Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides

[FlashDangerpants]

For two reasons: First, as I said, "The objective in the sense that you are interested has no relevance to morality.". Second, we can agree on what we should do in a moral situation if we have a reason for it. In that sense, my sense, morality is objective otherwise is subjective.

Even Wiki agrees with me when it comes to morality and objective: Moral objectivity is the concept of moral or ethical codes being compared to one another through a set of universal facts or a universal perspective and not through differing conflicting perspectives.

You don't own the word, it already has a meaning, leave it alone

As you say, Sir! Do you have another word that I can use for objective in my sense when it comes to morality?

You're talking about universalism aren't you? Certain claims that can be treated as facts of a sort because there is nobody sane who disputes them. That unjustified killings are wrongful for instance, or something like that. The whole thing is far too circular to be a true knowledge claim, but it's also an undisputable claim so there's no good reason to treat it as less than knowledge in our daily lives or when we are doing our normal moral reasoning.

If you are able to understand that distinction, you are twice the philosopher that VA is. If you are able to explain it to VA, you are probably twice the philosopher that I am.

[bahman]

You don't own the word, it already has a meaning, leave it alone

As you say, Sir! Do you have another word that I can use for objective in my sense when it comes to morality?

You're talking about universalism aren't you? Certain claims that can be treated as facts of a sort because there is nobody sane who disputes them. That unjustified killings are wrongful for instance, or something like that. The whole thing is far too circular to be a true knowledge claim, but it's also an undisputable claim so there's no good reason to treat it as less than knowledge in our daily lives or when we are doing our normal moral reasoning.

If you are able to understand that distinction, you are twice the philosopher that VA is. If you are able to explain it to VA, you are probably twice the philosopher that I am.

I see. The universalism is the word I was looking for. I see if I can explain this to VA!

[Atla]

I see if I can explain this to VA!

Just remember to not throw away your life in pursuit of the impossible..

[bahman]

I see if I can explain this to VA!

Just remember to not throw away your life in pursuit of the impossible..

OK!

[FlashDangerpants]

As you say, Sir! Do you have another word that I can use for objective in my sense when it comes to morality?

You're talking about universalism aren't you? Certain claims that can be treated as facts of a sort because there is nobody sane who disputes them. That unjustified killings are wrongful for instance, or something like that. The whole thing is far too circular to be a true knowledge claim, but it's also an undisputable claim so there's no good reason to treat it as less than knowledge in our daily lives or when we are doing our normal moral reasoning.

If you are able to understand that distinction, you are twice the philosopher that VA is. If you are able to explain it to VA, you are probably twice the philosopher that I am.

I see. The universalism is the word I was looking for. I see if I can explain this to VA!

It's like that guy climbing Mt Everest 'because it was there'. We admire your courage sir!

[Veritas Aequitas]

As you say, Sir! Do you have another word that I can use for objective in my sense when it comes to morality?

You're talking about universalism aren't you? Certain claims that can be treated as facts of a sort because there is nobody sane who disputes them. That unjustified killings are wrongful for instance, or something like that. The whole thing is far too circular to be a true knowledge claim, but it's also an undisputable claim so there's no good reason to treat it as less than knowledge in our daily lives or when we are doing our normal moral reasoning.

If you are able to understand that distinction, you are twice the philosopher that VA is. If you are able to explain it to VA, you are probably twice the philosopher that I am.

I see. The universalism is the word I was looking for. I see if I can explain this to VA!

What is there to explain to me?
Your own self need explanation as to what is objective morality.

I wrote this earlier;
Objective means universal* and independent of any individual's opinion, beliefs and judgment.
That all humans has a generic and universal DNA codes related to morality means we have objective moral facts.
Yes, survival, the ultimate purpose of morality is ensuring survival of the individual and the human species.

* what is objective may not be universal, but re morality I am referring to universal qualities and potential within ALL human beings.

Btw, as a moral relativist [if you are one] you have to accept morality is inherent in all humans thus universalism; it is also objective because it is independent of any individual's opinions, beliefs and judgments.

[Iwannaplato]

I see if I can explain this to VA!

Just remember to not throw away your life in pursuit of the impossible..

OK!

A bit of advice when evaluating success. VA will likely never admit anything. But you may notice, further down the line, that your explanations have led to changes in ways he presents his ideas. He may even adopt something you've said.

Low expectations is the key. There will be no 'Ah, good point,' moments.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Just remember to not throw away your life in pursuit of the impossible..

OK!

A bit of advice when evaluating success. VA will likely never admit anything. But you may notice, further down the line, that your explanations have led to changes in ways he presents his ideas. He may even adopt something you've said.

Low expectations is the key. There will be no 'Ah, good point,' moments.

This is pure bitching.

I had and will always change my presentation based on the changes in the understanding, views and responses of the other party, to get my points across.
I am always mindful of this.

Note there is a channel in Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/@WIRED
where an expert will explain a very difficult topic differently to different people with different levels of knowledge and understanding.

Astrophysicist Explains Black Holes in 5 Levels of Difficulty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsMIT25iPXk
Astrophysicist Janna Levin, PhD, is asked to explain black holes to 5 different people; a child, a teen, a college student, a grad student, and an expert.

Astrophysicist Explains Gravity in 5 Levels of Difficulty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcUey-DVYjk

[bahman]

You're talking about universalism aren't you? Certain claims that can be treated as facts of a sort because there is nobody sane who disputes them. That unjustified killings are wrongful for instance, or something like that. The whole thing is far too circular to be a true knowledge claim, but it's also an undisputable claim so there's no good reason to treat it as less than knowledge in our daily lives or when we are doing our normal moral reasoning.

If you are able to understand that distinction, you are twice the philosopher that VA is. If you are able to explain it to VA, you are probably twice the philosopher that I am.

I see. The universalism is the word I was looking for. I see if I can explain this to VA!

What is there to explain to me?
Your own self need explanation as to what is objective morality.

I wrote this earlier;
Objective means universal* and independent of any individual's opinion, beliefs and judgment.
That all humans has a generic and universal DNA codes related to morality means we have objective moral facts.
Yes, survival, the ultimate purpose of morality is ensuring survival of the individual and the human species.

* what is objective may not be universal, but re morality I am referring to universal qualities and potential within ALL human beings.

Btw, as a moral relativist [if you are one] you have to accept morality is inherent in all humans thus universalism; it is also objective because it is independent of any individual's opinions, beliefs and judgments.

I wanted to say you need a reason rather than genetic makeup if you want to argue that morality is universal. The fact that the majority of people are biased by their genetic makeup toward a moral act does not make morality universal since the are minority who are biased to do otherwise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I see. The universalism is the word I was looking for. I see if I can explain this to VA!

What is there to explain to me?
Your own self need explanation as to what is objective morality.

I wrote this earlier;
Objective means universal* and independent of any individual's opinion, beliefs and judgment.
That all humans has a generic and universal DNA codes related to morality means we have objective moral facts.
Yes, survival, the ultimate purpose of morality is ensuring survival of the individual and the human species.

* what is objective may not be universal, but re morality I am referring to universal qualities and potential within ALL human beings.

Btw, as a moral relativist [if you are one] you have to accept morality is inherent in all humans thus universalism; it is also objective because it is independent of any individual's opinions, beliefs and judgments.

I wanted to say you need a reason rather than genetic makeup if you want to argue that morality is universal. The fact that the majority of people are biased by their genetic makeup toward a moral act does not make morality universal since the are minority who are biased to do otherwise.

You missed my point which I had explained earlier;

Within humanity, people have differences in their food production, ways of preparation, eating of food according to different taste preferences, cultures, traditions, environment, etc..
But do you deny there is a digestive and metabolic systems that is generic to ALL humans as expressed from a set of core DNA codings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_digestive_system
Yes or No?

I am certain you will NOT deny the above, i.e. ALL humans has a generic digestive system.

My point with morality is;
While there are differences in moral acts, there is a generic core moral system that underlies all the differences in moral attitude and acts.
It has to be, otherwise how is that majority of humans are inclined towards morality.
One limitation is the moral function is much more subtle than the very obvious digestive system, thus not noticeable by the majority.

It is undeniable, ALL humans has a digestive system but it can be damaged and humans can still survive via intravenous injection of the essential nutrients.
Thus while some humans commit immoral acts, it does not mean they do not have the inherent generic [universal] moral function in them; it is likely this universal moral function in them is damage or inactive for some reason.

There are loads of research done and verification of the inherent moral function within humans, e.g.
Born good? Babies help unlock the origins of morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU

The Moral Life of Babies
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

Even monkeys has some sort of inborn sense of justice [not exactly is morality but it is nevertheless a clue]
Capuchin monkey fairness experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo

Note my analogy above.
Get it?

Suggest you read more widely and do not confine yourself inside a silo.

[bahman]

What is there to explain to me?
Your own self need explanation as to what is objective morality.

I wrote this earlier;
Objective means universal* and independent of any individual's opinion, beliefs and judgment.
That all humans has a generic and universal DNA codes related to morality means we have objective moral facts.
Yes, survival, the ultimate purpose of morality is ensuring survival of the individual and the human species.

* what is objective may not be universal, but re morality I am referring to universal qualities and potential within ALL human beings.

Btw, as a moral relativist [if you are one] you have to accept morality is inherent in all humans thus universalism; it is also objective because it is independent of any individual's opinions, beliefs and judgments.

I wanted to say you need a reason rather than genetic makeup if you want to argue that morality is universal. The fact that the majority of people are biased by their genetic makeup toward a moral act does not make morality universal since the are minority who are biased to do otherwise.

You missed my point which I had explained earlier;

Within humanity, people have differences in their food production, ways of preparation, eating of food according to different taste preferences, cultures, traditions, environment, etc..
But do you deny there is a digestive and metabolic systems that is generic to ALL humans as expressed from a set of core DNA codings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_digestive_system
Yes or No?

I am certain you will NOT deny the above, i.e. ALL humans has a generic digestive system.

My point with morality is;
While there are differences in moral acts, there is a generic core moral system that underlies all the differences in moral attitude and acts.
It has to be, otherwise how is that majority of humans are inclined towards morality.
One limitation is the moral function is much more subtle than the very obvious digestive system, thus not noticeable by the majority.

It is undeniable, ALL humans has a digestive system but it can be damaged and humans can still survive via intravenous injection of the essential nutrients.
Thus while some humans commit immoral acts, it does not mean they do not have the inherent generic [universal] moral function in them; it is likely this universal moral function in them is damage or inactive for some reason.

There are loads of research done and verification of the inherent moral function within humans, e.g.
Born good? Babies help unlock the origins of morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU

Did you watch the video carefully!? For example, not all children are in favor of punishment. Children favor themselves more than others unless otherwise thought. They are selfish in other words.

The Moral Life of Babies
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

I don't have access to the article.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wanted to say you need a reason rather than genetic makeup if you want to argue that morality is universal. The fact that the majority of people are biased by their genetic makeup toward a moral act does not make morality universal since the are minority who are biased to do otherwise.

You missed my point which I had explained earlier;

Within humanity, people have differences in their food production, ways of preparation, eating of food according to different taste preferences, cultures, traditions, environment, etc..
But do you deny there is a digestive and metabolic systems that is generic to ALL humans as expressed from a set of core DNA codings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_digestive_system
Yes or No?

I am certain you will NOT deny the above, i.e. ALL humans has a generic digestive system.

My point with morality is;
While there are differences in moral acts, there is a generic core moral system that underlies all the differences in moral attitude and acts.
It has to be, otherwise how is that majority of humans are inclined towards morality.
One limitation is the moral function is much more subtle than the very obvious digestive system, thus not noticeable by the majority.

It is undeniable, ALL humans has a digestive system but it can be damaged and humans can still survive via intravenous injection of the essential nutrients.
Thus while some humans commit immoral acts, it does not mean they do not have the inherent generic [universal] moral function in them; it is likely this universal moral function in them is damage or inactive for some reason.

There are loads of research done and verification of the inherent moral function within humans, e.g.
Born good? Babies help unlock the origins of morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU

Did you watch the video carefully!? For example, not all children are in favor of punishment. Children favor themselves more than others unless otherwise thought. They are selfish in other words.

The Moral Life of Babies
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

I don't have access to the article.

You should ask yourself; DID YOU WATCH the Video carefully?

There are three themes and hypotheses within that video.

1. Are morality inborn
2. Is biasness inborn
3. related teenager.

1. Are morality inborn
The following statements [from the transcripts] prove is true, i.e. humans are born with innate moral tendencies.

2:11 her laughed out of her field-- does wesley here, at 2:15 the ripe old age of five months, know the difference 2:18 between right and wrong?
Stahl: He can't answer, but he can reach.
That 3:05 one?
Stahl: Wesley chose the good guy, and he wasn't 3:09 alone.
That one! Stahl: More than three quarters of the 3:12 babies tested reached for the nice puppet.

Stahl: 3:52 So basically, as young as three months old, we human 3:56 beings show a preference for nice people over mean people.
So, do you think that babies, therefore, 5:23 are born with an innate sense of justice?
Wynn: At 5:27 a very elemental level, I think so.
Paul Bloom: We 5:30 think we see here the foundations for morality.
Stahl: And he says discovering this in babies who 6:02 can't walk, talk or even crawl yet suggests it has 6:06 to come built in.
Bloom: 6:17 What we're finding in the baby lab is that there's 6:20 more to it than that, that there's a universal moral 6:23 core that all humans share.
The seeds of our understanding 6:26 of justice, our understanding of right and wrong, are part 6:29 of our biological nature.
We have an initial moral sense 9:19 that is, in some ways, very impressive

2. Is biasness inborn
This second hypothesis is also true, i.e. tribalism or us versus them is an evolutionary default to facilitate survival but earlier on in our evolution but it is becoming more less relevant due to globalization, intelligence, wisdom and technological advances.
This second theme prove your inclination to bias in your views here for some reason.

That humans has tendencies for evil does not obviate the innate and inherent moral potential and impulse that we are innate and are born with [as demonstrate above].

Therefore there are objective [universal] moral elements [so morality is objective from this perspective] within all humans.

Note those innate potential for evils, i.e. killing of humans, tribalism, etc. are related to evolutionary defaults from the beginning of human evolution, this is why they are more dominant than the moral [e.g. intelligence, wisdom, emotional] potentials which are activate later and unfold slowly.

[bahman]

You missed my point which I had explained earlier;

Within humanity, people have differences in their food production, ways of preparation, eating of food according to different taste preferences, cultures, traditions, environment, etc..
But do you deny there is a digestive and metabolic systems that is generic to ALL humans as expressed from a set of core DNA codings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_digestive_system
Yes or No?

I am certain you will NOT deny the above, i.e. ALL humans has a generic digestive system.

My point with morality is;
While there are differences in moral acts, there is a generic core moral system that underlies all the differences in moral attitude and acts.
It has to be, otherwise how is that majority of humans are inclined towards morality.
One limitation is the moral function is much more subtle than the very obvious digestive system, thus not noticeable by the majority.

It is undeniable, ALL humans has a digestive system but it can be damaged and humans can still survive via intravenous injection of the essential nutrients.
Thus while some humans commit immoral acts, it does not mean they do not have the inherent generic [universal] moral function in them; it is likely this universal moral function in them is damage or inactive for some reason.

There are loads of research done and verification of the inherent moral function within humans, e.g.
Born good? Babies help unlock the origins of morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU

Did you watch the video carefully!? For example, not all children are in favor of punishment. Children favor themselves more than others unless otherwise thought. They are selfish in other words.

The Moral Life of Babies
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

I don't have access to the article.

You should ask yourself; DID YOU WATCH the Video carefully?

There are three themes and hypotheses within that video.

1. Are morality inborn
2. Is biasness inborn
3. related teenager.

1. Are morality inborn
The following statements [from the transcripts] prove is true, i.e. humans are born with innate moral tendencies.

2:11 her laughed out of her field-- does wesley here, at 2:15 the ripe old age of five months, know the difference 2:18 between right and wrong?
Stahl: He can't answer, but he can reach.
That 3:05 one?
Stahl: Wesley chose the good guy, and he wasn't 3:09 alone.
That one! Stahl: More than three quarters of the 3:12 babies tested reached for the nice puppet.

Stahl: 3:52 So basically, as young as three months old, we human 3:56 beings show a preference for nice people over mean people.
So, do you think that babies, therefore, 5:23 are born with an innate sense of justice?
Wynn: At 5:27 a very elemental level, I think so.
Paul Bloom: We 5:30 think we see here the foundations for morality.
Stahl: And he says discovering this in babies who 6:02 can't walk, talk or even crawl yet suggests it has 6:06 to come built in.
Bloom: 6:17 What we're finding in the baby lab is that there's 6:20 more to it than that, that there's a universal moral 6:23 core that all humans share.
The seeds of our understanding 6:26 of justice, our understanding of right and wrong, are part 6:29 of our biological nature.
We have an initial moral sense 9:19 that is, in some ways, very impressive

2. Is biasness inborn
This second hypothesis is also true, i.e. tribalism or us versus them is an evolutionary default to facilitate survival but earlier on in our evolution but it is becoming more less relevant due to globalization, intelligence, wisdom and technological advances.
This second theme prove your inclination to bias in your views here for some reason.

That humans has tendencies for evil does not obviate the innate and inherent moral potential and impulse that we are innate and are born with [as demonstrate above].

Therefore there are objective [universal] moral elements [so morality is objective from this perspective] within all humans.

Note those innate potential for evils, i.e. killing of humans, tribalism, etc. are related to evolutionary defaults from the beginning of human evolution, this is why they are more dominant than the moral [e.g. intelligence, wisdom, emotional] potentials which are activate later and unfold slowly.

Again, if morality was universal among children then 100% of them should choose the good guy versus the bad guy. What they found is that only a fraction of children do that. The same for justice and punishment. Children are found to be racist and selfish none of these are moral.

[Age]

You're talking about universalism aren't you? Certain claims that can be treated as facts of a sort because there is nobody sane who disputes them. That unjustified killings are wrongful for instance, or something like that. The whole thing is far too circular to be a true knowledge claim, but it's also an undisputable claim so there's no good reason to treat it as less than knowledge in our daily lives or when we are doing our normal moral reasoning.

If you are able to understand that distinction, you are twice the philosopher that VA is. If you are able to explain it to VA, you are probably twice the philosopher that I am.

I see. The universalism is the word I was looking for. I see if I can explain this to VA!

What is there to explain to me?
Your own self need explanation as to what is objective morality.

I wrote this earlier;
Objective means universal* and independent of any individual's opinion, beliefs and judgment.
That all humans has a generic and universal DNA codes related to morality means we have objective moral facts.
Yes, survival, the ultimate purpose of morality is ensuring survival of the individual and the human species.

* what is objective may not be universal, but re morality I am referring to universal qualities and potential within ALL human beings.

Btw, as a moral relativist [if you are one] you have to accept morality is inherent in all humans thus universalism; it is also objective because it is independent of any individual's opinions, beliefs and judgments.

But how could you find out, for certain, what is morally objective/universal, if you cannot share your own opinion, belief, nor judgment.

Obviously, objectivity/universality can only come to exist and become Truly known through discussions and/or shared views. Which, obviously, cannot come about independent of people's shared individual opinions, beliefs, and/or judgments.

[Iwannaplato]

Again, if morality was universal among children then 100% of them should choose the good guy versus the bad guy. What they found is that only a fraction of children do that. The same for justice and punishment. Children are found to be racist and selfish none of these are moral.

Part of his problem is he conflates the fact that people nearly universally develop or carry on morals with the morals themselves being objective. It should be noted that his version of morals is not a set of laws and acts, but a development at bit like character. Nevertheless humans show a variety of different characters and traits that the consider moral. So, even this issue is really a distraction from his conflation of the existence of morals with their objectivity or even objectivities.

It's a bit like if he said that religion is universal, so religion is objective. Religion certainly used to be pretty much universal. That did not mean the contents of the religion were objective. They are separate issues but he conflates them.