Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 5:47 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 1:29 pm
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.
You went off tangent rather than address my counter,
viewtopic.php?p=572952#p572952
that you are rudderless with regard to dealing with morality.
You stated "
I think we should .." "should" on what grounds?
Here is the point again;
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.
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.
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.
3 Merely calling the 'programming' premise a moral fact proves nothing and begs the question. What makes it 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?
This is not really directed at Peter...
...mainly to the argument at hand in it's entirety.
Well it is a fact that we're programed, but the problems are who the programmers are. In fact there are
some moral codes that are accepted by a majority, but that doesn't mean they're correct, the mob can never be allowed to rule, save a dictatorship. Then say goodby to the limited freedom that some of us share. Which is why freedom of speech is so important. The morals in the minority should not be overlooked just because they are so. Instead we must dissect all perspectives, as within them, as being a product of all of humanity, there are valid premises, we just have to understand the psychological cause and effect, what were the ramifications, what are the implications.
The truth is that programming begins in the eyes of the parents, then friends (peers), and of course teachers, and lets not forget the governments, and the religious freaks, take a religion, please pick one. I had an acquaintance whose father was a priest, apparently his father wasn't a very good father, because in his particular case, he revolted and became a skinhead, not a priest, as many might expect!
NO PARTICULAR MORAL CODE IS/ARE NECESSARILY PROGRAMMED IN EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN US ARE FAR MORE COMPLEX. IT STARTS FROM THE MOMENT WE'RE BORN, AND I'M TELLING YOU THAT A JUST BORN INFANT THAT'S SMACKED ON THE ASS, AND/OR, CIRCUMCISED WILL BECOME PSYCHOLOGICALLY DIFFERENT THAN THOSE THAT WEREN'T. WE ARE THE CULMINATION OF
ALL THE EVER VARYING ENVIRONMENTALS THAT WE EXPERIENCE, AND IT CAN GO EITHER WAY MUCH LIKE A CPU WITH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (<-- I'm being conservative here) OF TRANSISTORS EITHER ON OR OFF IN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (<--conservative again) OF PERMUTATIONS. AND I'M TALKING ABOUT A QUANTUM COMPUTER PROCESSOR (<--if they can finally perfect one). THE INPUTS ARE COMING AT US OMNIDIRECTIONALLY. ADDITIONALLY EVER VARYING PREREQUISITES EXPERIENCED OR NOT ARE TRAJECTORY CHANGING, AND THE PARTICULAR EVER VARYING INTENSITY OF THE EXPERIENCES ARE LIKEWISE.
PEOPLE: Just because externally we look '
relatively' the
same, doesn't mean that we're not '
relatively'
different inside. (<--What? I really had to say that?)
SUCH THAT MORAL CODES ARE JUST AS EVER VARYING! Oh, we can agree on some, for the most part...
