What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with morality.

You still haven't told us what it is that you are talking about when you use that term.

What existent are you refering to?

[Peter Holmes]

Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, what we misleadingly call an abstract noun - such as 'morality', 'truth', 'knowledge', 'objectivity', 'subjectivity', 'moral rightness/wrongness', 'concept', 'proposition' and so on - is not the name of a thing of any kind that can therefore be described. And the delusion that it is has informed philosophical confusion for millennia.

It follows that a so-called theory (explanation/description) of a so-called abstract thing can only be an explanation of how we do or could use an abstract noun. And the facts about how we use it - our linguistic practices - are out in the open. There's nothing mysterious about them. And dictionary explanations provide snapshots of usage.

VA says that what we call morality has nothing to do with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. And he's invented a thing he calls 'morality proper' to dodge the problem that most of the rest of us think that morality is about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

[Skepdick]

Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, what we misleadingly call an abstract noun - such as 'morality', 'truth', 'knowledge', 'objectivity', 'subjectivity', 'moral rightness/wrongness', 'concept', 'proposition' and so on - is not the name of a thing of any kind that can therefore be described. And the delusion that it is has informed philosophical confusion for millennia.

It follows that a so-called theory (explanation/description) of a so-called abstract thing can only be an explanation of how we do or could use an abstract noun. And the facts about how we use it - our linguistic practices - are out in the open. There's nothing mysterious about them. And dictionary explanations provide snapshots of usage.

VA says that what we call morality has nothing to do with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. And he's invented a thing he calls 'morality proper' to dodge the problem that most of the rest of us think that morality is about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

I didn't ask you what kind of thing morality is; nor did I ask you whether morality can be described. I didn't even ask you if morality can be defined.

I asked you if morality exists.

Put the facts of about your linguistic practices out in the open! HOW are you using that term? Unless you tell us, I am going to hold onto my really strong suspicion. that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about when you talk about "morality"; or "moral rightness/wrongness".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, what we misleadingly call an abstract noun - such as 'morality', 'truth', 'knowledge', 'objectivity', 'subjectivity', 'moral rightness/wrongness', 'concept', 'proposition' and so on - is not the name of a thing of any kind that can therefore be described. And the delusion that it is has informed philosophical confusion for millennia.

Hunger is non-physical, hunger does not exist?
The feelings of hunger pangs may be subjective; but there are invariant elements that is associated with the generic hunger in all humans, thus the possibility of objectivity, i.e. independent of all opinions and individual beliefs & judgments.
What is invariant in relation to hunger are the bodily organs and neural algorithms of connection of neurons that drive the same hunger pang generically in all humans.
These physical elements and process can be verified and justified via the science-biology-FSK as existing physically and factually [scientific].

It is the same with morality.
What actions, thoughts of humans understood and accepted as 'morality' is common knowledge.
The problem is the majority of humans are ignorant of the underlying physical elements that drive what is regarded as morality just like 'hunger' the various emotions and other subjective elements.

It follows that a so-called theory (explanation/description) of a so-called abstract thing can only be an explanation of how we do or could use an abstract noun. And the facts about how we use it - our linguistic practices - are out in the open. There's nothing mysterious about them. And dictionary explanations provide snapshots of usage.

Have read the works of Saul Kripke?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_th ... _reference

Dictionary explanations are meaningless in real terms, a dictionary merely display 'what a word is interpreted as' based on popularity.

VA says that what we call morality has nothing to do with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. And he's invented a thing he calls 'morality proper' to dodge the problem that most of the rest of us think that morality is about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

The majority generally associate rightness and wrongness with morality which is subjective and culminating in terrible evils to humanity. This is due to the fact that the majority [you are one of them] are ignorant of the actual physical mechanisms that drive the morality issues they are so concerned with.

To Hitler [and other genocidal leaders], it was morally right to kill all Jews and others he don't favor. One man's meat is another man's poison prevails in the issue of morality of rightness and wrongness at present.
As such morality based on rightness and wrongness has failed humanity and if not corrected there is no effective ways to stop humans killing humans in all sort of ways till 'eternity'.

What I proposed with morality-proper is this;
All humans has an inherent ought-ness-to-kill; this is to facilitate killing for food to ensure survival, but this ought-ness-to-kill can be misdirected to kill humans for various reasons.
To avoid the above, all humans also has an inherent ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans.
But ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans at present is weak within the majority.
Now when we recognize the inherent ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans as a scientific fact then as a moral fact, then we can establish moral ways to strengthen this ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans neurally.
When this ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans is strengthen in all humans [if not, the majority critical mass], then there will be ZERO [or rare] cases of humans killing humans.

Point is my moral proper model enable the above possibility there will be ZERO [or rare] cases of humans killing humans.
Given the trend of the current exponential expansion of knowledge, artificial intelligence and technologies, I am optimist what I predict is very possible.

On the other hand, your morality as rightness and wrongness has no possibility of ZERO [or rare] cases of humans killing humans nor a standard to guide humanity to such a vision of possibility. If WMDs are easily and cheaply available, the human species could be exterminated, especially from the evil-prone Muslims whose God sanction that it is morally right do exterminate the human species.

See the difference??

[FlashDangerpants]

especially from the evil-prone Muslims

That's the only reason he does any of this, it's all about his one true passion.

[Peter Holmes]

Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, what we misleadingly call an abstract noun - such as 'morality', 'truth', 'knowledge', 'objectivity', 'subjectivity', 'moral rightness/wrongness', 'concept', 'proposition' and so on - is not the name of a thing of any kind that can therefore be described. And the delusion that it is has informed philosophical confusion for millennia.

Hunger is non-physical, hunger does not exist?
The feelings of hunger pangs may be subjective; but there are invariant elements that is associated with the generic hunger in all humans, thus the possibility of objectivity, i.e. independent of all opinions and individual beliefs & judgments.
What is invariant in relation to hunger are the bodily organs and neural algorithms of connection of neurons that drive the same hunger pang generically in all humans.
These physical elements and process can be verified and justified via the science-biology-FSK as existing physically and factually [scientific].

It is the same with morality.
What actions, thoughts of humans understood and accepted as 'morality' is common knowledge.
The problem is the majority of humans are ignorant of the underlying physical elements that drive what is regarded as morality just like 'hunger' the various emotions and other subjective elements.

It follows that a so-called theory (explanation/description) of a so-called abstract thing can only be an explanation of how we do or could use an abstract noun. And the facts about how we use it - our linguistic practices - are out in the open. There's nothing mysterious about them. And dictionary explanations provide snapshots of usage.

Have read the works of Saul Kripke?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_th ... _reference

Dictionary explanations are meaningless in real terms, a dictionary merely display 'what a word is interpreted as' based on popularity.

VA says that what we call morality has nothing to do with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. And he's invented a thing he calls 'morality proper' to dodge the problem that most of the rest of us think that morality is about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

The majority generally associate rightness and wrongness with morality which is subjective and culminating in terrible evils to humanity. This is due to the fact that the majority [you are one of them] are ignorant of the actual physical mechanisms that drive the morality issues they are so concerned with.

To Hitler [and other genocidal leaders], it was morally right to kill all Jews and others he don't favor. One man's meat is another man's poison prevails in the issue of morality of rightness and wrongness at present.
As such morality based on rightness and wrongness has failed humanity and if not corrected there is no effective ways to stop humans killing humans in all sort of ways till 'eternity'.

What I proposed with morality-proper is this;
All humans has an inherent ought-ness-to-kill; this is to facilitate killing for food to ensure survival, but this ought-ness-to-kill can be misdirected to kill humans for various reasons.
To avoid the above, all humans also has an inherent ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans.
But ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans at present is weak within the majority.
Now when we recognize the inherent ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans as a scientific fact then as a moral fact, then we can establish moral ways to strengthen this ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans neurally.
When this ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans is strengthen in all humans [if not, the majority critical mass], then there will be ZERO [or rare] cases of humans killing humans.

Point is my moral proper model enable the above possibility there will be ZERO [or rare] cases of humans killing humans.
Given the trend of the current exponential expansion of knowledge, artificial intelligence and technologies, I am optimist what I predict is very possible.

On the other hand, your morality as rightness and wrongness has no possibility of ZERO [or rare] cases of humans killing humans nor a standard to guide humanity to such a vision of possibility. If WMDs are easily and cheaply available, the human species could be exterminated, especially from the evil-prone Muslims whose God sanction that it is morally right do exterminate the human species.

See the difference??

1 You say hunger is non-physical, but then offer a purely physical explanation of hunger. QED. The myth of abstract or non-physical things runs deep.

2 Hacker demolishes Kripke's critique of Wittgenstein. There can always be a rule for interpreting a rule. (Why not?) But explanations come to an end with facts about our linguistic practices. And, to risk a metaphor, there's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. That we can always say more doesn't mean we can never say enough.

3 Your whole argument rests on the moral opinion that humans ought not to kill humans. So neurological facts about human motivation are irrelevant. You happen to think we should enhance human programming not to kill humans. And that's a matter of opinion, which is subjective. No way out. The end. Give it up. Morality isn't and can't be objective, because there are no moral facts.

[Skepdick]

1 You say hunger is non-physical, but then offer a purely physical explanation of hunger. QED. The myth of abstract or non-physical things runs deep.

Idiot Philosopher is an idiot. Gets confused between categories and their contents.

If everything's physical. then abstractions (which exist) are also physical.

Like numbers. All physical.
Like thoughts. Thoughts of kicking you in the balls are physical.
Like concepts. The concept of quality is physical.

If everything is physical and nothing is non-physical then the adjective "physical" is redundant.

Morality (if it exists) is physical.
Otherwise it doesn't exist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, what we misleadingly call an abstract noun - such as 'morality', 'truth', 'knowledge', 'objectivity', 'subjectivity', 'moral rightness/wrongness', 'concept', 'proposition' and so on - is not the name of a thing of any kind that can therefore be described. And the delusion that it is has informed philosophical confusion for millennia.

Hunger is non-physical, hunger does not exist?
The feelings of hunger pangs may be subjective; but there are invariant elements that is associated with the generic hunger in all humans, thus the possibility of objectivity, i.e. independent of all opinions and individual beliefs & judgments.
What is invariant in relation to hunger are the bodily organs and neural algorithms of connection of neurons that drive the same hunger pang generically in all humans.
These physical elements and process can be verified and justified via the science-biology-FSK as existing physically and factually [scientific].

It is the same with morality.
What actions, thoughts of humans understood and accepted as 'morality' is common knowledge.
The problem is the majority of humans are ignorant of the underlying physical elements that drive what is regarded as morality just like 'hunger' the various emotions and other subjective elements.

It follows that a so-called theory (explanation/description) of a so-called abstract thing can only be an explanation of how we do or could use an abstract noun. And the facts about how we use it - our linguistic practices - are out in the open. There's nothing mysterious about them. And dictionary explanations provide snapshots of usage.

Have read the works of Saul Kripke?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_th ... _reference

Dictionary explanations are meaningless in real terms, a dictionary merely display 'what a word is interpreted as' based on popularity.

VA says that what we call morality has nothing to do with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. And he's invented a thing he calls 'morality proper' to dodge the problem that most of the rest of us think that morality is about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

The majority generally associate rightness and wrongness with morality which is subjective and culminating in terrible evils to humanity. This is due to the fact that the majority [you are one of them] are ignorant of the actual physical mechanisms that drive the morality issues they are so concerned with.

To Hitler [and other genocidal leaders], it was morally right to kill all Jews and others he don't favor. One man's meat is another man's poison prevails in the issue of morality of rightness and wrongness at present.
As such morality based on rightness and wrongness has failed humanity and if not corrected there is no effective ways to stop humans killing humans in all sort of ways till 'eternity'.

What I proposed with morality-proper is this;
All humans has an inherent ought-ness-to-kill; this is to facilitate killing for food to ensure survival, but this ought-ness-to-kill can be misdirected to kill humans for various reasons.
To avoid the above, all humans also has an inherent ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans.
But ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans at present is weak within the majority.
Now when we recognize the inherent ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans as a scientific fact then as a moral fact, then we can establish moral ways to strengthen this ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans neurally.
When this ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans is strengthen in all humans [if not, the majority critical mass], then there will be ZERO [or rare] cases of humans killing humans.

Point is my moral proper model enable the above possibility there will be ZERO [or rare] cases of humans killing humans.
Given the trend of the current exponential expansion of knowledge, artificial intelligence and technologies, I am optimist what I predict is very possible.

On the other hand, your morality as rightness and wrongness has no possibility of ZERO [or rare] cases of humans killing humans nor a standard to guide humanity to such a vision of possibility. If WMDs are easily and cheaply available, the human species could be exterminated, especially from the evil-prone Muslims whose God sanction that it is morally right do exterminate the human species.

See the difference??

1 You say hunger is non-physical, but then offer a purely physical explanation of hunger. QED. The myth of abstract or non-physical things runs deep.

Strawman again .. that the "a million+2" times.

Note I wrote above:
The feelings of hunger pangs may be subjective [non-physical]; but there are invariant elements [physical] that are associated with the generic hunger in all humans, thus the possibility of objectivity, i.e. independent of all opinions and individual beliefs & judgments.

As such, when verified via the scientific FSK, there are objective facts of hunger.

It is same with emotional feelings which are non-physical in one aspects, but emotions as it is well-known are supported by its neural correlates, thus there are facts related to emotions.

Similarly,
The feelings [opinions] of moral impulses may be subjective [non-physical]; but there are invariant elements that is associated with the generic moral function in all humans, thus the possibility of objectivity, i.e. independent of all opinions and individual beliefs & judgments.
As such, when verified via the scientific FSK and thence moral FSK, there are objective moral facts.

2 Hacker demolishes Kripke's critique of Wittgenstein. There can always be a rule for interpreting a rule. (Why not?) But explanations come to an end with facts about our linguistic practices. And, to risk a metaphor, there's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. That we can always say more doesn't mean we can never say enough.

Hacker Demolished??? Hacker was one of the dissenting voices.
There is no such things a one word absolutely representing [meaning] one fact.

3 Your whole argument rests on the moral opinion that humans ought not to kill humans. So neurological facts about human motivation are irrelevant. You happen to think we should enhance human programming not to kill humans. And that's a matter of opinion, which is subjective. No way out. The end. Give it up. Morality isn't and can't be objective, because there are no moral facts.

Not the whole argument, the "humans ought not to kill humans" is merely one of the many moral elements [there are loads of them].

I agree my "humans ought not to kill humans" moral element is at present, a personal belief with strong conviction, i.e. not conclusively proven within the scientific FSK. But there are researchers looking into this feature of morality. So at this stage it is a hypothesis not a theory yet.

However, there are already many clues via empirical evidences from scientific researches there are physical correlates to elements that are related to morality.
I have presented, one of the critical element of morality is empathy which is linked to "humans ought not to kill humans; empathy is represented by physical mirror neurons in the brain.

Once we are able to fully map the empathy neural mechanisms in the brain, then there is possibility of improving the empathy quotient [EmpQ] of the masses.

https://www.humanconnectome.org/
The Human Connectome Project (HCP) has tackled one of the great scientific challenges of the 21st century: mapping the human brain, aiming to connect its structure to function and behavior.

I am optimistic my hypothesis will come true and put into FOOLPROOF practices in the future because I have done loads of research to support my abductions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

Your morality as related to rightness and wrongness of human thoughts and behavior is relatively very primitive like Phlogiston Theory to Theory of Oxidation

You are countering [within your thick, tall and no-door silo] as one who is shivering with fears of change and advancement of knowledge.

[Peter Holmes]

Hunger is non-physical, hunger does not exist?
The feelings of hunger pangs may be subjective; but there are invariant elements that is associated with the generic hunger in all humans, thus the possibility of objectivity, i.e. independent of all opinions and individual beliefs & judgments.
What is invariant in relation to hunger are the bodily organs and neural algorithms of connection of neurons that drive the same hunger pang generically in all humans.
These physical elements and process can be verified and justified via the science-biology-FSK as existing physically and factually [scientific].

It is the same with morality.
What actions, thoughts of humans understood and accepted as 'morality' is common knowledge.
The problem is the majority of humans are ignorant of the underlying physical elements that drive what is regarded as morality just like 'hunger' the various emotions and other subjective elements.


Have read the works of Saul Kripke?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_th ... _reference

Dictionary explanations are meaningless in real terms, a dictionary merely display 'what a word is interpreted as' based on popularity.


The majority generally associate rightness and wrongness with morality which is subjective and culminating in terrible evils to humanity. This is due to the fact that the majority [you are one of them] are ignorant of the actual physical mechanisms that drive the morality issues they are so concerned with.

To Hitler [and other genocidal leaders], it was morally right to kill all Jews and others he don't favor. One man's meat is another man's poison prevails in the issue of morality of rightness and wrongness at present.
As such morality based on rightness and wrongness has failed humanity and if not corrected there is no effective ways to stop humans killing humans in all sort of ways till 'eternity'.

What I proposed with morality-proper is this;
All humans has an inherent ought-ness-to-kill; this is to facilitate killing for food to ensure survival, but this ought-ness-to-kill can be misdirected to kill humans for various reasons.
To avoid the above, all humans also has an inherent ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans.
But ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans at present is weak within the majority.
Now when we recognize the inherent ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans as a scientific fact then as a moral fact, then we can establish moral ways to strengthen this ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans neurally.
When this ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans is strengthen in all humans [if not, the majority critical mass], then there will be ZERO [or rare] cases of humans killing humans.

Point is my moral proper model enable the above possibility there will be ZERO [or rare] cases of humans killing humans.
Given the trend of the current exponential expansion of knowledge, artificial intelligence and technologies, I am optimist what I predict is very possible.

On the other hand, your morality as rightness and wrongness has no possibility of ZERO [or rare] cases of humans killing humans nor a standard to guide humanity to such a vision of possibility. If WMDs are easily and cheaply available, the human species could be exterminated, especially from the evil-prone Muslims whose God sanction that it is morally right do exterminate the human species.

See the difference??

1 You say hunger is non-physical, but then offer a purely physical explanation of hunger. QED. The myth of abstract or non-physical things runs deep.

Strawman again .. that the "a million+2" times.

Note I wrote above:
The feelings of hunger pangs may be subjective [non-physical]; but there are invariant elements [physical] that are associated with the generic hunger in all humans, thus the possibility of objectivity, i.e. independent of all opinions and individual beliefs & judgments.

As such, when verified via the scientific FSK, there are objective facts of hunger.

It is same with emotional feelings which are non-physical in one aspects, but emotions as it is well-known are supported by its neural correlates, thus there are facts related to emotions.

Similarly,
The feelings [opinions] of moral impulses may be subjective [non-physical]; but there are invariant elements that is associated with the generic moral function in all humans, thus the possibility of objectivity, i.e. independent of all opinions and individual beliefs & judgments.
As such, when verified via the scientific FSK and thence moral FSK, there are objective moral facts.

2 Hacker demolishes Kripke's critique of Wittgenstein. There can always be a rule for interpreting a rule. (Why not?) But explanations come to an end with facts about our linguistic practices. And, to risk a metaphor, there's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. That we can always say more doesn't mean we can never say enough.

Hacker Demolished??? Hacker was one of the dissenting voices.
There is no such things a one word absolutely representing [meaning] one fact.

3 Your whole argument rests on the moral opinion that humans ought not to kill humans. So neurological facts about human motivation are irrelevant. You happen to think we should enhance human programming not to kill humans. And that's a matter of opinion, which is subjective. No way out. The end. Give it up. Morality isn't and can't be objective, because there are no moral facts.

Not the whole argument, the "humans ought not to kill humans" is merely one of the many moral elements [there are loads of them].

I agree my "humans ought not to kill humans" moral element is at present, a personal belief with strong conviction, i.e. not conclusively proven within the scientific FSK. But there are researchers looking into this feature of morality. So at this stage it is a hypothesis not a theory yet.

However, there are already many clues via empirical evidences from scientific researches there are physical correlates to elements that are related to morality.
I have presented, one of the critical element of morality is empathy which is linked to "humans ought not to kill humans; empathy is represented by physical mirror neurons in the brain.

Once we are able to fully map the empathy neural mechanisms in the brain, then there is possibility of improving the empathy quotient [EmpQ] of the masses.

https://www.humanconnectome.org/
The Human Connectome Project (HCP) has tackled one of the great scientific challenges of the 21st century: mapping the human brain, aiming to connect its structure to function and behavior.

I am optimistic my hypothesis will come true and put into FOOLPROOF practices in the future because I have done loads of research to support my abductions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

Your morality as related to rightness and wrongness of human thoughts and behavior is relatively very primitive like Phlogiston Theory to Theory of Oxidation

You are countering [within your thick, tall and no-door silo] as one who is shivering with fears of change and advancement of knowledge.

Wtf? Why is 'subjectivity' non-physical? Why - in what way - are hunger pangs and emotions non-physical? Is anything in the brain non-physical? How can a non-physical cause have a physical effect? Hoe can a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause?

You have no idea what you're talking about. And you have no idea what the Wittgenstein-Kripke-Hacker issue was about. Better to leave it alone. It's embarrassing.

No scientific discovery could ever show what is the morally right or wrong thing to do - such as that it's morally right to promote empathy. Your misunderstanding of the nature and goals of scientific endeavour is stupefying.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wtf? Why is 'subjectivity' non-physical? Why - in what way - are hunger pangs and emotions non-physical? Is anything in the brain non-physical? How can a non-physical cause have a physical effect? Hoe can a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause?

You wrote:
pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical ..that we misleadingly call an abstract noun - such as 'morality', 'truth', 'knowledge', 'objectivity', 'subjectivity', 'moral rightness/wrongness', 'concept', 'proposition' and so on ..
If you define the above as non-physical, then personal subject feelings, opinions, beliefs and judgments, are also non-physical, i.e. they are mental and subjective.

As such the feeling of hunger as per your definition is non-physical and do not existence.

This is why I asked you;
Hunger is non-physical, hunger does not exist?

I have argued, hunger whilst is a feeling, has its invariant physical correlates.
Thus whilst morality has its moral feelings, morality also has its invariant physical correlates.
These are the possible objective moral facts.

You have no idea what you're talking about. And you have no idea what the Wittgenstein-Kripke-Hacker issue was about. Better to leave it alone. It's embarrassing.

I did not mention the Wittgenstein-Kripke-Hacker issue.

What I knew of Kripke is;

Kripke's Naming and Necessity, is considered one of the most important philosophical works of the 20th century. It introduces the concept of names as rigid designators, true in every possible world, as contrasted with descriptions.
It also contains Kripke's causal theory of reference, disputing the descriptivist theory found in Gottlob Frege's concept of sense and Bertrand Russell's theory of descriptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Kripke

In the philosophy of language, the descriptivist theory of proper names (also descriptivist theory of reference)[1] is the view that the meaning or semantic content of a proper name is identical to the descriptions associated with it by speakers, while their referents are determined to be the objects that satisfy these descriptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descripti ... y_of_names

It is this "descriptivist theory of proper names" where you insist a dictionary is supposedly your God to meanings.
But Kripke re above is against that.

If you want to bring in your Wittgenstein-Kripke-Hacker issue [..I never did] then give your arguments and supporting references. If you think this is one of your strongest argument to support your thesis, I would be interested into getting into the details of it.

No scientific discovery could ever show what is the morally right or wrong thing to do - such as that it's morally right to promote empathy. Your misunderstanding of the nature and goals of scientific endeavour is stupefying.

Strawman again and babbling;
That is the milion+3 times you have been strawmaning my points.

I repeat ... I do not associate morality with rightness and wrongness because these concepts are too loose for morality proper.
E.g. Hitler insist it is morally right to commit genocides of the Jews and others who do not agree with him.
Your sort of morality is corrupted with Hitler-liked moral subjectivities.

I had defined morality is about avoiding evil to promote good.

Morality deals with evil acts; empathy can mitigate evil acts; empathy is supported by mirror neurons which can be verified and justified by the scientific FSK which generate credible and reliable facts.
Thus, morality can be scientific and factual.

[Peter Holmes]

I had defined morality is about avoiding evil to promote good.

Why should we avoid evil and promote good? Is it a fact that we ought to do so?

[Iwannaplato]

I repeat ... I do not associate morality with rightness and wrongness because these concepts are too loose for morality proper.
E.g. Hitler insist it is morally right to commit genocides of the Jews and others who do not agree with him.
Your sort of morality is corrupted with Hitler-liked moral subjectivities.

I had defined morality is about avoiding evil to promote good.

Morality deals with evil acts; empathy can mitigate evil acts; empathy is supported by mirror neurons which can be verified and justified by the scientific FSK which generate credible and reliable facts.
Thus, morality can be scientific and factual.

This is really strange. Morally is concerned with evil acts (not good ones?). Because Hitler said it was good to kill Jews, any morality is problematic. How do we know this? Because Hitler committed evil acts?
Mitigating evil acts is good. But then acts that mitigate evil acts would be good. Those that promote empathy would be good acts. But moralities based on good acts are bad because some people think bad acts are good acts. How do we demonstrate that VA's sense of good acts are not actually bad acts? Because they mitigate evil acts?

Well, that's what Hitler thought also.

VA points to mirror neurons and someone else could point to neurons involved in aggression.

So what we have is circular reasoning. It does not start with science. It focuses on those parts of science that point to things that VA thinks are good, like empathy. And doesn't point to things he doesn't like.

So, the foundation is what VA thinks is good.
Which is exactly what Hitler's morality starts with.

[Peter Holmes]

I repeat ... I do not associate morality with rightness and wrongness because these concepts are too loose for morality proper.
E.g. Hitler insist it is morally right to commit genocides of the Jews and others who do not agree with him.
Your sort of morality is corrupted with Hitler-liked moral subjectivities.

I had defined morality is about avoiding evil to promote good.

Morality deals with evil acts; empathy can mitigate evil acts; empathy is supported by mirror neurons which can be verified and justified by the scientific FSK which generate credible and reliable facts.
Thus, morality can be scientific and factual.

This is really strange. Morally is concerned with evil acts (not good ones?). Because Hitler said it was good to kill Jews, any morality is problematic. How do we know this? Because Hitler committed evil acts?
Mitigating evil acts is good. But then acts that mitigate evil acts would be good. Those that promote empathy would be good acts. But moralities based on good acts are bad because some people think bad acts are good acts. How do we demonstrate that VA's sense of good acts are not actually bad acts? Because they mitigate evil acts?

Well, that's what Hitler thought also.

VA points to mirror neurons and someone else could point to neurons involved in aggression.

So what we have is circular reasoning. It does not start with science. It focuses on those parts of science that point to things that VA thinks are good, like empathy. And doesn't point to things he doesn't like.

So, the foundation is what VA thinks is good.
Which is exactly what Hitler's morality starts with.

Nicely put. Moral realists and objectivists can't answer the following questions without expressing moral opinions, which are necessarily subjective.

1 What constitutes good and evil - or moral rightness and wrongness?

2 Why should we promote good and avoid evil?

An opinion held by everyone is still an opinion, whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact. And there are no factual answers, with truth-value, to these questions - which is why moral realism and objectivism are irrational.

[Skepdick]

Nicely put. Moral realists and objectivists can't answer the following questions without expressing moral opinions, which are necessarily subjective.

Please answer the following question: What makes an opinion "subjective"?

If the opinion exists then the opinion exists objectively.

It is my opinion that your name is Peter Holmes. What makes this "subjective"?

whereas a fact acknowledged by no one is still a fact.

Please provide us with even one such fact! A fact that nobody (not even you!) acknowledge.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I had defined morality is about avoiding evil to promote good.

Why should we avoid evil and promote good? Is it a fact that we ought to do so?

I had explained elsewhere, in this case,
1. we need to define what is evil specifically,
2. we need to produce an exhaustive list of what we considered is 'evil', then rank them in term of degree of evilness.
I have covered the above, so I will not do it here.

I had ranked 'genocide' of humans as the 2nd highest degree of evilness.
Avoiding genocide [evil] is promoting or sustaining good.
Do you want yourself, your family, kin, friends, or humans to be killed in a genocide?
Would you participate in a genocidal killing?

If you answer yes, then you are a very immoral person.

If no, then why no? WHY? WHY?
It is probably because you are a moral person.
Why?
If you keep asking ''WHY" after each of your answer,
you will likely understand there is an inherent objective moral fact [an ought-not-ness] that is managing why you will not kill humans in a genocide.