion.

According to the definitions specified above, it is related to "a" mind or "a" sentient being.

If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true.

This is false and philosophically crass. If I think a thing is beautiful, the assertion 'this thing is beautiful' is not subjectively true. All that can be called true is the assertion 'I think this thing is beautiful'.

Strawman!
One person can assert with high conviction "this thing is beautiful" or even "this thing is absolutely beautiful". But, it only is subjective true in relation to a specific individual.
The individual will claim it is true but it is only related to himself, thus subjectively true.

For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective.

See above.

That is correct, both views are subjective. This point is generally accepted by all rational persons.

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)

So, yes, as defined the individual[s] perspective of his own well-being, flourishing, pleasure, happiness or fairness - is subjective.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. And you misread as usual. The choice of a goal, and what constitutes it, is subjective - a matter of opinion. And an opinion held by everyone is still an opinion. You seem unable to understand and process that fact. Try harder.

Your view above is delusional because you are relying upon philosophical realism [human independent] which is grounded upon an illusion. As such, to you, whatever is not absolutely human independent, then it is subjective.

An opinion [with doubts and not held to be true] held by an individual is subjective.
There is 'beliefs' which is held to be true by individuals and groups.
According to the above definition, whatever beliefs is held to be true by an individual is subjective. Example, Einstein's personal belief his Theory of General Relativity is true is subjective.
However, whatever beliefs [with some degrees of conviction] held to be true by a group of people [within a framework and system] is objective, i.e. not held by merely an individual or subject.
The Theory of General Relativity is an objective scientific facts when it is accepted by a majority group of peers within the Physics community as contingent within the science-physics FS, [which is independent of Einstein's personal subjective view].
See below.

BUT on the collective basis, well-being, flourishing, pleasure, happiness or fairness are not subjective; rather they are objective because these elements can be verified and justified empirically as true universally within its specific human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS].

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even if everyone chose to make, say, well-being the goal of our actions and behaviour, that would still be a choice, which is subjective. So we could make a different choice.

You are ignorant in this case.
Scientific facts which are recognized as objective [scientific antirealism] is based on "choice" by a group of scientist peers and arriving at a consensus.
Note for example the Big Bang Theory where there were many alternative [choices] theories presented, but the one recognized as the objective scientific fact is the one with majority consensus of choices.

It is the same with objective moral facts within the moral framework and system.

The above can be confirmed to be inherently universal within the science, psychology and moral FS [not based on any individual subject's opinion, beliefs and judgment], thus justified as objective.

False, and deceitful. You smuggle in 'within the moral framework and system', as though such a thing exists and is analogous to, for example, a natural science practice/discourse. Cheating.

Except for loose opinions from an individual or a loose mob of persons, the concept of Framework and System is ubiquitous within all fields of knowledge and practices.
Tell me which field of knowledge and practice with a large following of humans is without a framework and system [implied or explicit]?

Note the Language Games of W:

The classic example of a language-game is the so-called "builder's language" introduced in §2 of the Philosophical Investigations:

The language is meant to serve for communication between a builder A and an assistant B. A is building with building-stones: there are blocks, pillars, slabs and beams. B has to pass the stones, in the order in which A needs them. For this purpose they use a language consisting of the words "block", "pillar" "slab", "beam". A calls them out; — B brings the stone which he has learnt to bring at such-and-such a call. Conceive this as a complete primitive language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_ ... )#Examples

Though W's example is confined to linguistic, the terms are transmuted to its related [contingent] builder's facts and reality within the specific builder framework and system.

I have already explained the above a 'million' time; your skull is very thick and the point cannot get through to you and you have not given any rational counter other than making noises that whatever you claimed, is just-is.

I have explained the above 'a million times', and you resolutely refuse to understand.

I understand your point of view VERY well, it is just that I have justified [with evidences, arguments, references and proofs] and better counter-views that are more realistic.

So far, you are merely arguing with merely your personal opinions without sufficient justifications and references. I believe you are very ignorant, relying on outdated primitive views rather than being lazy to give references that support your views.
Can you see your approach is intellectually bankrupt?

[Belinda]

Ability to ride a bicycle, or to climb upstairs for that matter is not processed in the cerebral cortex but mostly in the cerebellum. Learning to ride a bicycle is a process of training , not a process of education which is processing ideas.

The 'ability to ride a bicycle' was an example of something spontaneous and yes it involved the cerebellum which is my point that it does not involved reasoning after one has learn it.
The point is in the initial stages of the learning process, the intellect and reasoning is involved. e.g. learning about the parts of the bicycle and the "how to" do the necessary actions is education in a way. If a bicycle is too simple for you to notice, note the learning and spontaneity in driving a car, a truck or a plane, which initially involve education together with motor skills.

But once, a person has master to ride a bicycle [car, etc.], there is no need for in involvement of the intellect to ride a bicycle, everything is just spontaneous, i.e. unconscious competence.

It is the same with morality and spontaneous moral actions; morality involved beliefs which has its respective neural correlates but it is also connected to the motor neurons to be translated to moral actions and inhibitions.

The main point is the 4 stages of learning which is universal and so, is applicable to morality:
Stage 1: Unconscious Incompetence. You don't know what you don't know.
Stage 2: Conscious Incompetence. You know what you don't know.
Stage 3: Conscious Competence. You know what you know.
Stage 4: Unconscious Competence. Your skills are now effortless and "automatic".
Implications for learning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence

The political/religious establishment has taught you to believe that facts are set in stone. Facts are not set in tablets of stone but are at best pro tem.

My sort of morality is independent of politics [governance] and theistic religion [god driven].

Where did I assert facts are set in stone.
I have always define facts as contingent upon a specific human based [collective of subject] framework and system.
Human naturally evolved, as such, most facts will change with the collective-of-subjects minds and conditions in time. The facts of human nutrition may change in 100,000 years?
However there are certain facts that are supposedly "permanent" in relation to the human species, e.g. the will-to-live till the inevitable in every human which is an essential element of morality.
It is undeniable that the 'will-to-live' is universal in all humans [all species of living things], thus objective [independent of any individual human's view] where morality is deductively objective.

I see what you mean. However It would be unusual to unlearn how to ride a bicycle or even unlearn how to handle a car. Muscle memory is tenacious , even as compared with those received moral (or amoral) traditions that we all learn as children and young adults. As a matter of fact, if we think a lot about how we ride the bicycle or handle the car, or climb the stairs we are more, not less ,likely to stumble.

My take on learning and unlearning moral rules is that ,unlike normal bicycles and normal cars, morals pertain to circumstances that change sometimes very rapidly.
In traditional societies where social change is not needed the mores stay the same, whereas in rapidly developing societies the mores must develop too, and this needs continued application of cortical reasoning: the cerebellum would be little use.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ability to ride a bicycle, or to climb upstairs for that matter is not processed in the cerebral cortex but mostly in the cerebellum. Learning to ride a bicycle is a process of training , not a process of education which is processing ideas.

The 'ability to ride a bicycle' was an example of something spontaneous and yes it involved the cerebellum which is my point that it does not involved reasoning after one has learn it.
The point is in the initial stages of the learning process, the intellect and reasoning is involved. e.g. learning about the parts of the bicycle and the "how to" do the necessary actions is education in a way. If a bicycle is too simple for you to notice, note the learning and spontaneity in driving a car, a truck or a plane, which initially involve education together with motor skills.

But once, a person has master to ride a bicycle [car, etc.], there is no need for in involvement of the intellect to ride a bicycle, everything is just spontaneous, i.e. unconscious competence.

It is the same with morality and spontaneous moral actions; morality involved beliefs which has its respective neural correlates but it is also connected to the motor neurons to be translated to moral actions and inhibitions.

The main point is the 4 stages of learning which is universal and so, is applicable to morality:
Stage 1: Unconscious Incompetence. You don't know what you don't know.
Stage 2: Conscious Incompetence. You know what you don't know.
Stage 3: Conscious Competence. You know what you know.
Stage 4: Unconscious Competence. Your skills are now effortless and "automatic".
Implications for learning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence

The political/religious establishment has taught you to believe that facts are set in stone. Facts are not set in tablets of stone but are at best pro tem.

My sort of morality is independent of politics [governance] and theistic religion [god driven].

Where did I assert facts are set in stone.
I have always define facts as contingent upon a specific human based [collective of subject] framework and system.
Human naturally evolved, as such, most facts will change with the collective-of-subjects minds and conditions in time. The facts of human nutrition may change in 100,000 years?
However there are certain facts that are supposedly "permanent" in relation to the human species, e.g. the will-to-live till the inevitable in every human which is an essential element of morality.
It is undeniable that the 'will-to-live' is universal in all humans [all species of living things], thus objective [independent of any individual human's view] where morality is deductively objective.

I see what you mean. However It would be unusual to unlearn how to ride a bicycle or even unlearn how to handle a car. Muscle memory is tenacious , even as compared with those received moral (or amoral) traditions that we all learn as children and young adults. As a matter of fact, if we think a lot about how we ride the bicycle or handle the car, or climb the stairs we are more, not less ,likely to stumble.

My take on learning and unlearning moral rules is that ,unlike normal bicycles and normal cars, morals pertain to circumstances that change sometimes very rapidly.
In traditional societies where social change is not needed the mores stay the same, whereas in rapidly developing societies the mores must develop too, and this needs continued application of cortical reasoning: the cerebellum would be little use.

What I am [humanity need to be] interested are those moral elements and principles that do not change for the purpose of morality-proper,
e.g. no humans killing of humans as an ideal and other similar ones.
The moral principles or maxim of no rapes, homicides, torture and killing of babies and the likes are not expected to change at all.
Maybe there are moral principles and oughtnotness that are likely to change over at least 10,000 years, I can't think of any.

So if we can develop the majority moral competence to "Stage 4: Unconscious Competence, Your skills are now effortless and "automatic"", then it would be hard to unlearn, i.e. it will be spontaneous and autonomous without a need for authorities, coercion or threats [of Hell, etc.].

In practice, as of now, based on the present psychological states of the majority, there are homicides, war, rapes and other evil acts being committed, but there is no compromise to the objective and standard moral principles and maxims where humanity must strive for to improve toward.

[Belinda]

The 'ability to ride a bicycle' was an example of something spontaneous and yes it involved the cerebellum which is my point that it does not involved reasoning after one has learn it.
The point is in the initial stages of the learning process, the intellect and reasoning is involved. e.g. learning about the parts of the bicycle and the "how to" do the necessary actions is education in a way. If a bicycle is too simple for you to notice, note the learning and spontaneity in driving a car, a truck or a plane, which initially involve education together with motor skills.

But once, a person has master to ride a bicycle [car, etc.], there is no need for in involvement of the intellect to ride a bicycle, everything is just spontaneous, i.e. unconscious competence.

It is the same with morality and spontaneous moral actions; morality involved beliefs which has its respective neural correlates but it is also connected to the motor neurons to be translated to moral actions and inhibitions.

The main point is the 4 stages of learning which is universal and so, is applicable to morality:
Stage 1: Unconscious Incompetence. You don't know what you don't know.
Stage 2: Conscious Incompetence. You know what you don't know.
Stage 3: Conscious Competence. You know what you know.
Stage 4: Unconscious Competence. Your skills are now effortless and "automatic".
Implications for learning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence




My sort of morality is independent of politics [governance] and theistic religion [god driven].

Where did I assert facts are set in stone.
I have always define facts as contingent upon a specific human based [collective of subject] framework and system.
Human naturally evolved, as such, most facts will change with the collective-of-subjects minds and conditions in time. The facts of human nutrition may change in 100,000 years?
However there are certain facts that are supposedly "permanent" in relation to the human species, e.g. the will-to-live till the inevitable in every human which is an essential element of morality.
It is undeniable that the 'will-to-live' is universal in all humans [all species of living things], thus objective [independent of any individual human's view] where morality is deductively objective.

I see what you mean. However It would be unusual to unlearn how to ride a bicycle or even unlearn how to handle a car. Muscle memory is tenacious , even as compared with those received moral (or amoral) traditions that we all learn as children and young adults. As a matter of fact, if we think a lot about how we ride the bicycle or handle the car, or climb the stairs we are more, not less ,likely to stumble.

My take on learning and unlearning moral rules is that ,unlike normal bicycles and normal cars, morals pertain to circumstances that change sometimes very rapidly.
In traditional societies where social change is not needed the mores stay the same, whereas in rapidly developing societies the mores must develop too, and this needs continued application of cortical reasoning: the cerebellum would be little use.

What I am [humanity need to be] interested are those moral elements and principles that do not change for the purpose of morality-proper,
e.g. no humans killing of humans as an ideal and other similar ones.
The moral principles or maxim of no rapes, homicides, torture and killing of babies and the likes are not expected to change at all.
Maybe there are moral principles and oughtnotness that are likely to change over at least 10,000 years, I can't think of any.

So if we can develop the majority moral competence to "Stage 4: Unconscious Competence, Your skills are now effortless and "automatic"", then it would be hard to unlearn, i.e. it will be spontaneous and autonomous without a need for authorities, coercion or threats [of Hell, etc.].

In practice, as of now, based on the present psychological states of the majority, there are homicides, war, rapes and other evil acts being committed, but there is no compromise to the objective and standard moral principles and maxims where humanity must strive for to improve toward.

---"moral principles and oughtnotness that are likely to change over at least 10,000 years, I can't think of any. " (Veritas Aequitas)

The moral principles that 'don't ever change' e.g. care of the young , e.g. not killing others of the same tribe or family, e.g. hospitality to strangers are those that depend on the theory that man is a social mammal as defined by biology . Even those principles have on occasions been abandoned within human history. But in any case a theory is not an objective fact. Nobody will ever know what the original human nature is or was .

[Veritas Aequitas]

I see what you mean. However It would be unusual to unlearn how to ride a bicycle or even unlearn how to handle a car. Muscle memory is tenacious , even as compared with those received moral (or amoral) traditions that we all learn as children and young adults. As a matter of fact, if we think a lot about how we ride the bicycle or handle the car, or climb the stairs we are more, not less ,likely to stumble.

My take on learning and unlearning moral rules is that ,unlike normal bicycles and normal cars, morals pertain to circumstances that change sometimes very rapidly.
In traditional societies where social change is not needed the mores stay the same, whereas in rapidly developing societies the mores must develop too, and this needs continued application of cortical reasoning: the cerebellum would be little use.

What I am [humanity need to be] interested are those moral elements and principles that do not change for the purpose of morality-proper,
e.g. no humans killing of humans as an ideal and other similar ones.
The moral principles or maxim of no rapes, homicides, torture and killing of babies and the likes are not expected to change at all.
Maybe there are moral principles and oughtnotness that are likely to change over at least 10,000 years, I can't think of any.

So if we can develop the majority moral competence to "Stage 4: Unconscious Competence, Your skills are now effortless and "automatic"", then it would be hard to unlearn, i.e. it will be spontaneous and autonomous without a need for authorities, coercion or threats [of Hell, etc.].

In practice, as of now, based on the present psychological states of the majority, there are homicides, war, rapes and other evil acts being committed, but there is no compromise to the objective and standard moral principles and maxims where humanity must strive for to improve toward.

---"moral principles and oughtnotness that are likely to change over at least 10,000 years, I can't think of any. " (Veritas Aequitas)

The moral principles that 'don't ever change' e.g. care of the young , e.g. not killing others of the same tribe or family, e.g. hospitality to strangers are those that depend on the theory that man is a social mammal as defined by biology . Even those principles have on occasions been abandoned within human history. But in any case a theory is not an objective fact. Nobody will ever know what the original human nature is or was .

In the analogy of the Metabolic System [Digestive System] to generate essential nutrients, there are people who would just fast on water for 10, 30 to >365 days i.e. they "abandoned" food and did not die; there are other variations of abandoning food and merely surviving on water for a certain period.

Angus Barbieri (1938 or 1939 – 7 September 1990) was a Scottish man who fasted for 382 days,[1] from 14 June 1965 to 30 June 1966.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri%27s_fast

However, this abandonment of food by those individuals does not obviate [remove] the objective biological FACT of the universal inherent physical Metabolic System [digestive system] which is generic in all humans.

ALL humans are "programmed" with the Will-to-live till the inevitable; this is represented by the physical DNA and its neural correlated, thus objective and factual.
There are those who commit suicide due to damage or weakening of the will-to-live, but that does not obviate its whole physical structure which is universal in ALL humans.

It is the same for the basic objective moral facts which are physical, generic, universal and inherent in ALL humans represented by the physical DNA and its neural correlates.
That such moral potential did not manifest is due to its inactiveness [in most] or damaged as in psychopaths. But this does not obviate its physical presence which is the objective biological moral FS-fact.

As with any scientific knowledge, we can gain knowledge of human nature via the science-biology, science-psychological framework and system of knowledge. We have already done so except for the details some very complex features [e.g. consciousness,], you deny this?
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

[Peter Holmes]

The main point is the 4 stages of learning which is universal and so, is applicable to morality:
Stage 1: Unconscious Incompetence. You don't know what you don't know.
Stage 2: Conscious Incompetence. You know what you don't know.
Stage 3: Conscious Competence. You know what you know.
Stage 4: Unconscious Competence. Your skills are now effortless and "automatic".

The premise - there is moral knowledge, and so can be moral learning - begs the question. The very expression 'moral knowledge' is an example of semantic infiltration. It's a con.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The main point is the 4 stages of learning which is universal and so, is applicable to morality:
Stage 1: Unconscious Incompetence. You don't know what you don't know.
Stage 2: Conscious Incompetence. You know what you don't know.
Stage 3: Conscious Competence. You know what you know.
Stage 4: Unconscious Competence. Your skills are now effortless and "automatic".

The premise - there is moral knowledge, and so can be moral learning - begs the question. The very expression 'moral knowledge' is an example of semantic infiltration. It's a con.

What had happened to you?

What is Knowledge?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

The concept of Moral Knowledge and Moral Epistemology [Google it] is such a common concept that your doubt above made your thinking very silly.

My above continuum of Incompetence to Competence involved moral knowledge, moral competence and the ability to act morally spontaneously without any need for coercion or threat [of Hell, etc.].

[Peter Holmes]

The main point is the 4 stages of learning which is universal and so, is applicable to morality:
Stage 1: Unconscious Incompetence. You don't know what you don't know.
Stage 2: Conscious Incompetence. You know what you don't know.
Stage 3: Conscious Competence. You know what you know.
Stage 4: Unconscious Competence. Your skills are now effortless and "automatic".

The premise - there is moral knowledge, and so can be moral learning - begs the question. The very expression 'moral knowledge' is an example of semantic infiltration. It's a con.

What had happened to you?

What is Knowledge?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

The concept of Moral Knowledge and Moral Epistemology [Google it] is such a common concept that your doubt above made your thinking very silly.

My above continuum of Incompetence to Competence involved moral knowledge, moral competence and the ability to act morally spontaneously without any need for coercion or threat [of Hell, etc.].

Try the atmosphere outside the box.

[Peter Holmes]

The main point is the 4 stages of learning which is universal and so, is applicable to morality:
Stage 1: Unconscious Incompetence. You don't know what you don't know.
Stage 2: Conscious Incompetence. You know what you don't know.
Stage 3: Conscious Competence. You know what you know.
Stage 4: Unconscious Competence. Your skills are now effortless and "automatic".

The premise - there is moral knowledge, and so can be moral learning - begs the question. The very expression 'moral knowledge' is an example of semantic infiltration. It's a con.

What had happened to you?

What is Knowledge?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

The concept of Moral Knowledge and Moral Epistemology [Google it] is such a common concept that your doubt above made your thinking very silly.

My above continuum of Incompetence to Competence involved moral knowledge, moral competence and the ability to act morally spontaneously without any need for coercion or threat [of Hell, etc.].

I can know that - sometimes confusingly called propositional knowledge - and I can know of or about - sometimes called knowledge as acquaintance - and I can know how to - sometimes called performative knowledge.

So what is the so-called moral knowledge that VA refers to so confidently?

Presumably, it isn't knowing how to do something, such as ride a bike or play the violin. So presumably it's supposed to be so-called propositional knowledge, or knowledge from acquaintance. But those amount to the same thing, because propositional knowledge is actually knowledge that a feature of reality is or was the case - which is why the JTB account of knowledge is incorrect. Truth has nothing to do with it.

So what's confidently called moral knowledge is supposedly knowing that something is or was the case.

But what is or was the case, of which there can be knowledge? Moral realists and objectivists have no answer. And that's why the expression moral knowledge is incoherent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The premise - there is moral knowledge, and so can be moral learning - begs the question. The very expression 'moral knowledge' is an example of semantic infiltration. It's a con.

What had happened to you?

What is Knowledge?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

The concept of Moral Knowledge and Moral Epistemology [Google it] is such a common concept that your doubt above made your thinking very silly.

My above continuum of Incompetence to Competence involved moral knowledge, moral competence and the ability to act morally spontaneously without any need for coercion or threat [of Hell, etc.].

I can know that - sometimes confusingly called propositional knowledge - and I can know of or about - sometimes called knowledge as acquaintance - and I can know how to - sometimes called performative knowledge.

So what is the so-called moral knowledge that VA refers to so confidently?

Presumably, it isn't knowing how to do something, such as ride a bike or play the violin. So presumably it's supposed to be so-called propositional knowledge, or knowledge from acquaintance. But those amount to the same thing, because propositional knowledge is actually knowledge that a feature of reality is or was the case - which is why the JTB account of knowledge is incorrect. Truth has nothing to do with it.

So what's confidently called moral knowledge is supposedly knowing that something is or was the case.

But what is or was the case, of which there can be knowledge? Moral realists and objectivists have no answer. And that's why the expression moral knowledge is incoherent.

You are diverting to something that is not effective to the point.

Whatever is objective knowledge is contingent upon a specific human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] of which scientific knowledge from the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

Whatever is objective moral knowledge is contingent upon a specific human-based [collective of subjects] moral framework and system [FS] which would be established as near credible and objective as the scientific FS.
It is 'that is the case' as qualified to the moral FS.

For example, it is an objective moral knowledge [from the moral FS] that there is an oughtnotness of humans killing humans inherent within the brain of all humans.
By acquiring and understanding knowledge of such an objective moral fact will facilitate one to develop its effectiveness and thus increase one's moral competency in that specific aspect.