For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
BigMike,
Each main theory of existence leads to an ethical corollary. Evaluating is an important experience for most normal people, (that's biological I believe). In order to evaluate we need at least one criterion. Criteria depend on what exists, because you can't formulate a criterion from nothing.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 12:05 pmI can't fathom how that would work.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:59 am
It would be different in practice.
All theories of existence are philosophically interesting but some are more coherent and more ethically acceptable than others.
Within inductive logic a definition is ad hoc and pro tem so that each definition is hypothetical and that is how common sense and science both work in this relative and temporal world. For deductive logic a definition is tautological and is used to confirm that arguments are valid.
Theories are like the lenses you put in your glasses - they make you interpret the world differently, but they don't alter the world.
Altering your perception of what's going on doesn't change what's going on. Theories alter connotation, but not denotation.
It might cause you to adapt and change how you behave in response to the world, but I don't see that happening on the mere supposition that what's going on is not experience, but some other connotation.
Describing it better or differently doesn't alter or improve your "biology".
Since I do not believe in free will, which implies that I do not believe in "moral responsibility", I believe that morality refers to a set of rules and standards that individuals should adhere to, provided they accept them. Because of this, morality is pretty subjective, and consequently open to debate and interpretation. I have my own moral code that makes sense to me and, in my case, is based on the fact that I don't believe in free will, as I believe is true for the vast majority of people. Unquestionably, morality, as in "moral principles," is a subjective concept.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 6:37 pmBigMike,
I take it to mean correctly or not, to mean, is morality objectively available, independent of subjective sensibilities. The possibility I find absurd.
The fact that all meaning in the relationship of subject and object/the world being object is the property of a conscious subject. This leaves no doubt that morality is subjective. It can only become objectified through the conscious subject bestowing the meaning of morality upon a meaningless world.BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 12:26 amSince I do not believe in free will, which implies that I do not believe in "moral responsibility", I believe that morality refers to a set of rules and standards that individuals should adhere to, provided they accept them. Because of this, morality is pretty subjective, and consequently open to debate and interpretation. I have my own moral code that makes sense to me and, in my case, is based on the fact that I don't believe in free will, as I believe is true for the vast majority of people. Unquestionably, morality, as in "moral principles," is a subjective concept.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 6:37 pmBigMike,
I take it to mean correctly or not, to mean, is morality objectively available, independent of subjective sensibilities. The possibility I find absurd.
Morality-proper do not have a direct relation to 'free will'.
You, the majority and all humans at present has the respective standard of moral code and subjective beliefs in morality, but they are not in alignment with the inherent objective moral facts drive within.Because of this, morality is pretty subjective, and consequently open to debate and interpretation. I have my own moral code that makes sense to me and, in my case, is based on the fact that I don't believe in free will, as I believe is true for the vast majority of people. Unquestionably, morality, as in "moral principles," is a subjective concept.
Agent Smith wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 8:22 am The time between me entering and me exiting the dentist's chamber was exactly 32 minutes 4 seconds, but it felt like an erernity had passed!
That's why I said "moral responsibility" and not "morality-proper" when I talked about "free will." Clearly, if you are not free to choose your actions, you cannot be held morally responsible for them.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 4:21 amMorality-proper do not have a direct relation to 'free will'.
People shouldn't mix up the fact that they need to eat and breathe to survive with moral rules like "ought-to-eat" or something like that. In the past, our DNA's drive for "survival of the fittest" has made us do some pretty "immoral", unspeakable, things.Analogy:
That every human [all living things] must feed themselves with nutrients to survive is a biological ought.
This oughtness-to-eat is a biological fact.
Therefore this oughtness is an objective fact which is verifiable and justifiable.
This objective fact is ultimately subjective [there are many perspectives of subjectivity] since it is reduced ultimately to the subject.
It is a VERY subjective opinion and belief for each individual to produce, prepare and consume their food for the nutrients but we cannot deny the underlying objective fact of oughtness-to-eat "program" and is inherent in the DNA of ALL humans.
There are no "objective moral facts that are built into us." We evolved by the principle of survival of the fittest. Evolution caused mammals, in particular, to also care for their offspring's and close relatives' survival. That is "built into us." And this in turn led to the forming of and living in families. And that led to the formation of small cooperative social groups; small communities. Families made "family rules" that the kids were taught to follow. And the elders or the sovereign set social rules of conduct that everyone in the community had to follow. From this came the moral and legal systems, which are man-made and vary from one society to the next.You, the majority and all humans at present has the respective standard of moral code and subjective beliefs in morality, but they are not in alignment with the inherent objective moral facts drive within.Because of this, morality is pretty subjective, and consequently open to debate and interpretation. I have my own moral code that makes sense to me and, in my case, is based on the fact that I don't believe in free will, as I believe is true for the vast majority of people. Unquestionably, morality, as in "moral principles," is a subjective concept.
It is too late for the whole lot of humans at present to change and improve. It take time for the human neurons to rewire.
Humanity's hope is only for the future where all humans can develop their inherent moral potential progressively to be good moral citizens spontaneously and objectively within ultimate subjectivity [intersubjectivity, not personal subjectivity].
Morality is not about enforcement and compliance to some laws and rules. That would be politics with its laws, police and judiciary.BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 9:07 amThat's why I said "moral responsibility" and not "morality-proper" when I talked about "free will." Clearly, if you are not free to choose your actions, you cannot be held morally responsible for them.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 4:21 amMorality-proper do not have a direct relation to 'free will'.
Why not?People shouldn't mix up the fact that they need to eat and breathe to survive with moral rules like "ought-to-eat" or something like that. In the past, our DNA's drive for "survival of the fittest" has made us do some pretty "immoral", unspeakable, things.Analogy:
That every human [all living things] must feed themselves with nutrients to survive is a biological ought.
This oughtness-to-eat is a biological fact.
Therefore this oughtness is an objective fact which is verifiable and justifiable.
This objective fact is ultimately subjective [there are many perspectives of subjectivity] since it is reduced ultimately to the subject.
It is a VERY subjective opinion and belief for each individual to produce, prepare and consume their food for the nutrients but we cannot deny the underlying objective fact of oughtness-to-eat "program" and is inherent in the DNA of ALL humans.
There is no debate as to the inherent objective fact of "ought-to-eat" or "ought-to-breathe."Because of this, morality is pretty subjective, and consequently open to debate and interpretation. I have my own moral code that makes sense to me and, in my case, is based on the fact that I don't believe in free will, as I believe is true for the vast majority of people. Unquestionably, morality, as in "moral principles," is a subjective concept.
As stated above, we cannot conflate moral system with legal system.There are no "objective moral facts that are built into us." We evolved by the principle of survival of the fittest. Evolution caused mammals, in particular, to also care for their offspring's and close relatives' survival. That is "built into us." And this in turn led to the forming of and living in families. And that led to the formation of small cooperative social groups; small communities. Families made "family rules" that the kids were taught to follow. And the elders or the sovereign set social rules of conduct that everyone in the community had to follow. From this came the moral and legal systems, which are man-made and vary from one society to the next.You, the majority and all humans at present has the respective standard of moral code and subjective beliefs in morality, but they are not in alignment with the inherent objective moral facts drive within.
It is too late for the whole lot of humans at present to change and improve. It take time for the human neurons to rewire.
Humanity's hope is only for the future where all humans can develop their inherent moral potential progressively to be good moral citizens spontaneously and objectively within ultimate subjectivity [intersubjectivity, not personal subjectivity].
There are no "objective moral facts that are built into us." There are only good manners, some of which have moral, altruistic, qualities, instilled in us by parents and others.
1 The expression objective fact is a tautology or redundancy. There are no subjective facts.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:46 am "Objective moral facts' are inherent to human nature.
The only things that become objectified are when a conscious subject objectifies them, subjectivity is our only way of knowing what the world means to a given biology and its experiences, are called meanings.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:33 pm1 The expression objective fact is a tautology or redundancy. There are no subjective facts.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:46 am "Objective moral facts' are inherent to human nature.
2 An appeal to so-called human nature is always a last resort when evidence and argument fail.
3 It's a fact that humans can be kind and/or cruel. Is that a moral fact?
Yes, that is seemingly tautological but it is critical as an reinforcement since 'objective' and 'fact' has different shade of meanings from different perspectives. In addition they can be very loose terms for different people, so we need to be more precise.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:33 pm1 The expression objective fact is a tautology or redundancy. There are no subjective facts.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:46 am "Objective moral facts' are inherent to human nature.
You are too hasty on this.2 An appeal to so-called human nature is always a last resort when evidence and argument fail.
You are lost here and your question above is based on ignorance.3 It's a fact that humans can be kind and/or cruel. Is that a moral fact?
No, as always you slide from having and stating a goal to the moral rightness and wrongness of actions in relation to that goal. You do precisely what Hume pointed out: assuming an ought from an is.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:39 amYes, that is seemingly tautological but it is critical as an reinforcement since 'objective' and 'fact' has different shade of meanings from different perspectives. In addition they can be very loose terms for different people, so we need to be more precise.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:33 pm1 The expression objective fact is a tautology or redundancy. There are no subjective facts.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:46 am "Objective moral facts' are inherent to human nature.
I would not hesitate to use the term 'real objective fact' where necessary.
fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
objective: based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings:
'Fact' is too general while objective-fact implied a process involved in asserting what is a fact, i.e. as I had stated "what is fact" must be conditioned to a Framework and System of Reality, e.g. what is a Scientific Fact entailed complex processes.
Theists will insist their God exists as a fact but that is based on faith, i.e. not on an objective-based process via empirical evidence and rational arguments.
There is no rule that must be imposed here. If you don't like it at all, just ignored one of the word.
You are too hasty on this.2 An appeal to so-called human nature is always a last resort when evidence and argument fail.
Human nature is merely a general term used as a matter of convenience in this case.
When have I insisted, because it is human nature, it must be absolutely true?
However it is open for detailed deliberation to require evidence is needed be.
You are lost here and your question above is based on ignorance.3 It's a fact that humans can be kind and/or cruel. Is that a moral fact?
First we have to define what we meant by 'what is moral'.
I define 'moral' in the negative sense, i.e. what is moral is "not-evil".
What is evil is any human act that is net-negative to the well being [with potential of fatality and injuries] of the individual and humanity.
In this case we have to present a near exhaustive lists [taxonomy] of human acts that are identified as 'evil'.
Being 'Kind' is not an evil act, thus cannot be a moral fact.
Being cruel with potential fatality to another human is an evil act and it has its degree of evilness, thus can be a moral fact. The higher the potential fatality, the higher degree of evilness.
Note your thinking to the above is too narrow, shallow and dogmatic.