at Canzookia.com
https://canzookia.com/
and was there a Oughtness Not to Accept Gayness and ostracize/punish/kill Them objective fact in humans until very recent times. Was it objectively correct to hate gays up until a certain date and then it beccame objectively less right, then it became perhaps wrong, then it became more clearly objectively wrong, but only in some countries?Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:17 am Many people consider gender transition to be a moral issue. 99% of people in a society do not try to undergo a gender transition. Does that mean gender transitions are objectively immoral?
Seems? you need to be more precise.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:09 am It all just seems like begging the question to me.
And if it's only true within one particular FSK, that means it's not true in some other fsk.
And I still have no idea why it matters that most people don't do it. Is morality a democracy?
These deep psychological reasons are facts represented by by physical neurons, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.There are deep psychological reasons why humans find babies of all species so cute. Scientists believe that the powerful nurturing instinct we have for our own children spills over into an affection for anything that even loosely resembles them.
https://www.bbcearth.com/news/the-code-for-cuteness
Reflect on and consider whether you are ignorant [have not done extensive research] of the fullness of advanced scientific knowledge to date ..And I still have no idea ...
Generally, gender transitions in principle is objectively immoral.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:17 am Many people consider gender transition to be a moral issue. 99% of people in a society do not try to undergo a gender transition. Does that mean gender transitions are objectively immoral?
Would it be okay to torture Peter Holmes to death for pleasure?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:12 am Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose?
You missed my point.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:14 am I think this entire approach is incredibly weak. I don't accept that "objective morality" is consistent with the idea of basing it on what most people do or don't do - neither does iwaanaplato, apparently. That's the opposite of objective. That makes morality some sort of democratic system - it's just a popularity contest at that point.
This is more like the ramblings of the bloke down the pub after a few pints than philosophy.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:11 amYou missed my point.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:14 am I think this entire approach is incredibly weak. I don't accept that "objective morality" is consistent with the idea of basing it on what most people do or don't do - neither does iwaanaplato, apparently. That's the opposite of objective. That makes morality some sort of democratic system - it's just a popularity contest at that point.
We know a majority consensus, e.g. the Flat-Earthers view, do not represent the truth of reality with high objectivity.
What is significant on the measurement of degrees of objectivity is the credibility and reliability of the FSK the specific fact is grounded upon.
For example, the majority of humans -80% are theists do not accept the theory of the Big Bang.
So, perhaps approximately 15% of humans accept the Big Bang Theory; but the BB Theory has a reasonable degree of objectivity because it is grounded on the science-Physics FSK which has a higher degree of credibility and reliability.
Thus objectivity is not based on a majority consensus but more significantly on the credibility and reliability of the FSK it is grounded on.
Where there is a majority consensus, then that would be an added bonus to the degree of objectivity of a FSK-conditioned fact.
In my case, I claimed there is majority consensus, but this is not sufficient to claim high objectivity.
Given my claim is analogous to the given example that can be justified and verified by the science-biology FSK, my claim can be verified and justified by the science-biology FSK. In this case my claim will have a science-biology FSK grounding.
Thereafter, my claim will be subjected to the moral FSK [supposedly credible] to enable a moral fact.
I have given an analogy of a legal fact.
If X is convicted as a murderer based heavily on DNA evidence from a scientific-genomic-FSK, then that is a legal fact conditioned upon a legal FSK, conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
Similarly a moral fact can be grounded on a scientific-biology fact within a credible moral FSK.
Since morality is grounded on a moral FSK [collective of subjects - so, objective], morality is objective.
When we claim 'Morality is Objective' it means humanity will have objective moral grounds to enable individuals [in the future, not now] to self-develop their moral competence [moral quotient] to the extent ALL [if not nearly ALL] humans will not have any tendency to torture babies to death for pleasure, in general no tendency to kill humans at all or commit any act of evil [as defined].
Definitely not for me based on my moral principles.Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:08 amWould it be okay to torture Peter Holmes to death for pleasure?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:12 am Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose?
Seems like you are the one who wrote the above after a few pints by the obvious fact you are merely capable of giving one liners than valid and sound arguments.Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:20 amThis is more like the ramblings of the bloke down the pub after a few pints than philosophy.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:11 amYou missed my point.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:14 am I think this entire approach is incredibly weak. I don't accept that "objective morality" is consistent with the idea of basing it on what most people do or don't do - neither does iwaanaplato, apparently. That's the opposite of objective. That makes morality some sort of democratic system - it's just a popularity contest at that point.
We know a majority consensus, e.g. the Flat-Earthers view, do not represent the truth of reality with high objectivity.
What is significant on the measurement of degrees of objectivity is the credibility and reliability of the FSK the specific fact is grounded upon.
For example, the majority of humans -80% are theists do not accept the theory of the Big Bang.
So, perhaps approximately 15% of humans accept the Big Bang Theory; but the BB Theory has a reasonable degree of objectivity because it is grounded on the science-Physics FSK which has a higher degree of credibility and reliability.
Thus objectivity is not based on a majority consensus but more significantly on the credibility and reliability of the FSK it is grounded on.
Where there is a majority consensus, then that would be an added bonus to the degree of objectivity of a FSK-conditioned fact.
In my case, I claimed there is majority consensus, but this is not sufficient to claim high objectivity.
Given my claim is analogous to the given example that can be justified and verified by the science-biology FSK, my claim can be verified and justified by the science-biology FSK. In this case my claim will have a science-biology FSK grounding.
Thereafter, my claim will be subjected to the moral FSK [supposedly credible] to enable a moral fact.
I have given an analogy of a legal fact.
If X is convicted as a murderer based heavily on DNA evidence from a scientific-genomic-FSK, then that is a legal fact conditioned upon a legal FSK, conditioned upon a scientific FSK.
Similarly a moral fact can be grounded on a scientific-biology fact within a credible moral FSK.
Since morality is grounded on a moral FSK [collective of subjects - so, objective], morality is objective.
When we claim 'Morality is Objective' it means humanity will have objective moral grounds to enable individuals [in the future, not now] to self-develop their moral competence [moral quotient] to the extent ALL [if not nearly ALL] humans will not have any tendency to torture babies to death for pleasure, in general no tendency to kill humans at all or commit any act of evil [as defined].
This does not support your conclusion.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:30 amThere is no doubt morality is a very common and significant human issue.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 11:23 pmThis is the best you can do?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:12 am Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose?
Baby: a very young child, especially one that has not yet begun to walk or talk:
I believe;
-there is an inherent Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death within all humans, i.e. universal. [A]
-this A can be verified to physical elements in the brain in terms of neurons, neural algorithm, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.
-it is evident 99.99% of humans do not torture human babies to death.
-when deliberated within a moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] this [A] is a moral fact that is objective.
-therefore Morality is objective.
Since people like Peter Holmes and others as moral-facts-deniers do not believe morality is objective, which imply that they would in principle accept and condone that anyone can Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose.
To them there is no such objective moral fact such as "the Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever reasons."
See Peter Holmes' objection to objective moral facts here;
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601
Views?
This is not objective in any meaningful sense.
What you can conclude is that you may be able to get most people to agree with this absurd and extreme case.
But since this is not a matter of morality it is puzzling why you think this allows such a conclusion.
There is no specific law pertaining to this act for the simple reason that it is not an issue.
This is just a poor appeal to emotion.
But you will not get all people to agree to this.
Depends on many things.
Since you believe,
"Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose"
is not a moral issue,
in that case you condone such acts?
This does not support your conclusion.You are really deranged and worst than an 'animal' and should be checked into a lunatic asylum.
This does not support your conclusion.
The above is covered in Laws on Violence against Children.
How can you be so ignorant [not surprising anyway] there is no laws covering such a horrendous crime?
Legal Laws are related to politics not morality.
Objectgive?
With morality-proper, humanity strive to develop the natural objectgive "Ought-Not-ness to Torture Human Babies to Death" to the extent such that the inherent "oughtness-to-kill" is inhibited and modulated naturally without any need for external enforcements like legal laws.
You seem to have an unrealistic view of what human beings are.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:24 am
I believe, in ALL humans there is an inherent "ought-not-ness to torture humans" neural inhibitors in various degrees of activeness.
Since this is a biological fact, thus a moral fact, I will strive to ensure from now onward to influence ALL humans to self-develop this neural inhibitor to ensure in the future no humans will torture other humans in the future [too late now].
At present I have sufficient knowledge to understand and know my vision is a possibility in the future, in 50, 75, >100 years' time, for the possibility is merely a matter of time.
I think it would be foolish to set about compiling a "sound" argument against what you have to say about morality, because your reasoning is so muddled, and your conclusions so misplaced, as to make it impossible to know where to start.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:27 amSeems like you are the one who wrote the above after a few pints by the obvious fact you are merely capable of giving one liners than valid and sound arguments.
