There are Moral Facts

[Skepdick]

That does not deductively follow at all. Not without whatever enormous quantity of hidden assumptions you are smuggling.

It follows DIRECTLY. The "enormous quantity of hidden assumptions" is so fucking trivial it shouldn't require pointing out.

Human activity on Earth is an evolutionary pressure.

Stuff (including sub-cultures of humanity) are forced to adapt to humans or get selected out. About 6 million Jews got selected out by Hitler.

So again, this is exactly where I expect you to cash in your special-pleading card and insist that extinction-by-human is not "natural selection".

And presumably you aren't actually claiming that natural selection seeks moral outcomes anyway so you are only doing any of this bullshit to be a troll.

I am making no fucking claims whatsoever. I only demonstrating to you that IF you accept your own premise, it's a valid and sound conclusion that you are nihilist. Or amoralist anyway. I am not sure if there is a difference.

If natural selection is amoral, then the holocaust was amoral.

There's no grand conspiracy here. That's how fucking deduction works.

If you want to rescue morality from deductive logic, you are going to have to make some uncomfortable... alterations.

[FlashDangerpants]

That does not deductively follow at all. Not without whatever enormous quantity of hidden assumptions you are smuggling.

It follows DIRECTLY. The "enormous quantity of hidden assumptions" is so fucking trivial it shouldn't require pointing out.

Human activity/choices on Earth is but one of the many mechanism of natural selection!

Stuff (including sub-cultures of humanity) are forced to adapt to human activity/choices or get selected out. About 6 million Jews got selected out by Hitler.

So again, this is exactly where I expect you to cash in your special-pleading card and insist that human activity is not "natural selection".
This is where I expect you to insist that humans are not part of nature.

That makes nothing clear at all. Human activities are subject to moral description when they include moral choices. What was meant to be your point?

And this somehow ends up proving that morality is as meaningless as God, whatever that means? What does any of this do to explain that?

I am making no fucking claims whatsoever.

So you claim.

[Skepdick]

That makes nothing clear at all. Human activities are subject to moral description when they include moral choices.

Holy fucking shit! Are you really this stupid, or are you just playing dumb?

If natural selection is amoral then selecting out 6 million jews is amoral. Sound and valid deduction with true premises concludes so!

If fucking genocide is amoral. What the fuck do you mean by "morality"?

What was meant to be your point?

One more time: If natural selection is amoral the selecting out 6 million jews is amoral. Sound and valid deduction with true premises concludes so!

And this somehow ends up proving that morality is as meaningless as God, whatever that means? What does any of this do to explain that?

I am not trying to explain anything to you other than the absurdity of Philosophical norms.

Philosophers insist that if the premise is true, and the argument is sound/valid then it's IRRATIONAL to reject the conclusion.
Those are the rules of the philosophical game where valid & sound arguments are the only currency of reason.

Given that game, given those rules (and your acceptance and supposed adherence thereof) it is IRRATIONAL to reject the amorality of the holocaust.

If fucking genocide is amoral. What the fuck do you mean by "morality"?

If syllogistic reasoning leads to the conclusion that genocide is amoral, I say syllogistic reasoning is immoral!

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated above, you are very ignorant and oblivious to what is morality is about despite my explanation.

I have to bring this unpleasant thing to get to the point into your thick skull.
When did I ever state specifically killing and raping are proper behavior?
Note the moral maxim I proposed,
"No human ought to kill another human" period!
It is the same imperative ought for raping and other evil acts.

It's your argument. Principles like "thou shalt not kill" are nice, unless they clash with facts from evolutionary psychology. Often, killing, raping and genocide get the job done the best (in which case, 'thou shalt not kill' becomes the evil act).

By killing and raping etc. you ensure the continuity of your genes and the continuity of your tribe, you deal with outside threats, you produce superior and numerous offspring. Totally the morally-super-duper-proper thing to do. It's all science, backed by empirical facts, so it's objective.

In fact, let the above be known as the "Veritas paradigm". We'll help spread the word, you'll become famous.

That is why your inherent moral compass is going haywire.

Since you insist your principle of killing and raping is right and not morally wrong,
that is implying your paradigm is you have no qualms if any one were to kill you, your wife, kin and rape your wife daughters and others because they are obligated by their DNA and evolutionary??
Surely that is not your intention, thus there is a need for moral considerations to avoid the above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is exactly what I told you yesterday was going to happen to your DNA based moral theory. If you make facts of DNA into "Facts of Morality" then you are certain to have moral facts that you cannot possibly agree with. See below for a small reminder.

Dude, there's a massive and obvious problem with that. "morality-proper" has no grounding for anything being right or wrong. You can't have "murder is wrong because DNA says so", or "evolution says don't do rape". If you try to make a moral fact argument out of what you are putting together here it is going to get comletely wrecked.

You are not very smart, so I will make this as simple as I can for you. You are stealing an argument from the intelligent design crowd, but not positing an intelligent designer to put only nice moral things into DNA. Instead you are leaving that to natural selection, which is a morally neutral process that only selects for behaviours that lead to propogation of genes, including rape.

Again, strawman, deflection and rhetoric.
Where did I insist on 'Evolutionary Theory' and 'natural selection' to support my point??
You are VERY stupid in associating my thesis with creationists which reflect your desperation.

I am relying of empirical evidences of human acts of the present & past and tracking them to the DNA.
Darwin did not discuss the DNA and the genome at all!

What is evidence and fact is,
DNA wise all humans are programmed with 'mirror neurons'.

A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another.[1][2][3] Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in human and primate species,[4] and birds.[5]

Neuroscientists such as Marco Iacoboni (UCLA) have argued that mirror neuron systems in the human brain help us understand the actions and intentions of other people. In a study published in March 2005 Iacoboni and his colleagues reported that mirror neurons could discern whether another person who was picking up a cup of tea planned to drink from it or clear it from the table.[15] In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.

Neuroscientists such as Marco Iacoboni (UCLA) have argued that mirror neuron systems in the human brain help us understand the actions and intentions of other people. In a study published in March 2005 Iacoboni and his colleagues reported that mirror neurons could discern whether another person who was picking up a cup of tea planned to drink from it or clear it from the table.[15]

In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.

Empathy is hypothesized to be related to morality i.e. avoiding evil and doing good.
Another fact is humans has a higher quantity of mirror neurons in their brain.

I am also hypothesizing, DNA wise, all humans are programmed with an inherent algorithm for moral function, just like intelligence, etc.
This algorithm is not restricted the empathy* but comprised of interconnecting neurons from other parts of the brain.

Since 100,000 years ago to now, there is a progressive trend of moral competence within a higher percentile of the minority and the average person.
The evidence is, all typical evil acts from killing to petty crimes are prohibited as enacted laws within the political domain which effectively should be dealt within morality-proper.

As I had stated, humans are present are groping around to handle 'morality and ethics' without groundings, thus very haphazard and ineffective.
Blind empathy is a problem, thus empathy/compassion must be managed optimally.

This is why we need a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to manage morality.

At present we already have various Framework and System of Morality and Ethics going on but they are not efficient, e.g. UN Declarations of Human Rights, pseudo-models from religions, politics, and others.

What is needed is an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics with solid grounds in which case I have traced from empirical evidence to the DNA. [nothing to do with Darwin].
This Moral F/S will only be productive and effective for future [not present] generations if only we start serious from now to establish its architecture and start building its foundation.

[Atla]

As I had stated above, you are very ignorant and oblivious to what is morality is about despite my explanation.

When did I ever state specifically killing and raping are proper behavior?
Note the moral maxim I proposed,
"No human ought to kill another human" period!
It is the same imperative ought for raping and other evil acts.

It's your argument. Principles like "thou shalt not kill" are nice, unless they clash with facts from evolutionary psychology. Often, killing, raping and genocide get the job done the best (in which case, 'thou shalt not kill' becomes the evil act).

By killing and raping etc. you ensure the continuity of your genes and the continuity of your tribe, you deal with outside threats, you produce superior and numerous offspring. Totally the morally-super-duper-proper thing to do. It's all science, backed by empirical facts, so it's objective.

In fact, let the above be known as the "Veritas paradigm". We'll help spread the word, you'll become famous.

Skepdik has an amended version, it's only moral to rape them if they are too young to be on birth control.

Next week on the Veritas and Skep files: Are we morally obliged to abandon cancerous middle-aged wives and replace them with younger and more fertile ladies? All this and more as we investigate the strange ways that DNA and evolution give us moral fact.

This is the kind of show I'm coming here for

[Atla]

As I had stated above, you are very ignorant and oblivious to what is morality is about despite my explanation.

I have to bring this unpleasant thing to get to the point into your thick skull.
When did I ever state specifically killing and raping are proper behavior?
Note the moral maxim I proposed,
"No human ought to kill another human" period!
It is the same imperative ought for raping and other evil acts.

It's your argument. Principles like "thou shalt not kill" are nice, unless they clash with facts from evolutionary psychology. Often, killing, raping and genocide get the job done the best (in which case, 'thou shalt not kill' becomes the evil act).

By killing and raping etc. you ensure the continuity of your genes and the continuity of your tribe, you deal with outside threats, you produce superior and numerous offspring. Totally the morally-super-duper-proper thing to do. It's all science, backed by empirical facts, so it's objective.

In fact, let the above be known as the "Veritas paradigm". We'll help spread the word, you'll become famous.

That is why your inherent moral compass is going haywire.

Since you insist your principle of killing and raping is right and not morally wrong,
that is implying your paradigm is you have no qualms if any one were to kill you, your wife, kin and rape your wife daughters and others because they are obligated by their DNA and evolutionary??
Surely that is not your intention, thus there is a need for moral considerations to avoid the above.

Still your principles, not mine. Unlike you, I formed a normally functioning moral compass early on in life, so I don't need to artificially create one and base it on "genetic facts".

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated above, you are very ignorant and oblivious to what is morality is about despite my explanation.

When did I ever state specifically killing and raping are proper behavior?
Note the moral maxim I proposed,
"No human ought to kill another human" period!
It is the same imperative ought for raping and other evil acts.

It's your argument. Principles like "thou shalt not kill" are nice, unless they clash with facts from evolutionary psychology. Often, killing, raping and genocide get the job done the best (in which case, 'thou shalt not kill' becomes the evil act).

By killing and raping etc. you ensure the continuity of your genes and the continuity of your tribe, you deal with outside threats, you produce superior and numerous offspring. Totally the morally-super-duper-proper thing to do. It's all science, backed by empirical facts, so it's objective.

In fact, let the above be known as the "Veritas paradigm". We'll help spread the word, you'll become famous.

Skepdik has an amended version, it's only moral to rape them if they are too young to be on birth control.

Next week on the Veritas and Skep files: Are we morally obliged to abandon cancerous middle-aged wives and replace them with younger and more fertile ladies? All this and more as we investigate the strange ways that DNA and evolution give us moral fact.

Again you are ignorant.

Despite the 'No human ought to kill another human' in practice humans will continue to kill due to the existing psychological states.
It is too late to take corrective actions for the present generation, thus have to live with it and controlling it with political laws.
The solution is only effective for the future, is to find out why people continue to kill and take fool proof preventive steps to ensure they do not have an uncontrollable killing impulse.
If cancer is the problem, then we will find solution to prevent cancer so that there is no issue to killing terminal ill patients. I am optimistic on prevention of cancer in the future given we have now mapped the human genomes and moving on to map the human brain.

What we need is an effective Moral Framework and System [grounded on justified true moral beliefs, i.e. moral facts] for the future and with increased level of moral competence, the individuals will have the moral sense to co-operate to ensure balance and optimality in every aspects of humanity.

[FlashDangerpants]

That makes nothing clear at all. Human activities are subject to moral description when they include moral choices.

Holy fucking shit! Are you really this stupid, or are you just playing dumb?

If natural selection is amoral then selecting out 6 million jews is amoral. Sound and valid deduction with true premises concludes so!

What the fuck are you on about? That's complete nonsense.

If fucking genocide is amoral. What the fuck do you mean by "morality"?

Genocide is typically regarded as naughty

What was meant to be your point?

One more time: If natural selection is amoral the selecting out 6 million jews is amoral. Sound and valid deduction with true premises concludes so!

In that case, why was that meant to be your point? It's entirely stupid.

And this somehow ends up proving that morality is as meaningless as God, whatever that means? What does any of this do to explain that?

I am not trying to explain anything to you other than the absurdity of Philosophical norms.

Philosophers insist that if the premise is true, and the argument is sound/valid then it's IRRATIONAL to reject the conclusion.
Those are the rules of the philosophical game where valid & sound arguments are the only currency of reason.

You are just insisting that some inane shit is valid, and you are insisting sound while attempting to demonstrate unsound, which is apparently part of your whole philosophy-is-beneath-skepdick thing, but just makes you incoherent, and in particular it makes it difficult for us to work out what you are endorsing rather than condemning.

Given that game, given those rules (and your acceptance and supposed adherence thereof) it is IRRATIONAL to reject the amorality of the holocaust.

Nope. You are a bullshitter and you have gone completely insane.

If fucking genocide is amoral. What the fuck do you mean by "morality"?

If syllogistic reasoning leads to the conclusion that genocide is amoral, I say syllogistic reasoning is immoral!

It doesn't. You are trying much too hard to show off.

[FlashDangerpants]

This is exactly what I told you yesterday was going to happen to your DNA based moral theory. If you make facts of DNA into "Facts of Morality" then you are certain to have moral facts that you cannot possibly agree with. See below for a small reminder.

Dude, there's a massive and obvious problem with that. "morality-proper" has no grounding for anything being right or wrong. You can't have "murder is wrong because DNA says so", or "evolution says don't do rape". If you try to make a moral fact argument out of what you are putting together here it is going to get comletely wrecked.

You are not very smart, so I will make this as simple as I can for you. You are stealing an argument from the intelligent design crowd, but not positing an intelligent designer to put only nice moral things into DNA. Instead you are leaving that to natural selection, which is a morally neutral process that only selects for behaviours that lead to propogation of genes, including rape.

Again, strawman, deflection and rhetoric.
Where did I insist on 'Evolutionary Theory' and 'natural selection' to support my point??
You are VERY stupid in associating my thesis with creationists which reflect your desperation.

But you are borrowing the Intelligent Design argument. You are insisting that the recipe for right and wrong is to be found in DNA. Somehow DNA needs to know what is good and bad. Or by magic, some force of impersonal nature chose for rightness.

I am relying of empirical evidences of human acts of the present & past and tracking them to the DNA.
Darwin did not discuss the DNA and the genome at all!

But he did describe the process which determines its content did he not?
After all, you aren't suggesting we should gene-edit our offspring to imbue them righteous genes are you?
You aren't suggesting castration for those who carry improper morality genes are you?

I am also hypothesizing, DNA wise, all humans are programmed with an inherent algorithm for moral function, just like intelligence, etc.
This algorithm is not restricted the empathy* but comprised of interconnecting neurons from other parts of the brain.

Science fiction aside, how would such an alogrithm not include all the bad stuff we do such as selfishness lying and stealing?

As I had stated, humans are present are groping around to handle 'morality and ethics' without groundings, thus very haphazard and ineffective.
Blind empathy is a problem, thus empathy/compassion must be managed optimally.

What a Stalinist thing to say.

What is needed is an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics with solid grounds in which case I have traced from empirical evidence to the DNA. [nothing to do with Darwin].
This Moral F/S will only be productive and effective for future [not present] generations if only we start serious from now to establish its architecture and start building its foundation.

And that is another.

[Skepdick]

What the fuck are you on about? That's complete nonsense.

Why is it "nonsense"? It is sound and valid ! Are you unhappy with the true conclusion of a sound&valid argument?

Suddenly you are disagreeing with your religion. Why?

Genocide is typically regarded as naughty

I regard it as fucking horrendous. Despicable. Immoral

But your religion does not allow you to regard it that way.

Philosophers claim that to reject the conclusion of a sound&valid argument is irrational.
You are a philosopher.
Why are you rejecting the conclusion of a sound&valid argument?

In that case, why was that meant to be your point? It's entirely stupid.

That's not a stupid point. That is a fucking disastrous point for your religion IF you care about morality.

It's YOUR premise and YOUR rules therefore it's also YOUR conclusion.
Why are you rejecting the conclusions of a sound&valid argument. That's irrational! (according to your creed)

Nope. You are a bullshitter and you have gone completely insane.

Then I am fucking insane! Throw pejoratives at me - I am so "self-centered" I am just going to ignore all of your ad hominems.

If your religion (Philosophy+deduction) leads to the conclusion that genocide is amoral then I am a lesser form of filth than a Philosopher.

It doesn't. You are trying much too hard to show off.

P1. Natural selection is amoral.
P2. The holocaust selected out 6 million jews.
C. The holocaust is amoral.

That's your fucking religion. Not mine.

Notice how you are working your ass off to attempting to paint your immorality as my character flaw.

[Sculptor]

P1. Natural selection is amoral.
P2. The holocaust selected out 6 million jews.
C. The holocaust is amoral.

Hooray - false syllogism of the week.
1. Natural Selection is not related to the holocaust.
2. The holocaust cannot be regarded as amoral. It was done on moral grounds, based on the opinions of powerful German leaders. The holocaust is now regarded as fully immoral. To call it amoral is an abuse of language.
Premises are true but unconnected, conclusion is false.

[Skepdick]

1. Natural Selection is not related to the holocaust.

Humans are part of nature.
Humans activity on Earth is an evolutionary pressure.

To insist that death-by-human is not natural selection at play is to invoke special pleading.

Try again.

2. The holocaust cannot be regarded as amoral.

You don't get to decide. Just follow the rules.

IF the premises are true AND the argument is valid&sound, then it's absolutely irrational for you to reject the conclusion.

The holocaust is amoral.

It was done on moral grounds, based on the opinions of powerful German leaders. The holocaust is now regarded as fully immoral. To call it amoral is an abuse of language.
Premises are true but unconnected, conclusion is false.

I am not calling it amoral - it's fucking despicable!

But if you are a Philosopher and you insist that the conclusions of sound&valid arguments cannot be rationally rejected, then you are not allowed to call it anything other than amoral.

Don't blame me for the rules of your religion.

[FlashDangerpants]

P1. Natural selection is amoral.
P2. The holocaust selected out 6 million jews.
C. The holocaust is amoral.

C. The holocaust is not natural.
Your argument cannot be valid and sound if it is not sufficent and necessary.

You are missing some sort of premise to the effect that absolutely all human choices are fully reducible to practical expressions of natural selection.
Without that you have nothing to suggest that humans cannot create morality just as they can create art and science.
But with it, you would also reduce art and science to to mere expressions of natural selection.

You keep awarding yourself points for genius and incredible insight, they aren't deserved.

[Skepdick]

P1. Natural selection is amoral.
P2. The holocaust selected out 6 million jews.
C. The holocaust is amoral.

C. The holocaust is not natural.

Special pleading.

Try again.

There is nothing that isn't natural. Humans are part of nature.

Your argument cannot be valid and sound if it is not sufficent and necessary.

Dude. How many times must I correct you?

It's not MY argument. Syllogistic reasoning is your baby.

My argument (if I was to make one) would be much simpler:

P1 = C1: The holocaust is fucking despicable, immoral and heinous!

That's it. Done!

You are missing some sort of premise to the effect that absolutely all human choices are fully reducible to practical expressions of natural selection.

I am not missing any premises. What you are looking for is justification of your special pleading.

You are looking to exclude some human behavior/actions/consequences from nature.

Remember when I told you this....

Your dualist metaphysic and utter lack of self-awareness is the source of all of your bullshit.

Without that you have nothing to suggest that humans cannot create morality just as they can create art and science.

Sure, but synthetic morality has NOTHING to do with syllogisms.

Hence my point: syllogistic reasoning is at odds with moral reasoning.

But with it, you would also reduce art and science to to mere expressions of natural selection.

I would reduce them to being different strategies for surviving selection.

You keep awarding yourself points for genius and incredible insight, they aren't deserved.

You keep projecting your caricature of me onto me. I am not asking for recognition, genius or epaulettes. Intellectual masturbation self-congratulatory circle-jerking is your game.

I am not a genius. I am not aiming for ingenuity. I am aiming to be less stupid than I already am. Around Philosophers that's trivial.