Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 10:01 am My paradigm do not focus on your sort of 'therefore, X is morally right and Y is morally wrong'.

What we have is a physical moral fact of a moral potential within the brain which should be self developed to unfold so that the person will spontaneously and naturally progress to be more morally competent.
If you have the capacity and ability to develop your own 'inactive moral potential within' you will progress to be a more moral competent person. There is no question of you being morally right or wrong from the moral perspective I am proposing.
It is only the ignoramus who insist on the question of morally right or wrong as influenced by the current debates on morality and ethics.

The conclusion of the moral potential is verified and justified to exists within the mind, brain and body of each individual person.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 10:01 am My paradigm do not focus on your sort of 'therefore, X is morally right and Y is morally wrong'.

What we have is a physical moral fact of a moral potential within the brain which should be self developed to unfold so that the person will spontaneously and naturally progress to be more morally competent.
If you have the capacity and ability to develop your own 'inactive moral potential within' you will progress to be a more moral competent person. There is no question of you being morally right or wrong from the moral perspective I am proposing.
It is only the ignoramus who insist on the question of morally right or wrong as influenced by the current debates on morality and ethics.

The conclusion of the moral potential is verified and justified to exists within the mind, brain and body of each individual person.

What we have is a physical moral fact of a moral potential within the brain which should be self developed to unfold so that the person will spontaneously and naturally progress to be more morally competent.

.......which should be self developed to unfold so that the person will spontaneously and naturally progress to be more morally competent.

.......which should be self developed to unfold so that the person will spontaneously and naturally progress to be more morally competent.

.....which develops in a variety of different ways and may lead to greater empathy and compassionate behavior.

What we have is a physiological structure with a behavioral/attitudinal potential within the brain which develops in a variety of different ways and may lead to greater empathy and compassionate behavior.

What we have is a physical moral fact of a moral potential within the brain, specifically the hypothalamus, which should be self developed to unfold so that the person will spontaneously and naturally progress to be more aggressive.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 11:42 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 10:01 am My paradigm do not focus on your sort of 'therefore, X is morally right and Y is morally wrong'.

What we have is a physical moral fact of a moral potential within the brain which should be self developed to unfold so that the person will spontaneously and naturally progress to be more morally competent.
If you have the capacity and ability to develop your own 'inactive moral potential within' you will progress to be a more moral competent person. There is no question of you being morally right or wrong from the moral perspective I am proposing.
It is only the ignoramus who insist on the question of morally right or wrong as influenced by the current debates on morality and ethics.

The conclusion of the moral potential is verified and justified to exists within the mind, brain and body of each individual person.

Let's make one immediate change....

What we have is a physical moral fact of a moral potential within the brain which should be self developed to unfold so that the person will spontaneously and naturally progress to be more morally competent.

We remove the word moral.

For example he often talks about mirror neurons. Mirror neurons are associated with, amongst other things, empathy.

So,

What we have is a physiological structure with a behavioral/attitudinal potential within the brain....

Let's look at that beginning before we move on.

We have mirror neurons and this entails that when we watch someone do something, including those things associated with emotional expression, it is, to some degree as if we are doing them/feeling them also. This leads to, at least potentially, feeling empathy for other people. Empathy and behaviors associated with it may follow from this physiological structure in the brain and its processes.

VA continues with...

.......which should be self developed to unfold so that the person will spontaneously and naturally progress to be more morally competent.

should be self-developed?

Where does this should come from? It's not in the brain. The structure is in the brain, but there's nothing in the brain that says we should develop that structure, more than any other structure, or that we should consciously decide to develop that structure's effects rather than others or at all.

I think it is also odd that he says self-developed. What not through parenting, education, and any other interpersonal organization or relations to humans as they grow up. Which is not to say I think it shouldn't be self-developed. It just seems odd that he views it as a process in isolation.

.......which should be self developed to unfold so that the person will spontaneously and naturally progress to be more morally competent.

Can be more parsimoniously be replaced with....

.....which develops in a variety of different ways and may lead to greater empathy and compassionate behavior.

Giving us....

What we have is a physiological structure with a behavioral/attitudinal potential within the brain which develops in a variety of different ways and may lead to greater empathy and compassionate behavior.

At this point one could introduce morals...

One could say...I think it is good if people actively develop these facets of the brain, because empathetic people and those who act with compassion....etc. and as one example.

You can certainly add shoulds and moral guidelines on top of what one finds in the brain. But there is no justification for this in the brain.

We can see this if we pick another part of brain physiology....

Aggression in mice comes from the ventrolateral part of the ventromedial hypothalamus. There is evidence that the hypothalamus region is also the source of violent impulses in humans.

OK...

What we have is a physical moral fact of a moral potential within the brain, specifically the hypothalamus, which should be self developed to unfold so that the person will spontaneously and naturally progress to be more aggressive.

The only reason we don't do this is we generally don't like or have morals against aggression except in certain circumstances. The should that VA already has leads him to call the mirror neurons something we should develop.

Someone from a culture like, say, the Vikings, or some types of macho culture, might want to develop the hypothalamus' ability to quickly generate aggression, especially in men.

It is such a confused argument he has which stands on leaps and unsupported assumptions, cherry picking as far as what regions of the brain are chosen, and category errors. It's be lovely if we all just ignored him.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:28 pm Thanks. I admire your patience and clarity. Sadly, it'll have absolutely no effect, because VA is impervious to rational argument.The bee's in the bonnet, and can find no way out.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:48 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:28 pm Thanks. I admire your patience and clarity. Sadly, it'll have absolutely no effect, because VA is impervious to rational argument.The bee's in the bonnet, and can find no way out.

It\s funny, I had noticed a couple of you responses to him recently and thought Man, how can he keep responding.

If you have the capacity and ability to develop your own 'inactive moral potential within' you will progress to be a more moral competent person.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 7:07 am Morality-proper is about being free, acting voluntarily and spontaneously.

...

My point is we need to understand what is morality-proper so that we can drive the morality engine [program] to achieve its intended purpose efficiently.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 10:42 am Vestigial Aquarium wants you to believe that he can overrule the entire human race about what words mean.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 12:03 pm I'm a moral skeptic, I reckon that we have difficulty working out whether to use a rule-based, and outcome-based, or a virtues-based approach across the board because we find each of those approaches useful in many particular circumstances and it's a rock paper scissors game where none can ever win out globally.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 10:42 am Now he wants you to quietly accept that morality doesn't use the concepts of right and wrong.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 10:04 pm

If you have the capacity and ability to develop your own 'inactive moral potential within' you will progress to be a more moral competent person.

If I look more closely, this looks like a pretty eerie statement to me. VA has spent years trying to convince people, that such a potential exists. It's like he's the first person to discover it, and he's trying to wake up the world, but no one believes him. He managed to activate it somehow.

But everyone knows that we have this potential, and that it's active in everyone except the morally insane (psychopaths, sociopaths, NPDs, borderlines etc.)

So where is this guy coming from?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 10:56 am If you agree as I had proposed, i.e. there is an inherent moral potential as a fact [thus a moral fact within a moral FSK] then you are against all the others e.g. Peter Holmes, et. al. who insist such a moral potential is nonsense.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 9:23 am In his "what is morality" thread, we discover a new non-starter

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 7:07 am Morality-proper is about being free, acting voluntarily and spontaneously.

...

My point is we need to understand what is morality-proper so that we can drive the morality engine [program] to achieve its intended purpose efficiently.

Voluntary and spontaneous execution of the steps required by an engine or program.
What kind of "freedom is slavery" nonsense is that?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:22 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 10:56 am If you agree as I had proposed, i.e. there is an inherent moral potential as a fact [thus a moral fact within a moral FSK] then you are against all the others e.g. Peter Holmes, et. al. who insist such a moral potential is nonsense.

1. It's a fact that healthy humans have a natural morality,
2. but a moral fact does not follow from it.

3. You will never cook up any FSK or whatever, that would make natural human morality objectively moral.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 4:06 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:22 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 10:56 am If you agree as I had proposed, i.e. there is an inherent moral potential as a fact [thus a moral fact within a moral FSK] then you are against all the others e.g. Peter Holmes, et. al. who insist such a moral potential is nonsense.

1. It's a fact that healthy humans have a natural morality,
2. but a moral fact does not follow from it.

3. You will never cook up any FSK or whatever, that would make natural human morality objectively moral.

In 1. you are confirming it yourself, it follows that there are moral facts, i.e. facts of natural morality. If it is natural surely science can verify that empirically.

In 2, you are kicking your own ass.

In 3, you can say what you like. What is relevant is your point 1 which you need to reflect upon deeply.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 5:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 4:06 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:22 pm
1. It's a fact that healthy humans have a natural morality,
2. but a moral fact does not follow from it.

3. You will never cook up any FSK or whatever, that would make natural human morality objectively moral.

In 1. you are confirming it yourself, it follows that there are moral facts, i.e. facts of natural morality. If it is natural surely science can verify that empirically.

In 2, you are kicking your own ass.

In 3, you can say what you like. What is relevant is your point 1 which you need to reflect upon deeply.

It isn't just serious philosophical incompetence to conflate natural moral instincts with THE morality (right and wrong).
It's usually a sign of cluster-B personality disorders.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 6:11 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 5:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 4:06 am
In 1. you are confirming it yourself, it follows that there are moral facts, i.e. facts of natural morality. If it is natural surely science can verify that empirically.

In 2, you are kicking your own ass.

In 3, you can say what you like. What is relevant is your point 1 which you need to reflect upon deeply.

It isn't just serious philosophical incompetence to conflate natural moral instincts with THE morality (right and wrong).
It's usually a sign of cluster-B personality disorders.

The above is mere noises!
Reflect and note you are the irrational, emotional and delusional one with cluster-B personality disorders and other disorders related to mental cognition and ignorance of knowledge.

I have stated "000s" of times, my main focus re Morality is NOT about right or wrong, albeit applicable only indirectly. Actually you and most of the rest are leveraging on morality with focus on right or wrong.

I have been claiming all along, my focus on morality is about the moral potential, as a matter of fact that is represented by physical neural correlated in the brain which can be verifiable by the scientific FSK supported by a credible moral FSK. This is as natural as natural morality can be, i.e. a natural moral fact.

You cannot understand [not necessary agree with] my Moral FSK because you are still strawmaning and stuck with the typical sense of morality in terms of mainly right or wrong.