Hedonism & Morality

[CIN]

I actually don't think is positions are wacko.

The underlying belief that powers everything he does conforms to a flase syllogism he has never bothered to write out because he takes it for granted.

Namely he starts with his antirealist claim, that follows a general line that reality is a construct, some sort of story we tell ourselves about how the world is that has no specific thing to relate back to. Put that into whatever specious hyperbolic terms he's currently using and you have an accurate account of his starting point. That bit isn't a terrible position at all, it seems more or less true as far as I am concerned. But it is not by the nature of things morally interesting, it has by rights little influence over moral philosophy.

From there he progresses to a deflationist epistemological approach to facts and truths. This is also fine, I can live with such accounts quite happily. CIN can too I expect, and I am certain you can, I would assume it is your default preference. Not so sure about Pete on this one

But move he makes is to convert that antirealism into a morally relevant position by way of deflationist epistemology is pure wacko shit. He takes the position that if there is a human element in the making of fact claims, then there is no other element and all that is required to construct a fact is to make claims. This is pure stupidity and it is unfixable without dismissing every argument he has made thus far and starting over.

There are three main areas of problem I have with him. It's not his antirealism or his moral objectivism (odd as it is I think that's the category) that I object to, as a couple of examples. I don't consider these wacko positions. I think his core positions can be defended and justified. I'm not saying they are correct, but I don't this his beliefs at that level are wacko, that's really all I was saying. It's his arguments, his interactions with others and his inability to notice contraditions. This last is, I think caused by ad hoc, putting out fires, finding anything online to combat posts where people disagree with him. When these ad hoc maneuvers or not read AI posts or articles lead to contradictions, he simply cannot admit it. Which leads to the interactions: he can't concede that any line of argument had a problem. This is utterly beyond his ability. Even though he must be aware that he is not thinking of the whole of his position when he throws things at people. This creates terrible dynamics because once you cannot admit error, then he can't really respond to or notice criticisms. Hence his approach which is to make a global negative evaluation of someone's post, then to combine responses that do not fit the points made, sometimes even support them. He more or less simply reasserts his position. It's rude to such a degree that I wish everyone ignored him completely. Pretty much only the annoyed read him - and I am pretty sure we are vastly more aware of his positions and system than he is while he is responding. He can't remember his own forest when he thinks he's defending some tree in it.

But I wanted to draw a distinction between main positions and how he interacts/argues. Like Iamb he assumes that anyone disagreeing has emotional reasons. They are braver or not afraid ( in their own minds) to face the paradigm shifts and/or harsh truths.

Any wackoness to me is process related.

I would agree with pretty much all of that. I would actually like to discuss some of his positions, but with someone who can respond rationally to criticism instead of just putting up a defensive screen.

VA actually behaves a lot like Peter Holmes. The difference is that VA is 100% sure that he's right, and Peter is 100% sure that you're wrong.

[Peter Holmes]

VA actually behaves a lot like Peter Holmes. The difference is that VA is 100% sure that he's right, and Peter is 100% sure that you're wrong.

Clarification, please. Which 'you' do you think I'm 100% sure is wrong? IWP? You (CIN)? Or just everyone else?

And anyway, certainty and doubt are frames of mind, which are irrelevant. True premises and valid arguments are all that matter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But move he makes is to convert that antirealism into a morally relevant position by way of deflationist epistemology is pure wacko shit. He takes the position that if there is a human element in the making of fact claims, then there is no other element and all that is required to construct a fact is to make claims. This is pure stupidity and it is unfixable without dismissing every argument he has made thus far and starting over.

He is a wacko.

You're the strawman wacko.

My FSERC has nothing to do with deflationism.

Whatever is true [real, fact, knowledge, objective] is conditioned upon a human-based [collective of subject] framework and system. [FSERC]
"The sky is blue is true" because the science FSERC said so.
"God exists is true" because the theistic FSERC said so, but its credibility and objective is 0.1/100 in relation to the science FSERC as the gold standard.

So whatever is morally true [real, fact, knowledge, objective] is conditioned upon a human-based [collective of subject] moral framework and system. [FSERC].

[FlashDangerpants]

But move he makes is to convert that antirealism into a morally relevant position by way of deflationist epistemology is pure wacko shit. He takes the position that if there is a human element in the making of fact claims, then there is no other element and all that is required to construct a fact is to make claims. This is pure stupidity and it is unfixable without dismissing every argument he has made thus far and starting over.

He is a wacko.

You're the strawman wacko.

My FSERC has nothing to do with deflationism.

Whatever is true [real, fact, knowledge, objective] is conditioned upon a human-based [collective of subject] framework and system. [FSERC]
"The sky is blue is true" because the science FSERC said so.
"God exists is true" because the theistic FSERC said so, but its credibility and objective is 0.1/100 in relation to the science FSERC as the gold standard.

So whatever is morally true [real, fact, knowledge, objective] is conditioned upon a human-based [collective of subject] moral framework and system. [FSERC].

You just proved my case you idiot. You are claiming that all it takes to have moral facts is to have people assert moral fact claims. That's the wacko bit.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But move he makes is to convert that antirealism into a morally relevant position by way of deflationist epistemology is pure wacko shit. He takes the position that if there is a human element in the making of fact claims, then there is no other element and all that is required to construct a fact is to make claims. This is pure stupidity and it is unfixable without dismissing every argument he has made thus far and starting over.

He is a wacko.

You're the strawman wacko.

My FSERC has nothing to do with deflationism.

Whatever is true [real, fact, knowledge, objective] is conditioned upon a human-based [collective of subject] framework and system. [FSERC]
"The sky is blue is true" because the science FSERC said so.
"God exists is true" because the theistic FSERC said so, but its credibility and objective is 0.1/100 in relation to the science FSERC as the gold standard.

So whatever is morally true [real, fact, knowledge, objective] is conditioned upon a human-based [collective of subject] moral framework and system. [FSERC].

You just proved my case you idiot. You are claiming that all it takes to have moral facts is to have people assert moral fact claims. That's the wacko bit.

You're the Strawman wacko.
Scientific facts are not based merely on people asserting scientific fact claims; they are an output of a complex justification framework and system [FSERC].
I had always claimed whatever are moral facts, the moral FSERC must have credibility and objectivity as near as possible to the gold standard.

[FlashDangerpants]

You're the strawman wacko.

My FSERC has nothing to do with deflationism.

Whatever is true [real, fact, knowledge, objective] is conditioned upon a human-based [collective of subject] framework and system. [FSERC]
"The sky is blue is true" because the science FSERC said so.
"God exists is true" because the theistic FSERC said so, but its credibility and objective is 0.1/100 in relation to the science FSERC as the gold standard.

So whatever is morally true [real, fact, knowledge, objective] is conditioned upon a human-based [collective of subject] moral framework and system. [FSERC].

You just proved my case you idiot. You are claiming that all it takes to have moral facts is to have people assert moral fact claims. That's the wacko bit.

You're the Strawman wacko.
Scientific facts are not based merely on people asserting scientific fact claims; they are an output of a complex justification framework and system [FSERC].
I had always claimed whatever are moral facts, the moral FSERC must have credibility and objectivity as near as possible to the gold standard.

Credibility in your theory comes from nothing but how many people agree with it.

What is the thing apart from people asserting it, that makes a fact a fact in your theory? There isnt' anything. You can't afford to have anything that does that because it would leave confirmable facts (science for instance) unmolested, but stop you being able to manufacture moral "facts" out of nothing but collective opinion.

This isn't a strawman, it's a true observation of the giant hole in your theory that you have been deliberately ignoring for about ten years. It won't go away.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You just proved my case you idiot. You are claiming that all it takes to have moral facts is to have people assert moral fact claims. That's the wacko bit.

You're the Strawman wacko.
Scientific facts are not based merely on people asserting scientific fact claims; they are an output of a complex justification framework and system [FSERC].
I had always claimed whatever are moral facts, the moral FSERC must have credibility and objectivity as near as possible to the gold standard.

Credibility in your theory comes from nothing but how many people agree with it.

What is the thing apart from people asserting it, that makes a fact a fact in your theory? There isnt' anything. You can't afford to have anything that does that because it would leave confirmable facts (science for instance) unmolested, but stop you being able to manufacture moral "facts" out of nothing but collective opinion.

This isn't a strawman, it's a true observation of the giant hole in your theory that you have been deliberately ignoring for about ten years. It won't go away.

First you are morally deficient thus has no clue what morality is really about, i.e. you are a lost cause as far as positive human actions for the progress of humanity in the future.

It is so evident "Morality" is an ubiquitous feature of human nature.
Whatever of human nature [incl. morality] is a fact that can be reduced to empirical based sets of active neurons within a system and the physical human body.
Humanity at this stage with its advancing knowledge is progressively reducing all human activities re human nature [so will include morality] to its physical neural correlates and the physical body.
Eventually humanity will be able to assert with credibility and objectivity, empirical based moral facts that are grounded upon the science and moral FSERC.

You can just continue to diddle around without any moral sense or moral compass.

[FlashDangerpants]

You're the Strawman wacko.
Scientific facts are not based merely on people asserting scientific fact claims; they are an output of a complex justification framework and system [FSERC].
I had always claimed whatever are moral facts, the moral FSERC must have credibility and objectivity as near as possible to the gold standard.

Credibility in your theory comes from nothing but how many people agree with it.

What is the thing apart from people asserting it, that makes a fact a fact in your theory? There isnt' anything. You can't afford to have anything that does that because it would leave confirmable facts (science for instance) unmolested, but stop you being able to manufacture moral "facts" out of nothing but collective opinion.

This isn't a strawman, it's a true observation of the giant hole in your theory that you have been deliberately ignoring for about ten years. It won't go away.

First you are morally deficient thus has no clue what morality is really about, i.e. you are a lost cause as far as positive human actions for the progress of humanity in the future.

It is so evident "Morality" is an ubiquitous feature of human nature.
Whatever of human nature [incl. morality] is a fact that can be reduced to empirical based sets of active neurons within a system and the physical human body.
Humanity at this stage with its advancing knowledge is progressively reducing all human activities re human nature [so will include morality] to its physical neural correlates and the physical body.
Eventually humanity will be able to assert with credibility and objectivity, empirical based moral facts that are grounded upon the science and moral FSERC.

You can just continue to diddle around without any moral sense or moral compass.

You wer supposed to be trying to show that I am mistaken an some sense. Obviously I am not, so you respond with a childish diatribe.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Credibility in your theory comes from nothing but how many people agree with it.

What is the thing apart from people asserting it, that makes a fact a fact in your theory? There isnt' anything. You can't afford to have anything that does that because it would leave confirmable facts (science for instance) unmolested, but stop you being able to manufacture moral "facts" out of nothing but collective opinion.

This isn't a strawman, it's a true observation of the giant hole in your theory that you have been deliberately ignoring for about ten years. It won't go away.

First you are morally deficient thus has no clue what morality is really about, i.e. you are a lost cause as far as positive human actions for the progress of humanity in the future.

It is so evident "Morality" is an ubiquitous feature of human nature.
Whatever of human nature [incl. morality] is a fact that can be reduced to empirical based sets of active neurons within a system and the physical human body.
Humanity at this stage with its advancing knowledge is progressively reducing all human activities re human nature [so will include morality] to its physical neural correlates and the physical body.
Eventually humanity will be able to assert with credibility and objectivity, empirical based moral facts that are grounded upon the science and moral FSERC.

You can just continue to diddle around without any moral sense or moral compass.

You wer supposed to be trying to show that I am mistaken an some sense. Obviously I am not, so you respond with a childish diatribe.

You are morally blind like color blindness.

I stated,
"It is so evident "Morality" is an ubiquitous feature of human nature" as expressed and described commonly.
Surely it must have its ground to the physical human body and human nature, thus potentially physical and factual which can be empirically verified and justified more conclusively in future.

This is why E. O. Wilson predict for the future:

“the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized” (Wilson 1975, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis 562).

Based on current trends, that would be the future.

[FlashDangerpants]

First you are morally deficient thus has no clue what morality is really about, i.e. you are a lost cause as far as positive human actions for the progress of humanity in the future.

It is so evident "Morality" is an ubiquitous feature of human nature.
Whatever of human nature [incl. morality] is a fact that can be reduced to empirical based sets of active neurons within a system and the physical human body.
Humanity at this stage with its advancing knowledge is progressively reducing all human activities re human nature [so will include morality] to its physical neural correlates and the physical body.
Eventually humanity will be able to assert with credibility and objectivity, empirical based moral facts that are grounded upon the science and moral FSERC.

You can just continue to diddle around without any moral sense or moral compass.

You wer supposed to be trying to show that I am mistaken an some sense. Obviously I am not, so you respond with a childish diatribe.

You are morally blind like color blindness.

I stated,
"It is so evident "Morality" is an ubiquitous feature of human nature" as expressed and described commonly.
Surely it must have its ground to the physical human body and human nature, thus potentially physical and factual which can be empirically verified and justified more conclusively in future.

This is why E. O. Wilson forsee the future:

“the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized” (Wilson 1975, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis 562).

Based on current trends, that would be the future.

You are not able to devise an experiment that would empirically show a moral fact.

[Iwannaplato]

I stated,
"It is so evident "Morality" is an ubiquitous feature of human nature" as expressed and described commonly.
Surely it must have its ground to the physical human body and human nature, thus potentially physical and factual which can be empirically verified and justified more conclusively in future.

No one is arguing that morality does not exist. It is truly unimaginably strange that after all these years and thousands of posts you still conflate the objective existence of morality, with any set of moral truths being objective. Unbelievable.

This is why E. O. Wilson predict for the future:

“the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized” (Wilson 1975, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis 562).

Wilson "biologicized" ethics was a descriptive ethics, not a normative ethics.
You're continuing the same conflation as above.

He started explaining how our ethical tendencies evolved through natural selection rather than claiming that any particular moral code is objectively true or correct. Big Difference!!! Wilson suggested that what we consider "moral" stemmed from adaptive behaviors selected for in our evolutionary past.

In other words, Wilson's approach was more about how biology has led to our moral inclinations, not necessarily that biology can justify them as universally objective truths.

Based on current trends, that would be the future.

Well, if you are right, then in the future perhaps experts will be on your side in some way. But that doesn't affect how, in your system, we decide what is objective.

You can't magically, even in your own epistemology, say that in the future my position will be more objective because THEN expert intersubjective consensus will be on my side.

[Iwannaplato]

You wer supposed to be trying to show that I am mistaken an some sense. Obviously I am not, so you respond with a childish diatribe.

You are morally blind like color blindness.

I stated,
"It is so evident "Morality" is an ubiquitous feature of human nature" as expressed and described commonly.
Surely it must have its ground to the physical human body and human nature, thus potentially physical and factual which can be empirically verified and justified more conclusively in future.

This is why E. O. Wilson forsee the future:

“the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized” (Wilson 1975, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis 562).

Based on current trends, that would be the future.

You are not able to devise an experiment that would empirically show a moral fact.

He's still conflating the existence of morals, which no one denies, with the objectivity of any particular moral position. Weirdly enough he sometimes knows the difference, other times not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I stated,
"It is so evident "Morality" is an ubiquitous feature of human nature" as expressed and described commonly.
Surely it must have its ground to the physical human body and human nature, thus potentially physical and factual which can be empirically verified and justified more conclusively in future.

No one is arguing that morality does not exist.

Tell that to FDP the moral skeptic.

It is truly unimaginably strange that after all these years and thousands of posts you still conflate the objective existence of morality, with any set of moral truths being objective. Unbelievable.

You talking nonsense and the above is not my view.

My point has always been:
Whatever is true, objective, exists, factual, knowledge, is contingent with a specific human based FSERC.
Thus my objective moral facts and truths are all in the same FSERC but in different contexts.

This is why E. O. Wilson predict for the future:

“the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized” (Wilson 1975, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis 562).

Wilson "biologicized" ethics was a descriptive ethics, not a normative ethics.
You're continuing the same conflation as above.

You should check with AI.
According to AI, Wilson "biologicized" ethics is both descriptive and normative.

He started explaining how our ethical tendencies evolved through natural selection rather than claiming that any particular moral code is objectively true or correct. Big Difference!!! Wilson suggested that what we consider "moral" stemmed from adaptive behaviors selected for in our evolutionary past.

In other words, Wilson's approach was more about how biology has led to our moral inclinations, not necessarily that biology can justify them as universally objective truths.

If Ethics and Morality is coded in our DNA then it is an universal objective fact in that sense.
That the moral activities may varied according to different environment and conditions does not obviate the above inherent universal objective fact, i.e. this is a Substance versus Forms point.

Based on current trends, that would be the future.

Well, if you are right, then in the future perhaps experts will be on your side in some way. But that doesn't affect how, in your system, we decide what is objective.

You can't magically, even in your own epistemology, say that in the future my position will be more objective because THEN expert intersubjective consensus will be on my side.

I had defined what is objective as grounded on a universal human-based FSERC.
When in the future it is biological determined what is morally objective within a science compatible moral FSERC this knowledge will be universally applicable as an objective GUIDE and STANDARD for the well being of humanity.
Variations from the objective GUIDE and STANDARD do not obviate the real existence of the moral facts.

Analogy:
When scientists discovered the most critical vitamins for every humans are vitamin D, B12, and iron, that is an objective biological fact which is a STANDARD and GUIDE for all human to comply with.
Humans has the freewill to deplete their vitamin D, B12, and iron and face the inevitable consequences, but that does not obviate the objective biological fact as the STANDARD and GUIDE.

The above analogy is the same with objective moral facts.
The problem with objective moral facts is they are not so obvious at present [not so developed knowledge and intelligence] because morality is a late evolutionary adaptations.
But we will get to it soon.

Btw, E.O. Wilson's views are merely a pointer to the future, the actual state is more complex and varied than that.

[Atla]

I stated,
"It is so evident "Morality" is an ubiquitous feature of human nature" as expressed and described commonly.
Surely it must have its ground to the physical human body and human nature, thus potentially physical and factual which can be empirically verified and justified more conclusively in future.

No one is arguing that morality does not exist.

Tell that to FDP the moral skeptic.

It is truly unimaginably strange that after all these years and thousands of posts you still conflate the objective existence of morality, with any set of moral truths being objective. Unbelievable.

You talking nonsense and the above is not my view.

My point has always been:
Whatever is true, objective, exists, factual, knowledge, is contingent with a specific human based FSERC.
Thus my objective moral facts and truths are all in the same FSERC but in different contexts.

This is why E. O. Wilson predict for the future:

“the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized” (Wilson 1975, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis 562).

Wilson "biologicized" ethics was a descriptive ethics, not a normative ethics.
You're continuing the same conflation as above.

You should check with AI.
According to AI, Wilson "biologicized" ethics is both descriptive and normative.

He started explaining how our ethical tendencies evolved through natural selection rather than claiming that any particular moral code is objectively true or correct. Big Difference!!! Wilson suggested that what we consider "moral" stemmed from adaptive behaviors selected for in our evolutionary past.

In other words, Wilson's approach was more about how biology has led to our moral inclinations, not necessarily that biology can justify them as universally objective truths.

If Ethics and Morality is coded in our DNA then it is an universal objective fact in that sense.
That the moral activities may varied according to different environment and conditions does not obviate the above inherent universal objective fact, i.e. this is a Substance versus Forms point.

Based on current trends, that would be the future.

Well, if you are right, then in the future perhaps experts will be on your side in some way. But that doesn't affect how, in your system, we decide what is objective.

You can't magically, even in your own epistemology, say that in the future my position will be more objective because THEN expert intersubjective consensus will be on my side.

I had defined what is objective as grounded on a universal human-based FSERC.
When in the future it is biological determined what is morally objective within a science compatible moral FSERC this knowledge will be universally applicable as an objective GUIDE and STANDARD for the well being of humanity.
Variations from the objective GUIDE and STANDARD do not obviate the real existence of the moral facts.

Analogy:
When scientists discovered the most critical vitamins for every humans are vitamin D, B12, and iron, that is an objective biological fact which is a STANDARD and GUIDE for all human to comply with.
Humans has the freewill to deplete their vitamin D, B12, and iron and face the inevitable consequences, but that does not obviate the objective biological fact as the STANDARD and GUIDE.

The above analogy is the same with objective moral facts.
The problem with objective moral facts is they are not so obvious at present [not so developed knowledge and intelligence] because morality is a late evolutionary adaptations.
But we will get to it soon.

Btw, E.O. Wilson's views are merely a pointer to the future, the actual state is more complex and varied than that.

And it doesn't bother VA that our tribal moral instincts from say 20000 years ago just lead us to perpetual conflict among tribes (nations today), eventually leading to nuclear holocaust. Cooperation with all other tribes isn't a basic moral instinct, unification of all humans into one tribe also isn't a basic moral instinct (unless the unification is done by force which again means nuclear war).

For example VA's "don't kill" principle is immoral bollocks according to his own morality-proper. The objectively-moral-proper principle is "don't kill, unless not killing puts your tribe at a risk/disadvantage".

[FlashDangerpants]

I stated,
"It is so evident "Morality" is an ubiquitous feature of human nature" as expressed and described commonly.
Surely it must have its ground to the physical human body and human nature, thus potentially physical and factual which can be empirically verified and justified more conclusively in future.

No one is arguing that morality does not exist.

Tell that to FDP the moral skeptic.

All these years posing as the greatest of philosophers, but you still don't even understand what moral skepticism even is.