There are Moral Facts

[Sculptor]

Let's be clear. I've read Ascent of Man and, Origin of Species twice.

The holocaust is not "natural selection". It matters not a jot that humans are part of nature.
If you actually take the trouble to read The Origin of Species that would be crystal clear.
Darwin talks about different types of evolutionary selection.
In early editions these even include Lamarkism (now fully debunked) which he did not abandon for a long time.

Natural Selection is a process which does not include purpose or intention in any way. Since Hitler and the German high council make conscious decisions concerning what they called the "Final Solution" this simply means that it cannot be reduced to "natural selection"; it being a politically motivated choice. Anthropologists, Archaeologists and Historians make clear distinctions between what is "cultural" and what is "natural".

If you have to consider it selection in any sense you would be better to consider "Domestic Selection" upon which Darwin's theory was built.

Domestic Selection is distinct from NS in that generations of humans have specifically selected by eye traits they like, and rejected traits they did not like in domesticated animals. The observation that this gave rise to a plethora of different breeds of common domesticated animals including pets helped Darwin understand the how Species had arrived the natural way. Chickens and pidgeons with ludicrous plumage; dogs with absurdly short legs and breathing difficulties; and many others came under this study.

The implications of Domestic Selection were far reaching, since many commentators observed that, as humans tended to select their mates for characteristics that were NOT related to naturally occurring selective pressure, they too could be considered as emerging, (significantly different races), were the result of conscious choices for mates by human subjects. Though unable to completely circumvent naturally occurring selective pressures, humans by and large are the result of conscious selections.

Domestic Selection, was, therefore the basis for Darwin's later work The Ascent of Man, in which he describes that the human races in themselves were the results of not only the natural forces of nature, but also of the conscious choices of marriage, and mating rituals. This explains the loss of melanin the loss of protective hair, indefeasibly large breasts in women amongst other things. And in fact human kind's general lack of fitness compared to their earlier progenitors.

On the question of morality.
Choices about who deserves to live and who to die are moral choices. This is not amoral, in any sense. I can only think that Skeptic is basically ignorant is it meaning.

A thing that is amoral has no regard for morality. If an earthquake or a change in sea level, a change in climate or any other environmental change that drives natural selection occurs this can be reasonably called "amoral".

When a dictator decides the fate of the racial composition of his people this is not amoral, I would argue that this is a clear case of being "IMMORAL". A word which has a different meaning all together.


I know Skeptic will waste no time to once again make an arse of himself in this and many other issues, but life is far too short to waste further time on idiots.

[Skepdick]

That would definitely be a problem if I were talking about moral fact as some sort of thing. Perhaps this gives us some sort of clue as to why I never have.

When you start thinking in descriptive terms instead of just making demands, you might note that it is common for beliefs to be held inconsistently. It is, perhaps lamentably, common for people to obstinately hold inconsistent beliefs even after their attention is drawn to their internal inconsistency. Now you might, if you are good at this sort of thing, note that this does not make them not beliefs anymore, you know, in the way that inconsistent facts are not described as facts anymore?

At this point perhaps you might think back to your own previous statements about optimisiation for eventual consistency and revealed preference.

At what point do you stop lying to yourself?

Insisting on internal consistency for persuasion is not "thinking in descriptive terms"

You being prescriptive.

[Skepdick]

Let's be clear. I've read Ascent of Man and, Origin of Species twice.

The holocaust is not "natural selection". It matters not a jot that humans are part of nature.
If you actually take the trouble to read The Origin of Species that would be crystal clear.
Darwin talks about different types of evolutionary selection.
In early editions these even include Lamarkism (now fully debunked) which he did not abandon for a long time.

Natural Selection is a process which does not include purpose or intention in any way. Since Hitler and the German high council make conscious decisions concerning what they called the "Final Solution" this simply means that it cannot be reduced to "natural selection"; it being a politically motivated choice. Anthropologists, Archaeologists and Historians make clear distinctions between what is "cultural" and what is "natural".

If you have to consider it selection in any sense you would be better to consider "Domestic Selection" upon which Darwin's theory was built.

Domestic Selection is distinct from NS in that generations of humans have specifically selected by eye traits they like, and rejected traits they did not like in domesticated animals. The observation that this gave rise to a plethora of different breeds of common domesticated animals including pets helped Darwin understand the how Species had arrived the natural way. Chickens and pidgeons with ludicrous plumage; dogs with absurdly short legs and breathing difficulties; and many others came under this study.

The implications of Domestic Selection were far reaching, since many commentators observed that, as humans tended to select their mates for characteristics that were NOT related to naturally occurring selective pressure, they too could be considered as emerging, (significantly different races), were the result of conscious choices for mates by human subjects. Though unable to completely circumvent naturally occurring selective pressures, humans by and large are the result of conscious selections.

Domestic Selection, was, therefore the basis for Darwin's later work The Ascent of Man, in which he describes that the human races in themselves were the results of not only the natural forces of nature, but also of the conscious choices of marriage, and mating rituals. This explains the loss of melanin the loss of protective hair, indefeasibly large breasts in women amongst other things. And in fact human kind's general lack of fitness compared to their earlier progenitors.

On the question of morality.
Choices about who deserves to live and who to die are moral choices. This is not amoral, in any sense. I can only think that Skeptic is basically ignorant is it meaning.

A thing that is amoral has no regard for morality. If an earthquake or a change in sea level, a change in climate or any other environmental change that drives natural selection occurs this can be reasonably called "amoral".

When a dictator decides the fate of the racial composition of his people this is not amoral, I would argue that this is a clear case of being "IMMORAL". A word which has a different meaning all together.


I know Skeptic will waste no time to once again make an arse of himself in this and many other issues, but life is far too short to waste further time on idiots.

Wow! That's a really long justification for special pleading. Valid&sound reasoning must have really triggered you!

ANY cause that reduces reproductive success in a portion of a population potentially exerts evolutionary pressure, selective pressure or selection pressure, driving natural selection

You understand what the word "ANY" means. Yes?

The holocaust reduced reproductive success in a portion of the jewish population. It logically follows that the holocaust is natural selection.
Genocide reduces reproductive success in victim populations. It logically follows that genocide is natural selection.

What is it that you don't understand?

If natural selection is amoral, then genocide is amoral.

This is the implication of YOUR system of thought.
This is the implication of YOUR religion.

Why are you angry at me for the religion that YOU have chosen for yourself?

Maybe you need to figure out how to reconcile YOUR moral outrage with YOUR deductive truths?

YOU are the idiot who peddles Philosophy and syllogisms.
I am the guy telling you that syllogistic reasoning is bullshit and it leads to immoral conclusions.

Why are you angry at me? It's the amoral system YOU are defending!

[FlashDangerpants]

That would definitely be a problem if I were talking about moral fact as some sort of thing. Perhaps this gives us some sort of clue as to why I never have.

When you start thinking in descriptive terms instead of just making demands, you might note that it is common for beliefs to be held inconsistently. It is, perhaps lamentably, common for people to obstinately hold inconsistent beliefs even after their attention is drawn to their internal inconsistency. Now you might, if you are good at this sort of thing, note that this does not make them not beliefs anymore, you know, in the way that inconsistent facts are not described as facts anymore?

At this point perhaps you might think back to your own previous statements about optimisiation for eventual consistency and revealed preference.

At what point do you stop lying to yourself?

Insisting on internal consistency for persuasion is not "thinking in descriptive terms"

You being prescriptive.

When we are attempting to persuade somebody that their moral judgment in some issue needs adjustment, we tend to look to their own moral beliefs and find something else they believe that is not consistent with said belief, then we highlight that and call them a dirty bastard hypocrite. This has been a short descriptive account of how persuasion and internal consistency is understood by all sane persons to work in the matter of morals.

This conversation is boring the fuck out of me. Your end of it is very low quality.

[Skepdick]

When we are attempting to persuade somebody that their moral judgment in some issue needs adjustment, we tend to look to their own moral beliefs and find something else they believe that is not consistent with said belief, then we highlight that and call them a dirty bastard hypocrite. This has been a short descriptive account of how persuasion and internal consistency is understood by all sane persons to work in the matter of morals.

Obviously! But then persuasion is about inconsistency, not consistency.

This conversation is boring the fuck out of me. Your end of it is very low quality.

Oh, I dunno. Rejecting syllogisms/consistency as valid modes of persuasion sure sounds drastic given the current rule-book.

Unless, of course, your insistence on syllogistic argumentation is a useful instrument for asserting dominance/power over the poor idiots you successfully frame into that mode of thought.

[FlashDangerpants]

When we are attempting to persuade somebody that their moral judgment in some issue needs adjustment, we tend to look to their own moral beliefs and find something else they believe that is not consistent with said belief, then we highlight that and call them a dirty bastard hypocrite. This has been a short descriptive account of how persuasion and internal consistency is understood by all sane persons to work in the matter of morals.

Obviously! But then persuasion is about inconsistency, not consistency.

Not consistently. Or perhaps consistently not.

This conversation is boring the fuck out of me. Your end of it is very low quality.

Oh, I dunno. Rejecting syllogisms/consistency as valid modes of persuasion sure sounds drastic given the current rule-book.

Unless, of course, your insistence on syllogistic argumentation is a useful instrument for asserting dominance/power over the poor idiots you successfully frame into that mode of thought.

meh

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is exactly what I told you yesterday was going to happen to your DNA based moral theory. If you make facts of DNA into "Facts of Morality" then you are certain to have moral facts that you cannot possibly agree with. See below for a small reminder.

Dude, there's a massive and obvious problem with that. "morality-proper" has no grounding for anything being right or wrong. You can't have "murder is wrong because DNA says so", or "evolution says don't do rape". If you try to make a moral fact argument out of what you are putting together here it is going to get comletely wrecked.

You are not very smart, so I will make this as simple as I can for you. You are stealing an argument from the intelligent design crowd, but not positing an intelligent designer to put only nice moral things into DNA. Instead you are leaving that to natural selection, which is a morally neutral process that only selects for behaviours that lead to propogation of genes, including rape.

Again, strawman, deflection and rhetoric.
Where did I insist on 'Evolutionary Theory' and 'natural selection' to support my point??
You are VERY stupid in associating my thesis with creationists which reflect your desperation.

But you are borrowing the Intelligent Design argument. You are insisting that the recipe for right and wrong is to be found in DNA. Somehow DNA needs to know what is good and bad. Or by magic, some force of impersonal nature chose for rightness.

Note this experiment I linked earlier.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.

Such research are done on babies and infants less than 12 month old, to ensure and avoid elements of 'nurture' affecting the conclusions.
This prove the moral elements researched here are from the DNA.

I say you are ignorant, you got the very wrong sense of what is morality proper.
Morality-proper is not about 'choice' and choosing what is right or wrong. Making choices using 'reason' is more to Ethics [as differentiated from morality].

The point with studying morality in babies [a few months old, no capability of reasoning] is to show that morality is inherent from the DNA and they acted spontaneously without using reason nor "feelings" to consciously judge and choose what is right or wrong before acting.

Babies in this case display acts of empathy and compassion but they don't 'feel' it consciously then "decide" to act. The acted spontaneously.

When babies become adults this inherent and spontaneous moral function gets corrupted by other necessary functions, e.g. ego, need to kill for food, sex, existential crisis, and other elements that has evil potentials. We need to balance these necessary but potentially conflicting impulses.

This is why we need 'reason' to establish an effective Moral Framework and System to develop fool proof self development programs and practice so that adults can allow their moral function to flow spontaneously like those of babies unhindered by the corrupting elements.

Such informal Moral F/Ss are not something new, religions like Buddhism had introduced it >2500 years ago, and there are some not so efficient pseudo Moral F/S from the Abrahamic religions & others and derivatives from political systems, tribes, groups, etc.

I am relying of empirical evidences of human acts of the present & past and tracking them to the DNA.
Darwin did not discuss the DNA and the genome at all!

But he did describe the process which determines its content did he not?
After all, you aren't suggesting we should gene-edit our offspring to imbue them righteous genes are you?
You aren't suggesting castration for those who carry improper morality genes are you?

NOPE! That is so dumb. Any topic of inheriting from parents and ancestors is traceable to the DNA in a way. Darwin was totally ignorant of the existence of DNA!!

Note the proposed Moral Framework and System I proposed above.
Again your are ignorant and desperate to counter for countering sake.

There are many ways to cultivate improvements with fool proof [.I mentioned his many times] methods, but you forcefully try to deflect to gene-editing, castrations and other perverted extremes.

I am also hypothesizing, DNA wise, all humans are programmed with an inherent algorithm for moral function, just like intelligence, etc.
This algorithm is not restricted the empathy* but comprised of interconnecting neurons from other parts of the brain.

Science fiction aside, how would such an alogrithm not include all the bad stuff we do such as selfishness lying and stealing?

Note I mentioned and linked this many times,
https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project
where we are able to map almost every human activities to the specific neurons involved, thus able to link selfishness, lying, stealing and other evil acts to their respective neural algorithm and their inhibitors and "managers."
In this case, -in the future - with the advanced knowledge and technologies we will be able to target the inhibitors and managers of their respective neural network & algorithm and in a fool proof approach, manage morality effectively.

As I had stated, humans are present are groping around to handle 'morality and ethics' without groundings, thus very haphazard and ineffective.
Blind empathy is a problem, thus empathy/compassion must be managed optimally.

What a Stalinist thing to say.

Yours is a stupid thing in responding.

What is needed is an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics with solid grounds in which case I have traced from empirical evidence to the DNA. [nothing to do with Darwin].
This Moral F/S will only be productive and effective for future [not present] generations if only we start serious from now to establish its architecture and start building its foundation.

And that is another.

Typical response because you are ignorant with very shallow, narrow and ideological dogmatism.

[FlashDangerpants]

Again, strawman, deflection and rhetoric.
Where did I insist on 'Evolutionary Theory' and 'natural selection' to support my point??
You are VERY stupid in associating my thesis with creationists which reflect your desperation.

But you are borrowing the Intelligent Design argument. You are insisting that the recipe for right and wrong is to be found in DNA. Somehow DNA needs to know what is good and bad. Or by magic, some force of impersonal nature chose for rightness.

Note this experiment I linked earlier.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.

Such research are done on babies and infants less than 12 month old, to ensure and avoid elements of 'nurture' affecting the conclusions.
This prove the moral elements researched here are from the DNA.

I say you are ignorant, you got the very wrong sense of what is morality proper.
Morality-proper is not about 'choice' and choosing what is right or wrong. Making choices using 'reason' is more to Ethics [as differentiated from morality].

The point with studying morality in babies [a few months old, no capability of reasoning] is to show that morality is inherent from the DNA and they acted spontaneously without using reason nor "feelings" to consciously judge and choose what is right or wrong before acting.

Babies in this case display acts of empathy and compassion but they don't 'feel' it consciously then "decide" to act. The acted spontaneously.

When babies become adults this inherent and spontaneous moral function gets corrupted by other necessary functions, e.g. ego, need to kill for food, sex, existential crisis, and other elements that has evil potentials. We need to balance these necessary but potentially conflicting impulses.

This is why we need 'reason' to establish an effective Moral Framework and System to develop fool proof self development programs and practice so that adults can allow their moral function to flow spontaneously like those of babies unhindered by the corrupting elements.

Such informal Moral F/Ss are not something new, religions like Buddhism had introduced it >2500 years ago, and there are some not so efficient pseudo Moral F/S from the Abrahamic religions & others and derivatives from political systems, tribes, groups, etc.

I am relying of empirical evidences of human acts of the present & past and tracking them to the DNA.
Darwin did not discuss the DNA and the genome at all!

But he did describe the process which determines its content did he not?
After all, you aren't suggesting we should gene-edit our offspring to imbue them righteous genes are you?
You aren't suggesting castration for those who carry improper morality genes are you?

NOPE! That is so dumb. Any topic of inheriting from parents and ancestors is traceable to the DNA in a way. Darwin was totally ignorant of the existence of DNA!!

Note the proposed Moral Framework and System I proposed above.
Again your are ignorant and desperate to counter for countering sake.

There are many ways to cultivate improvements with fool proof [.I mentioned his many times] methods, but you forcefully try to deflect to gene-editing, castrations and other perverted extremes.

I am also hypothesizing, DNA wise, all humans are programmed with an inherent algorithm for moral function, just like intelligence, etc.
This algorithm is not restricted the empathy* but comprised of interconnecting neurons from other parts of the brain.

Science fiction aside, how would such an alogrithm not include all the bad stuff we do such as selfishness lying and stealing?

Note I mentioned and linked this many times,
https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project
where we are able to map almost every human activities to the specific neurons involved, thus able to link selfishness, lying, stealing and other evil acts to their respective neural algorithm and their inhibitors and "managers."
In this case, -in the future - with the advanced knowledge and technologies we will be able to target the inhibitors and managers of their respective neural network & algorithm and in a fool proof approach, manage morality effectively.

As I had stated, humans are present are groping around to handle 'morality and ethics' without groundings, thus very haphazard and ineffective.
Blind empathy is a problem, thus empathy/compassion must be managed optimally.

What a Stalinist thing to say.

Yours is a stupid thing in responding.

What is needed is an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics with solid grounds in which case I have traced from empirical evidence to the DNA. [nothing to do with Darwin].
This Moral F/S will only be productive and effective for future [not present] generations if only we start serious from now to establish its architecture and start building its foundation.

And that is another.

Typical response because you are ignorant with very shallow, narrow and ideological dogmatism.

None of that addressed the point in any way.

[Sculptor]

None of that addressed the point in any way.

You are going to have to get used to that if you want to persist with this poster.

[FlashDangerpants]

None of that addressed the point in any way.

You are going to have to get used to that if you want to persist with this poster.

Right? You would think that anyone who wants to assert moral fact, and who claims to have a rulebook in place for determining what those facts are, would have put some sort of thought into what it is that makes actions, you know, actually right and wrong? The sort of stuff that would make the project he describes sound less like the totalitarian brainwashing scheme it clearly is.

[Sculptor]

None of that addressed the point in any way.

You are going to have to get used to that if you want to persist with this poster.

Right? You would think that anyone who wants to assert moral fact, and who claims to have a rulebook in place for determining what those facts are, would have put some sort of thought into what it is that makes actions, you know, actually right and wrong? The sort of stuff that would make the project he describes sound less like the totalitarian brainwashing scheme it clearly is.

Time and time again I've asked for an example of a moral fact and time and time again the small group that keep going on and on about "objective moral facts", have failed to produce one.IN fact that have no even tried.

I suggest you do not hold your breath waiting for a decent answer.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And that's the really hard thing for moral objectivists to grasp. Whatever reason we have to believe X is morally wrong, it could always be that X is not morally wrong, for some other reason. So 'X is morally wrong' can never be a fact. So there are no moral facts, and morality isn't and can't be objective.

As I had always maintained, your 'what is fact' is a traceable to the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivist.

Note again [the "thousand" times], the generally acceptable meaning of 'what is fact'.

Its ideological, you have been brainwashed to be ignorant and dogmatic, there are no moral facts from a rigid perspective.

Note the shift to this paradigm of 'what is a fact';

A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star." is an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

In line with the above, why can't we have moral facts???

• All FSK produce their respective facts.
  Since Morality has its own FSK,
  Therefore the Morality FSK has its respective moral facts.

• Justified Scientific facts from its FSK has the highest standard of credibility at present.
  The Morality FSK has similar features of the Scientific FSK
  Therefore the justified moral facts from its FSK are expected to have a high degree of credibility.

I had claimed justified true moral facts [JTB-m] must be justified empirically and philosophically.

So, 'A fact is an occurrence in the real world' and is, generally speaking, 'independent of belief'.

This is obviously too narrow, because a fact can also be a state-of-affairs, which can only indirectly be called an occurrence. But otherwise, I accept and have always used this definition of a fact. However, we also use the word fact to mean 'a description of a state-of-affairs', which is why we think of facts as things that are true. And only factual assertions are true or false; a state-of-affairs can be neither. Reality is not linguistic.

First of, what is critical is the existence of reality which are represented by facts of reality.
However there are two claims of reality, i.e.

• 1. Philosophical Realists claim reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
  2. Philosophical anti-realists claim reality is entangled with the human conditions

The above dichotomy is very Critical in the definition of what are the facts of reality.

A fact is an occurrence in the real world.-wiki
'Occurrence' is not narrow in this case. See the various meanings of 'occurrences', state, affairs.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/occurrence
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/state
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/affair

A state-of-affairs [a fact] is comprised of connected-occurrences [facts] within reality [of Realists' or Anti-Realists'].

Moral objectivists have yet to provide an example of a moral fact - a moral occurrence or state-of affairs in the real world that's independent of belief, or a description of such an occurrence or state-of-affairs that has the truth-value 'true'.

As I had argued above;
Therefore the Morality FSK produced its respective moral facts.

The Moral fact;
M1. No human ought to kill another, or,
M1 -ALL humans ought-not to kill another,
is a state-of-affairs that is represented by an neural algorithm within the brain of every human.

The above neural algorithm is analogous to the state-of-affairs of
B1 'ALL humans ought to breathe else they die' or
M2 'No human ought to stop another from breathing till s/he die'

You cannot understand the similar principle between M1 and B1 because you are ignorant of the deeper state-of-affairs of the human conditions.

And that's because the very idea of a moral occurrence or state-of-affairs is incoherent. There are only occurrences and states-of-affairs about which we can make moral judgements. Objectivists then mistake those moral judgements for facts - but they can produce no evidence 'in the real world' to justify that claim.

Making 'moral' judgment is a state-of-affairs but it is not a moral fact [as defined] rather it is typical decision-making to take actions which are related to ethics.
When one make such a decision, there is a pre-existing overriding moral facts that one judged against.

The inherent moral fact [represented neurally] is;
M1. No human ought to kill another,
The moral agent then has to make a judgment whether to comply with the moral fact or not.

A competent moral agent do not have to make any explicit judgment nor decision to comply with the moral fact, but merely act spontaneously in alignment with the moral fact. In this case, there is no question of judgment at all - Just ACT!

Moral wrongness isn't a property of slavery 'independent of belief'. Nor is it a property of abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on. That's why there are opposed and yet rational beliefs about the morality of such things as abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, and so on.

The stupidity of moral objectivism beggars belief.

Eating of animals is not a specific moral issue but it is related to other human issues.

Capital punishment is a moral issue related to the moral fact;
M1 -ALL humans ought-not to kill another,
This moral fact can only be a GUIDE and never enforceable.

• Analogy:
  It is a fact the North Pole exists in reality as the ultimate North of the Earth and is represented by the direction pointed by a compass needle.
  This fact of the North Pole can be a GUIDE.
  To go to the North Pole and a navigator in facing real obstacles can chart and vary his course East, West, South, North routes to adjust to various conditions, BUT, the net-resulting is always toward the overriding factual North in order to reach his objective.

Note the above analogy in comparison to Slavery,
Humanity had navigated the obstacles of the moral fact of slavery, i.e.
M3 - No human ought to enslaved another'
since >10,000 years ago [many generations] to the present,
to achieve the undenial moral progress in alignment with the moral facts [represented neurally] of slavery [chattel].
The moral fact as justified is fixed and independent of personal opinions and beliefs used as a GUIDE to align all humans to that fact.
There will be humans who will have the impulse for slavery against the inherent moral fact of slavery within them, but eventually the inherent moral sense will drive humans [future generations] towards the natural moral fact of slavery -M3.

If there are no moral facts as the STANDARD GUIDE or humans are not activated to realize what is inherent in them, then there will be no striving to reduce, prevent and eliminate chattel and all forms of slavery.
But that is not the case as proven with the undeniable natural moral progress of slavery from the hundreds of past generations to the present.

Get it?

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

The Moral fact;
M1. No human ought to kill another, or,
M1 -ALL humans ought-not to kill another,
is a state-of-affairs that is represented by an neural algorithm within the brain of every human.

The above neural algorithm is analogous to the state-of-affairs of
B1 'ALL humans ought to breathe else they die' or
M2 'No human ought to stop another from breathing till s/he die'

You cannot understand the similar principle between M1 and B1 because you are ignorant of the deeper state-of-affairs of the human conditions.

But these are not "similar principles".

You have not implied any causal connection regarding M1 but you have implied causal connection regarding B1.

The logical form of B1 is 'if--then' ; it's a conditional. M1 is not a conditional; it's an unsubstantiated assertion.

Moreover a "neural algorithm" might be learned not acquired genetically. Even if some "neural algorithm" is inherent in every human being's personality it does not follow the algorithm is a reality apart from human psyches.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

The Moral fact;
M1. No human ought to kill another, or,
M1 -ALL humans ought-not to kill another,
is a state-of-affairs that is represented by an neural algorithm within the brain of every human.

The above neural algorithm is analogous to the state-of-affairs of
B1 'ALL humans ought to breathe else they die' or
M2 'No human ought to stop another from breathing till s/he die'

You cannot understand the similar principle between M1 and B1 because you are ignorant of the deeper state-of-affairs of the human conditions.

But these are not "similar principles".

You have not implied any causal connection regarding M1 but you have implied causal connection regarding B1.

The logical form of B1 is 'if--then' ; it's a conditional. M1 is not a conditional; it's an unsubstantiated assertion.

I have explained the details elsewhere.

I have introduced the concept of specific Frameworks and System of Knowledge [FSK] which generate their specific specific facts.
Example, the scientific FSK generate scientific facts, the legal FSK generate legal facts, and so on.
You will note the legal FSK take in scientific facts and process them with other sources of facts to generate their specific legal fact.
Similarly the moral FSK will also take [input] scientific facts, in this case the Biological fact,i.e. B1 and generate M1 via its processes.

Moreover a "neural algorithm" might be learned not acquired genetically. Even if some "neural algorithm" is inherent in every human being's personality it does not follow the algorithm is a reality apart from human psyches.

I am arguing the moral function [moral sense] is inherent thus is of 'nature' and influence by nurture later.
As Hume has argued, the moral sense is similar to the basic-5-senses inherent in all humans.
Just as the basic-5-senses are biological facts and facts of other FSK [psychology, others?] thus are a reality, the moral sense and its algorithm is also a fact [moral] of reality within ALL humans.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

The Moral fact;
M1. No human ought to kill another, or,
M1 -ALL humans ought-not to kill another,
is a state-of-affairs that is represented by an neural algorithm within the brain of every human.

The above neural algorithm is analogous to the state-of-affairs of
B1 'ALL humans ought to breathe else they die' or
M2 'No human ought to stop another from breathing till s/he die'

You cannot understand the similar principle between M1 and B1 because you are ignorant of the deeper state-of-affairs of the human conditions.

But these are not "similar principles".

You have not implied any causal connection regarding M1 but you have implied causal connection regarding B1.

The logical form of B1 is 'if--then' ; it's a conditional. M1 is not a conditional; it's an unsubstantiated assertion.

I have explained the details elsewhere.

I have introduced the concept of specific Frameworks and System of Knowledge [FSK] which generate their specific specific facts.
Example, the scientific FSK generate scientific facts, the legal FSK generate legal facts, and so on.
You will note the legal FSK take in scientific facts and process them with other sources of facts to generate their specific legal fact.
Similarly the moral FSK will also take [input] scientific facts, in this case the Biological fact,i.e. B1 and generate M1 via its processes.

Moreover a "neural algorithm" might be learned not acquired genetically. Even if some "neural algorithm" is inherent in every human being's personality it does not follow the algorithm is a reality apart from human psyches.

I am arguing the moral function [moral sense] is inherent thus is of 'nature' and influence by nurture later.
As Hume has argued, the moral sense is similar to the basic-5-senses inherent in all humans.
Just as the basic-5-senses are biological facts and facts of other FSK [psychology, others?] thus are a reality, the moral sense and its algorithm is also a fact [moral] of reality within ALL humans.

I too believe moral sense is natural. Man's being a social animal is natural. For social animals the moral sense is a necessity, and if any human becomes an unsocialised adult they will probably be a criminal law breaker, as the law follows the prevailing mores of the society.

About the moral sense as inherent; the moral sense is a potential which has to be nurtured in a family or other nurturing institution for it to become active. Possibly ideas of simple fairness will develop in the young child without socialisation however as far as I can recall the jury is still out on that question.