An Inference: Moral Facts Exist??

[Belinda]

slave owners are not outraged by their own behaviour

not strictly true...no slaver wants to be a slave...he'll fight to stay unleashed

slavers slave cuz they successfully redefine, in their own heads, humans into product...can't feel outrage over sellin' hairless chimps or sub-creatures

it's an on-going, rather artful, kind of self-hypnosis (it looks human, sounds human, but it ain't human...will that be cash or charge?)

Yes true. The next question is 'How wide is the scope of respect for others?"

seems to me: respect is an individual matter (you respect a man, not mankind) and it has to be earned

and: recognizin' a man belongs to himself (and shouldn't used as property) is distinctly different from respectin' him...any number of folks in-forum I could not respect less (cuz they're garbage), but they're still people so I got no right to leash 'em

Yes. By "respect" I did not mean personal feelings or judgement of individuals. I meant "recognizin' a man belongs to himself (and shouldn't used as property)". And my point is why stop at a man? Why not include all creatures that have feelings?

[Veritas Aequitas]

To be a creationist, one will have to be a theist in the first place; I am NOT-a-theist.

Then what is the source of whatever is "programmed in all humans"?

I had been very careful in putting "programmed" in " " to anticipate people like you deferring to 'who is the programmer.'

What is most credible is empirical evidences of human behaviors in line with the
'if x then y' principles which is the basic of any "program."
There are tons of such 'if x then y' programs in our brain and physical system, i.e. if hot then sweat, if threaten, be angry, etc.

As such there is no need to bother asking the ultimate source or the origins.

Nope, rather, SOME humans had evolved in such deviant and evil ways that they are inclined to enslave others for their selfish interests without any empathy and compassion for the suffering of other humans.

So are people morally responsible for how their brains are wired?

It is not that people are morally responsible for how their brains are wired?

All humans are programmed with an inherent moral function for the good of humanity.
If that moral function is underdeveloped, its development may mature with time and age or never improve.
This is why a discussion of such matter is so important so that people can be informed of such knowledge so as to take steps to develop their moral competence if possible.

For some their moral function or moral compass could have been damage and beyond repair and so it is unfortunate they are destined to be morally defective, e.g. the inborn psychopaths and are other deviants.

I don't believe the current state of the moral competence of humanity can be changed immediately to effect positive results immediately since moral improvement [brain wise] will take time.
But is it critical we discuss and research to find strategies to expedite the process for future generations [not the present].

[henry quirk]

Yes true. The next question is 'How wide is the scope of respect for others?"

seems to me: respect is an individual matter (you respect a man, not mankind) and it has to be earned

and: recognizin' a man belongs to himself (and shouldn't used as property) is distinctly different from respectin' him...any number of folks in-forum I could not respect less (cuz they're garbage), but they're still people so I got no right to leash 'em

Yes. By "respect" I did not mean personal feelings or judgement of individuals. I meant "recognizin' a man belongs to himself (and shouldn't used as property)". And my point is why stop at a man? Why not include all creatures that have feelings?

a man (or woman) is a person; a cow, cat, platypus, giraffe, snake, bird, pig, trout, amoeba, lemur, donkey, hedgehog, bat, etc., is not

[uwot]

What is most credible is empirical evidences of human behaviors in line with the
'if x then y' principles which is the basic of any "program."
There are tons of such 'if x then y' programs in our brain and physical system, i.e. if hot then sweat, if threaten, be angry, etc.

Well people don't generally decide to sweat. If someone doesn't sweat in response to heat, there is probably something wrong with them; they might be dead, for example. As for someone's response to threats, there is a range of strategies available, not all of which voluntary, but there is a degree of choice making involved and unless you have been living under a rock, you will have noticed that different people have different responses to precisely the same threat.

All humans are programmed with an inherent moral function for the good of humanity.

What is your 'credible empirical evidences' for this?

If that moral function is underdeveloped, its development may mature with time and age or never improve.
This is why a discussion of such matter is so important so that people can be informed of such knowledge so as to take steps to develop their moral competence if possible.

What do you say to the people who ask 'What's in it for me?'

I don't believe the current state of the moral competence of humanity can be changed immediately to effect positive results immediately since moral improvement [brain wise] will take time.
But is it critical we discuss and research to find strategies to expedite the process for future generations [not the present].

The funny thing is, the philosopher most associated with the idea that we will develop as a species was Nietzsche. He had rather different ideas about how that should work out. Quite honestly you are not going to end slavery by waiting for us to evolve; you could be much more effective by not buying chocolate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_lab ... production

[Impenitent]

and Fred didn't give a crap about the herd... his morality would "evolve" beyond the herd...

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is most credible is empirical evidences of human behaviors in line with the
'if x then y' principles which is the basic of any "program."
There are tons of such 'if x then y' programs in our brain and physical system, i.e. if hot then sweat, if threaten, be angry, etc.

Well people don't generally decide to sweat. If someone doesn't sweat in response to heat, there is probably something wrong with them; they might be dead, for example. As for someone's response to threats, there is a range of strategies available, not all of which voluntary, but there is a degree of choice making involved and unless you have been living under a rock, you will have noticed that different people have different responses to precisely the same threat.

That is my point, people do not consciously decide to sweat because as I had asserted this 'if hot, then sweat' condition is an inherent and natural function that is "programmed" into humans via evolution. The person has no say on whether to sweat or not upon the conditions to sweat.
There are load of similar other "programmed" if X then Y function within the human system.
One of them is the moral function which is "programmed" within all human which basic function is to ensure the good [moral] trump over evil. But note, this is a later evolved function so it could be inactive, underdeveloped, defective or active in various people.

All humans are programmed with an inherent moral function for the good of humanity.

What is your 'credible empirical evidences' for this?

From generally observations and experiences [i.e. empirical], it is noted there is the natural proclivity for humanity and the average person in striving to ensure the good [moral] trump over evil.
This striving the good in overcoming evil has to be represented by some mental function.
Like all other primal functions, the moral function is "programmed" into each human via evolution.
There are other detailed and refined justifications, I won't go into that.
My general approach in justifying the truth in this case is based on coherentism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherentism
not based on the correspondence theory of truth.

If that moral function is underdeveloped, its development may mature with time and age or never improve.
This is why a discussion of such matter is so important so that people can be informed of such knowledge so as to take steps to develop their moral competence if possible.

What do you say to the people who ask 'What's in it for me?'

I would say "F..k Off" since such people are inherently selfish and will be very resistant in making any sincere contribution for the sake of our future generations.
At present we can only expect responsible citizens of humanity to influence others of likes into the discussion and planning the respective strategies to expedite moral competence for the future generations.

I don't believe the current state of the moral competence of humanity can be changed immediately to effect positive results immediately since moral improvement [brain wise] will take time.
But is it critical we discuss and research to find strategies to expedite the process for future generations [not the present].

The funny thing is, the philosopher most associated with the idea that we will develop as a species was Nietzsche. He had rather different ideas about how that should work out. Quite honestly you are not going to end slavery by waiting for us to evolve; you could be much more effective by not buying chocolate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_lab ... production

You are going off point.
There are many types of 'slavery' and all must be resolved.
But in this case, I have specified 'chattel slavery' which involved humans owning others as chattels, i.e. asset or property that one owned or can be traded in financial terms.

Note there is empirical evidences, chattel slavery is being abolished from its hey days since >10,000 years ago to the present where all sovereign nations had laws that banned chattel slavery.
Underlying this reducing trend it is obviously supported by some sort of moral drive to reduce chattel slavery within humanity. This can only be supported by an improvement in the consciousness and awareness of the immorality of slavery by the majority.

Now that all sovereign nations has laws that banned slavery, can be eliminate the impulse for slavery in all humans?
I would not be waiting for another phase of natural evolution to attain that in say the next 5,000 or 10,000 years.

Btw, do you know and follow the progress of this two fields, i.e.
1. -the Human Genomic Project [completed] and contributing knowledge,
2. -the Human Connectome Project [ mapping the human brain - in progress].

With the above and others, I am optimistic humanity can expedite the process and moral function to cultivate a natural aversion to slavery in all humans some time in the very "near future" [next 100 years]. This is based on the present trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge and technology especially in relation to the above 1 & 2.

This is why we need to be receptive and be eager to enter into a discussion of the above possibility re moral advancements instead of being pessimistic, dogmatic and resistant to future possibility.

[uwot]

There are load of similar other "programmed" if X then Y function within the human system.
One of them is the moral function which is "programmed" within all human which basic function is to ensure the good [moral] trump over evil. But note, this is a later evolved function so it could be inactive, underdeveloped, defective or active in various people.

Then it isn't like sweating and this:

...we need to be receptive and be eager to enter into a discussion of the above possibility re moral advancements instead of being pessimistic, dogmatic and resistant to future possibility.

...is a waste of time. It is a fine and noble thing that you wish to rid the world of slavery, but telling people who are slaves today that it'll all be over in another ten thousand years will be little comfort. Anyone who actually wants to do something about slavery could start by buying this brand of chocolate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony%27s_Chocolonely Slavery exists because consumers tolerate it. The business model of most corporations is to maximise profit regardless of the cost to their workforce or the environment. Such corporations are run, you will note, by people who clearly do not have the moral function you claim is obvious, and to argue that it is just "inactive, underdeveloped, defective" based on your claim that there has been a gradual moral awakening is wishful thinking. Without wishing to be branded a Marxist, he did say at least one thing I wholeheartedly agree with: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."

[Peter Holmes]

seems to me: respect is an individual matter (you respect a man, not mankind) and it has to be earned

and: recognizin' a man belongs to himself (and shouldn't used as property) is distinctly different from respectin' him...any number of folks in-forum I could not respect less (cuz they're garbage), but they're still people so I got no right to leash 'em

Yes. By "respect" I did not mean personal feelings or judgement of individuals. I meant "recognizin' a man belongs to himself (and shouldn't used as property)". And my point is why stop at a man? Why not include all creatures that have feelings?

a man (or woman) is a person; a cow, cat, platypus, giraffe, snake, bird, pig, trout, amoeba, lemur, donkey, hedgehog, bat, etc., is not

Is this the argument, or have I got it wrong?

P1 Moral concerns apply only to persons.
P2 Only humans are or can be persons.
C Therefore, moral concerns apply only to humans.

If so, the premises are matters of opinion or definition - with which many people disagree. They're not facts.

[henry quirk]

Yes. By "respect" I did not mean personal feelings or judgement of individuals. I meant "recognizin' a man belongs to himself (and shouldn't used as property)". And my point is why stop at a man? Why not include all creatures that have feelings?

a man (or woman) is a person; a cow, cat, platypus, giraffe, snake, bird, pig, trout, amoeba, lemur, donkey, hedgehog, bat, etc., is not

Is this the argument, or have I got it wrong?

P1 Moral concerns apply only to persons.
P2 Only humans are or can be persons.
C Therefore, moral concerns apply only to humans.

If so, the premises are matters of opinion or definition - with which many people disagree. They're not facts.

it's not an argument: it's a conversation with B

so, yeah, you got it wrong

[Belinda]

seems to me: respect is an individual matter (you respect a man, not mankind) and it has to be earned

and: recognizin' a man belongs to himself (and shouldn't used as property) is distinctly different from respectin' him...any number of folks in-forum I could not respect less (cuz they're garbage), but they're still people so I got no right to leash 'em

Yes. By "respect" I did not mean personal feelings or judgement of individuals. I meant "recognizin' a man belongs to himself (and shouldn't used as property)". And my point is why stop at a man? Why not include all creatures that have feelings?

a man (or woman) is a person; a cow, cat, platypus, giraffe, snake, bird, pig, trout, amoeba, lemur, donkey, hedgehog, bat, etc., is not

Sure that is how personhood is reckoned now. However, why not give all sentient creatures a slight measure of personhood, to distinguish between them and commodities?

In the bad old days of plantation slavery a black African was a commodity, and now he is a person. Obviously a cow or even a Border collie dog cannot vote, but these animals can be given some of the status of personhood, which is that they are not commodities such as bags of grain, or cars.

[henry quirk]

Yes. By "respect" I did not mean personal feelings or judgement of individuals. I meant "recognizin' a man belongs to himself (and shouldn't used as property)". And my point is why stop at a man? Why not include all creatures that have feelings?

a man (or woman) is a person; a cow, cat, platypus, giraffe, snake, bird, pig, trout, amoeba, lemur, donkey, hedgehog, bat, etc., is not

Sure that is how personhood is reckoned now. However, why not give all sentient creatures a slight measure of personhood, to distinguish between them and commodities?

In the bad old days of plantation slavery a black African was a commodity, and now he is a person. Obviously a cow or even a Border collie dog cannot vote, but these animals can be given some of the status of personhood, which is that they are not commodities such as bags of grain, or cars.

now we're gettin' into the rather meaty subject of personhood

tell you what: I'll start a thread (so as to avoid adulteratin' this thread)

I'll title it personhood...watch for it

[Peter Holmes]

a man (or woman) is a person; a cow, cat, platypus, giraffe, snake, bird, pig, trout, amoeba, lemur, donkey, hedgehog, bat, etc., is not

Is this the argument, or have I got it wrong?

P1 Moral concerns apply only to persons.
P2 Only humans are or can be persons.
C Therefore, moral concerns apply only to humans.

If so, the premises are matters of opinion or definition - with which many people disagree. They're not facts.

it's not an argument: it's a conversation with B

so, yeah, you got it wrong

For which I apologise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are load of similar other "programmed" if X then Y function within the human system.
One of them is the moral function which is "programmed" within all human which basic function is to ensure the good [moral] trump over evil. But note, this is a later evolved function so it could be inactive, underdeveloped, defective or active in various people.

Then it isn't like sweating and this:

The moral function is has conditional functions like 'sweating' i.e.
if hot, body temperature increases, then sweat,
if short of nutrients, trigger hunger,
if commit negatives, trigger guilt or shame,
if observe slavery, then enrage,
and many other if X, then y functions.

If not the same, then why?

...we need to be receptive and be eager to enter into a discussion of the above possibility re moral advancements instead of being pessimistic, dogmatic and resistant to future possibility.

...is a waste of time. It is a fine and noble thing that you wish to rid the world of slavery, but telling people who are slaves today that it'll all be over in another ten thousand years will be little comfort. Anyone who actually wants to do something about slavery could start by buying this brand of chocolate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony%27s_Chocolonely Slavery exists because consumers tolerate it. The business model of most corporations is to maximise profit regardless of the cost to their workforce or the environment. Such corporations are run, you will note, by people who clearly do not have the moral function you claim is obvious, and to argue that it is just "inactive, underdeveloped, defective" based on your claim that there has been a gradual moral awakening is wishful thinking. Without wishing to be branded a Marxist, he did say at least one thing I wholeheartedly agree with: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."

Note I was very specified with 'chattel' slaver and not pseudo-slavery, I mentioned earlier;

You are going off point.
There are many types of 'slavery' and all must be resolved.
But in this case, I have specified 'chattel slavery' which involved humans owning others as chattels, i.e. asset or property that one owned or can be traded in financial terms.

As far as 'chattel slavery' there had been very significant improvements over the last 10,000 years or more since humans were enslaved as 'chattels'.

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony%27s_Chocolonely
that is with reference to child labor labelled as 'slave labor' but that is not categorically 'chattel' slavery.

Chattel slavery
As a social institution, chattel slavery (traditional slavery) denies the human agency of people, by legalistically dehumanising them into chattels (personal property) owned by the slaver; therefore slaves give birth to slaves; the children of slaves are born enslaved, by way of the legalistic philosophy of partus sequitur ventrem (That which is brought forth follows the belly).[20]
They are also bought and sold at will, as a result.[21]
Although chattel slavery was the usual form of enslavement in most societies that practiced slavery throughout human history, since the 19th century, this form of slavery was formally abolished.
-wiki

I am not referring to the other types of 'slavery' which are very distinct from 'chattel' slavery.

• 1.1 Bonded labour
  1.3 Dependents
  1.4 Forced labour
  1.5 Forced marriage

The above is a separate topic for the current discussion and in any case such practices are immoral should be eliminated as well.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is this the argument, or have I got it wrong?

P1 Moral concerns apply only to persons.
P2 Only humans are or can be persons.
C Therefore, moral concerns apply only to humans.

If so, the premises are matters of opinion or definition - with which many people disagree. They're not facts.

The above is a truism since only humans are identified as persons.
Person = a human being regarded as an individual.
https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en

It is very evident and factual, morality and ethics are very significant and consciously deliberated within humanity while traces of it are linked to some 'higher' animals.
It is only human beings who are striving to improve the average moral competence.

But in addition, I have argued;

Morality is Confined to the Human Species
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29722
As such, moral [as defined] concerns are specifically applicable only to humans but extended to other species and the external environment for the positive interests of and empathy from the human species.

[Peter Holmes]

Is this the argument, or have I got it wrong?

P1 Moral concerns apply only to persons.
P2 Only humans are or can be persons.
C Therefore, moral concerns apply only to humans.

If so, the premises are matters of opinion or definition - with which many people disagree. They're not facts.

The above is a truism since only humans are identified as persons.
Person = a human being regarded as an individual.
https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en

It is very evident and factual, morality and ethics are very significant and consciously deliberated within humanity while traces of it are linked to some 'higher' animals.
It is only human beings who are striving to improve the average moral competence.

But in addition, I have argued;

Morality is Confined to the Human Species
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29722
As such, moral [as defined] concerns are specifically applicable only to humans but extended to other species and the external environment for the positive interests of and empathy from the human species.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

1 That moral concerns apply only to persons is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective.
2 That only humans are persons is a definition, and therefore a linguistic matter. There is no fact here.
3 Even if true, that only humans think about and try to 'improve' morality has no bearing on the scope of moral concerns.