Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 11:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 4:47 am
The 'What' is, people like Peter Holmes and his likes insist morality cannot be objective, i.e. they dogmatically view morality from a narrow perspective based opinions, beliefs and judgments of rightness or wrongness.
In contrast I believe Morality is objective and based on a matter of fact, i.e. reducible to genes and definitely neural algorithms that activate moral elements.
But our moral values and judgements are subjective; no two people have exactly the same collection of them. Human beings having a sense of morality may be an objective fact, but the practice of morality is a subjective exercise. Do you disagree with this?
True whatever judgments made are subjective but the process and its underlying physical basis and generic intents are verifiable and justifiable thus factual and objective.
Take the case of essential nutrition and the metabolic processes to sustain survival, the need for the right & balance between the various of types of nutrients of critical necessity.
The requirement of the essential nutrients, i.e. carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins is generic for all humans and thus objective. You deny this?
All the physical elements associated with nutrition and the metabolic process from the organs to the related genes and DNA are obviously objective.
What is subjective is the choice and preferences of the different types of food, the way of producing it, cooking and eating the food.
This subjective aspects of nutrition and metabolism is the same as what you termed as 'moral values and judgments' are subjective.
It is because of this dogmatic view that moral values are subjective that the underlying physical elements are also ignored.
Anyone proposing anything objective, i.e. in this case the underlying physical element are condemned and mocked as stupid [not by you but most other posters here]. This has been going on since Hume's 'No Ought from Is' and Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy.
What is ugly with supposed claims of moral objectivity are those related to moral commands from a God threatening hell for non-compliance. This is not morality-proper but theology and theism.
Secular authorities involvement in moral conducts is not morality-proper but is politics.
The above pseudo-moralities are critically necessary because humanity had ignored morality proper [naturally ignorant] that exists naturally and is inherent within all humans, thus there no opportunity to improve moral competence naturally.
The subject of Nutrition was also ignored or bad advices were given by authorities due to ignorance and people were left to their subjective preferences for food ending with an obesity pandemic and all sorts of critical illness which are currently rising all over the world.
But now there is a trend of people looking inward into the physical elements from organs to genes to DNA of nutrition [the objective approach] more carefully to promote greater health.
Similarly I believe there must be a shift of paradigm towards the physical elements of morality, i.e. objective morality in the proper sense so that humanity can strive to improve the average moral quotient in the future [too late for now].
