The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose?

Baby: a very young child, especially one that has not yet begun to walk or talk:

I believe;
-there is an inherent Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death within all humans, i.e. universal. [A]
-this A can be verified to physical elements in the brain in terms of neurons, neural algorithm, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.
-it is evident 99.99% of humans do not torture human babies to death.
-when deliberated within a moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] this [A] is a moral fact that is objective.
-therefore Morality is objective.

Since people like Peter Holmes and others as moral-facts-deniers do not believe morality is objective, which imply that they would in principle accept and condone that anyone can Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose.
To them there is no such objective moral fact such as "the Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever reasons."

See Peter Holmes' objection to objective moral facts here;
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

Views?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:12 am Since people like Peter Holmes and others as moral-facts-deniers do not believe morality is objective, which imply that they would in principle accept and condone that anyone can Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose.

Nope. They could hate the act and promote legislation (which is already there, but if it wasn't) making it illegal. They could actively counsel parents and other caregivers so that they don't do this.

Empathy, preferences, compassion are not dependent on objective morals.

VA is now moving into libel.

If only VA had ought-not-to-libel-and-make-false-accusations neurons.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:12 am -this A can be verified to physical elements in the brain in terms of neurons, neural algorithm, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.

Nope. Though God, I would love to see an explanation that uses 'quarks' coherently as part of the argument.

You may well be able to find support for people not liking the torturing of babies in most people's brains. Some neuronal correlate that leads to attitudes and behavior.

Just as there may well be a way to demonstrate that body processes disincline people to putting their faces in fire.

By the way, brain are inside skulls. Most of the time no one is looking at them. Do they exist when no one is looking them? How about DNA?

no two human brains are identical

some human brains are far less developed than others

the jump from personal belief to "objective truth" verified to exist in every human brain is impossible

-Imp

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:12 am Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose?

Baby: a very young child, especially one that has not yet begun to walk or talk:

I believe;
-there is an inherent Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death within all humans, i.e. universal. [A]
-this A can be verified to physical elements in the brain in terms of neurons, neural algorithm, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.
-it is evident 99.99% of humans do not torture human babies to death.
-when deliberated within a moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] this [A] is a moral fact that is objective.
-therefore Morality is objective.


Views?

Wait, what? Humans do not do that (usually), therefore morality is objective?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:12 am
Views?

My view is that your obsession with Peter Holmes has unhinged your mind.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 6:32 pm Wait, what? Humans do not do that (usually), therefore morality is objective?

I realized this was true years ago. Do you know the percentage of people who urinate on other people's desks at work? Very low.
There's an oughtness-not-to-pee-on-other-people's-desks.
That's a fact.
And part of the proof involves quarks.

I've been wrestling with what the differences between universal and objective are. But I realized it was making me uncomfortable, so I stopped.

Re: The Moon doesn't exist if no one is looking at it.

Did you know that quarks have never been observed?
https://medium.com/@thisscience1/quarks ... 4db26742cc
http://thescienceexplorer.com/universe/ ... y-detected
How can they possibly exist?

The percentage of people who have ever programmed the computer systems for a moon-destined space ship are probably even lower, is there an objective ought-notness to do that?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:12 am Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose?

Baby: a very young child, especially one that has not yet begun to walk or talk:

I believe;
-there is an inherent Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death within all humans, i.e. universal. [A]
-this A can be verified to physical elements in the brain in terms of neurons, neural algorithm, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.
-it is evident 99.99% of humans do not torture human babies to death.
-when deliberated within a moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] this [A] is a moral fact that is objective.
-therefore Morality is objective.

Since people like Peter Holmes and others as moral-facts-deniers do not believe morality is objective, which imply that they would in principle accept and condone that anyone can Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose.
To them there is no such objective moral fact such as "the Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever reasons."

See Peter Holmes' objection to objective moral facts here;
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

Views?

This is the best you can do?
This is not objective in any meaningful sense.
What you can conclude is that you may be able to get most people to agree with this absurd and extreme case.

But since this is not a matter of morality it is puzzling why you think this allows such a conclusion.
There is no specific law pertaining to this act for the simple reason that it is not an issue.
This is just a poor appeal to emotion.
But you will not get all people to agree to this.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 6:32 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:12 am Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose?

Baby: a very young child, especially one that has not yet begun to walk or talk:

I believe;
-there is an inherent Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death within all humans, i.e. universal. [A]
-this A can be verified to physical elements in the brain in terms of neurons, neural algorithm, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.
-it is evident 99.99% of humans do not torture human babies to death.
-when deliberated within a moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] this [A] is a moral fact that is objective.
-therefore Morality is objective.


Views?

Wait, what? Humans do not do that (usually), therefore morality is objective?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 9:21 pm The percentage of people who have ever programmed the computer systems for a moon-destined space ship are probably even lower, is there an objective ought-not-ness to do that?

"Programming the computer systems for a moon-destined space ship" is a not a moral issue.

I have not included some premises which I had discussed elsewhere, e.g.
Whatever is fact is conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [collective], thus is objective.
It is well understood, killing a human being, whether baby or adult is a moral issue [2] as deliberated within a moral FSK [5].

So,

1. -killing a human being, whether baby or adult is a moral issue, thus an element of morality.
2. -there is an inherent Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death within all humans, i.e. universal. [A]
3. -this A can be verified to physical elements in the brain in terms of neurons, neural algorithm, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.
4. -it is evident 99.99% of humans do not torture human babies to death.
5. -when deliberated within a moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] this [A] is a moral fact that is objective.
6. -therefore Morality is objective.

Note 'universal' in 2 above, i.e. independent of any individual's opinion, beliefs or judgment, therefore it is 'objective'.

#2 is unsupported by anything you've argued so far, #3 is unsupported and possibly not even meaningful, #4 seems largely irrelevant and apparently unconnected from every other point you make, #5 pretty much undermines everything you say, disproving #6.

#5 is undermining because all one has to do is invent a "moral fsk" where torturing babies IS, in fact, the moral thing to do, and then badabing badaboom we all must do it, and gleefully.

Maybe, deep down somewhere, you have a really good case based on some really strong intuitions, but the presentation of the arguments so far is not remotely compelling.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 11:23 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:12 am Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose?

Baby: a very young child, especially one that has not yet begun to walk or talk:

I believe;
-there is an inherent Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death within all humans, i.e. universal. [A]
-this A can be verified to physical elements in the brain in terms of neurons, neural algorithm, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.
-it is evident 99.99% of humans do not torture human babies to death.
-when deliberated within a moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] this [A] is a moral fact that is objective.
-therefore Morality is objective.

Since people like Peter Holmes and others as moral-facts-deniers do not believe morality is objective, which imply that they would in principle accept and condone that anyone can Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose.
To them there is no such objective moral fact such as "the Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever reasons."

See Peter Holmes' objection to objective moral facts here;
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

Views?

This is the best you can do?
This is not objective in any meaningful sense.
What you can conclude is that you may be able to get most people to agree with this absurd and extreme case.

But since this is not a matter of morality it is puzzling why you think this allows such a conclusion.
There is no specific law pertaining to this act for the simple reason that it is not an issue.
This is just a poor appeal to emotion.
But you will not get all people to agree to this.

There is no doubt morality is a very common and significant human issue.

Since you believe,
"Humans Ought-Not to Torture Human Babies to Death for pleasure or whatever the purpose"
is not a moral issue,
in that case you condone such acts?
You are really deranged and worst than an 'animal' and should be checked into a lunatic asylum.

The above is covered in Laws on Violence against Children.
How can you be so ignorant [not surprising anyway] there is no laws covering such a horrendous crime?
Legal Laws are related to politics not morality.

With morality-proper, humanity strive to develop the natural objectgive "Ought-Not-ness to Torture Human Babies to Death" to the extent such that the inherent "oughtness-to-kill" is inhibited and modulated naturally without any need for external enforcements like legal laws.

VA wrote:1. -killing a human being, whether baby or adult is a moral issue, thus an element of morality.
2. -there is an inherent Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death within all humans, i.e. universal. [A]
3. -this A can be verified to physical elements in the brain in terms of neurons, neural algorithm, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.
4. -it is evident 99.99% of humans do not torture human babies to death.
5. -when deliberated within a moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] this [A] is a moral fact that is objective.
6. -therefore Morality is objective.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:22 am #2 is unsupported by anything you've argued so far,
#3 is unsupported and possibly not even meaningful,
#4 seems largely irrelevant and apparently unconnected from every other point you make,
#5 pretty much undermines everything you say, disproving #6.

#5 is undermining because all one has to do is invent a "moral fsk" where torturing babies IS, in fact, the moral thing to do, and then badabing badaboom we all must do it, and gleefully.

Maybe, deep down somewhere, you have a really good case based on some really strong intuitions, but the presentation of the arguments so far is not remotely compelling.

Noted your counter.

Here is the rearranged version;

1. -killing a human being, whether baby or adult is a moral issue, thus an element of morality.
2. -it is evident 99.99% of humans do not torture human babies to death.
3. -there is an inherent Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death within all humans, i.e. universal. [A]
4. -this A can be verified to physical elements in the brain in terms of neurons, neural algorithm, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.
5. -when deliberated within a moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] this [A] is a moral fact that is objective.
6. -therefore Morality is objective.

Note the above is merely a hypothesis [not a theory] with my personal conviction it is highly probable.

With the above;
#3 is supported by 2.
Note the analogy;
It is evident 99.999% of humans sleep.
This can be verified to physical elements in the brain in terms of neurons, neural algorithm, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks, note;
Neuroscience of sleep
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sleep

Similarly there should be a Neuroscience related to
"an inherent Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death within all humans, i.e. universal."
I admit there are no specific neuroscientific studies on this subject yet, but there are research leading to it.
It is just a matter of time for neuroscience to confirm the above.

5. -when confirmed and deliberated within a moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] this [A] is a moral fact that is objective.
6. -therefore Morality is objective.

While the above is a mere hypothesis which is very likely, I have given very clear justification on the neuroscience of morality via mirror neurons and empathy [a critical element of morality].

#5 is undermining because all one has to do is invent a "moral fsk" where torturing babies IS, in fact, the moral thing to do, and then badabing badaboom we all must do it, and gleefully.

This is a strawman.
Torturing of babies to death is not a moral [defined avoid evil to enable good] element, worst if for pleasure.
Rather it is an evil [as defined] act.
As such, it will fit into a 'evil-FSK' [neuroscience of evil] not a moral-FSK.

It all just seems like begging the question to me.

And if it's only true within one particular FSK, that means it's not true in some other fsk.

And I still have no idea why it matters that most people don't do it. Is morality a democracy?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:50 am Noted your counter.

Here is the rearranged version;

1. -killing a human being, whether baby or adult is a moral issue, thus an element of morality.
2. -it is evident 99.99% of humans do not torture human babies to death.
3. -there is an inherent Ought-Not-Ness to Torture Human Babies to Death within all humans, i.e. universal. [A]
4. -this A can be verified to physical elements in the brain in terms of neurons, neural algorithm, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks.
5. -when deliberated within a moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] this [A] is a moral fact that is objective.
6. -therefore Morality is objective.

And thus....

1. -killing Hitler against the laws of Germany and the rules of the military was a moral issue, thus tautologically an element of morality.
2. -it is evident 99.99% of the German military, unlike Colonel von Stauffenberg, did not try to kill Hitler.
3. -there is an inherent Ought-Not-Ness to Kill Dictators within all humans, i.e. universal. [A]
4. -this A can be verified to physical elements in the brain in terms of neurons, neural algorithm, genes, DNA, atoms and quarks. Especially the quarks. No study has shown that that any quarks in any serving military person tried to kill Hitler.
5. -when deliberated within a moral Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] this [A] is a moral fact that is objective.
6. -therefore Morality is objective and we should do what we can to enhance the attitudes and behavioral traits that protect dictators from heinous murder attempts.