Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 6:27 am

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'.

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.

I disagree with your views above. We have gone tru this before.

Ethics-in-general encompasses Pure-'Morality' and Applied-Ethics.
Morality [Pure] is about the determination of the principles of morality as moral standards.
Applied-Ethics is the application of the moral principles to specific conditions, e.g. Business ethics, medical ethics, etc which results are compared to the moral standards to establish variances for continuous improvements.
This is the Kantian view.

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?

The term convenient is too loose to be used for morality.
Even the term 'appropriate' is too loose and can be very relative and not objective.
Point is what is to be a moral fact must be verified & justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

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.

Whatever the term it must be verified & justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
I consider myself and reasonable expert on Kantian Morality & Ethics and most of my basic principles I had so far expressed are from Kant.

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?

It is not 'suggest' but that 'no human ought to kill humans' is a moral fact verified & justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

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.

I have not done here.
It is tedious but I have demonstrated that over the various threads in this section.

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.

You can abduct [crude inference] from the fact that you, your close kin, and the majority of people do not go about wanting to kill people despite that ALL humans are 'programmed' with the potential to kill.
Why?
It is because there must be some sort of neural inhibitors that inhibit that potential to kill.
If you do more research on this plausible hypothesis you will be able to have the confidence what I claimed is possibly true, awaiting more precise scientific confirmation.

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.

As above, based on personal experiences and observations of reality plus I have done extensive research on the related subjects to gain sufficient level of confidence with my hypothesis.

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.

First the majority of inputs of the moral FSK will come from the scientific FSK and the moral FSK has its own constitution that ensure quality control to maintain its credibility.
The above is based on the expected principles and features. I have not yet discuss the detailed construction of the moral 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.

Not very sure of your above points and factors of agency?

Whatever factors of agency, they are driven by evolved "programs" of nature and influenced by nurture.

Genocides happened when the inherent moral "program" failed to operate effectively.

Genocides are usually started by one influential psychopath leader, e.g. Hitler, other evil dictators, who had a small band of psychopaths [5-10] who take orders from the leader.
The other thousands who went about killing in the genocide are not psychopathic per se but they were the vulnerable ones who had weak moral competences thus easily brainwashed.

psycho wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 11:48 pm "Do not kill humans" can be:

- Convenient
- Necessary
- Mandatory

It would be very strange if something obligatory is neither necessary nor convenient without being arbitrary.

"Not killing humans is convenient" is a slight case of "Not killing humans is necessary."

If one cannot prove that not killing humans is convenient, it will never be possible to do so regarding "not killing humans is mandatory."


Similarly, one can move the axis a bit and declare:

"Not killing humans is a necessary behavior" and then trying to justify it rationally.

Your position will appear unfounded if you do not show how the rule you have referred to is verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

Given the following scenario:

Under normal circumstances, most humans don't kill.

You consider the situation and observing social behaviors, you conclude that it is most likely that humans have a biological inhibitor that prevents them from killing.

I see this scenario and I conclude that what limits the use of killing as a solution to certain problems is the fear of the reaction of the rest of the members of society when knowing the murder.

You attribute the killings to failures in the biological inhibitor.

I attribute this to the fact that the individual understands that the rest of society will not react badly to the event or that the rest of society will not find out what happened or who did it.

The individual finds it necessary to solve a problem situation and understands that the conditions are in place to let him use the "kill" solution.

In the case of genocides, how do you explain the simultaneous failure of the inhibitor in thousands of people, within your theory?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:16 am I believe if we we propose anything, then it must be in some way necessary.
The question is what it is necessary for.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:16 am I have stated, 'not killing humans' is a moral fact that is necessary as a moral standard to guide moral competence in alignment with the inherent moral function within each individual.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:16 am I agree.

I would not accept it as a moral fact even if the majority agree to it, e.g. like to once accepted flat-earther theory.

The principle is whatever [each and every] moral fact I stated is a moral standard within the moral FSK, [..I have stated many times] it must imperatively be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

I have explained how I have complied with the above principle above and elsewhere.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:16 am We can test out my theory.
It is well researched psychopaths do not have the effective inhibitors in inhibiting their killing instincts due to damage to the part of the brain with the inhibitors.

Even innocent and very normal people can be brainwashed [using ideological doctrines, drugs, etc.] to kill humans via the weakening of their not-to-kill inhibitors. Note suicide bombers, Muslims and other political believers.

I agree, one of the reason why people do not kill when triggered to kill, could be fear of discovery by the authorities and public. Note also the threat of Hell fire.

The point to note is, when the person is triggered to kill, it is a sign the moral function and inhibitors were defective to some degrees at that point.

The fact that the person did not proceed in killing is because the inhibitors are still strong enough [in contrast to the psychopath's badly damaged inhibitors] to restraint the person such that he had the time to rationalize his chances of being discovered or allowed his conscience to override his inclination to kill.

In addition that the majority and public sense of abhorrence, condemnation and punishments of killing humans such that some potential killers are stopped earlier, is because of the pulsation of the "not to kill humans" inhibitors in the majority.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:16 am Note instinct of tribalism leading to mob-effect, herd mentality, pack mentality, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality
which has the potential to loosen the moral inhibitors of those who are vulnerable within the mob.

Note,
The Science Behind Why People Follow the Crowd
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... -the-crowd

psycho wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:58 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:16 am I believe if we we propose anything, then it must be in some way necessary.
The question is what it is necessary for.

This is logically unsustainable.

One can propose something because one does not want such a thing and understands that proposing it will generate the reverse situation.

One can propose something because one is ignorant of a situation and does not understand the unnecessary of what is proposed.

Etc.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:16 am I have stated, 'not killing humans' is a moral fact that is necessary as a moral standard to guide moral competence in alignment with the inherent moral function within each individual.

and yet you do not find sufficient reasons to consider it convenient in all cases!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:16 am I agree.

I would not accept it as a moral fact even if the majority agree to it, e.g. like to once accepted flat-earther theory.

The principle is whatever [each and every] moral fact I stated is a moral standard within the moral FSK, [..I have stated many times] it must imperatively be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

I have explained how I have complied with the above principle above and elsewhere.

It's hard for me to imagine what that much-mentioned justification is.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:16 am We can test out my theory.
It is well researched psychopaths do not have the effective inhibitors in inhibiting their killing instincts due to damage to the part of the brain with the inhibitors.

Even innocent and very normal people can be brainwashed [using ideological doctrines, drugs, etc.] to kill humans via the weakening of their not-to-kill inhibitors. Note suicide bombers, Muslims and other political believers.

I agree, one of the reason why people do not kill when triggered to kill, could be fear of discovery by the authorities and public. Note also the threat of Hell fire.

The point to note is, when the person is triggered to kill, it is a sign the moral function and inhibitors were defective to some degrees at that point.

The fact that the person did not proceed in killing is because the inhibitors are still strong enough [in contrast to the psychopath's badly damaged inhibitors] to restraint the person such that he had the time to rationalize his chances of being discovered or allowed his conscience to override his inclination to kill.

In addition that the majority and public sense of abhorrence, condemnation and punishments of killing humans such that some potential killers are stopped earlier, is because of the pulsation of the "not to kill humans" inhibitors in the majority.

Your theory contradicts the actions of millions of soldiers throughout human history who in turn killed millions of other victims because of finding that it was necessary to kill for its practicality. Not for being brainwashed.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:16 am Note instinct of tribalism leading to mob-effect, herd mentality, pack mentality, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality
which has the potential to loosen the moral inhibitors of those who are vulnerable within the mob.

Note,
The Science Behind Why People Follow the Crowd
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... -the-crowd

And you conclude from this that what is allowed is not regulated by the group?

psycho wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:58 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:16 am I believe if we we propose anything, then it must be in some way necessary.
The question is what it is necessary for.

This is logically unsustainable.

One can propose something because one does not want such a thing and understands that proposing it will generate the reverse situation.

One can propose something because one is ignorant of a situation and does not understand the unnecessary of what is proposed.

Etc.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:16 am I have stated, 'not killing humans' is a moral fact that is necessary as a moral standard to guide moral competence in alignment with the inherent moral function within each individual.

and yet you do not find sufficient reasons to consider it convenient in all cases!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:16 am I agree.

I would not accept it as a moral fact even if the majority agree to it, e.g. like to once accepted flat-earther theory.

The principle is whatever [each and every] moral fact I stated is a moral standard within the moral FSK, [..I have stated many times] it must imperatively be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

I have explained how I have complied with the above principle above and elsewhere.

It's hard for me to imagine what that much-mentioned justification is.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:16 am We can test out my theory.
It is well researched psychopaths do not have the effective inhibitors in inhibiting their killing instincts due to damage to the part of the brain with the inhibitors.

Even innocent and very normal people can be brainwashed [using ideological doctrines, drugs, etc.] to kill humans via the weakening of their not-to-kill inhibitors. Note suicide bombers, Muslims and other political believers.

I agree, one of the reason why people do not kill when triggered to kill, could be fear of discovery by the authorities and public. Note also the threat of Hell fire.

The point to note is, when the person is triggered to kill, it is a sign the moral function and inhibitors were defective to some degrees at that point.

The fact that the person did not proceed in killing is because the inhibitors are still strong enough [in contrast to the psychopath's badly damaged inhibitors] to restraint the person such that he had the time to rationalize his chances of being discovered or allowed his conscience to override his inclination to kill.

In addition that the majority and public sense of abhorrence, condemnation and punishments of killing humans such that some potential killers are stopped earlier, is because of the pulsation of the "not to kill humans" inhibitors in the majority.

Your theory contradicts the actions of millions of soldiers throughout human history who in turn killed millions of other victims because of finding that it was necessary to kill for its practicality. Not for being brainwashed.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:16 am Note instinct of tribalism leading to mob-effect, herd mentality, pack mentality, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality
which has the potential to loosen the moral inhibitors of those who are vulnerable within the mob.

Note,
The Science Behind Why People Follow the Crowd
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... -the-crowd

And you conclude from this that what is allowed is not regulated by the group?

psycho wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:31 am So the idea is that humans have a biological inhibitor that prevents them from killing and at the same time that humans kill if a psychopathic leader orders them or if the laws of a country oblige them or if they have weak morals?

In what kinds of situations does the inhibitor prevent murder?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:11 am Seem you have missed my earlier post?
viewtopic.php?p=492250#p492250

psycho wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:31 am So the idea is that humans have a biological inhibitor that prevents them from killing and at the same time that humans kill if a psychopathic leader orders them or if the laws of a country oblige them or if they have weak morals?

Yes, if they have weak [of various degrees] moral inhibitors, they are vulnerable to be influenced by various factors, e.g. psychopathic leaders, laws, religion, drugs, social conditions, etc.

In what kinds of situations does the inhibitor prevent murder?

Not sure of your point.

The function of the moral inhibitor is to inhibit a person from murder.
Thus if the inhibitors are strong enough to hold back any impulse to murder triggered from various stimulators, then the person will not proceed to murder.

So the outcome of a murder depends on the type of impulse to kill and the strength of one's moral inhibitors.

The analogy is like a dam in a river built to prevent floods downstream.
Whether the dam breaks will depend of the nature of the water forces and strength of the dam [inhibitor] at a certain time and circumstances.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:32 am
Justified True Moral facts are derivative from a Moral Framework and System just like scientific knowledge, facts & truths emerged from the scientific FSK.

The theistic moral approach is a theistic moral framework and system, e.g. Christianity, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.
So is the Platonist moralists with their Platonic moral FSK.
The other moral FSK are that of the deontologists, the utilitarianist, the consequentialists, the tribal moralists, and any groups that has a set of moral principles.

psycho wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:07 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:11 am Seem you have missed my earlier post?
viewtopic.php?p=492250#p492250

psycho wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:31 am So the idea is that humans have a biological inhibitor that prevents them from killing and at the same time that humans kill if a psychopathic leader orders them or if the laws of a country oblige them or if they have weak morals?

Yes, if they have weak [of various degrees] moral inhibitors, they are vulnerable to be influenced by various factors, e.g. psychopathic leaders, laws, religion, drugs, social conditions, etc.

In what kinds of situations does the inhibitor prevent murder?

Not sure of your point.

The function of the moral inhibitor is to inhibit a person from murder.
Thus if the inhibitors are strong enough to hold back any impulse to murder triggered from various stimulators, then the person will not proceed to murder.

So the outcome of a murder depends on the type of impulse to kill and the strength of one's moral inhibitors.

The analogy is like a dam in a river built to prevent floods downstream.
Whether the dam breaks will depend of the nature of the water forces and strength of the dam [inhibitor] at a certain time and circumstances.

Your answers generate some doubts in me:

So, inhibitors are very ineffective. The two world wars prove, if your assumption is correct, that the number of humans with weak inhibitors is enormous.

The weakness of the inhibitors is only evident after the behavior has occurred or could one distinguish between the population, who will be able to kill and who will not be able to?

That is, people who do not kill prove the existence of the inhibitor and people who actually kill prove that the inhibitor is not effective in them.

But that does not seem different from saying that people who have a clear heart do not kill, those whose hearts are not so clear sometimes kill following orders and those whose hearts are not clear at all, kill by choice.

Each moral fact has its own inhibitor or is this only given in the case of the possibility of killing humans?

If the latter were so, what would be the justification?

I cannot distinguish if there are a limited number of moral facts. If reality is made up of moral facts, non-moral facts and immoral facts. What would be the natural process by which each fact is created according to its type?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 2:40 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:32 am
Justified True Moral facts are derivative from a Moral Framework and System just like scientific knowledge, facts & truths emerged from the scientific FSK.

There's no such thing as a true moral stance/edict etc. There are no objective moral facts. There are only facts that people have whatever moral views they do.

The theistic moral approach is a theistic moral framework and system, e.g. Christianity, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.
So is the Platonist moralists with their Platonic moral FSK.
The other moral FSK are that of the deontologists, the utilitarianist, the consequentialists, the tribal moralists, and any groups that has a set of moral principles.

None of which does anything to make any of those principles true.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:08 am Here's the fallacy:

P1 A truth-claim - a factual assertion - exists within a descriptive context, which VA calls a framework and system of knowledge (FSK), such as physics, chemistry, geology, neurology, law, medicine, and so on.

P2 It's the descriptive context, the FSK, that 'makes' a factual assertion true. And we call a true factual assertion a fact. (That's one meaning of the word 'fact'. The other meaning is 'feature of reality that is or was the case'.)

C Therefore, within the (supposed) morality FSK, there are moral facts - true moral assertions - so that morality is objective.

It seems to me that P1 is true. So P2 is where the argument goes wrong. And the irony is that VA insists on empirical evidence for any fact - recognising that it isn't the FSK that makes a factual assertion true, but rather the feature of reality being asserted within the FSK.

Hence the standing demand for an example of even one moral fact.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:20 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 2:40 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:32 am
Justified True Moral facts are derivative from a Moral Framework and System just like scientific knowledge, facts & truths emerged from the scientific FSK.

There's no such thing as a true moral stance/edict etc. There are no objective moral facts. There are only facts that people have whatever moral views they do.

The theistic moral approach is a theistic moral framework and system, e.g. Christianity, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.
So is the Platonist moralists with their Platonic moral FSK.
The other moral FSK are that of the deontologists, the utilitarianist, the consequentialists, the tribal moralists, and any groups that has a set of moral principles.

None of which does anything to make any of those principles true.

Note my argument for moral facts here;

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

You can give your counters therein.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:17 am

psycho wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:07 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:11 am Seem you have missed my earlier post?
viewtopic.php?p=492250#p492250


Yes, if they have weak [of various degrees] moral inhibitors, they are vulnerable to be influenced by various factors, e.g. psychopathic leaders, laws, religion, drugs, social conditions, etc.


Not sure of your point.

The function of the moral inhibitor is to inhibit a person from murder.
Thus if the inhibitors are strong enough to hold back any impulse to murder triggered from various stimulators, then the person will not proceed to murder.

So the outcome of a murder depends on the type of impulse to kill and the strength of one's moral inhibitors.

The analogy is like a dam in a river built to prevent floods downstream.
Whether the dam breaks will depend of the nature of the water forces and strength of the dam [inhibitor] at a certain time and circumstances.

Your answers generate some doubts in me:

So, inhibitors are very ineffective. The two world wars prove, if your assumption is correct, that the number of humans with weak inhibitors is enormous.

The weakness of the inhibitors is only evident after the behavior has occurred or could one distinguish between the population, who will be able to kill and who will not be able to?

That is, people who do not kill prove the existence of the inhibitor and people who actually kill prove that the inhibitor is not effective in them.

The moral inhibitors of not-to-kill evolved later than the potential to kill in humans due to various circumstances.

However it is very evident there is a trend moral progress in the unfoldment and activeness of the 'ought-not-to-kill inhibitors since 100,000 or 10,000 years ago to the present.
Note the following;
Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

But that does not seem different from saying that people who have a clear heart do not kill, those whose hearts are not so clear sometimes kill following orders and those whose hearts are not clear at all, kill by choice.

What you are stating is merely in the form of a metaphor.
What is the reality is the neural mechanisms and activities of the moral inhibitors in the brain in connection with the body.

So I could argue that there are degrees of clarity in the heart and that a look at human behavior proves it.

Each moral fact has its own inhibitor or is this only given in the case of the possibility of killing humans?

There is a general core for all moral elements but each moral fact has its own specific inhibitor.
A person with active incest-deterring-inhibitors [inbreeding avoidance] may be a psychopathic serial killer, etc.

If the latter were so, what would be the justification?

As with all facts, they must be verified and justified within the moral FSK.

I cannot distinguish if there are a limited number of moral facts. If reality is made up of moral facts, non-moral facts and immoral facts. What would be the natural process by which each fact is created according to its type?

The natural process is natural selection and adaptation.

For example Inbreeding avoidance is driven by moral inhibitors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance
Those of our ancestors who avoided "Inbreeding avoidance " were more successful than those who did not, thus "Inbreeding avoidance " was adapted via natural selection.

psycho wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:48 pm You assume the existence of moral inhibitors of biological origin (not cultural) but do not provide any justification for that assertion.