Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:46 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 8:41 am
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
1 That moral concerns apply only to persons is a matter of opinion, and therefore subjective.
I agree if what is moral concerns is merely moral judgments made by each individual is a matter of opinion, therefore subjective.
But that moral concerns in my case are moral facts that inhere in all humans as real is objective.
2 That only humans are persons is a definition, and therefore a linguistic matter. There is no fact here.
It is a definition but surely that humans exist a person is a fact.
3 Even if true, that only humans think about and try to 'improve' morality has no bearing on the scope of moral concerns.
Note the definition of "moral concerns".
If that refers to moral judgments by individuals - that is subjective.
The individual concerns in improving his moral competence is subjective.
As state above,
that there are moral facts that inhere in all humans as real is objective.
So your claim is: there are moral facts that inhere in all humans as real.
And you think an example is our programming not to kill each other, so that 'humans ought not to kill humans' is a moral fact - a true factual assertion.
But it follows that, if humans were programmed to kill each other, 'humans ought to kill each other' would be a moral fact - a true factual assertion.
And if human males were programmed to rape the females of conquered tribes, then 'males ought to rape conquered females' would be a moral fact - a true factual assertion.
If it can be empirically and philosophically justified with evidence that ALL humans are "
programmed" to kill each other, then, yes, that would be a fact and truth.
BUT that would not a a true fact of Morality/Ethics within a Moral Framework.
RATHER it would be a fact of EVIL.
It would be the same if ALL human males [or even females] were "programmed" to rape females of conquered tribes, then that would be a fact, but that would be a fact of EVIL.
As I had stated MANY TIMES, facts are justified to its respective Framework.
What is moral facts are justified from the Moral Framework with its very precise definition of what is Moral/Ethical.
Killing and raping are not morally positive within the definition of what is moral/ethical.
There are no solid grounds that justify killing and raping are "programmed" as moral obligations.
Rather killing and raping are
deviations, considered as 'evil' from the norms of no-killing and no-raping. They are rejected by all normal humans and this is reflected in laws from all sovereign nations. It is only that inherent morality is slowly unfolding within the consciousness of the majority to recognize these moral facts - you being one of the dogmatic moral-fact-denier.
Being programmed to think X is/isn't morally wrong doesn't make it a fact that X is/isn't morally wrong. Indeed, if it were a fact that X is/isn't morally wrong, then our programming and behaviour would have no bearing on the morality of X.
You need to abandon the inherence/programming argument, because it's a dud.
Nope, it is not being programmed to
think X is morally wrong.
Rather all humans are programmed with the potential of ought-not-to kill and other moral oughts as mental states [neural algorithm] which is dormant, inactive, unfolding and active. This is the inherent factor.
Thinking of whether X is morally wrong or right is not morality-proper. That is merely a fact of the ability to think and process of thinking.
A psychopath can think, reason and judge that X is wrong and ought-not to be done, but he may not be able to control his impulse to kill another human because his inherent moral function [the moral fact] is damaged in some area.
So, what is critical is not 'the morality of X' but what is fact [moral] is that mental moral state of inhibition existing in the brain/mind of the person in not-doing-X.
Reflect on you own mental state [
assuming you are normal] at present - there is some existing mental state and condition that is preventing you from killing another human or raping another human and committing other terrible evils.
The existence of such a mental state of inhibition is
real and
factual in you and this is represented by an active neural algorithm of neural connections.
Such real and factual mental states when deliberated within the moral framework are the moral facts.
If for some reason you are knock seriously on the head such that the neurons of that inhibiting mental states is damaged, you could like be turned into a psychopath with the potential to commit evil.
However there is no denying that identified moral fact [the neural inhibition set that inhibit killing another human] is still existing in your brain, but only that it is damaged.
Get it?
You need to shift paradigm from your rigid dogmatic merely linguistic processing of what is fact to the reality of the above.
Btw, your rejection and counter of moral facts is only applicable to claims by
theists who claim morality is objective grounded on a real God is its commands, plus claims by the
platonists who claimed there are eternal moral facts [forms and universals] floating eternally in reality.
Your denial of moral facts and moral objectivity has no impact at all on the typical moral realists and my moral-empirical-realism which I have given various empirical and philosophical justifications.
You need to abandon such denial because your claims against the typical moral realism is a dud based on ignorance and dogmatism.