Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 2:46 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 2:55 am
Obviously everything human and human nature involved an individual person.
Human nature is inherent of ALL humans and as such objective, i.e. independent of any individual opinions, beliefs or judgment.
That the imperative [the oughtness] to breathe else die is internally driven and relative in that sense, but it is
objective as part of human nature of ALL humans and this can be verified and justified via science-biology.
It is the same with morality which is part of human nature, whilst is relative to the individual is present in ALL humans and as such is objective [as defined] in that sense.
It is inherent in ALL [normal not any mentally insane] humans that none will torture and kill babies for pleasure.
In this particular instance, morality is objective.
The same can be argued for other moral elements.
Then it is an objective fact that morality is subjective (relative). I can agree with that.
You missed my point.
Morality is objective because there is the inherent natural moral propensity in ALL humans. i.e. it is universal, thus objective which is defined as independent from the subjective views of subjects as individuals.
What is objective is the "unity" of moral potentials within the diversity of moral behaviors.
However, this universal moral unity as part of human nature is expressed differently relative to conditions. See the psychopath example that follow in the last point.
It is an objective fact
morality is objective whilst expressed subjectively.
Name one species, besides humans, that that has members that tortures and kills babies for pleasure. None of them do because any species that does would become extinct (natural selection would filter the behavior out of existence). The fact that we have been "fine-tuned" for social behavior (limiting the amount murder and torture of other members) has nothing to do with morality being objective. As members of the same species we are more likely to agree on certain ideas about how to treat others in your group. You position falls apart when faced with real moral dilemmas. The existence of unsolvable moral dilemmas is evidence morality is relative.
The are many animals who would not hesitate to kill [no deliberate torture -relevant to humans only] their own babies, e.g. male crocodiles and other reptiles, etc.
1. What is objective is universal and independent of any subject's opinions, beliefs and judgement.
2. The ought-not-ness to tortures and kills babies for pleasure is a universal moral variable in humans [and all species of living things]
3. Therefore, Morality is objective [with reference to 2]
"As members of the same species we are more likely to agree on certain ideas..."
It is not that, the universal moral variables which are adaptive and a human-nature are hardwired or DNA-ed within each human individual regardless of whether one like it or not.
That such moral variables are represented by physical DNAs and neural correlates would fundamentally make it objective.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 2:55 am
Analogy: there are a lot of disagreements within humanity, i.e. the preferences for the type of food to eat, the way the food is grown and prepared. This is subjective to the individual[s] or relative to different groups.
But all the above variations are reducible to the
universal nutritional system and digestive system to seek same molecular sugar, protein, fats, minerals, vitamins to facilitate basic survival of each individuals. You cannot deny this is the objective i.e. the unity within diversity of basic universal nutrition within ALL humans.
This has nothing to do with morality. Food preferences has no bearing on how you treat others, which is what morality is about.
I highlighted the above is an analogy re "unity in diversity".
Just as there is the universal metabolic and digestive system in ALL humans, there is the universal moral system within ALL humans.
The different moral judgments and behavior are the same as the different food humans grow, prepare and consume.
You say that morality is self-driven. Self-driven to do what exactly? Are you saying any self-driven acts whether it affects others or not is a moral act? If so, you are defining morality into meaninglessness. Which self-driven acts does "morality" encompass and which do not? Is choosing a flavor of ice cream and act of morality? If so, how?
I wonder how did you think like that?
Note my following point of what is morality and the specific moral variables.
So human are self-driven to act morally which mean morality is not something that is enforced from the external with a threat of legal punishment or Hell by a God.
There is a moral potential [of varying competence] in ALL humans. As such each individual need to self-develop their moral potential so that they are morally competent naturally and spontaneous without having to make difficult moral judgments.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 2:55 am
It is the same with morality where there are universal moral principles within the brain of ALL humans, e.g. no killing of babies; but in practice there is infanticide because of the varied conditions, e.g. when food is scarce like the Eskimos and others who will practice infanticide to optimize their survival against their inherent moral impulse not to kill babies.
However, where conditions are more favorable, the ought-not-ness to kill babies will prevail.
Which is saying that morality is dependent upon the circumstances, or relative to the circumstances. When resources are plentiful then it is socially advantageous to behave in moral ways. When resources are scarce other members become competitors for those resources and social behaviors are abandoned.
The "ought-not-ness to kill babies" is an inherent objective moral fact [universal] in ALL humans.
But the above may have to be compromised and optimize in varying conditions and environment.
The moral potential [objective] will optimize to the existing conditions.
Whilst one may goes against the moral norms of humanity, e.g. kill babies out of necessities to optimize survival, that does not obviate the real physical objective "ought-not-ness to kill babies" that is represented by its corresponding neural correlates in the brain and body.
It is at this meta-level that morality is objective which is undeniable.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 2:55 am
Moral dilemmas are secondary to morality and judgments has to be made when moral dilemmas scenarios are presented. That would be fire-fighting.
The right thing to do is to prevent [aggressively] the scenarios of moral dilemmas from happening at source by increasing the average moral competence within all humans.
As such, wherever scenarios of moral dilemma happen, humanity must strive to apply continuous improvements to eliminate it or reduce evil [immoral] acts to the unavoidable minimum.
How is any of this going to help when (not if) there is a global disaster (massive asteroid impact, massive solar flare etc)? Your solution would involve preventing people from having babies so the world population drops to a more manageable level. The only way to enforce this is to sterilize them. Is that moral?
I guess one solution is to become an interplanetary and eventually an interstellar species. I do agree that this would be a good thing. I do believe that life is precious and appears to be a rare event in the universe (especially intelligent life), and should be preserved. Some may disagree because they view humans as a type of parasite of the planet and may spread their destructive nature to other pristine planets.
The real physical objective "ought-not-ness to kill babies" is inherent in ALL humans as human nature.
If there is a global disaster (massive asteroid impact, massive solar flare etc) that reduced resources, at our present moral level, the moral potential within the majority is not sufficiently high to be greatly effective; as such, it will be a 'dog eat dog' world, cannibalism may even emerged given our current moral development.
However, if morality is recognized as objective [morality is objective], i.e. represented by its physical neural correlates in the brain, then humanity will have the avenue to expedite the moral competence. The example is like human intelligence and the drive to increase the average human intelligence will soon be expedited with the trend of progressive AI.
When the average moral quotient [MQ] is raised from say 100 at present to 1000 [100 years' time] in the future via the recognition that morality is objective, then when an asteroid strike and resources are scarce, the individuals will work collectively to optimize baby making in alignment with the available scarce resources.
As I said, morality is not about enforcement, thus the actions will be "symphonic" & spontaneous without enforcement.
On the other hand, with the insistence of
moral relativism which is moral indifference, to each their own moral, to respect and tolerate the morality of others, there is no avenue to make moral progress from fixed objective moral variables.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 2:55 am
I define morality as the management to eliminate or prevent evil acts to enable its related good to manifest.
What is evil is that which is net negative to the well-being & flourishing of the individuals & that of humanity.
Here we need to have an exhaustive [complete] list of what are defined as evil acts with different weightages and degrees, e.g. genocide [highest], slavery, rape, homicides, torture, violence, lying [low].
All the evil acts you listed are acts against other peoples' goals. Being moral is acting in ways that promote others goals. Choosing a flavor of ice cream does not fall into the scope of morality as you have just defined it. You are agreeing with my definition of morality.
The problem is that violence and lying can be moral acts if they are preventing further violence (self-defense) or limiting the stress one would feel in knowing the truth. If there was a way to do what you are proposing it would have been done already. It has been attempted many times as the elites of society get together and make laws for everyone else about how to behave morally, but you just need to look at how they have all failed in one way or another to make everyone in a society happy.
As I had stated your view on morality is too messy.
"Being moral is acting in ways that promote others goals."
What goals? promote Hitler and Hamas to kill more Jews or promote other evil goals beside the good ones?
According to my definition,
being in a state [having achieving it] of moral competency is naturally and spontaneously not acting evil acts, thus enabling its related good as the main purpose of morality.
Making good moral judgments is secondary.
Imagine having to break sweat with each moral dilemma one faces which is frequent for many individuals.
The effective approach is develop to the best and do one's best spontaneously and move on to take corrective actions to prevent future immoral acts.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 2:55 am
Defending your rights is not within the definition of what is morality.
Human rights belong to the political sphere or it is personal.
Yet you said that WE need to have an exhaustive list of what are defined as moral acts. You keep going back and forth in saying morality is self-driven but then say that we as a group need to define what are moral acts and which are not.
Note, intelligence is self-driven, i.e. no one can force others to be intelligent.
However, the group can facilitate to enable the individual[s] to self-develop their own intelligence. That is why we have education on a social basis.
Moral competence can be promoted along the same line as above.
Besides, it does not matter which government is in control and how they define human rights when my life is being threatened. I will defend myself and my property regardless of how some group defines human rights as. So maybe I should just dispense with the notion of "human rights" here as you seem to keep getting hung up on it. I am self-driven to protect my life and my property from others that want to take them.
But that is not morality per se, it is your personal beliefs and natural psychological instincts.
Morality is about you self-developing your moral potential so you do not commit evil acts on others.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 2:55 am
Your definition of what is morality is too messy.
Morality or immorality is not about inhibiting the goals of others.
Yet all your examples above are about inhibiting (immoral) and promoting (moral) the goals of others.
Not killing [raping, harming] other humans is not promoting their moral goals morally.
It is more about the individual being moral and not committing evil acts.
I don't know about you, but I do not need external pressure to not torture babies. Laws are for the lawless, not for most everyone else. I am only programmed with the potential to kill other humans in very specific circumstances such as when my life is threatened.
How much do you want to bet that the answer to your question of HOW will involve the implementation of laws as you have defined it as external pressure to limit unwanted behaviors. Again, there would be no need for an answer to your question of HOW if everyone behaved morally. You wouldn't feel the need to become the external pressure on others behaviors if everyone behaved morally.
"I do not need external pressure to not torture babies."
That is because you are being moral in this specific case, the moral inhibitors [neural correlates in all humans - moral objectivity] are working effectively within you.
If there are damage to your neural moral inhibitors you could go on to kill babies as in certain extreme psychopaths.
The point is the moral inhibitors and its corresponding neural correlates in all humans proves that moral is
objective [i.e. independent of individual's views].
Being a malignant psychopath [killing babies and adults] merely mean the moral inhibitors and its corresponding neural correlates are
merely damage, it
does not obviate its objective physical existence in the brain.
This is subjectivity [varying conditions] within objectivity [fixed ground].
