Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:02 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:57 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 10:50 am What moral law? How did it get within him? Does everyone have it 'within them'? Or is it 'within' only the enlightened and rational? What are the elements of this supposed moral law? And on and on.

Now, you're impressed by this mystical claptrap, perhaps unaware of its direct descent from religious dogma about the supposed divine spark put there by an invented god. You've secularised the nonsense by talking about an 'oughtness' programmed into human brains - but its the same speculative rubbish, for which there's exactly the same empirical evidence: none.

Do you not think that people have moral dispositions due to their brain structure and function (which is as it is via a combo of genetics and environmental factors (including nutrition and all sorts of things))?

It's a fact that people have dispositions. But 'the moral law within' is a different kettle of synapses.

Do you just mean that most people who'd use a phrase like "the moral law within" wouldn't say that it's the same as dispositions that an individual has?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:01 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:02 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:57 pm
Do you not think that people have moral dispositions due to their brain structure and function (which is as it is via a combo of genetics and environmental factors (including nutrition and all sorts of things))?

It's a fact that people have dispositions. But 'the moral law within' is a different kettle of synapses.

Do you just mean that most people who'd use a phrase like "the moral law within" wouldn't say that it's the same as dispositions that an individual has?

'The moral law within' is analogically like ALL humans are "programmed" with a fundamental sexual drive which is represented by its neural correlates that is a fact of sexuality.

It is from the generic sexual drive that different people has different sexual behaviors and dispositions depending on
1. whether their gender is male or female or in-between,
2. the enviromental conditions
3. the social conditions
4. any variance via RNA expressions, thus homosexuality, hetero- or asexual, etc.
5. various other factors.

While the sexual dispositions are subjective and relative, the generic sexual drive expressed from the primal DNA coding is an objective fact represented by its referent, the neural correlates.

The above is the same with the generic moral drive [the moral law within - norm] which is an objective fact that drives subjective 'moral' dispositions and expressions in different humans in various conditions.

Do you have a counter to the above?