Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:44 pm

psycho wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:43 pm Your first two responses share my idea that not all interpretations are the same.

It would be like concluding that the gillotine was not created to decapitate when it becomes dull and does not cut well.

It's nothing like that at all.

What the creator created something for is the business of the creator.

What the person using it for is the business of the user.

You've never used a butter knife as a screw driver? I have.

psycho wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 7:51 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 4:03 am

psycho wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:53 pm
Animals do not kill for basic needs. Animals kill because it is convenient for them to kill. When a male lion defeats a pack leader, he eats his predecessor's cubs. That is not a basic need. At least not to my understanding. (Maybe we should clarify that you consider basic needs in animals)

The point is, no animals will kill like humans killing humans for pleasure, and other frivolous reasons.
I stated animal killed on a need basis, i.e. need for food when hungry [which is a basic need], self-defense, some for the optimality of survival [killing cubs which are not theirs] and the likes.

I don't see how you conclude that humans have a basic instinct that prevents them from killing. What makes you think such a thing?

Again I did not state the above.
All humans has the basic instinct to kill for food to sustain survival.
Morality is not a basic instinct, rather in later evolution phases all humans are subsequently endowed with the moral function to inhibit and modulate this basic instinct to kill so that humans do not kill humans.

I still don't see what you call limited free will. And your concept of uncontrollable free will catches my attention.

If you reflect on your own self, you will note you have the free will to do many things without hindrance [thus uncontrollable in a sense], but you also restraint from many things that you may wish you want or dreamt to do. [thus that freewill is limited].

• For example, a person may have thoughts and impulse to commit suicide, but just cannot carried it out.
  We often read of many people having the impulse of wishing and wanting to kill another human[s] who had done evil to them [rape, torture, suppress, stress, etc.] but they do not carry out their wish and intents.
  Instead some humans even forgive those who commit evil on them.

When I think that I begin to understand your position and then I see that you interpret that morality is a biological function but at the same time it is determined by philosophical considerations, I am once again intrigued about what your idea will be on the subject.

In my opinion you should not trust that humanity is developing effective morality. Human aggressiveness diminishes with the stability of societies and is activated by scarcity of resources, catastrophes and perceived chaos.

One mechanism that denies our possible moral evolution is genocide.

Within this phenomenon, individuals correctly formed intellectually and morally, act with the greatest cruelty and lethality. An interesting case is the Rwanda massacre. To name a not so distant example. This is notable for the enthusiastic participation of Christian priests and nuns in that genocide.

Yes morality is an inherent biological and psychological function that is "programmed" and adapted within the brain of all humans.
However, as a later evolved function, the moral function is quite dormant and not so active in the majority of humans since it emerged and even at present.

Because the moral function is a 'Johnny comes lately' and not so active YET, the more older 'kill' program is more active, thus we have humans killing humans and violence since human emerged till the present.

BUT there are evidence of an increasing trend the moral function is unfolding to be more active in the average of all humans. The evidence is presented in the thread below -have a look;
Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

• Note the trend of the decrease in slavery since 500-3000 years ago to the present.
  It is also evident there are lesser genocides at present [preventive measures taken ] as compared to the last 25 years back to the 3000 years ago.

Since the moral function is inherent in all humans and progressing as evident, we should make the effort to understand it more thoroughly and expedite the average moral competence.
Your [& the majority's] indifference or ignorance of this inherent moral function is the biggest hurdle in activating the moral function to be more active.

It is not a question of 'trust' rather humanity must put in the effort to be knowledgeable and practical in expediting the progress of the inherent moral function within all humans.

Once there is progress and increase in the average moral competence of humanity, then there will lesser and lesser evil and violence, including genocides, etc.

Humans kill for convenience just like animals.

Free will is the complete lack of factors that influence the human will. Choose with complete freedom.

Any limitation in the will (not in the execution of that will) takes away the "free" part of free will.

There is nothing that corresponds to a limited free will. That is an oxymoron.

Just like uncontrollable free will.

It is something like "dark white" or "light black".

Will, generally, is the faculty of the mind that selects, at the moment of decision, a desire among the various desires present; it itself does not refer to any particular desire, but rather to the mechanism responsible for choosing from among one's desires. Within philosophy, will is important as one of the parts of the mind, along with reason and understanding. It is considered central to the field of ethics because of its role in enabling deliberate action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_(philosophy)

The assumption of an inherent moral function in humans needs to have some solid support.

The fact that there are fewer genocides does not explain the mechanism by which a certain population loses empathy for its fellow neighbors and considers it appropriate to kill them.

Why do you suppose that humans, aware of moral rules, act without taking them into account?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 6:52 am

psycho wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 7:51 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 4:03 am
The point is, no animals will kill like humans killing humans for pleasure, and other frivolous reasons.
I stated animal killed on a need basis, i.e. need for food when hungry [which is a basic need], self-defense, some for the optimality of survival [killing cubs which are not theirs] and the likes.


Again I did not state the above.
All humans has the basic instinct to kill for food to sustain survival.
Morality is not a basic instinct, rather in later evolution phases all humans are subsequently endowed with the moral function to inhibit and modulate this basic instinct to kill so that humans do not kill humans.


If you reflect on your own self, you will note you have the free will to do many things without hindrance [thus uncontrollable in a sense], but you also restraint from many things that you may wish you want or dreamt to do. [thus that freewill is limited].

• For example, a person may have thoughts and impulse to commit suicide, but just cannot carried it out.
  We often read of many people having the impulse of wishing and wanting to kill another human[s] who had done evil to them [rape, torture, suppress, stress, etc.] but they do not carry out their wish and intents.
  Instead some humans even forgive those who commit evil on them.

Yes morality is an inherent biological and psychological function that is "programmed" and adapted within the brain of all humans.
However, as a later evolved function, the moral function is quite dormant and not so active in the majority of humans since it emerged and even at present.

Because the moral function is a 'Johnny comes lately' and not so active YET, the more older 'kill' program is more active, thus we have humans killing humans and violence since human emerged till the present.

BUT there are evidence of an increasing trend the moral function is unfolding to be more active in the average of all humans. The evidence is presented in the thread below -have a look;
Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

• Note the trend of the decrease in slavery since 500-3000 years ago to the present.
  It is also evident there are lesser genocides at present [preventive measures taken ] as compared to the last 25 years back to the 3000 years ago.

Since the moral function is inherent in all humans and progressing as evident, we should make the effort to understand it more thoroughly and expedite the average moral competence.
Your [& the majority's] indifference or ignorance of this inherent moral function is the biggest hurdle in activating the moral function to be more active.

It is not a question of 'trust' rather humanity must put in the effort to be knowledgeable and practical in expediting the progress of the inherent moral function within all humans.

Once there is progress and increase in the average moral competence of humanity, then there will lesser and lesser evil and violence, including genocides, etc.

Humans kill for convenience just like animals.

You need to elaborate what do you mean 'for convenience' which is not in line with the common meaning, i.e.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/convenient

Do human conveniently kill humans for food, kill other people babies and infants like lions?

Free will is the complete lack of factors that influence the human will. Choose with complete freedom.

Any limitation in the will (not in the execution of that will) takes away the "free" part of free will.

There is nothing that corresponds to a limited free will. That is an oxymoron.

Just like uncontrollable free will.

It is something like "dark white" or "light black".

As I had stated I will not accept the definition of 'freewill' thrown about by theists to evade the 'Problem of Evil'.

"Limited free will" and "uncontrollable free" will make sense if you look at the meanings of 'will' 'free' and limited.

Will, generally, is the faculty of the mind that selects, at the moment of decision, a desire among the various desires present; it itself does not refer to any particular desire, but rather to the mechanism responsible for choosing from among one's desires. Within philosophy, will is important as one of the parts of the mind, along with reason and understanding. It is considered central to the field of ethics because of its role in enabling deliberate action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_(philosophy)

Free
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_(philosophy)

Limited
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/limited?s=t

The term 'limited freedom' is also a very common term. Just google it.

As such the terms I used and defined above, i.e. limited freewill and uncontrollable free will make sense.

The assumption of an inherent moral function in humans needs to have some solid support.

Agree.
It must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK, i.e. the scientific FSK then the moral FSK.

The fact that there are fewer genocides does not explain the mechanism by which a certain population loses empathy for its fellow neighbors and considers it appropriate to kill them.

Why do you suppose that humans, aware of moral rules, act without taking them into account?

It is obvious fewer genocides correlate strongly with the
moral fact, i.e. no human ought to kill humans.
Then it is a question of verifying and justification the direct reason.

I had explained why humans commit evil [kill humans] despite some are well aware of the norms 'they are ought-not to kill humans'.

As stated above, the propensity to kill which is an earlier evolved "program" is stronger than the later-evolved moral inhibition of 'ought-not to kill humans'.
This is why SOME humans are unable to modulate their moral inhibitors which got loose or weaken in various circumstances, ending with killing humans.
Those who had killed humans and if they have a certain degree of moral competence, their moral conscience will trigger moral guilt in them.

As for those who have a damaged moral function, e.g. psychopaths they will not have any moral conscience and guilt at all when they kill humans.

psycho wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 9:38 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 6:52 am

psycho wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 7:51 pm

Humans kill for convenience just like animals.

You need to elaborate what do you mean 'for convenience' which is not in line with the common meaning, i.e.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/convenient

Do human conveniently kill humans for food, kill other people babies and infants like lions?

Free will is the complete lack of factors that influence the human will. Choose with complete freedom.

Any limitation in the will (not in the execution of that will) takes away the "free" part of free will.

There is nothing that corresponds to a limited free will. That is an oxymoron.

Just like uncontrollable free will.

It is something like "dark white" or "light black".

As I had stated I will not accept the definition of 'freewill' thrown about by theists to evade the 'Problem of Evil'.

"Limited free will" and "uncontrollable free" will make sense if you look at the meanings of 'will' 'free' and limited.

Will, generally, is the faculty of the mind that selects, at the moment of decision, a desire among the various desires present; it itself does not refer to any particular desire, but rather to the mechanism responsible for choosing from among one's desires. Within philosophy, will is important as one of the parts of the mind, along with reason and understanding. It is considered central to the field of ethics because of its role in enabling deliberate action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_(philosophy)

Free
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_(philosophy)

Limited
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/limited?s=t

The term 'limited freedom' is also a very common term. Just google it.

As such the terms I used and defined above, i.e. limited freewill and uncontrollable free will make sense.

The assumption of an inherent moral function in humans needs to have some solid support.

Agree.
It must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK, i.e. the scientific FSK then the moral FSK.

The fact that there are fewer genocides does not explain the mechanism by which a certain population loses empathy for its fellow neighbors and considers it appropriate to kill them.

Why do you suppose that humans, aware of moral rules, act without taking them into account?

It is obvious fewer genocides correlate strongly with the
moral fact, i.e. no human ought to kill humans.
Then it is a question of verifying and justification the direct reason.

I had explained why humans commit evil [kill humans] despite some are well aware of the norms 'they are ought-not to kill humans'.

As stated above, the propensity to kill which is an earlier evolved "program" is stronger than the later-evolved moral inhibition of 'ought-not to kill humans'.
This is why SOME humans are unable to modulate their moral inhibitors which got loose or weaken in various circumstances, ending with killing humans.
Those who had killed humans and if they have a certain degree of moral competence, their moral conscience will trigger moral guilt in them.

As for those who have a damaged moral function, e.g. psychopaths they will not have any moral conscience and guilt at all when they kill humans.

When I say that an action is considered moral when it is convenient and immoral when it is not convenient, I use the word in the sense that that dictionary gives it in its first meaning.

Killing is considered moral when that action is considered convenient.

Yes. Humans kill for resources. Not just for something as basic as food. They kill for oil, religion, power, etc.

Yes. They also kill children for reasons of convenience. Terrorism, child exploitation, etc.

Among all the definitions posted, you specifically lack the one of free will.
Will is not synonymous with free will.

• Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

What is the empirical and philosophical justification for the rule "It is not convenient to kill"? (suitable or agreeable to the needs or purpose)

My question is:
why does one group of humans agree to kill another group of fellow humans?
Why do they give up their personal restraint and act assassinated to innocent neighbors? (As you can see in the case of Rwanda and all the other genocides, this includes children, pregnant women, invalids, etc.)

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:58 am

psycho wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 9:38 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 6:52 am
You need to elaborate what do you mean 'for convenience' which is not in line with the common meaning, i.e.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/convenient

Do human conveniently kill humans for food, kill other people babies and infants like lions?


As I had stated I will not accept the definition of 'freewill' thrown about by theists to evade the 'Problem of Evil'.

"Limited free will" and "uncontrollable free" will make sense if you look at the meanings of 'will' 'free' and limited.



Free
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_(philosophy)

Limited
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/limited?s=t

The term 'limited freedom' is also a very common term. Just google it.

As such the terms I used and defined above, i.e. limited freewill and uncontrollable free will make sense.


Agree.
It must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK, i.e. the scientific FSK then the moral FSK.


It is obvious fewer genocides correlate strongly with the
moral fact, i.e. no human ought to kill humans.
Then it is a question of verifying and justification the direct reason.

I had explained why humans commit evil [kill humans] despite some are well aware of the norms 'they are ought-not to kill humans'.

As stated above, the propensity to kill which is an earlier evolved "program" is stronger than the later-evolved moral inhibition of 'ought-not to kill humans'.
This is why SOME humans are unable to modulate their moral inhibitors which got loose or weaken in various circumstances, ending with killing humans.
Those who had killed humans and if they have a certain degree of moral competence, their moral conscience will trigger moral guilt in them.

As for those who have a damaged moral function, e.g. psychopaths they will not have any moral conscience and guilt at all when they kill humans.

When I say that an action is considered moral when it is convenient and immoral when it is not convenient, I use the word in the sense that that dictionary gives it in its first meaning.

Killing is considered moral when that action is considered convenient.

Yes. Humans kill for resources. Not just for something as basic as food. They kill for oil, religion, power, etc.

Yes. They also kill children for reasons of convenience. Terrorism, child exploitation, etc.

Noted you point re 'convenience.'

Morality is about 'good' and avoiding 'evil'. [precise definitions needed and available].

Any act of convenience that is evil cannot be moral.
'humans killing humans' and 'no human ought to kill humans' as a moral fact within a moral FSK is evil, thus not moral.

Btw, do you personally accept and condone the above acts of convenient acts of humans killing humans be done to yourself or others.
Do you think those closest to you and the majority would condone the above killing without qualifications?
I believe your answer will be negative to the above except in extreme situations.
Why?

It is because you [as with all humans] have an active inherent moral function that inhibit your from doing the above convenient act of killing humans.

Maybe you are likely to kill another in self-defense or go to war and that is because you moral quotient is not high enough.
There are many whose moral conscience is more action and they want to stop wars and capital punishment.

Thus my point, i.e. humanity need to recognize the moral function within and expedite its activity in the majority of humans, then, there will be much less evil acts of convenience.

Among all the definitions posted, you specifically lack the one of free will.
Will is not synonymous with free will.

• Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

As I had mentioned I do not agree with a definition of freewill that is absolutely unimpeded which is an illusion as supported by loads of articles from various fields, e.g.

Free will is an illusion, biologist says
https://phys.org/news/2010-03-free-illu ... ogist.html

What is the empirical and philosophical justification for the rule "It is not convenient to kill"? (suitable or agreeable to the needs or purpose)

Intuitively and reading from the history, writings, literatures, anthropology and psychology of humanity, 'the killing of humans' is generally abhorred instinctively by the majority.

As I had stated above, from the above intuitive abduction, you can start with developing a hypothesis by doing a survey, starting with yourself, those closest to you, the public and all 'normal' humans [if not sufficient sampling to represent all humans] and asked the question,
"Do you want or will volunteer to be killed?" Yes or No.
I am confident all normal humans will answer 'NO'.

From the above, various tests, i.e. biological, psychological, neurosciences, cognitive sciences, neuro-psychology, evolutionary psychology can be done to confirm the above hypothesis. Note loads of research has already been done to support the above thesis.

My question is:
why does one group of humans agree to kill another group of fellow humans?
Why do they give up their personal restraint and act assassinated to innocent neighbors? (As you can see in the case of Rwanda and all the other genocides, this includes children, pregnant women, invalids, etc.)

I have already given you the answers earlier re the difference in timing of the evolution of the earlier evolved "potential to kill" and the later "inhibition of killing humans".
You missed it?

To understand the above, you should reflect and ask, why you and your family members /friends you know well do not go about killing humans at their whims?
From what you have posted, you are likely to be ignorant on this.
The fact is you have a more active evolved "program" of "inhibition in killing humans" in your brain/mind.

Why humans killed humans [genocides] is those who had killed do not have strong inhibitors and controller to stop them from killing humans when their "potential to kill" is triggered actively by various reasons [tribalism, rage, jealousy, etc.].

Whilst your "inhibition in killing humans" is active and strong at present, it could be weakened any time by various reasons, such being brainwashed [e.g. via tribalism into wars and genocides], extra strong passions, drugs, brain damage, need for self-defense, etc. which drives and compels you to kill humans.

This is why all humans must understand the moral facts within them and rely on various strategies to improve the strength and control of their internal moral inhibitors [increase number of neurons and strengthen them] so that they can spontaneously modulate the inherent earlier evolved "potential to kill" program.

What are your counters to the above?

psycho wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:33 pm Do you have at hand some definition of morality that does not specify what morality is the framework that defines what behavior is good or bad?

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]

Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

From a moral and ethical point of view, do you suppose that there is a possibility that evil is convenient and good is inconvenient?

I assumed that from your point of view, every moral act would be convenient and every immoral act would be inconvenient.

But you said that morality is not about imposing rules and 'no human ought to kill humans' is a rule that includes in itself the need to impose them.

I did not suppose that you would consider the subject of "moral" as something subjective. My dislike for the act of killing is irrelevant on your own terms.

To repeat that humans have an instinct that "have an active inherent moral function that inhibit your from doing the above convenient act of killing humans" is not a serious argument. That idea must have some basis in reality.

It is strange that you equal the convenience of killing to being killed!

To justify philosophically is not to found it in anecdotal situations.

In any case, it is naive and supposes a partial look at reality, to think that humans do not kill regularly for convenience and that deaths committed since there are humans are only the result of isolated cases of psychopathy.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]

Properness (from English:blah blah blah) is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as moral and those that are immoral.

Properness can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]

Some would say that all you've achieved here is switching your use of the word "morality" for the word "properness"; and "immorality" for "improperness" without adding anything to elucidate what any of those words mean.

So the topic of this thread can be re-stated as: "What is a Proper Framework and System?"

Properness (from English:blah blah blah) is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as moral and those that are immoral.

Properness can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.

And you are stuck chasing your own tail of re-description.

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]

Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:11 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am

Some would say that all you've achieved here is switching your use of the word "morality" for the word "properness"; and "immorality" for "improperness" without adding anything to elucidate what any of those words mean.

So the topic of this thread can be re-stated as: "What is a Proper Framework and System?"

Properness (from English:blah blah blah) is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as moral and those that are immoral.

Properness can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.

And you are stuck chasing your own tail of re-description.

Note the additional points

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]

Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Agree there is a problem if we just leave the definition as it is.

I believe there is no issue with what is to be 'universal'.

In principle, we need to verify and justify empirically and philosophical what we meant by 'proper' and 'goodness' [elsewhere I used 'well being'] within the moral FSK to ensure it is objective.

Compliance with the above principle is thus imperative.
I shall not go into the details of how to meet the above principles.

Here is a clue,
Note the moral element within Morality, i.e.
'No human ought to enslave another' as the moral standard
which mean the standard and target is ZERO slave in the world.
The standard of ZERO slaves implies the consequences for all of humanity can only be 'good' i.e. not evil.
Thus Morality is define as related to Good and avoiding evil in the above sense.

Btw, there are many other ways to "triangulate" by coherence to reinforce what is meant by 'good' objectively in the case of the definition of morality.

Goodness (from English:blah blah blah) is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as moral and those that are immoral.

Goodness can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.

Rightness (from English:blah blah blah) is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as moral and those that are immoral.

Rightness can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am Here is a general definition of what is 'morality'.

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]

Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am No possibility.
Morality is not about convenience, note the general definition above.
Morality is about good and avoiding its opposite, i.e. evil.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am As mentioned, I do not prefer to use the term convenient in relation with morality.
Can you show me a definition or where a moral philosopher associate morality with convenience?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am I did NOT state the above is a rule per se.
I stated it it a moral fact used as a moral standard to GUIDE moral competence of the individual[s].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am Where moral is termed subjective is in relation of moral judgments and moral decisions make by the individuals or group.
If you feel and state you dislike killing, that is your subjective expression.

But the fact that you are in a mental state of not-killing humans, that is a moral fact inherent in you and all normal humans.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am True, the basis of reality of feeling hunger is represented by real neurons and an organic mechanism in the brain and body.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am True, the basis of reality of feeling hunger is represented by real neurons and an organic mechanism in the brain and body.
The claim and talking about it is not the argument, but that it is fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system of reality and knowledge, in this case the biology FSK.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am As stated, whatever is claimed as moral fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system of reality and knowledge, in this case the moral FSK.
The moral FSK is similar to the scientific FSK.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am As I had stated,
the moral fact and moral standard as a guide is 'no human ought to kill humans'.
The fact that humans are killing humans at present [for whatever reasons] is because the inherent moral function within the majority of humans are not yet sufficiently matured.

Yes, psychopathy is the extreme case where the inherent moral function is damaged, thus not possible for moral improvements.

psycho wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:07 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am Here is a general definition of what is 'morality'.

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]

Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Indeed, morality serves to distinguish which actions are appropriate and which are not. It is a set of rules where they state which actions are moral and which are not.

The consideration of which items should be included on each side is what we call Ethics.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am No possibility.
Morality is not about convenience, note the general definition above.
Morality is about good and avoiding its opposite, i.e. evil.

Do you consider that what is appropriate is convenient and what is inappropriate is inconvenient in moral terms?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am As mentioned, I do not prefer to use the term convenient in relation with morality.
Can you show me a definition or where a moral philosopher associate morality with convenience?

I do not find it necessary to search if previously the philosophers raised morality in terms of convenience (Surely from Kant on, one could find something).

If you cannot make a strong moral case in terms of convenience, then you can never do so in terms of necessity.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am I did NOT state the above is a rule per se.
I stated it it a moral fact used as a moral standard to GUIDE moral competence of the individual[s].

I mean, does morals suggest not to kill?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am Where moral is termed subjective is in relation of moral judgments and moral decisions make by the individuals or group.
If you feel and state you dislike killing, that is your subjective expression.

But the fact that you are in a mental state of not-killing humans, that is a moral fact inherent in you and all normal humans.

You are far from proving that such a state corresponds to a fact of reality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am True, the basis of reality of feeling hunger is represented by real neurons and an organic mechanism in the brain and body.

That you emphasized that hunger corresponds to the activity of "real" neurons as it proves that people are biologically predisposed not to kill is intriguing to me.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am True, the basis of reality of feeling hunger is represented by real neurons and an organic mechanism in the brain and body.
The claim and talking about it is not the argument, but that it is fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system of reality and knowledge, in this case the biology FSK.

You suggest that science, in the future, will find such an arrangement in the human mind?

If so, I wonder why you are convinced of that fact now. About what you support your opinion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am As stated, whatever is claimed as moral fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system of reality and knowledge, in this case the moral FSK.
The moral FSK is similar to the scientific FSK.

I don't see the epistemological equivalence of Moral FSK to Scientific FSK.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:42 am As I had stated,
the moral fact and moral standard as a guide is 'no human ought to kill humans'.
The fact that humans are killing humans at present [for whatever reasons] is because the inherent moral function within the majority of humans are not yet sufficiently matured.

Yes, psychopathy is the extreme case where the inherent moral function is damaged, thus not possible for moral improvements.

In other words, genocides are the result of chance that allowed thousands of psychopaths to converge in the same place and time.

You make an enormous effort to idealize humanity. This will only be resolved with a clear look at the factors of human will.

What are the factors that make up our agency.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 12:04 pm If I identify myself as a Proud Boy it was within my framework of belief I should violently, voluntarily, and noisily invade the Capitol.

If I identify myself as a Chinese nationalist and supremacist it is within my framework of belief I should voluntarily and cruelly brainwash Uighur people.


If I identify as a follower of Jesus it is within my framework of belief to accept some interpretation of who or what Jesus was, and act accordingly.

If I am a moral psychopath my ability to make sound judgments about frameworks of belief and about other people is unreliable often due to trauma of some sort.
_________________
Each of the above frameworks of belief (including my will as stated) is caused by my circumstances.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:19 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 12:04 pm If I identify myself as a Proud Boy it was within my framework of belief I should violently, voluntarily, and noisily invade the Capitol.

If I identify myself as a Chinese nationalist and supremacist it is within my framework of belief I should voluntarily and cruelly brainwash Uighur people.


If I identify as a follower of Jesus it is within my framework of belief to accept some interpretation of who or what Jesus was, and act accordingly.

If I am a moral psychopath my ability to make sound judgments about frameworks of belief and about other people is unreliable often due to trauma of some sort.
_________________
Each of the above frameworks of belief (including my will as stated) is caused by my circumstances.

What if you identify as someone who believes that no facts, including "group memberships," imply any normatives?

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:20 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:19 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 12:04 pm If I identify myself as a Proud Boy it was within my framework of belief I should violently, voluntarily, and noisily invade the Capitol.

If I identify myself as a Chinese nationalist and supremacist it is within my framework of belief I should voluntarily and cruelly brainwash Uighur people.


If I identify as a follower of Jesus it is within my framework of belief to accept some interpretation of who or what Jesus was, and act accordingly.

If I am a moral psychopath my ability to make sound judgments about frameworks of belief and about other people is unreliable often due to trauma of some sort.
_________________
Each of the above frameworks of belief (including my will as stated) is caused by my circumstances.

What if you identify as someone who believes that no facts, including "group memberships," imply any normatives?

Normal standards are present among a given population as normal distribution(bell curve).I suppose it is theoretically possible for an individual to be so eccentric they identify with nothing at all. I have never met or heard tell of anyone who identifies with nothing at all.

Wait! Further thought. Perhaps these holy men in India who do nothing but sit and meditate own no personal identity and claim no personal identity.