VALUES

[Veritas Aequitas]

First I agree there are no ontological values i.e. value-in-itself as expressed in the article.

Now you write:

The "human species" is good for and to itself, i.e. it has its own inherent values.

These completely contradict each other.

The point is there are no, "intrinsic," values. Nothing is a, "value in itself."

The words, "inerent," and, "intrinsic," mean the same thing. They are synonyms.

Inherent: Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic

Intrinsic: Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.

The human species has no objective or purpose. Only individual human beings have purposes and objectives. If the human species has a value, it could only be a value to individual human beings.

From my point of view, the human species, as a species, is the most dangerous and vile species on the planet, and, as a species, a totally negative value to human beings.

As far as I can see, VA, you have rejected the God of the theists, and made the human species your god.

For a theist, teleology begins with God.
For a collectivist,teleology begins with evolution.
For a realist, teleology begins with individual human beings.

Note I wrote;

• "Thus the human species itself which the individual is a part of, has values.
  Since the individual human is part and parcel of the whole human species, the values of the species will naturally be imbued within the individual human."

Take for example the case of a "team".
A team of people has its own specific team goal which can only achieved by a team and not by an individual.
However the team goal is shared by the individual team members.

• For example;
  An NBA team goal of the season is to win the NBA Championship.
  In this sense, the team has its own value, brand name, sponsorship, games collection, etc.
  It is always the team that won the championship not the individual[s].
  The 2019 NBA Championship was won by the the Toronto Raptors team not Kwahi Leonard or any of the individuals in that team.
  Nonetheless the individual[s] do share the team goals together with their own specific individual goals.

Therefore you are wrong on this;

The human species has no objective or purpose. Only individual human beings have purposes and objectives. If the human species has a value, it could only be a value to individual human beings.

Substitute the human species as Team-Humanity which has its own objective and purpose which is co-shared by all the individual humans with exceptions.

As far as I can see, VA, you have rejected the God of the theists, and made the human species your god.

You are literally wrong.
The human species as team-humanity cannot be the same as God - an illusory entity.

From my point of view, the human species, as a species, is the most dangerous and vile species on the planet, and, as a species, a totally negative value to human beings.

You are very ignorant on this and do not have the capacity to think far ahead.

It is not the human species, but yes, some individual[s] can be very dangerous to the extent they could exterminate the human species when WMDs are easily and cheaply available.

But the core propensity of the human species is to ensure its survival and preservation till any inevitable circumstances.

Note at present the human species is able to explore space and other planets.
In addition, humanity in co-operation with different nations are setting up all sorts of equipments in space.

It is popularly discussed, there is a possibility for a large enough rogue asteroid to appear from nowhere and heading Earth's direction and if it hit the Earth, it could destroy the Earth into smithereens.
Now scientists and others are discussing on approaches and methods on how to divert such an asteroid from its path away from Earth.

In this case, the emergence of the human species with is higher and progressing intelligence and wisdom is a plus point to itself and all living species with its potential capability to save the Earth, the human species and all living species from being exterminated by a large rogue meteorite.

One point to note is;
while the human species as a team has its own objectives and purpose, the human-species-as-one is very indifferent to the individual own derived goals or even the the shared-goal.
It is noticeable for the human species' self-preservation, some percentile of individuals will be sacrificed and made to suffer to meet the objective and purpose of the human species.

As such the individual with his/her own self-awareness, intelligence and wisdom must strive to align effectively and optimally with the objective and purpose of the human species.

I pointed out, DNA wise ALL humans are programmed with the potential for higher moral competence within the brain, i.e. with a faculty of morality.
I mentioned the clue of the mirror neurons and certain parts of the brain which are driving greater competence in morality within individuals and this is progressing.

You are ignorant of the above facts that the human species itself has its own specific objective and purpose, i.e. survival and preservation of the human species.

[RCSaunders]

But the core propensity of the human species is to ensure its survival and preservation ...

WHAT FOR?

If the entire human race went extinct, to whom would it possibly matter?

[Sculptor]

But the core propensity of the human species is to ensure its survival and preservation ...

This is just an opinion like all values.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But the core propensity of the human species is to ensure its survival and preservation ...

WHAT FOR?

If the entire human race went extinct, to whom would it possibly matter?

It just "is".
To WHOM?? What must it be for some ontological entity.

What is of concern to the human race directly effects the individual[s] therein directly.

If the human race is at risk of going extinct* like how humanity is experiencing a pandemic, it surely matters to the individual[s] who are part and parcel of the human species.
If for some reasons the Covid19 virus mutated where whatever vaccines we can make and can counter the mutated virus, then the possibly of the human race going extinct is possible.

As evident, the core propensity of the human species as a whole is to ensure its survival and preservation which in turn will effect the individual[s].

Can you disprove this, i.e.;
the human species as inferred from empirical evidences has its own specific objective and purpose which is different from the individuals in one perspective but is co-shared by the individual[s] in another. [e.g. team goals versus individual goals - shared not not shared]

[Veritas Aequitas]

But the core propensity of the human species is to ensure its survival and preservation ...

This is just an opinion like all values.

This is not an opinion but it is objective and justified by empirical evidences from the collective behaviors of specific species.

Note my challenge;

Can you disprove this, i.e.;
the human species as inferred from empirical evidences has its own specific objective and purpose which is different from the individuals in one perspective but is co-shared by the individual[s] in another. [e.g. team goals versus individual goals - shared not not shared]

[Sculptor]

But the core propensity of the human species is to ensure its survival and preservation ...

This is just an opinion like all values.

This is not an opinion but it is objective and justified by empirical evidences from the collective behaviors of specific species.

Wrong.
The "human Species" has no propensity at all. Individuals have propensities. Many human acts are reckless, of their preservation and are undertaken without any regard for survival.
The cavalier actions of the species may well lead to its destruction, as with so many other species.

Note my challenge;

Can you disprove this, i.e.;
the human species as inferred from empirical evidences has its own specific objective and purpose which is different from the individuals in one perspective but is co-shared by the individual[s] in another. [e.g. team goals versus individual goals - shared not not shared]

Like I said just an opinion. And like most opinions tends to be composed of cherry-picked evidence which ignores other evidence that does not suit, such as fatalistic drug taking, risky behaviours such as warfare, skydiving, and car racing. And fatal acts such as suicide, and euthanasia.

[RCSaunders]

Can you disprove this, i.e.;
the human species as inferred from empirical evidences has its own specific objective and purpose which is different from the individuals in one perspective but is co-shared by the individual[s] in another. [e.g. team goals versus individual goals - shared not not shared]

Yes, all of human history disproves it. Humanity, as a species, is vile and worthless. Some individual human beings are exceptions. It is, in fact, those exceptional productive individuals, that enables the vast majority of parasitic unproductive human beings to exist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is just an opinion like all values.

This is not an opinion but it is objective and justified by empirical evidences from the collective behaviors of specific species.

Wrong.
The "human Species" has no propensity at all. Individuals have propensities. Many human acts are reckless, of their preservation and are undertaken without any regard for survival.
The cavalier actions of the species may well lead to its destruction, as with so many other species.

Yes, it is obvious individuals have propensities but humans as a species collectively also have its own specific propensity.

Note "propensity"

• Propensity = an inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way.

The "human species" is a collection of human beings where all humans have basic generic qualities.
The collection of human beings - driven by the generic qualities - do have the natural tendency to behave in a particular way.
For example all humans behave according to the same instinct, breathe, sex, food, security, and other primal instincts.

It is evident from empirical evidences each species strives to survive for self-preservation.
Where individuals are seen to be reckless [disregard to their survival], it is the nature of the species to trigger some percentile of individuals to be "reckless" which is associated with pleasure [dopamine] for them.
For example there is a need for a percentile to be risk seekers so that they are triggered to take risks to explore new frontiers to cater for the expansion of population within a species. These risk seekers would seem to be "reckless" but they do serve a purpose for the species collectively.

Nature is never perfect, thus there are likely to be individuals who are not aligned with the core purpose of the species but these are exceptions without risk to the species. Point the it is inherent within a species to rely on the Principle of large numbers so as to increase the chances of its survival. [note for example those in the insect world and other species].

As for human species at its present phase with capability to deal with the threat of rogue meteors, pandemic, etc. there is the risk of SOME deviant humans exterminating the human species via cheap WMDs.
However it is inherent within the human species where individual humans are "programmed" with the faculty of morality to contra the above risk.

The point is, amidst the variations and forms discussed above, the human species fundamentally has its propensity as embedded in the DNA of the individuals to drive the collective to behave in a particular way.

Note my challenge;

Can you disprove this, i.e.;
the human species as inferred from empirical evidences has its own specific objective and purpose which is different from the individuals in one perspective but is co-shared by the individual[s] in another. [e.g. team goals versus individual goals - shared not not shared]

Like I said just an opinion. And like most opinions tends to be composed of cherry-picked evidence which ignores other evidence that does not suit, such as fatalistic drug taking, risky behaviours such as warfare, skydiving, and car racing. And fatal acts such as suicide, and euthanasia.

You did not address my challenge, but merely threw in cherry-picked irrelevant evidence and even some of it support my thesis.

As I had explained, the above are the exceptions.
Some of the exceptions are naturally and critical for the survival of the species, e.g. the triggering of a percentile of risk takers to expand the frontiers and to look for additional resources to sustain an expanding population. This is so obvious with risk takers within the human species, e.g. the crazy explorers who had taken blind risks where many had been killed while those few who survived have found new lands, frontiers and various novel discoveries that are beneficial to the human species.

Cherry-picked??
You are the one who is banking on merely exceptions but not on the majority.

I have argued based on the DNA/RNA of the individuals that collectively generate the purpose and specific behavior of the collective - the human species.
Note for example, the empirical evidence is, the individual survival age is always shorter than that of the species.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can you disprove this, i.e.;
the human species as inferred from empirical evidences has its own specific objective and purpose which is different from the individuals in one perspective but is co-shared by the individual[s] in another. [e.g. team goals versus individual goals - shared not not shared]

Yes, all of human history disproves it. Humanity, as a species, is vile and worthless. Some individual human beings are exceptions. It is, in fact, those exceptional productive individuals, that enables the vast majority of parasitic unproductive human beings to exist.

You got it wrong.
You are babbling with ignorance.

RCSaunders: "the vast majority of parasitic unproductive human beings"
Again you are ignorant about the human species and its purpose.
At present, a large majority are working to sustain their own life.
Before this pandemic, the unemployment rate of most countries average 5-10% which meant the majority of capable adults are working.

What is critical for the human species [or any other species] at the minimal is for the majority of humans to keep fucking to produce the next generations with a basic ability to survive within their productive age.

Note it is the exceptions that are exceptionally destructive and exceptionally productive.
Yes, there are exceptionally destructive individual[s] which can be a threat to the human species, especially with the presence of WMDs.

As pointed out above;
It is inherent within the human species where individual humans are "programmed" with the faculty of morality to contra the above risk.
Again this had been evident with the moral progress of the human species at present in contrast to since it first emerged.

[Sculptor]

This is not an opinion but it is objective and justified by empirical evidences from the collective behaviors of specific species.

Wrong.
The "human Species" has no propensity at all. Individuals have propensities. Many human acts are reckless, of their preservation and are undertaken without any regard for survival.
The cavalier actions of the species may well lead to its destruction, as with so many other species.

Yes, it is obvious individuals have propensities but humans as a species collectively also have its own specific propensity.

Note "propensity"

• Propensity = an inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way.

No, individual propensities contradict. So no collective propensity is possible.
Even if it were so; an "IS" does not make an "ought"

The "human species" is a collection of human beings where all humans have basic generic qualities.
As for human species at its present phase with capability to deal with the threat of rogue meteors, pandemic, etc. there is the risk of SOME deviant humans exterminating the human species via cheap WMDs.

You have just contradicted yourself. You have already evaluated some as "deviant" because they do not match your ideal propensity.

However it is inherent within the human species where individual humans are "programmed" with the faculty of morality to contra the above risk.

Rubbish

The point is, amidst the variations and forms discussed above, the human species fundamentally has its propensity as embedded in the DNA of the individuals to drive the collective to behave in a particular way.

Note my challenge;

Can you disprove this, i.e.;
the human species as inferred from empirical evidences has its own specific objective and purpose which is different from the individuals in one perspective but is co-shared by the individual[s] in another. [e.g. team goals versus individual goals - shared not not shared]

Like I said just an opinion. And like most opinions tends to be composed of cherry-picked evidence which ignores other evidence that does not suit, such as fatalistic drug taking, risky behaviours such as warfare, skydiving, and car racing. And fatal acts such as suicide, and euthanasia.

You did not address my challenge, but merely threw in cherry-picked irrelevant evidence and even some of it support my thesis.

I'm sorry to inform you that when you make absolute and objective claims, ANY evidence to the contrary invalidates that claim.
You have already shot yourself in the foot by pointing out that there are humans capable of massive destruction against the needs of the species and of acts of violence against even themselves.

As I had explained, the above are the exceptions.

I'm sorry to inform you that when you make absolute and objective claims, ANY evidence to the contrary invalidates that claim.

Some of the exceptions are naturally and critical for the survival of the species, e.g. the triggering of a percentile of risk takers to expand the frontiers and to look for additional resources to sustain an expanding population. This is so obvious with risk takers within the human species, e.g. the crazy explorers who had taken blind risks where many had been killed while those few who survived have found new lands, frontiers and various novel discoveries that are beneficial to the human species.

Cherry-picked??
You are the one who is banking on merely exceptions but not on the majority.

I'm sorry to inform you that when you make absolute and objective claims, ANY evidence to the contrary invalidates that claim.

I have argued based on the DNA/RNA of the individuals that collectively generate the purpose and specific behavior of the collective - the human species.
Note for example, the empirical evidence is, the individual survival age is always shorter than that of the species.

ROLF

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wrong.
The "human Species" has no propensity at all. Individuals have propensities. Many human acts are reckless, of their preservation and are undertaken without any regard for survival.
The cavalier actions of the species may well lead to its destruction, as with so many other species.

Yes, it is obvious individuals have propensities but humans as a species collectively also have its own specific propensity.

Note "propensity"

• Propensity = an inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way.

No, individual propensities contradict. So no collective propensity is possible.

You are spewing nonsense here.

Even if it were so; an "IS" does not make an "ought"

You are ignorant because your thinking is too superficial.
Based on linguistic and common sense, yes, "is" cannot be "ought" just as 'black' cannot be 'white'. But if we reflect deeper both are on the same continuum of greyness.

And note Yin is not [does not make a] Yang yet they work in complementarity within reality.

A particle is not [does not make] a wave.
But Bohr applied the principle of complementarity to reconcile the two contrasting elements.

I had used the same principles of complementarity to reconcile "is" to "ought" along its shared continuum.

Empirically, a living human being is breathing all the time, thus all human beings are breathing all the time.
Logically, it is a fact, all living human beings ought to breathe, else they die.

Thus "is" is "ought" logically and rationally.

I have applied the same principles above to derive secular objective moral oughts.

[Peter Holmes]

Empirically, a living human being is breathing all the time, thus all human beings are breathing all the time.
Logically, it is a fact, all living human beings ought to breathe, else they die.

Thus "is" is "ought" logically and rationally.

I have applied the same principles above to derive secular objective moral oughts.

There's no logical entailment from 'humans must breathe' (fact) to 'humans must be allowed to breathe' (judgement). No fact can entail a moral judgement. And as for moral rationality - having and providing good reasons for a moral judgement - that still doesn't produce entailment.

Your 'humans ought to breathe' is unclear. If it means ' they must breathe in order to surive', absolutely. That's a fact.

[Belinda]

I heartily agree with nearly all the original post from RC Saunders.

I query

The collective itself has no value other than the sum value of the individuals.

That adequately describes an aggregate but not a society. A society has some different attributes from an aggregate. Chiefly, a society can accomplish more than an aggregate can. Whenever values are discussed we need to include intentions. Societies are an intentional unity often to the extent and technology of codified strategy/morality, whereas aggregates' intentions are not unified.

Also, will you address the idea of criteria as applied to choosing this or that?

[Sculptor]

Yes, it is obvious individuals have propensities but humans as a species collectively also have its own specific propensity.

Note "propensity"

• Propensity = an inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way.

No, individual propensities contradict. So no collective propensity is possible.

You are spewing nonsense here.
Even you are capable of understanding this. Humans are two groups A & B
Group A has a propensity to wage war.
Groups B has a propensity to make peace.
QED. There are individual propensities. No propensity related to "humans".
So, as I say above propensities contradict. No propensity covers humans.

Even if it were so; an "IS" does not make an "ought"

You are ignorant because your thinking is too superficial.
Based on linguistic and common sense, yes, "is" cannot be "ought" just as 'black' cannot be 'white'. But if we reflect deeper both are on the same continuum of greyness.
Even you can understand the most simple idea.
Perhaps you should look up the "is/ought problem"; this is a common philosophical trope. Philosophy 101 you might say.
Insulting me, just makes you look more stupid.

And note Yin is not [does not make a] Yang yet they work in complementarity within reality.
not relevant. mystical BS. Does not help your argument even if true

A particle is not [does not make] a wave.
But Bohr applied the principle of complementarity to reconcile the two contrasting elements.

I had used the same principles of complementarity to reconcile "is" to "ought" along its shared continuum.
Irrelevant. Humans are more complex, that wavicles,
Empirically, a living human being is breathing all the time, thus all human beings are breathing all the time.
Logically, it is a fact, all living human beings ought to breathe, else they die.

Thus "is" is "ought" logically and rationally.

There is no reason humans ought to live.
Use your brain.

I have applied the same principles above to derive secular objective moral oughts.
[/quote]
You have established zero

[RCSaunders]

I heartily agree with nearly all the original post from RC Saunders.

I query

The collective itself has no value other than the sum value of the individuals.

That adequately describes an aggregate but not a society. A society has some different attributes from an aggregate. Chiefly, a society can accomplish more than an aggregate can. Whenever values are discussed we need to include intentions. Societies are an intentional unity often to the extent and technology of codified strategy/morality, whereas aggregates' intentions are not unified.

Also, will you address the idea of criteria as applied to choosing this or that?

Glad you found something of value in the article. I'll try to answer your question.

I do not think we have quite the same view of society. I do not believe societies and their cultures are the result of any strategy. They are and have always been spontaneous or accicental, even when some political power intended to plan them. I'm not sure how your distinction between the nature of a society being the sum of the values and behavior of the individuals that make up a society (my view) is different from society as an, "aggregate." Perhaps you could clarify that.

I'm also not certain what, exactly, you are asking with regard to a, "cirteria," for choosing unless you are referring to the last paragraph of the article and those objectives and purposes that would best meet the requirements of human nature to live successfully as human beings.

I am not prepared to provide a full answer to that question, but can set the foundation. Like all living creatures, human beings have a specific nature that determines how they must behave if they are to survive and be the kind of beings they. While the primary requirements of all animal nature is physiological, the primary requirement of human nature is psychological. Just as no animal can live without certain physical requirements, like food and water, requirements shared by physical aspects of humans as well, the most important requirement of human nature is knowledge without which they cannot live at all.

I'll be posting another article addressing those questions. I'll probably call it, "The Moral Nature," though I do not agree that anything commonly understood as, "moral," exists.