Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 5:41 pm

Both of you seem to be only talking about words and opinions, while ignoring morality itself fundamentally. It's the very sensation, "experience" of rightness and wrongness.

Two people watch the killing of a condemned criminal by lethal injection. One experiences the raw sensation of horror and disgust. The other experiences the raw sensation of justifed revenge. So what's the moral facts of the matter?

An appeal to 'the very sensation, 'experience' of rightness and wrongness' is as useless as an appeal to intuition - and certainly no basis for any claim of moral objectivity.

Yes, 'morality' must be what is morality fundamentally which is fundamentally 'avoiding evil to promote good' for the sake of the human species.

Morality is fundamentally driven by an inherent moral potential which when processed via the moral FSK is represented by the physical neural states of moral facts, for example the "ought-not-ness to kill humans".
BUT this moral fact "ought-not-ness to kill humans" is not enforceable on individuals but merely be used as a moral guide for moral improvements in the future.

Given the present situation of the psychological states of the majority, a condemned criminal who had murdered another human is to be killed by lethal injection. This obviously is executed in accordance to enacted laws democratically accept or even via dictatorship.

The law is the law and the sensations and feelings of observers are independent of the laws.

However where there is an effective Moral FSK in place, the actual killings of the murderer and his victims generate a moral gap between what has happened [humans killed] and the moral standard [the moral fact - no humans ought to be killed].

The moral gap of the moral FSK will then drive humanity [morally competent humans] to close the moral gap by reducing and prevent humans from initiating any killings of humans.

At present, the majority of humans are inherently beastly thus very likely SOME will kill humans instinctively and quite easily.
The task of humanity is to find ways to inhibit this natural instincts to kill humans.
I am optimistic this can be achieved to a high degree in the future given the trend of the current exponential expansion of knowledge.

This is the proactiveness of a moral FSK relying on objective moral facts as standards for improvements in the future.

Without the identification of objective moral facts, one's moral system will be very subjective and anything goes, including the possibility of genocides and the extinction of the human species.

A fact isn't a thing that can be 'implemented'. So the OP title is incoherent.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:18 am A fact isn't a thing that can be 'implemented'. So the OP title is incoherent.

Peter,

Difficult call here, morality is a sentiment an insight an identification with the self in others thus the arising of compassion thus the creation of moral sentiments. Technically, none of this qualifies as an object, yet it can be manipulated and thus implemented to a purpose. Generally, charities do this to increase donations to a cause, and the more they can influence your identification with others the more they increase their support revenue. It is perhaps not the highest human quality that is underlined here but, if a charity is concerned with the feeding of the hungry they know if the needy and their benefactors are of the same color the donations will be greater than if not. If identity with others can be manipulated is this not a moral fact about what can and is implemented by the parties concerned when the charity directs its appeals to a target population with the most commonality with the needy.

And what will be considered progress by some will be considered a catastrophy or decadence by others and while reasoned arguments may bridge some gaps, if the values at the base are different, one CANNOT demonstrate that others have objectively incorrect morals. In situations where one has common values but different conclusions about practice, then reasoning and research can cause people to change their minds. Oh, law X actually leads to harming children. I didn't realize that. (in the situation where both parties value protecting children AND evaluate (note that 'value' is in that word) harm in the same ways. Only then and unfortunately this is rare.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:18 am A fact isn't a thing that can be 'implemented'. So the OP title is incoherent.

What? Like factualy existing airplanes can't be implemented?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:18 am A fact isn't a thing that can be 'implemented'. So the OP title is incoherent.

You are so ignorant.

Note how scientific facts are 'implemented' via technology [and other modes] into utilities for the progress of mankind.

I stated,
This is the proactiveness of a moral FSK relying on objective moral facts as standards for improvements in the future.

Why is this usage as a "standard" is not possible?

In the OP, it is stated the moral facts [as standards] are "implemented" via a moral FSK, i.e. translated into ethical actions.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:42 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:18 am A fact isn't a thing that can be 'implemented'. So the OP title is incoherent.

Peter,

Difficult call here, morality is a sentiment an insight an identification with the self in others thus the arising of compassion thus the creation of moral sentiments.
Technically, none of this qualifies as an object, yet it can be manipulated and thus implemented to a purpose. Generally, charities do this to increase donations to a cause, and the more they can influence your identification with others the more they increase their support revenue. It is perhaps not the highest human quality that is underlined here but, if a charity is concerned with the feeding of the hungry they know if the needy and their benefactors are of the same color the donations will be greater than if not. If identity with others can be manipulated is this not a moral fact about what can and is implemented by the parties concerned when the charity directs its appeals to a target population with the most commonality with the needy.

You mentioned Schopenhauer ethics which I am familiar with.
I have just reread S "Basis of Morality". I do not agree with S totally but he has a point that morality must be based on empirical facts and facts of consciousness.

Like Hume, S believed that moral sentiments are grounded on sympathy and compassion respectively. S went on to provide a metaphysical grounding based on Tat Tvam Asi (तत् त्वम् असि) - traditionally rendered as "That Thou Art" (that you are) a part of the Whole [Brahman]. In this case, when one feel the other[s] is part of oneself, one will tend not to harm the other[s], thus behaving 'morally'.

Unfortunately for Hume and Schopenhauer there was no neuroscience during their time to enable them to understand the groundings they inferred upon.
It is not the moral sentiments that is important here but that sympathy and compassion are factual impulses that are objectively supported by actual & live physical neurons, these [as potentials] are the moral facts when deliberated within a credible moral system.

I have argued empathy [sympathy] and compassion are "programmed" as inherent potentials within all humans [mirror neurons], albeit these potentials are dormant or active in various degrees.
Schopenhauer had also pointed out that such compassions are very evident in various cultures throughout the history of mankind.

My point, moral sentiments related to empathy and compassions as grounded on the physical neurons and neural networks as mora potentials [like potential energy], thus are objective and qualify as moral facts within a credible moral system.
I am not claiming the moral sentiments [where highly subjective] are moral facts but rather their physical grounds are the objective moral facts.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:42 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:18 am A fact isn't a thing that can be 'implemented'. So the OP title is incoherent.

Peter,

Difficult call here, morality is a sentiment an insight an identification with the self in others thus the arising of compassion thus the creation of moral sentiments. Technically, none of this qualifies as an object, yet it can be manipulated and thus implemented to a purpose. Generally, charities do this to increase donations to a cause, and the more they can influence your identification with others the more they increase their support revenue. It is perhaps not the highest human quality that is underlined here but, if a charity is concerned with the feeding of the hungry they know if the needy and their benefactors are of the same color the donations will be greater than if not. If identity with others can be manipulated is this not a moral fact about what can and is implemented by the parties concerned when the charity directs its appeals to a target population with the most commonality with the needy.

My point is that to implement something is to put it in place or into effect. And the direct object is usually a plan, policy or procedure, and so on. So I think it would be unidiomatic to implement an aeroplane, a tree or some other physical object - to 'implement a fact' - though, of course, a plan, policy or procedure could be called a fact - a feature of reality that is or was the case.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 17, 2022 10:18 am A fact isn't a thing that can be 'implemented'. So the OP title is incoherent.

If, helping others does not hinder them', is a fact, then how could this 'thing' not be implemented?

Veritas,

Excellent, you do a good job presenting S's thought. I find little to disagree with, one thing that might influence and this is not S, is that all organisms are reactive creatures, personal opinion. I believe however this is supportive of your interpretation. I think we are on the same page.

[/quote] My point is that to implement something is to put it in place or into effect. And the direct object is usually a plan, policy or procedure, and so on. So I think it would be unidiomatic to implement an aeroplane, a tree or some other physical object - to 'implement a fact' - though, of course, a plan, policy or procedure could be called a fact - a feature of reality that is or was the case.
[/quote]

Peter,
The first thing is perception and in this case identification with others, what fellows immediately is not a plan but to make the reaction of one's own will, so even things thought of as actions of self-sacrifice are not purely altruistic in that one is fulfilling one's own will. All organisms are reactive creatures while the physical world is the cause. Implementation always comes after the fact of making the reaction one's will. One has a choice of reactions, but one cannot not react to one's environment for even a negation of a reaction is a reaction to one's environment.