Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:59 am
You merely repeat the same mistake over and over again.
You say it's a fact that humans are 'programmed' (with the potential) to do X and not to do Y. And you now deny that you're saying this means X is morally right and Y is morally wrong. You deny that that's your conclusion - that our 'programming' has any moral implication. And yet you call our programming a moral fact. And that's a contradiction. I'll set this out below.
1 If we're 'programmed' (with the potential) to behave in certain ways - to do X and not do Y - then that's a fact about human nature.
Strawman again.
I had stated all humans are "programmed" with an inherent moral potential [of various degree of activeness] of ought-ness and ought-not-ness.
In terms of morality, all humans are "programmed" with an inherent moral potential of ought-not-ness to kill humans.
The "programming" itself is in fact a biological fact, but not a moral fact.
The moral fact is the "programmed moral potential" that is a
matter of fact represented by a
physical referent of neural correlates in the brain and body.
Because this is dealt within a moral FSK, it is a moral fact.
I gave you an analogy earlier, all humans are programmed with the "puberty potential" represented by physical reference of DNA codes, neural correlates, other. What is physically real and a matter of fact is the programmed 'potential'. Where the resultant of puberty may not up to 'expectations' e.g. transgenderism does not obviate the real existence that real physical potential.
This is the same with the programmed moral potential as a physical referent and matter of fact.
Btw, all humans are also "programmed" with the inherent potential to kill humans but this is not essentially a moral fact but rather a biological and evil fact.
2 A factual premise can't entail a moral conclusion. So the 'programming' premise can't entail a moral conclusion, such as 'therefore, X is morally right and Y is morally wrong'. That conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. It's a non sequitur fallacy.
You are going on the wrong path again in the direction of your dogmatic paradigm.
My paradigm do not focus on your sort of 'therefore, X is morally right and Y is morally wrong'.
What we have is a physical moral fact of a moral potential within the brain which should be self developed to unfold so that the person will spontaneously and naturally progress to be more morally competent.
If you have the capacity and ability to develop your own 'inactive moral potential within' you will progress to be a more moral competent person. There is no question of you being morally right or wrong from the moral perspective I am proposing.
It is only the ignoramus who insist on the question of morally right or wrong as influenced by the current debates on morality and ethics.
The conclusion of the moral potential is verified and justified to exists within the mind, brain and body of each individual person.
3 Merely calling the 'programming' premise a moral fact proves nothing and begs the question. What makes it a moral fact?
This arise from your
strawmanning.
Note my explanation above.
The moral fact is the "programmed moral potential" that is a
matter of fact represented by a
physical referent of neural correlates in the brain and body.
Because this is dealt within a moral FSK, it is a moral fact.
Since there are no moral facts - since the very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent - we're left with our moral beliefs, judgements or opinions, which can be individual or collective. We can and do cite facts to explain or justify our moral opinions - perhaps to persuade others - but they remain opinions.
And moaning about the non-existence of a 'foundation' for our opinions is pointless. It's like saying there's no such thing as absolute truth, so there's no such thing as what we call truth. The existence of exactly what is being denied?
Strawmanning again.
You need to get out of your dogmatic paradigm to understand [not necessary agree] what I am proposing within my moral paradigm.
What I am arguing is, the moral fact is the "programmed moral potential" that is a
matter of fact represented by a
physical referent of neural correlates in the brain and body. Because this is dealt within a moral FSK, it is a moral fact.
This [matter of neuroscience] is why Hume was ignorant of during his time and thus set people like you blindly following Hume down the wrong path.
I am asking again, what is the grounding of your 'what is fact'? So far you are making groundless claims.
OTOH, my grounding is heavily relied upon the scientific FSK, i.e. verified and justified scientific facts being inputted into the moral FSK.