uwot wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:13 amWhat 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.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:13 amAll 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.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:13 amIf 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.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:13 amI 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.