Is morality objective or subjective?

[Sculptor]

Here is a spontaneous expression of the inherent evil nature,
11-Year-Old Allegedly Kills Baby Brother, Camden Johnson, Out Of ‘Jealousy’
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boy-kill ... _n_4295713
Jealousy in an inherent impulse.

I read there are still younger children who express inherent evil in killing and harming others due to some spontaneous inherent impulse.

The above are evidence ALL humans are inherently "programmed" with the potential for good and evil.

No.

It means that all adults are programmed by culture to judge the actions of their children by rules laid down by their culture.
When one child kills another it is not "inherently" evil, it is judged by human society to be unacceptible, and worthy of moral disabrobation.

Objectively and prima facie killing is not evil. Society judges where and when killing is acceptible, and since we have introduced the idea - where and when and to what level jealously is also acceptible.
Some jealousy is actively encouraged by the capitalist system to keep buying stuff they do not need by think they want.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Here is a spontaneous expression of the inherent evil nature,
11-Year-Old Allegedly Kills Baby Brother, Camden Johnson, Out Of ‘Jealousy’
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boy-kill ... _n_4295713
Jealousy in an inherent impulse.

I read there are still younger children who express inherent evil in killing and harming others due to some spontaneous inherent impulse.

The above are evidence ALL humans are inherently "programmed" with the potential for good and evil.

But jealousy is not an emotion jealousy is a complex feeling.

You misunderstand the physiological difference between emotions and feelings. Emotions are defined and differentiated one from the other by repeatable and objectively observable physiological correlates. It is unknown when if ever sapiens could experience emotions that are unrefined by concepts or ,as you may like to put it "FSKs and FSBs.

While it is probable a child murderer experienced the true emotion of fear , he also possibly experienced the feeling of jealousy.

It may be considered unnecessary to conceptually separate emotions and feelings. It is necessary to separate the concepts of emotions and of feelings. This is because while emotions are probably inherent in all life forms that have endocrine systems , feelings are compounded of emotions as stated plus learning. Jealousy therefor cannot happen unless the subject has learned what she takes to be facts (FSKs or FSBs) about the object of the unpleasant emotion of fear.

The child murderer in the story was either a) brain damaged or b) suffered a learning deficit caused by some other environmental impact. I need not list all possible environmental impacts on learning as the effects of poverty and/or ignorance are already well known.

An eleven year old child who has been subjected to a rich learning environment and who is not brain damaged has learned 1. the moral stance of his mother and father
2. the law of the land and 3. his duty of care to his sibling and others. Each of these stages of moral development must be experienced as age -related stages before the next stage can be accomplished by growing children. The jealous child of two is a different case from the jealous child of eleven years because learned responses are age related and environment related.

It is well known that civilised nations don't hang child murderers but try to rehabilitate them in full knowledge the child is not any more responsible for his learned response of jealousy than he is responsible for his inherent response of fear.

Veritas. my message to you was on the theme of emotions are actions of endocrine messengers, and feelings are action of endocrine messengers plus memorised experiences. Memorised experiences are sometimes immediately personal and sometimes they are conveyed by others such as priests, parents, artists, journalists,celebrities, i.e significant others.

Jealousy is caused by fear i.e action of such as endocrine secretions pluslearned reasons for the fear such as threatened loss of power, love, or commmodities. Innate fear is a necessary but insufficient cause of jealous feelings.

You do not appreciate the extent to which the behaviour of sapiens is rooted in cultural environment.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a spontaneous expression of the inherent evil nature,
11-Year-Old Allegedly Kills Baby Brother, Camden Johnson, Out Of ‘Jealousy’
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boy-kill ... _n_4295713
Jealousy in an inherent impulse.

I read there are still younger children who express inherent evil in killing and harming others due to some spontaneous inherent impulse.

The above are evidence ALL humans are inherently "programmed" with the potential for good and evil.

No.

It means that all adults are programmed by culture to judge the actions of their children by rules laid down by their culture.
When one child kills another it is not "inherently" evil, it is judged by human society to be unacceptible, and worthy of moral disabrobation.

Why is that "killing" of another human judged to be unacceptable and worthy of moral disapprobation?
It is because such an act is 'evil'.

Morality deal with either good or evil [ as defined appropriately] with grades in between.
Therefore if an act is not good, then it is evil [or by whatever name you called it].

I have argued the root of that killing is driven by the potential for evil that is programmed in all human beings.

Objectively and prima facie killing is not evil. Society judges where and when killing is acceptible, and since we have introduced the idea - where and when and to what level jealously is also acceptible.
Some jealousy is actively encouraged by the capitalist system to keep buying stuff they do not need by think they want.

I argued killing is an act triggered from the potential-for-evil that is inherent in all humans.

Where society accepts killing in some conditions, that has nothing to do with morality-proper.
Instead the acceptance of killing of another human is within the jurisdiction of politics and laws or tribal common laws. These has nothing to do with morality-proper - you are ignorant on this point.
Note,
Philosophy of Morality is Independent From Philosophy of Politics
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28541

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Here is a spontaneous expression of the inherent evil nature,
11-Year-Old Allegedly Kills Baby Brother, Camden Johnson, Out Of ‘Jealousy’
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boy-kill ... _n_4295713
Jealousy in an inherent impulse.

I read there are still younger children who express inherent evil in killing and harming others due to some spontaneous inherent impulse.

The above are evidence ALL humans are inherently "programmed" with the potential for good and evil.

But jealousy is not an emotion jealousy is a complex feeling.

You misunderstand the physiological difference between emotions and feelings. Emotions are defined and differentiated one from the other by repeatable and objectively observable physiological correlates. It is unknown when if ever sapiens could experience emotions that are unrefined by concepts or ,as you may like to put it "FSKs and FSBs.

While it is probable a child murderer experienced the true emotion of fear , he also possibly experienced the feeling of jealousy.

It may be considered unnecessary to conceptually separate emotions and feelings. It is necessary to separate the concepts of emotions and of feelings. This is because while emotions are probably inherent in all life forms that have endocrine systems , feelings are compounded of emotions as stated plus learning. Jealousy therefor cannot happen unless the subject has learned what she takes to be facts (FSKs or FSBs) about the object of the unpleasant emotion of fear.

The child murderer in the story was either a) brain damaged or b) suffered a learning deficit caused by some other environmental impact. I need not list all possible environmental impacts on learning as the effects of poverty and/or ignorance are already well known.

An eleven year old child who has been subjected to a rich learning environment and who is not brain damaged has learned 1. the moral stance of his mother and father
2. the law of the land and 3. his duty of care to his sibling and others. Each of these stages of moral development must be experienced as age -related stages before the next stage can be accomplished by growing children. The jealous child of two is a different case from the jealous child of eleven years because learned responses are age related and environment related.

It is well known that civilised nations don't hang child murderers but try to rehabilitate them in full knowledge the child is not any more responsible for his learned response of jealousy than he is responsible for his inherent response of fear.

Veritas. my message to you was on the theme of emotions are actions of endocrine messengers, and feelings are action of endocrine messengers plus memorised experiences. Memorised experiences are sometimes immediately personal and sometimes they are conveyed by others such as priests, parents, artists, journalists,celebrities, i.e significant others.

Jealousy is caused by fear i.e action of such as endocrine secretions pluslearned reasons for the fear such as threatened loss of power, love, or commmodities. Innate fear is a necessary but insufficient cause of jealous feelings.

You do not appreciate the extent to which the behaviour of sapiens is rooted in cultural environment.

You seem to have missed what I posted? i.e.

• Jealousy is a secondary emotion.
  Here is a quickie from google, [there are many more];
  
  • Jealousy: it's in your genes
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/blo ... ousy-genes
  It is logical all human will feel their surges of their emotions as emotional feelings, but what drive them to act is the inherent engines of emotions, note the etymology of 'emotion' is 'emote' to move.
  
  You are merely speculating the 11 years old [example given] is related to nurture.
  Note I gave you the case of less than 12 months babies to eliminate the elements of nurture.
  
  It is very possible the emotional feelings can fuel the emotional engine, but that is secondary.
  
  It is so so common to hear of people claiming they were not even aware of what they were doing during what is on hindsight recognized as an emotional surge.
  
  Even monkeys has a sense of fairness [related to morality].
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo
  
  Moral behavior in animals - Frans de Waal
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnnSjdpoBVw
  
  I don't believe the above is primarily due to 'nurture'.

I agree the emotions are expressed via endocrine messengers, i.e. hormones. But obviously there is something from the brain [the limbic or mid-brain]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbic_system
that triggered these hormones to be excreted.

In the above I linked to babies of less than 12 months and monkeys which expressed moral behavior which is basically via instincts and not from learned experiences.
It is possible for learned experiences and memories to influence and inflame emotional responses, but that is secondary.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:



But jealousy is not an emotion jealousy is a complex feeling.

You misunderstand the physiological difference between emotions and feelings. Emotions are defined and differentiated one from the other by repeatable and objectively observable physiological correlates. It is unknown when if ever sapiens could experience emotions that are unrefined by concepts or ,as you may like to put it "FSKs and FSBs.

While it is probable a child murderer experienced the true emotion of fear , he also possibly experienced the feeling of jealousy.

It may be considered unnecessary to conceptually separate emotions and feelings. It is necessary to separate the concepts of emotions and of feelings. This is because while emotions are probably inherent in all life forms that have endocrine systems , feelings are compounded of emotions as stated plus learning. Jealousy therefor cannot happen unless the subject has learned what she takes to be facts (FSKs or FSBs) about the object of the unpleasant emotion of fear.

The child murderer in the story was either a) brain damaged or b) suffered a learning deficit caused by some other environmental impact. I need not list all possible environmental impacts on learning as the effects of poverty and/or ignorance are already well known.

An eleven year old child who has been subjected to a rich learning environment and who is not brain damaged has learned 1. the moral stance of his mother and father
2. the law of the land and 3. his duty of care to his sibling and others. Each of these stages of moral development must be experienced as age -related stages before the next stage can be accomplished by growing children. The jealous child of two is a different case from the jealous child of eleven years because learned responses are age related and environment related.

It is well known that civilised nations don't hang child murderers but try to rehabilitate them in full knowledge the child is not any more responsible for his learned response of jealousy than he is responsible for his inherent response of fear.

Veritas. my message to you was on the theme of emotions are actions of endocrine messengers, and feelings are action of endocrine messengers plus memorised experiences. Memorised experiences are sometimes immediately personal and sometimes they are conveyed by others such as priests, parents, artists, journalists,celebrities, i.e significant others.

Jealousy is caused by fear i.e action of such as endocrine secretions pluslearned reasons for the fear such as threatened loss of power, love, or commmodities. Innate fear is a necessary but insufficient cause of jealous feelings.

You do not appreciate the extent to which the behaviour of sapiens is rooted in cultural environment.

You seem to have missed what I posted? i.e.

• Jealousy is a secondary emotion.
  Here is a quickie from google, [there are many more];
  
  • Jealousy: it's in your genes
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/blo ... ousy-genes
  It is logical all human will feel their surges of their emotions as emotional feelings, but what drive them to act is the inherent engines of emotions, note the etymology of 'emotion' is 'emote' to move.
  
  You are merely speculating the 11 years old [example given] is related to nurture.
  Note I gave you the case of less than 12 months babies to eliminate the elements of nurture.
  
  It is very possible the emotional feelings can fuel the emotional engine, but that is secondary.
  
  It is so so common to hear of people claiming they were not even aware of what they were doing during what is on hindsight recognized as an emotional surge.
  
  Even monkeys has a sense of fairness [related to morality].
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo
  
  Moral behavior in animals - Frans de Waal
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnnSjdpoBVw
  
  I don't believe the above is primarily due to 'nurture'.

I agree the emotions are expressed via endocrine messengers, i.e. hormones. But obviously there is something from the brain [the limbic or mid-brain]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbic_system
that triggered these hormones to be excreted.

In the above I linked to babies of less than 12 months and monkeys which expressed moral behavior which is basically via instincts and not from learned experiences.
It is possible for learned experiences and memories to influence and inflame emotional responses, but that is secondary.

Emotional reactions inhere in all anatomical structures that are affected by neurochemical substances, and as inhered they are not learned but are inherent in the genetic make up.

Feelings are compounded of emotional reactions plus learned responses. Learned responses are not entirely inherent but depend also on info from the environment.

People who have defective memories also suffer from learning difficulties.

[Sculptor]

Here is a spontaneous expression of the inherent evil nature,
11-Year-Old Allegedly Kills Baby Brother, Camden Johnson, Out Of ‘Jealousy’
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boy-kill ... _n_4295713
Jealousy in an inherent impulse.

I read there are still younger children who express inherent evil in killing and harming others due to some spontaneous inherent impulse.

The above are evidence ALL humans are inherently "programmed" with the potential for good and evil.

No.

It means that all adults are programmed by culture to judge the actions of their children by rules laid down by their culture.
When one child kills another it is not "inherently" evil, it is judged by human society to be unacceptible, and worthy of moral disabrobation.

Why is that "killing" of another human judged to be unacceptable and worthy of moral disapprobation?
It is because such an act is 'evil'.

NO.
It depends.
Killing can be positively moral too.
It's about moral choices made by the culture.
Ask the Yanomani!
Ask Ghenghis Khan!

[Veritas Aequitas]

No.

It means that all adults are programmed by culture to judge the actions of their children by rules laid down by their culture.
When one child kills another it is not "inherently" evil, it is judged by human society to be unacceptible, and worthy of moral disabrobation.

Why is that "killing" of another human judged to be unacceptable and worthy of moral disapprobation?
It is because such an act is 'evil'.

NO.
It depends.
Killing can be positively moral too.
It's about moral choices made by the culture.
Ask the Yanomani!
Ask Ghenghis Khan!

Your barbaric "Killing can be positively moral too" is morally sick especially during our currently moral advancing age.
Morality-proper is typically about promoting good and avoiding evil.

To include 'acceptable killing' within morality is bastardizing the term 'morality'.

'Acceptable killing' by various cultures and the ancient is more towards politics and common laws than related to morality.
This is still happening within politics and laws at present, i.e. capital punishments.
More people are developing higher moral conscience and thus the condemnation of capital punishments.
This is so evident, there is a decreasing trend of punishments by death since 10,000 years ago.

[Sculptor]

Why is that "killing" of another human judged to be unacceptable and worthy of moral disapprobation?
It is because such an act is 'evil'.

NO.
It depends.
Killing can be positively moral too.
It's about moral choices made by the culture.
Ask the Yanomani!
Ask Ghenghis Khan!

Your barbaric "Killing can be positively moral too" is morally sick especially during our currently moral advancing age.
Morality-proper is typically about promoting good and avoiding evil.

You are in denial about the majority of the human species. All societies mandate the killing of " others."
Without exception.

To include 'acceptable killing' within morality is bastardizing the term 'morality'.

Take that up with the US legal system, and many others around the world that have many forms of acceptable killing.
But you can't do that because you'd have to get your head out of your arse first.

'Acceptable killing' by various cultures and the ancient is more towards politics and common laws than related to morality.
This is still happening within politics and laws at present, i.e. capital punishments.
More people are developing higher moral conscience and thus the condemnation of capital punishments.

tututut. An empirical claim. Please cite!!

This is so evident, there is a decreasing trend of punishments by death since 10,000 years ago.

That makes my point very well. Morality is neither objective nor absolute. It is culturally and historically contingent.
Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot.

[Veritas Aequitas]

NO.
It depends.
Killing can be positively moral too.
It's about moral choices made by the culture.
Ask the Yanomani!
Ask Ghenghis Khan!

Your barbaric "Killing can be positively moral too" is morally sick especially during our currently moral advancing age.
Morality-proper is typically about promoting good and avoiding evil.

You are in denial about the majority of the human species. All societies mandate the killing of " others."
Without exception.

As I had stated the mandated of killing of humans is not morality-proper but rather it is related to the political and legal FSK.
How come you are so ignorant of this point?

As I had mentioned, there is a decreasing trend since 10,000 to the present in the mandating of humans killing humans.

• Fifty-six countries retain capital punishment, 106 countries have completely abolished it de jure for all crimes... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

What is the reason for this reducing trend?

If you have reasonable moral conscience, you would have realized the decrease above is due to the increasing trend of the moral conscience of humans as driven by the inherent moral facts.

To include 'acceptable killing' within morality is bastardizing the term 'morality'.

Take that up with the US legal system, and many others around the world that have many forms of acceptable killing.
But you can't do that because you'd have to get your head out of your arse first.

You are the one who is having your head in your arse, i.e. having no moral conscience and no moral compass.

As I had stated the US legal system is a political and legal system not a moral system per se.
How come you are so insistence on such a low intelligence thought?

The point is the general public need to increase the average moral competence, and that would influence the government to abolish capital punishment as many countries had done.

'Acceptable killing' by various cultures and the ancient is more towards politics and common laws than related to morality.
This is still happening within politics and laws at present, i.e. capital punishments.
More people are developing higher moral conscience and thus the condemnation of capital punishments.

tututut. An empirical claim. Please cite!!

Here is the empirical evidence;

• Fifty-six countries retain capital punishment, 106 countries have completely abolished it de jure for all crimes... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

This is so evident, there is a decreasing trend of punishments by death since 10,000 years ago.

That makes my point very well. Morality is neither objective nor absolute. It is culturally and historically contingent.
Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot.

It does not make your point.
Your insistence only exposed your ignorance of what morality-proper is about.

The point is the decreasing trend in humans killing of humans is driven by the increasing average moral conscience and competence towards the moral facts [no humans ought to kill humans, thus ZERO killings] as a guiding standard.
Can you counter this evidence of decrease in killings of humans and the moral fact?

[Sculptor]

Your barbaric "Killing can be positively moral too" is morally sick especially during our currently moral advancing age.
Morality-proper is typically about promoting good and avoiding evil.

You are in denial about the majority of the human species. All societies mandate the killing of " others."
Without exception.

As I had stated the mandated of killing of humans is not morality-proper but rather it is related to the political and legal FSK.
How come you are so ignorant of this point?

As I had mentioned, there is a decreasing trend since 10,000 to the present in the mandating of humans killing humans.

• Fifty-six countries retain capital punishment, 106 countries have completely abolished it de jure for all crimes... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

What is the reason for this reducing trend?

If you have reasonable moral conscience, you would have realized the decrease above is due to the increasing trend of the moral conscience of humans as driven by the inherent moral facts.

To include 'acceptable killing' within morality is bastardizing the term 'morality'.

Take that up with the US legal system, and many others around the world that have many forms of acceptable killing.
But you can't do that because you'd have to get your head out of your arse first.

You are the one who is having your head in your arse, i.e. having no moral conscience and no moral compass.

As I had stated the US legal system is a political and legal system not a moral system per se.
How come you are so insistence on such a low intelligence thought?

The point is the general public need to increase the average moral competence, and that would influence the government to abolish capital punishment as many countries had done.

'Acceptable killing' by various cultures and the ancient is more towards politics and common laws than related to morality.
This is still happening within politics and laws at present, i.e. capital punishments.
More people are developing higher moral conscience and thus the condemnation of capital punishments.

tututut. An empirical claim. Please cite!!

Here is the empirical evidence;

• Fifty-six countries retain capital punishment, 106 countries have completely abolished it de jure for all crimes... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

This is so evident, there is a decreasing trend of punishments by death since 10,000 years ago.

That makes my point very well. Morality is neither objective nor absolute. It is culturally and historically contingent.
Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot.

It does not make your point.
Your insistence only exposed your ignorance of what morality-proper is about.

The point is the decreasing trend in humans killing of humans is driven by the increasing average moral conscience and competence towards the moral facts [no humans ought to kill humans, thus ZERO killings] as a guiding standard.
Can you counter this evidence of decrease in killings of humans and the moral fact?

You are a hopeless case. You claim objectivty, but when people object you tell them you are the only one with the proper moral compass. You are just a joke.
F*ck off

[Peter Holmes]

We've invented different ways of talking about the reality of which we're a part. But we didn't invent the reality that we talk about.

Moral realists and objectivists claim that moral rightness and wrongness are actual features of reality - the reality that existed before we turned up, and which will exist after we're gone. And theirs is the burden of proof for that claim, unmet so far, to my knowledge.

Their mistake comes from thinking that abstract nouns are the names of things of some kind - that what we call good and evil, or moral rightness and wrongness, are real properties about which, therefore, true and false things can be said. So theirs is an ancient metaphysical delusion, closely related to other supernaturalist delusions, such as theism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We've invented different ways of talking about the reality of which we're a part. But we didn't invent the reality that we talk about.

Rhetoric again, in my case, I did not state we "invent" the reality we talk about.

When we are part and parcel of reality, there is no way we can be independent of the reality we are part and parcel of.

Moral realists and objectivists claim that moral rightness and wrongness are actual features of reality - the reality that existed before we turned up, and which will exist after we're gone. And theirs is the burden of proof for that claim, unmet so far, to my knowledge.

Fallacy of hasty generalization.
The above is claimed by theists who claimed those moral facts are with a God, and Plato who claimed there are universal moral facts independent of humans.

I claimed moral facts exist inherently within humans.
As such there are no moral facts before humans and after humans are extinct.

Their mistake comes from thinking that abstract nouns are the names of things of some kind - that what we call good and evil, or moral rightness and wrongness, are real properties about which, therefore, true and false things can be said. So theirs is an ancient metaphysical delusion, closely related to other supernaturalist delusions, such as theism.

"Their" who are they?
There are various types of moral realists and objectivists, you are incompetent to lump them into one group based on the fallacy of hasty generalizations.

[Peter Holmes]

We've invented different ways of talking about the reality of which we're a part. But we didn't invent the reality that we talk about.

Rhetoric again, in my case, I did not state we "invent" the reality we talk about.

When we are part and parcel of reality, there is no way we can be independent of the reality we are part and parcel of.

Moral realists and objectivists claim that moral rightness and wrongness are actual features of reality - the reality that existed before we turned up, and which will exist after we're gone. And theirs is the burden of proof for that claim, unmet so far, to my knowledge.

Fallacy of hasty generalization.
The above is claimed by theists who claimed those moral facts are with a God, and Plato who claimed there are universal moral facts independent of humans.

I claimed moral facts exist inherently within humans.
As such there are no moral facts before humans and after humans are extinct.

Their mistake comes from thinking that abstract nouns are the names of things of some kind - that what we call good and evil, or moral rightness and wrongness, are real properties about which, therefore, true and false things can be said. So theirs is an ancient metaphysical delusion, closely related to other supernaturalist delusions, such as theism.

"Their" who are they?
There are various types of moral realists and objectivists, you are incompetent to lump them into one group based on the fallacy of hasty generalizations.

Yes, you claim there are moral facts inherent within humans. But you haven't shown that there are, or that the expression 'moral fact' is even coherent in the first place.

What all moral realists and objectivists have in common is the claim that there's a moral reality, and that therefore there are moral facts. So they are lumped together in their metaphysical delusion - which you share.

[Skepdick]

Yes, you claim there are moral facts inherent within humans. But you haven't shown that there are, or that the expression 'moral fact' is even coherent in the first place.

What all moral realists and objectivists have in common is the claim that there's a moral reality, and that therefore there are moral facts. So they are lumped together in their metaphysical delusion - which you share.

You haven't shown that the expression "morality" is coherent either, and yet... you continue.

[henry quirk]

Moral realists and objectivists claim that moral rightness and wrongness are actual features of reality

specifically, I say there is a fact about man that leads to a moral fact about man


the reality that existed before we turned up, and which will exist after we're gone.

I never said that...specifically, I've talked about morality as what is permissible between and among men and moral fact as what pertains to men, is inherent in man...never said diddly about some free-floatin' thing