The Philosophy Discussion Forum

If the Last Universal Cell Ancestor [LUCA] within the primordial soup did not have this inherent 'moral' inhibitors "not to kill its own kind", we would not be here to day.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 11, 2023 2:45 pm Moral discourse is about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.
And if VA isn't talking about that, then VA isn't talking about morality.
But, as it happens, VA thinks morality is to do with avoiding evil and promoting good - and has no way to explain why we should do so.

Typically, morality is associated with right or wrong which is not rigoristic enough as required for the purpose of morality proper. This is why moral progress is at snail pace since humans emerged to the present.
As the saying goes 'One's man meat is another man's poison'; What is morally right to Hitler is obviously wrong any normal people.

Morality-proper as 'eliminating evil'* to enable its related good is very effective definition for 'what is morality'.
*that is an ideal to strive for and in practice strive to be as close as optimally possible to the ideal.

I have explained, i.e. 'the killing of humans by humans' is one significant example of an evil act, thus that is an immoral act.
There is an 'oughtness not to kill humans' [moral impulse] programmed in the DNA of ALL humans via a 4 billion years history of evolution.
This is the objective moral fact inherent in all humans, i.e. independent of anyone's opinion, beliefs and judgments.

If the Last Universal Cell Ancestor [LUCA] within the primordial soup did not have this inherent 'moral' inhibitors "not to kill its own kind", we would not be here to day.

• The Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) or universal most recent common ancestor (UMRCA) is the most recent population from which all organisms now living on Earth share common descent—the most recent common ancestor of all current life on Earth. -wiki

Notes:
The "not to kill its own kind" inhibitor is inherent in all living things as a potential thus an objective fact.
However in real life, organisms [including humans] do kill their own kind.
This does not mean there is no such inherent inhibitor, but rather the neural inhibitor is not working up to its full potential due to various reasons. [dormancy, inactive, damaged, weakened, etc.]

But the point is "not to kill its own kind" neural inhibitor prevailed in all species that are surviving at the present.
We can infer the above based on the fact that 99% of humans do not kill humans as normal impulse, like breathing, drinking water, eating, sports or sex [re adults].

All non-humans living entities do not engage in what is morality-proper.
Only humans deliberate on moral-proper matters.
When this "not to kill its own kind -humans" is incorporated into a moral FSK, it is an objective moral fact which can act as a standard to guide moral progress towards an ideal of ZERO killing of humans by humans.

Why should evil be avoided? And is it a fact that evil should be avoided?

Intriguing theory!

"Roses, I love roses, red, red, roses!" Tom was on cloud 9. "True, red roses touch a cord in us all! I like red roses too!" Dick was resonating with Tom. Harry meanwhile looked deadish - he was staring out into the garden exploding with the colors of spring - he heard the buzz of bees and the soft croaking of frogs, there was an artificial pond in the garden. He spoke in monotone, robotishly, "I must find the red rose in ..." Before he could finish ... Thump, Crash ... the window shattered, a million pieces of glass lay on the floor. Tom and Dick barely noticed the missing pane or the cold air wafting into the room, they asked, "Yes, find the red rose in ...?" "Whoever broke the window pays for it! I'm hungry!" Harry had snapped out of the trance.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 7:06 am Why should evil be avoided? And is it a fact that evil should be avoided?

As as clue and a lead to understanding 'WHY'
do you want your child to be tortured and killed for pleasure by another human?
do you want your child to be raped and killed for pleasure by another human?
do you want yourself and relatives to be victims of a genocide by other humans?

How many humans out of the 8 billion and > from the past, would say yes to the above?

Btw, the above is an objective moral fact inherent within ALL humans, but as inherent can only be use as a standard and guide but should NEVER be imposed on any individual.

Who looked at the LUCA, deep in sulphuric heat vents, so that it existed? Obviously it wasn't us.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:53 am If the Last Universal Cell Ancestor [LUCA] within the primordial soup did not have this inherent 'moral' inhibitors "not to kill its own kind", we would not be here to day.

Why would we not call this behavioral inhibitors and leave it at that. Then we can see that lack of behavior X, contributes to profileration of speciies LUCA. How is this 'moral' let alone moral inhibitors?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 10:11 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:53 am If the Last Universal Cell Ancestor [LUCA] within the primordial soup did not have this inherent 'moral' inhibitors "not to kill its own kind", we would not be here to day.

Why would we not call this behavioral inhibitors and leave it at that. Then we can see that lack of behavior X, contributes to profileration of speciies LUCA. How is this 'moral' let alone moral inhibitors?

Agreed. All VA can say is that 'killing your own kind' is 'evil', and should therefore be avoided. Why it should be avoided - and why any species should survive - are just 'givens', with no justification. It's a kind of cognitive calcification.

Overheard ...

Magnus Deus (seasonal flu) wrote:When you treat koff koff like you treat koff koff, I'll come.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 10:36 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 10:11 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:53 am If the Last Universal Cell Ancestor [LUCA] within the primordial soup did not have this inherent 'moral' inhibitors "not to kill its own kind", we would not be here to day.

Why would we not call this behavioral inhibitors and leave it at that. Then we can see that lack of behavior X, contributes to profileration of speciies LUCA. How is this 'moral' let alone moral inhibitors?

Agreed. All VA can say is that 'killing your own kind' is 'evil', and should therefore be avoided. Why it should be avoided - and why any species should survive - are just 'givens', with no justification. It's a kind of cognitive calcification.

It would also mean that seeking-food-neurons lead to eating as an objective moral fact.
Or even genes-that-express-as-a-cell-wall are moral neurons and having a cell membrane is an objective moral fact.
And for the complaint that a cell membrane is a thing not a behavior....um, that's not really true. A cell membrane is a process or series of processes, and those are behaviors. The cell membrane regulates the transport of materials entering and exiting the cell.

Are we really going to say transporting more glucose across the cell membrane is moral behavior. No.
Oh, but it's not interpersonal.
OK, cell membranes are involved in intercellular communciation. And our cells are as complicated as earlier primordial soup organisms. Is this moral behavior, this intercellular communciation.

Well, then trees are moral creatures. Because they share water with other trees that have a shortage (interesting fact) even across species.

I hope VA let's us know when he thinks trees are moral agents (I'm open to it, but I doubt he is).

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 10:36 am Agreed. All VA can say is that 'killing your own kind' is 'evil', and should therefore be avoided. Why it should be avoided - and why any species should survive - are just 'givens', with no justification. It's a kind of cognitive calcification.

What I am saying is the 'killing your own kind' is embedded as a physical algorithm [thus an objective fact] in ALL species and especially the existing species.
Theoretically, Rationally and in principle, 'oughtness not-to-kill-own-kind' has to be inherent in all individuals, else, a species will be in a self-destruction mode.

This is self-evident by all normal human beings who are aware they do not simply go out to kill another human.
Hypothetically, via biology, we can infer there must be something [inhibitor system] in the brain that is inhibiting normal humans from killing their own kind.
This can be tested, verified and justified, i.e. when people are brainwashed to loosen that 'oughtness not-to-kill-humans' they will kill or if their inhibitors are damaged or weakened to various reasons.
You can even test it on yourself by joining some death cults of that promote suicide bombing, i.e. be a fundamentalist-extremist Muslim of the ISIS sort.

The above is the reason why the inherent objective 'killing your own kind' [support by physical neural correlates] should be avoided in principle but as I had stated, it does not mean humans must impose this ought on others.
The imposition of 'ought' by humans on other humans is 'political' i.e. via laws and threat of punishment; this is independent from Morality.

Since 'killing of humans by humans' is such a serious matter for humanity to the extent capital punishment is imposed via politics and yet there is no significant progress,
why not develop the inherent objective moral fact of 'oughtness not-to-kill-humans' naturally, i.e. via Morality,
so that the moral competent person will have a more active inhibitor within to prevent ALL humans from killing other humans naturally.

This is why the recognition of the inherent objective moral fact of 'oughtness not-to-kill-humans' within the human brain is critical.
Once we understand how the mechanisms work in the brain, then it is possible for humanity to improve the inherent inhibitor in a FOOLPROOF mode.
When we can do, humanity can strive toward the vision of the ideal of ZERO killings of humans by humans.

In your case, you do not have any objective bearings to enable moral progress while accepting with resignation that it is naturally within humanity, evil is inevitable, e.g. for your babies and children to be tortured and killed for pleasure, where the only hope is for the law to punish the culprits; where after one is caught, there will be others doing the same evil till eternity.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 4:52 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 10:36 am Agreed. All VA can say is that 'killing your own kind' is 'evil', and should therefore be avoided. Why it should be avoided - and why any species should survive - are just 'givens', with no justification. It's a kind of cognitive calcification.

What I am saying is the 'killing your own kind' is embedded as a physical algorithm [thus an objective fact] in ALL species and especially the existing species.
Theoretically, Rationally and in principle, 'oughtness not-to-kill-own-kind' has to be inherent in all individuals, else, a species will be in a self-destruction mode.

Nope. Ths is an oversimplification. There certainly is a tendency in most species not to kill one's own species much of the time. But in many species, from complex to simple, members kill each other some of the time. So, to be objective, these species have an overall objective morality - if we use VA's methodology - where sometimes killing other members of your species is objective moral fact. There are species, not ours, that almost never do this or have never been seen to do this. There objective moral facts do not include murder. But for many species, it is included.

You don't get to just wish this away.

This is self-evident by all normal human beings who are aware they do not simply go out to kill another human.
Hypothetically, via biology, we can infer there must be something [inhibitor system] in the brain that is inhibiting normal humans from killing their own kind.
This can be tested, verified and justified, i.e. when people are brainwashed to loosen that 'oughtness not-to-kill-humans' they will kill or if their inhibitors are damaged or weakened to various reasons.

Nope. First of all there are cultural pressures to be violent and to not be violent. Humans have always been bathed in both. Some people kill, some don't.

VA is cherry picking AGAIN.

We have aggressive and empathetic tendencies. Unlike some species we murder our own sometimes. We have neurons invovled in patterns of aggression, including murder. We have neurons involved in patterns of empathy. Then we experience life. Sometimes this leads to murder, generally it does not. But you don't get to label some experiences brainwashing - which implies and organized attempt to change someone's mind - and not notice that there are organized attempts to make people less aggressive.

It is a fact that unlike some species our species and many others murder.

In your case, you do not have any objective bearings to enable moral progress while accepting with resignation that it is naturally within humanity, evil is inevitable, e.g. for your babies and children to be tortured and killed for pleasure, where the only hope is for the law to punish the culprits; where after one is caught, there will be others doing the same evil till eternity.

And this is a strawman argument. One can believe there are no objective moral facts, but still argue in favor of policies that reduce behaviors one does not like. One can argue for parenting approaches, schooling approaches and more that reduce murder.

VA does not understand that he cannot focus on batch of neurons A and say they demonstrate objective moral fact X, but refuse to grant that these aggressive neurons over here would then, logically, entail the different kinds of violence, including murder, being objective moral facts also.

That is by definition cherry picking.

Second, he would need to explain why humans should not, according to his own schema, be considered objectively moral murderers, given that some species murder and some do not.

Third, he cannot cherry pick the experiences/parenting/subculture patterns that lead to increased violence as brainwashing, while not calling experiences/parenting/subculture patterns that are consciously aimed at reducing human violence also brainwashing.

He assumes, based on nothing, that anyone pointing out the fallacies in his arguments is hopeless. This is

ad hominim arguing and a fallacy of assumption.

He also doesn't want to look at how shaky his LUCU argument is given that murder is part of the natural, unbrainwashed behavior of many species.

So VA here is engaging in cherry picking, fallacies of assumption, ad hominim and strawman arguments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZt7J0iaUD0

-Imp