Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:24 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 2:39 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 11:28 pm
You're incorrect!

Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).

A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed.

There is no consensus among humans as to what single moral code is objective, (all encompassing). So it might seem to be subjective, and for an individual it is in fact the case. So by itself it's not objective, however when combined with all humanities versions of what they individually expect as moral, it is in fact objective. To be Objective in this case is simply to say it's universal (with respect to the human realm) because the Universe neither knows nor needs such a concept, nor does it create such, it can't, it seems to pretty much be inanimate, not of mind, simply matter and such.

So morality is to be decided by humans, and we differ in opinion. So as soon as anyone 'projects' their moral code upon another they are in violation of the truth of things. And since the old "Golden Rule" is a moral code, that in fact has a version in almost all cultures dating back to antiquity. I have corrected it in the only way it can be corrected. In answer, not only to knowledge, (philosophers concern), but also some things I thought up that are also factors.

So here is the common, 'original', paraphrased: 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.'

And here's my corrected version, which I call "The Fundamental Social Axiom":"Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent, that all parties knowingly agree at the time."

And that's the best we can do! Individually we can't speak for everyone, only ourselves. I know this is going to annoy all you that want/desire to TELL EVERYBODY 'what is what,' but there is no such one thing. We have to ask how it is that they want us to treat them, and then treat them accordingly. Why stupid humans want to 'DICTATE' their PARTICULAR VERSION of LIFE is beyond me, but if everyone did as I insist they do, there would be no crime, no misunderstandings, no encroachment, no treading, no rape, no thievery, etc, etc, etc, perpetrated on anyone including all of us. And of course we'd still need the law to protect all against any infractions.

So the opening line would be: "Would you care to converse?" And while it's easy to see that in fact that could be considered a violation of the point of the axiom, it's the worst we'd have to suffer. From that point on, initially, it would be about what each expected from the other, and all terms explained in case of the ignorance of either participant. Yeah I know what you crazies are thinking, "But how can I take advantage of someone, that's not fair..." EXACTLY!!!! That's the fucking point dip-shit, to protect everyone equally!



If anyone here believes they have a better way to change morality into something objective (all people considered, universal in the human realm) for everyone, AND I MEAN EVERYONE EQUALLY! please enlighten all that visit here.

I'm listening for intelligent philosophy that changes society for the better. Not simply saying that it can't be done so you can feel good about your being a dictator.

Remember: "All Spheres must Balance." We live in a symbiotic biosphere! Without such a situation, we all die as failures to maintain the ecosystems that our lives depend on!

You confuse universality - which refers to space and time - with objectivity, which refers to facts independent from opinion. An opinion held by everyone (ie universally) is still an opinion. And a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact. That's the difference.

It's rational to discuss and develop our moral values and opinions - that's how we've made and are making moral progress. But moral objectivism - the claim that there are moral facts - justifies and enables precisely the kind of authoritarian imposition of rules that you rightly criticise - and that's happening so disastrously in America at the moment.

Then you either didn't read or understand a thing I said. I'm crushing the meaning of words in saying they're inappropriate for the task at hand, such that objective and universal are synonymous. That each of us considering everyone's moral code is the only answer. It's the best we can do with the conceptualizations of humans that have absolutely no basis in the universe. You know the universe is totally objective, it has no values, no opinions, it's nothing but facts. The universe has no human social rules or cares, so it starts us with a clean slate. From nothing, we can start with all inclusion, as all variances between us are factual, environmental, start being the case from our first breath, set pretty much in stone in our psyche, and as such, beyond our control.

What I said couldn't be further from authoritarianism, as it has absolutely nothing to do with any particular one. It only considers the masses complete, it's all inclusive! In Fact my way of dealing with the differences between us is the only solution I'm aware of, that exists, to escape authoritarianism/totalitarianism.

Humans fear death and so they scramble to judge and dictate due to that fear, and then of course they step on toes. They cheat people out of their lives, and we each only have one chance to live our way, and no one has the knowledge/right to set any sort of moral code for anyone but themselves. We have to grant everyone the right to be themselves, to really be free.

As far as our coming together with others goes, it's basically contractual in nature, as the ritual in seeking a relationship with anyone is solely dependent upon all parties knowingly agreeing to each others terms (Moral Code).

I'm reminded of a "Yes" lyric from the song, "Yours is no Disgrace", from the "Yes" album.

"...silly human, silly human race..."

Ah. Yes. Always interesting, exploding with The Yes Album, peaking maybe with Close to the Edge, maybe over-doing it with Tales from Topographic Oceans - but who cares? - and still doing it until Going for the One. Never really understood Anderson's lyrics - but, who cares? Magic stuff.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 10:23 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 10:19 am Not murder, but idolatry is objectively wrong. Idolatry is when someone has an idea and claims their idea is God.

Skepdick cannot possibly know whether or not murder is objectively wrong . Skepdick's claim is not even well written , as murder is a legal not an ethical category.

God is just a metaphor for the idolary idea of a moral authority. At the very least the intention or desire to invent a moral authority exists and is consequential - that which we casually dismiss as "moral opinion".

Either the process of jurisprudence (which has determined murder as being wrong) has a semblance of being a moral/ethical authority, or none of us have any grounds (not even our moral opinions) to claim that murder is wrong.

Murder is illegal because laws are for controlling people who would unless deterred would be very difficult to live and work with.

"and still doing it until Going for the One."

I actually quite like that album. Have you heard Relayer?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 10:11 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 9:42 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 7:55 am
And I have explained that signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean.
And we use the word fact to mean 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.

If we go along with your point, then,
theists can claim 'God exists', i.e.
signs such as words [God exists] can mean only what we use them to mean.
And we use the word fact [god exists is a fact] to mean 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion'.

Yes. And the point is that what actually exists and what we say exists are completely different and separate things. Thinking and saying something is so doesn't make it so. And that's why your claim that facts exist only within an FSK is false.

The above is a strawman.

I never state nor imply "thinking and saying something is so, doesn't make it so" nor "that facts exist only within a FSK".

What I did insist is [there are subtle and nuance elements here],
Whatever is a fact or exists as real is conditioned within a specific FSK and entangled with the human conditions.
No facts nor reality can be absolutely independent standalone things-in-themselves. This is in contrast to your philosophical realist's claim, reality [facts, truths] exist absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Note "human conditions" is not about "thinking and saying something is so" but entail emergence.

The above is obviously used within some kind of FSK [whatever the name, say X-FSK] but it has no significance to fact as a reality.
To verify the above supposedly claim of fact, it has to be subjected to further verification and justification, the most being the scientific FSK.

Precisely. But what's this? 'Fact as a reality'?! Oops. So - you do actually know there are such things.

So - YOU do actually know there are such things.
If you agree then you are agreeing that 'fact as a reality' has to be conditioned upon a FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK as mentioned above or any other FSK.
Looks like the penny is dropping for you.

Since a scientific FSK is constructed and sustained by humans, therefore whatever is fact cannot be standalone thing-in-itself, but rather is entangled with the human conditions.
"entangled with the human conditions" is a complex matter that is not say merely "thinking and saying something is so" but entail emergence and other processes.

As you can see, you just cannot claim what is fact as a standalone thing-in-itself but rather it has to be conditioned to human conditions via a FSK, humans-framework.

Say the claim, "water is a liquid", it is obviously a fact via common acceptance and also by say your X-FSK, i.e. 'water is a liquid' is 'a feature of reality that is or was the case, independent from opinion' thus a fact. It cannot be a standalone fact but rather it is conditioned to the X-FSK.

Oh well. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

?? what is your point?
If you agree, then your fact is conditioned upon a specific FSK and not a standalone fact as you claim.

But above so-claim as fact has no semblance of reality unless verified and justified via a credible FSK like the scientific FSK.
When 'water is a liquid' by the scientific FSK, it MUST be qualified as a scientific fact and not a standalone absolute fact.

'Standalone [sic] absolute fact'? I spy a straw man. I've only ever talked about facts as features of reality - which you admit exist above.

To me
1. facts as features of reality must be conditioned upon a specific FSK.
However you disagree with my point 1.

2. Reality as all there is, is also conditioned upon a specific FSK.
However you disagree with my point 2.

As I had argued you have not justified your 'what is fact' thus it is groundless.

And you yourself have cited a definition that confirms this use: 'Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.' But since this (standard) definition undermines your argument, you dishonestly ignore it. And you're not fooling anyone.

Strawman!

Yes, within certain perspectives, "facts" are independent of beliefs and of knowledge and opinion, but only with respect to common sense, kindergarten kids, conventional sense but not where rigor and ultimate reality is concern.
Note at the FSKs of Newtonian Physics, all facts are independent of the observers, but not with FSKs re Einsteinian or Quantum Physics. Get that? You dispute this fact?

No, no, no. You can't slide off sideways into QM and the observer effect. The observer effect seems to be a fact - a feature of reality - that has been observed and verified scientifically.

Seems?? you are not sure?

PH: The observer effect seems to be a fact - a feature of reality - that has been observed and verified scientifically.
Yes, verified scientifically via the scientific FSK which is constructed and sustain by humans.
Therefore the observer effect as a fact is not ultimately independent of the human conditions.
But you are claiming, all facts are absolutely independent of the human conditions [plus beliefs and opinion].

Thus 'what is fact' cannot standalone by itself, what is fact must [imperatively] be qualified to a specific FSK.
You disagree with this, but your point above contradict your persistent claim.

And I've pointed out that a factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion, which also demolishes your argument. And you've dishonestly decided to ignore this logical fact. And you're not fooling anyone.

Again you are clamping to your narrow paradigm [FSK] like the geocentrists to their narrow ideology.
I am not claiming the above.
I don't jump to moral conclusions from any factual premises.

False. The whole of your argument rests on factual premises entailing moral conclusions.

Strawman again.
What I claim is the premises are factual moral premises that are moral conclusions as a matter of fact and not of subjective beliefs or opinions.

What I have done is to verify and justify there are factual moral premises that are a matter of fact that is a real moral potential represented by physical referents of neural correlates in the brain and body.

Worthless: 'there are factual moral premises; therefore, there are moral facts.' Your actual argument is this: humans are programmed (with the potential) to behave in a certain way (factual premise); therefore, certain behaviour is morally right/wrong. And this is a non sequitur fallacy.

Strawman again.
I have never stated 'certain behaviour is morally right/wrong'.
That is your thinking based on your dogmatic paradigm.

My argument is this;
All humans are programmed with inherent moral potential [dormant, active or less active in various people].
The purpose of morality is to develop these potential so that people are spontaneously moral on a progressive basis. I have never used the term 'morally right/wrong' not those potential must be converted to rules to be imposed on individuals.

You are imposing your ignorant, narrow and shallow dogmatic views on my views [not understanding what they mean]

This is like ALL humans have an inherent sexual potential embedded in the DNA and RNA of various degrees within different ages. That the manifestations of this sexual potential differs from person to person due to different conditions do not obviate the fact of such a sexual potential.

So it is the same for the inherent moral potential as a matter of fact and is a physical referent within all humans. That the manifestations of this moral potential differs from person to person due to different conditions do not obviate the fact of such a moral potential as a matter of fact.

Note 'potential'

Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability.
The term is used in a wide variety of fields, from physics to the social sciences to indicate things that are in a state where they are able to change in ways ranging from the simple release of energy by objects to the realization of abilities in people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential

The question of potential is irrelevant. Judgement as to the moral rightness or wrongness of behaviour (which is what morality is about) is quite separate from facts about human nature, such as neural programming with the potential to behave in certain ways.

Strawman again, I did not mention any typical neural programming.
Again you are judging from your ignorant, narrow and shallow dogmatic views.

You are also strawman-ing "moral rightness or wrongness of behaviour ". As explained above I don't do that.

I have stated all humans are "programmed" note in " ", and that is via evolution over >200,000 years and traceable to 4 billions years within our one-celled ancestors re Biochemistry -the science of life.

The question of 'potential' is VERY relevant for my argument.

Analogy: All humans are "programmed" with the 'puberty' potential to adulthood.
The existence of this 'potential' is separate [independent] from any deviations in term of gender or anyone choosing to be a transgender and the claims of rightness or wrongness of the related issues.
There is no denial that such a specific potential existing as a matter of fact as represented by its physical referent in terms of neural and other physical correlates.

The above analogy is applicable to the "moral potential" existing as a matter of fact as represented by its physical referent in terms of neural and other physical correlates.

It is from this inherent moral potential perspective that individuals can toward the future [not in the present] develop their moral potential [Moral Quotient -MQ] from within to contribute to their optimal well being and that of humanity.

Your inability to understand [not necessary to agree with] my views sufficiently [evident by the many "000s" of strawman[s] highlighted in all your responses] is due a psychological problem of and existential crisis, cognitive dissonance, selective attention, confirmation bias which need to be cured.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 12:57 am "and still doing it until Going for the One."

I actually quite like that album. Have you heard Relayer?

Sorry - I should have said up to Tormato, which I thought was mostly shite, and I've never gone back to. Perhaps I should. For me, the Bruford albums were the best - and Alan White didn't quite have his finesse - but there's something magnificent about Topographic Oceans.

Agreed, there's good stuff on Going for the One. And I think the same about Relayer - I still remember the excitement when it came out - vinyl on the turntable.

Good to come across a fellow Yes-person. May Chris Squire rest in peace. Finest bassist of them all.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:40 am
The above analogy is applicable to the "moral potential" existing as a matter of fact as represented by its physical referent in terms of neural and other physical correlates.

If, as you say, you're not claiming anything about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour - but only that humans have a 'programmed potential' to behave in certain ways - then there's no reason to call it a 'moral potential' - and there's no reason to say there are moral facts.

If that programming exists, it's just a fact - not a moral fact. A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong. So if your conclusion doesn't make that claim, then it isn't a moral conclusion - and you aren't arguing for moral objectivity.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 8:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:40 am
The above analogy is applicable to the "moral potential" existing as a matter of fact as represented by its physical referent in terms of neural and other physical correlates.

If, as you say, you're not claiming anything about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour - but only that humans have a 'programmed potential' to behave in certain ways - then there's no reason to call it a 'moral potential' - and there's no reason to say there are moral facts.

If that programming exists, it's just a fact - not a moral fact. A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong. So if your conclusion doesn't make that claim, then it isn't a moral conclusion - and you aren't arguing for moral objectivity.

I understand the typical meaning of morality is dealing with right or wrong.
That is so basic and no different from right or wrong in any other sense, mathematics, true or false, etc.
To bank on such basic elements is the reason why you are so fixed and dogmatic about your views re morality.
This is why I distant myself from the idea of right or wrong re morality in these discussions.

The more critical fundamentals re morality is about 'good' against 'evil' that has consequences for the individuals and humanity at the present and in the future.
Re Morality, we need to contrast 'good'[as defined] with 'evil' [as defined] not the basic kindergarten idea of right or wrong.

• What is Morality
  viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799

So what is wrong with my facts of morality [opp. evil] which is a matter-of-fact supported by the relevant physical reference comprising its neural correlates in the brain and body as emerging with a specific and credible moral FSK?

Where you are sticking to argue against moral objectivism on the basis of moral conclusions of right or wrong beliefs and opinions, you are going nowhere and cannot progress to contribute positive to move humanity forward with real moral progress of good actions prevailing over evil actions.

By your present stance on morality, you will be complicit to dictators like Putin threatening to use and future dictators actually using WMDs because you do not believe in recognizing real objective moral facts as standards to guide moral progress of humanity.

Note;
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 9:51 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 8:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:40 am
The above analogy is applicable to the "moral potential" existing as a matter of fact as represented by its physical referent in terms of neural and other physical correlates.

If, as you say, you're not claiming anything about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour - but only that humans have a 'programmed potential' to behave in certain ways - then there's no reason to call it a 'moral potential' - and there's no reason to say there are moral facts.

If that programming exists, it's just a fact - not a moral fact. A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong. So if your conclusion doesn't make that claim, then it isn't a moral conclusion - and you aren't arguing for moral objectivity.

I understand the typical meaning of morality is dealing with right or wrong.
That is so basic and no different from right or wrong in any other sense, mathematics, true or false, etc.
To bank on such basic elements is the reason why you are so fixed and dogmatic about your views re morality.
This is why I distant myself from the idea of right or wrong re morality in these discussions.

Morality is about right and wrong. If your theories aren't for the study of rightness and wrongness they just aren't about morality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 9:51 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 8:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 5:40 am
The above analogy is applicable to the "moral potential" existing as a matter of fact as represented by its physical referent in terms of neural and other physical correlates.

If, as you say, you're not claiming anything about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour - but only that humans have a 'programmed potential' to behave in certain ways - then there's no reason to call it a 'moral potential' - and there's no reason to say there are moral facts.

If that programming exists, it's just a fact - not a moral fact. A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong. So if your conclusion doesn't make that claim, then it isn't a moral conclusion - and you aren't arguing for moral objectivity.

I understand the typical meaning of morality is dealing with right or wrong.
That is so basic and no different from right or wrong in any other sense, mathematics, true or false, etc.
To bank on such basic elements is the reason why you are so fixed and dogmatic about your views re morality.
This is why I distant myself from the idea of right or wrong re morality in these discussions.

The more critical fundamentals re morality is about 'good' against 'evil' that has consequences for the individuals and humanity at the present and in the future.
Re Morality, we need to contrast 'good'[as defined] with 'evil' [as defined] not the basic kindergarten idea of right or wrong.

• What is Morality
  viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799

So what is wrong with my facts of morality [opp. evil] which is a matter-of-fact supported by the relevant physical reference comprising its neural correlates in the brain and body as emerging with a specific and credible moral FSK?

Where you are sticking to argue against moral objectivism on the basis of moral conclusions of right or wrong beliefs and opinions, you are going nowhere and cannot progress to contribute positive to move humanity forward with real moral progress of good actions prevailing over evil actions.

By your present stance on morality, you will be complicit to dictators like Putin threatening to use and future dictators actually using WMDs because you do not believe in recognizing real objective moral facts as standards to guide moral progress of humanity.

Note;
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

1 We use the words 'right/wrong', and 'good/bad' morally and non-morally. And those uses are completely different. For example, a 'wrong' answer in mathematics has nothing to do with moral wrongness. And I think you know this perfectly well. You just dishonestly conflate the two different meanings.

2 I asked what could make morality objective. And your answer is that human 'programming with the potential' to behave in certain ways makes morality objective. But it doesn't. That's a non sequitur fallacy.

3 Here's an attempt to summarise my 'stance on morality', of which your characterisation is a travesty.

In my opinion, when our moral horizon becomes truly and consistently global – when we overcome the delusions and divisiveness of religion, sexism, nationalism, racism, and so on – and when we end economic inequality – a long and slow process with many setbacks – we will reach moral maturity. And other species and our environment will be part of the story. But that’s just my opinion – my moral judgement.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:42 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 9:51 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 8:48 am

If, as you say, you're not claiming anything about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour - but only that humans have a 'programmed potential' to behave in certain ways - then there's no reason to call it a 'moral potential' - and there's no reason to say there are moral facts.

If that programming exists, it's just a fact - not a moral fact. A moral assertion is one that says something is morally right or wrong. So if your conclusion doesn't make that claim, then it isn't a moral conclusion - and you aren't arguing for moral objectivity.

I understand the typical meaning of morality is dealing with right or wrong.
That is so basic and no different from right or wrong in any other sense, mathematics, true or false, etc.
To bank on such basic elements is the reason why you are so fixed and dogmatic about your views re morality.
This is why I distant myself from the idea of right or wrong re morality in these discussions.

The more critical fundamentals re morality is about 'good' against 'evil' that has consequences for the individuals and humanity at the present and in the future.
Re Morality, we need to contrast 'good'[as defined] with 'evil' [as defined] not the basic kindergarten idea of right or wrong.

• What is Morality
  viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799

So what is wrong with my facts of morality [opp. evil] which is a matter-of-fact supported by the relevant physical reference comprising its neural correlates in the brain and body as emerging with a specific and credible moral FSK?

Where you are sticking to argue against moral objectivism on the basis of moral conclusions of right or wrong beliefs and opinions, you are going nowhere and cannot progress to contribute positive to move humanity forward with real moral progress of good actions prevailing over evil actions.

By your present stance on morality, you will be complicit to dictators like Putin threatening to use and future dictators actually using WMDs because you do not believe in recognizing real objective moral facts as standards to guide moral progress of humanity.

Note;
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

1 We use the words 'right/wrong', and 'good/bad' morally and non-morally. And those uses are completely different. For example, a 'wrong' answer in mathematics has nothing to do with moral wrongness. And I think you know this perfectly well. You just dishonestly conflate the two different meanings.

Strawman again.
Where did I say what is right or wrong in mathematics are the same [values] as in morality.
What I stated was the concept of right or wrong is so basic and pervasive that it can mislead one into confusion as you are being 'infected' with.

Thus to avoid the above, I suggest we get to be more precise with the fact of the matter or the matter of fact with reference to the precise physical referent in terms of neural correlates of moral potentials in the brain.

2 I asked what could make morality objective. And your answer is that human 'programming with the potential' to behave in certain ways makes morality objective. But it doesn't. That's a non sequitur fallacy.

Strawman again.
I deliberately linked what I meant by moral objectivity;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

3 Here's an attempt to summarise my 'stance on morality', of which your characterisation is a travesty.

In my opinion, when our moral horizon becomes truly and consistently global – when we overcome the delusions and divisiveness of religion, sexism, nationalism, racism, and so on – and when we end economic inequality – a long and slow process with many setbacks – we will reach moral maturity. And other species and our environment will be part of the story. But that’s just my opinion – my moral judgement.

Only in your dreams!
How can you achieve the above if you have not set or verify and justify any objective moral standards within a credible moral FSK [near credibility to the scientific FSK].
You are steering a ship in a storm near the shore full of rocks without any reference to a lighthouse.

In the above everyone and every group will insist their moral standard is the objective one and everyone else must comply with their moral objective.
Do you ever think - pari-passu - theists especially like Muslim [or even Christians] (4 billion of them and more with others of the likes) will ever give up their 'moral' standard for yours or any others?

Explain your methodology and strategies how are you going to achieve your dreams and wishful thinking?

OTOH,
I am referring to objective moral facts as the fact of the matter or the matter of fact with reference to the precise physical referent in terms of neural correlates of moral potentials in the brain.
Where my moral facts can be verified, justified, tested with repeated results, it will facilitate acceptance and conversion to my moral principles and practices.

You are ignorant of the following;
As present we are on a positive trend of exponential expansion of knowledge and technology [especially re neurosciences, etc.] that we will have the potential IN FUTURE to expedite the activeness of the moral potential [matter of fact] to facilitate the moral progress of every individuals thus that of humanity.
It is already very evident there is the positive TREND of moral potential of the average person has gradually unfold and is activated since 10,000 years ago to the present.

You must get rid of the constipated shit within you that morality is merely about subjective moral opinions and beliefs.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 11:28 am

3 Here's an attempt to summarise my 'stance on morality', of which your characterisation is a travesty.

In my opinion, when our moral horizon becomes truly and consistently global – when we overcome the delusions and divisiveness of religion, sexism, nationalism, racism, and so on – and when we end economic inequality – a long and slow process with many setbacks – we will reach moral maturity. And other species and our environment will be part of the story. But that’s just my opinion – my moral judgement.

Only in your dreams!
How can you achieve the above if you have not set or verify and justify any objective moral standards within a credible moral FSK [near credibility to the scientific FSK].
You are steering a ship in a storm near the shore full of rocks without any reference to a lighthouse.

A little ways up thread you were accusing Pete of collusion with a dictator. Now here you are unable to recognise your own dictatorial monomaniacal tendencies.

Pete in that quote is basically a democrat, presenting a rosy view of a future in which everyone participates in some moral improvement project. You criticise him for not being in charge of it, not being the captain of as ship. You completely miss his somewhat flowery point. You do this moral fact thing only because you want to hand out orders for the rest of humanity. Pete and others recognise that moral change comes through persuasion not your brand of dictatorial domination.

You are still the obtuse child playing in the sandpit of cat turds I described a couple of years ago
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29755

That's right, any arsehole can just link back to their old threads for no reason other than to pad out new posts.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 11:54 am
Pete in that quote is basically a democrat, presenting a rosy view of a future in which everyone participates in some moral improvement project. You criticise him for not being in charge of it, not being the captain of as ship. You completely miss his somewhat flowery point. You do this moral fact thing only because you want to hand out orders for the rest of humanity. Pete and others recognise that moral change comes through persuasion not your brand of dictatorial domination.

Thanks, Flash. Sort of. Rosy and flowery? If we want equal well-being for everyone - and I think we should - we have to overcome the things that get in the way - including the supposed need for economic inequality - which is just capitalist ideology at work: there must be richer and poorer people, and we all get what we deserve in life. Which is patent bollocks.

I think all the other shit we're indoctrinated with - religion, sexism, nationalism and racism - is designed to divide and rule us, so that the rich and powerful can keep their wealth and power. Conservatism is, roughly, wanting to keep things as they are. So if things are unjust and unequal - which they are - conservatives want to maintain injustice and inequality. And that's immoral. And I think we need to call it out.

I'm not rosy about it. But yes, it's about real democracy - not the sham that keeps things as they are - and persuasion.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 1:29 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 11:54 am
Pete in that quote is basically a democrat, presenting a rosy view of a future in which everyone participates in some moral improvement project. You criticise him for not being in charge of it, not being the captain of as ship. You completely miss his somewhat flowery point. You do this moral fact thing only because you want to hand out orders for the rest of humanity. Pete and others recognise that moral change comes through persuasion not your brand of dictatorial domination.

Thanks, Flash. Sort of. Rosy and flowery? If we want equal well-being for everyone - and I think we should - we have to overcome the things that get in the way - including the supposed need for economic inequality - which is just capitalist ideology at work: there must be richer and poorer people, and we all get what we deserve in life. Which is patent bollocks.

I think all the other shit we're indoctrinated with - religion, sexism, nationalism and racism - is designed to divide and rule us, so that the rich and powerful can keep their wealth and power. Conservatism is, roughly, wanting to keep things as they are. So if things are unjust and unequal - which they are - conservatives want to maintain injustice and inequality. And that's immoral. And I think we need to call it out.

I'm not rosy about it. But yes, it's about real democracy - not the sham that keeps things as they are - and persuasion.

Hahah, sorry I did that mostly for my own amusement, but also to keep in mind a major theme that VA and Henry are always desperate to avoid. You and I don't see these things as matters of fact, so we can disagree over something quite significant while still broadly sharing similar opinions. I think capitalist markets are the best available tool to achieve the end of poverty at a global level, you have a very different take. We can both make a rational, argued case for our positions, maybe agreeing in the end on some blend, but probably never seeing eye to eye. But I can't make it a FACT that I am right, therefore I don't have to engage in shameful bullshit to avoid saying openly that if it is a fact that I am right, then it is also a fact that you are wrong.

So we don't have to resort to eliminative reductions, where morality cannot account for right and wrong for some fucking reason, or facts cannot entail that 'counterfactual' is synonymous with 'untrue'.

a major theme that VA and Henry are always desperate to avoid

What theme? If I've missed sumthin' I want the chance to address it.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 3:19 pm

a major theme that VA and Henry are always desperate to avoid

What theme? If I've missed sumthin' I want the chance to address it.

Last I knew your answer was that you refuse to discuss how it is that your moral fact that disagrees with VA's moral fact means that factually one of you should be able to prove why the other is mistaken.

You both think, or believe, or assume that you should stand shoulder to shoulder with the guy who is selling the fake moral facts against a shared enemy. When you could instead be demonstrating what is so factual about your own facts. That demonstrability aspect being sort of the point of facts.