Philosophy Now Forum

If there are no humans there are no objective moral facts.
What is fact is contingent upon a human-based FSERC which entails intersubjective agreement within the FS and thus objective because it is independent from a or any individuals' opinion, beliefs or judgement.

What is morality-proper is exclusive to human beings.
(I have argued there are good reasons why morality-proper must be independent from non-humans.)

Therefore if there are no humans, there are no objective moral facts.

If there are objective moral facts, they cannot be absolutely independent of humans.

So if there are humans, there is the possibility of objective moral facts.
There are humans, therefore objective moral facts is a possibility.

Humans [human nature] are natural facts which can be verified and justified by science.
Morality is part of human nature.
Therefore there are moral facts.

The essence of morality within human beings are not the opinions, beliefs and judgments of right or wrong of the individuals.
The essence of morality are the moral acts, moral states. moral functions, moral algorithm that are universal within all humans and they are supported by universal physical neurons and the respective connectivity.
Part of these can be verified and justified via the scientific FSERC denoting objectivity and when transmuted within a moral FSERC, it general objective moral facts.

It is on this physical basis that morality is objective as contingent upon a specific human-based moral FSERC.

PH et. al. denier of objective moral facts is based on an illusion that there are absolute mind/human facts which exist regardless of whether there are human or not.
Since it is not possible for moral facts of such nature to exists, therefore morality cannot be objective [based on facts].
This is a refutation based on falsehood, thus a farce.

As above, I have demonstrated there are objective moral facts, thus morality is objective and I do not have to make any nonsensical assumptions.


Discuss??
Views??

Notes:

Notes:

Well, one thing it true, if there's only one human, that human's subjective assessment of what is morally right and wrong will, de facto, be the functionally objective criteria of right and wrong.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 4:55 pm Well, one thing it true, if there's only one human, that human's subjective assessment of what is morally right and wrong will, de facto, be the functionally objective criteria of right and wrong.

A morality that would be primarily about self-relation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 6:58 am The essence of morality are the moral acts, moral states. moral functions, moral algorithm that are universal within all humans and they are supported by universal physical neurons and the respective connectivity.

Right now across the world physical neurons in people are participating in the process leading to a vast array of contradictory moral choices. If we take physical neurons as the determiners of moral actions, then we are pretty much free to do whatever we want and call it morally objective. Not only that, it seems we'd be correct in that assessment.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 4:55 pm Well, one thing it true, if there's only one human, that human's subjective assessment of what is morally right and wrong will, de facto, be the functionally objective criteria of right and wrong.

The problem is, that 'if' is not a possibility at all.

What I am differentiating in the above is between the subjective opinions, beliefs & judgments of individuals and the physical moral functions & process within all human beings.

It is undeniable there is a fact of a physical algorithm 'oughtness' [represented by neurons] to breathe else die within all humans. A mentally suicidal person can decide not to breathe by asphyxiation, but that does not obviate the existence of the physical 'oughtness'.[represented by neurons] to breathe in him.
These moral oughtness are moral facts that support morality is objective.

From the above, it is obvious, because moral facts are in the human brain, if there are no humans there are no moral facts.

It is the same with facts of physical algorithm 'oughtness' [represented by neurons] that are morally related, i.e. the oughtness not to kill humans, interbreeding avoidance, slavery.
There are people who will kill for various reasons, but that does not obviate the existence of the physical 'oughtness' [represented by neurons] of oughtness not to kill humans.

It is a fact that humans are making moral choices activated by physical neurons in the human brain.
Because moral choices are subjective and can change with time, they cannot be moral facts per se.
However, because there is a moral function within all humans that make moral choices, there must be a moral function within the brain which physical and represented by neurons in activities.
These are possible to be verified by science therefrom can be transmuted within a moral FSERC to be a moral fact.
So if there are no humans, there are no such moral facts.

Moral choices reducible to moral facts are secondary to morality-proper.

What is critical with morality-proper are the inherent moral oughtness and ought-not-ness that are represented in the human brain as imperative features of evolution in varying degrees of activeness within humanity.
For example, among others, there is an inherent moral fact re the ought-not-ness to kill humans [supported by active neurons] embedded in ALL humans whilst not active in all humans are present.
This moral fact is objective as dealt within a human-collective moral FSERC.
So if there are no humans, there are no such moral facts.

If there are no humans, there are no such moral facts.
There is no question of whether there are universal moral facts without humans around, like those from a God or platonic forms which are absolutely independent of the human conditions. [1]
Philosophical realists refute there are no moral facts based on 1 above, thus they are relying on an illusion to refute any argument that there are no moral facts.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 6:16 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 4:55 pm Well, one thing it true, if there's only one human, that human's subjective assessment of what is morally right and wrong will, de facto, be the functionally objective criteria of right and wrong.

A morality that would be primarily about self-relation.

In relations to humans, yes. But there are moral stances on animals and the environment.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 1:40 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 4:55 pm Well, one thing it true, if there's only one human, that human's subjective assessment of what is morally right and wrong will, de facto, be the functionally objective criteria of right and wrong.

The problem is, that 'if' is not a possibility at all.

What I am differentiating in the above is between the subjective opinions, beliefs & judgments of individuals and the physical moral functions & process within all human beings.

It is undeniable there is a fact of a physical algorithm 'oughtness' [represented by neurons] to breathe else die within all humans. A mentally suicidal person can decide not to breathe by asphyxiation, but that does not obviate the existence of the physical 'oughtness'.[represented by neurons] to breathe in him.
These moral oughtness are moral facts that support morality is objective.

From the above, it is obvious, because moral facts are in the human brain, if there are no humans there are no moral facts.

It is the same with facts of physical algorithm 'oughtness' [represented by neurons] that are morally related, i.e. the oughtness not to kill humans, interbreeding avoidance, slavery.
There are people who will kill for various reasons, but that does not obviate the existence of the physical 'oughtness' [represented by neurons] of oughtness not to kill humans.

Well, 2-3% of humans don't have a neurological 'oughtness' not to kill humans. Not all of these people are murderers.

As to moral "facts", everyone picks the lowest possible hanging fruit (murder) to try to make their point. Okay. Is it a moral fact to not steal? What if your children are starving, is it a moral fact that it's wrong to steal a crust of bread?

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 7:13 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 6:16 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 4:55 pm Well, one thing it true, if there's only one human, that human's subjective assessment of what is morally right and wrong will, de facto, be the functionally objective criteria of right and wrong.

A morality that would be primarily about self-relation.

In relations to humans, yes. But there are moral stances on animals and the environment.

Yes. And those would rise in priority, at least I think that's likely for most people who find themselves having no human company.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 7:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 1:40 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 4:55 pm Well, one thing it true, if there's only one human, that human's subjective assessment of what is morally right and wrong will, de facto, be the functionally objective criteria of right and wrong.

The problem is, that 'if' is not a possibility at all.

What I am differentiating in the above is between the subjective opinions, beliefs & judgments of individuals and the physical moral functions & process within all human beings.

It is undeniable there is a fact of a physical algorithm 'oughtness' [represented by neurons] to breathe else die within all humans. A mentally suicidal person can decide not to breathe by asphyxiation, but that does not obviate the existence of the physical 'oughtness'.[represented by neurons] to breathe in him.
These moral oughtness are moral facts that support morality is objective.

From the above, it is obvious, because moral facts are in the human brain, if there are no humans there are no moral facts.

It is the same with facts of physical algorithm 'oughtness' [represented by neurons] that are morally related, i.e. the oughtness not to kill humans, interbreeding avoidance, slavery.
There are people who will kill for various reasons, but that does not obviate the existence of the physical 'oughtness' [represented by neurons] of oughtness not to kill humans.

Well, 2-3% of humans don't have a neurological 'oughtness' not to kill humans. Not all of these people are murderers.

As to moral "facts", everyone picks the lowest possible hanging fruit (murder) to try to make their point. Okay. Is it a moral fact to not steal? What if your children are starving, is it a moral fact that it's wrong to steal a crust of bread?

Its about fundamental human nature.
There is no exception that there is a biological oughtness to breathe inherent with ALL humans. This is hardwired in the DNA.

Some people may decide not to breathe by asphyxiation but that is due to damage, weakness due to various reason of their inherent embedded oughtness to breathe.
So they do have the neurological 'oughtness' but it damaged.

It is the same with the neurological 'oughtness' not to kill humans which is embedded in ALL humans without exception.
There may be 2-3% who has the the urge to kill, e.g. the malignant psychopaths and others but this is due to their weak neurological 'oughtness' not to kill humans algorithm.

This is where Ethical Theory is critical in recognizing the fact of the actual physical 'oughtness' not to kill humans in all humans, and taking steps in the future [not possible now] to ensure there are no weakness in this algorithm for all newborns and then no humans will have the urge to kill humans.
There may be very exceptional cases where humans has to be killed for good reasons but this should be kept of the minimum and ideally should be ZERO.

As to moral "facts", everyone picks the lowest possible hanging fruit (murder) to try to make their point. Okay. Is it a moral fact to not steal? What if your children are starving, is it a moral fact that it's wrong to steal a crust of bread?

If at present one has to steal for a greater good for the self or tribe, then go ahead but humanity must always look for prevention of such evil from its root causes in the future.

If starvation is the reason, then strive to ensure there is sufficient food [at least the basic] to go around in the future.

The point is with ethical theory, humanity must recognize it is moral fact [represented by it neural correlates] that stealing is immoral, then it has standard, physical and objective basis for prevention and elimination of the said evil.

In contrast, the moral relativists will tolerate or even encourage those who want to steal because it is their culture [e.g. gypsies, the robin hood, etc.] or because they are entitled to due to past exploitations and whatever the reasons.
Because the moral relativist do not apprehend any moral facts, there is no standard for them to promote moral improvements and prevention or elimination of the evil acts.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 7:22 am

Well, 2-3% of humans don't have a neurological 'oughtness' not to kill humans. Not all of these people are murderers.

I'd say it's more than that. First, I think you're thinking more of murder. The killing that is considered morally and legally wrong. Then if we look at murder, there are all sorts of practical reasons for people to not murder. Non-moral motivations. They may well want to kill, but don't want to go to prison - which I am distinguishing from the urge to, but being restrained by one's moral considerations. I don't know how to calculate how many people avoid murdering for non-moral reasons, but I assume there are more to add.

And then we have differing morals about when it is ok to kill, meaning that one person's murder is another person's...honor killing, for example.

And then many or most cultures share situations where it is ok to kill, to plan to kill and so on - in war, facing intruders in the home, and so on.

Then he refers to this as built in, not cultural. I think it is very unclear how much 'oughtness not to kill' is genetic. I certainly wouldn't give children, age 10 let's say, a machine with button to push which would kill whoever one wanted. I think we'd find rather fast while there are cultural prohibitions on killing, but less genetic prohibitions. And if this was a hand held device one could walk around with - rather than using at home when one can breath and think....oh man.

And of course there's no reason to label it 'oughtness'

Nor should we ignore that we have 'oughtnesses' to kill and harm also

If we accept that we can find morals by looking at what is in the neurophysiology of humans, then murder will continue. If we decide the current neurophysiology is not moral enough, well our ideas about what is moral is not coming from neurophysiology.

And VA has repeatedly stated that we need to enhance the current suboptimal neurophysiology to improve society.

I'm aligned with his general goal on this issue, but not on his justifcations or ontology. His proposals for methods of enhancing what he calls oughtnesses have at times given me dystopian shudders.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 11:04 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 7:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 1:40 am
The problem is, that 'if' is not a possibility at all.

What I am differentiating in the above is between the subjective opinions, beliefs & judgments of individuals and the physical moral functions & process within all human beings.

It is undeniable there is a fact of a physical algorithm 'oughtness' [represented by neurons] to breathe else die within all humans. A mentally suicidal person can decide not to breathe by asphyxiation, but that does not obviate the existence of the physical 'oughtness'.[represented by neurons] to breathe in him.
These moral oughtness are moral facts that support morality is objective.

From the above, it is obvious, because moral facts are in the human brain, if there are no humans there are no moral facts.

It is the same with facts of physical algorithm 'oughtness' [represented by neurons] that are morally related, i.e. the oughtness not to kill humans, interbreeding avoidance, slavery.
There are people who will kill for various reasons, but that does not obviate the existence of the physical 'oughtness' [represented by neurons] of oughtness not to kill humans.

Well, 2-3% of humans don't have a neurological 'oughtness' not to kill humans. Not all of these people are murderers.

As to moral "facts", everyone picks the lowest possible hanging fruit (murder) to try to make their point. Okay. Is it a moral fact to not steal? What if your children are starving, is it a moral fact that it's wrong to steal a crust of bread?

Its about fundamental human nature.
There is no exception that there is a biological oughtness to breathe inherent with ALL humans. This is hardwired in the DNA.

Some people may decide not to breathe by asphyxiation but that is due to damage, weakness due to various reason of their inherent embedded oughtness to breathe.
So they do have the neurological 'oughtness' but it damaged.

It is the same with the neurological 'oughtness' not to kill humans which is embedded in ALL humans without exception.
There may be 2-3% who has the the urge to kill, e.g. the malignant psychopaths and others but this is due to their weak neurological 'oughtness' not to kill humans algorithm.

This is where Ethical Theory is critical in recognizing the fact of the actual physical 'oughtness' not to kill humans in all humans, and taking steps in the future [not possible now] to ensure there are no weakness in this algorithm for all newborns and then no humans will have the urge to kill humans.
There may be very exceptional cases where humans has to be killed for good reasons but this should be kept of the minimum and ideally should be ZERO.

As to moral "facts", everyone picks the lowest possible hanging fruit (murder) to try to make their point. Okay. Is it a moral fact to not steal? What if your children are starving, is it a moral fact that it's wrong to steal a crust of bread?

If at present one has to steal for a greater good for the self or tribe, then go ahead but humanity must always look for prevention of such evil from its root causes in the future.

If starvation is the reason, then strive to ensure there is sufficient food [at least the basic] to go around in the future.

The point is with ethical theory, humanity must recognize it is moral fact [represented by it neural correlates] that stealing is immoral, then it has standard, physical and objective basis for prevention and elimination of the said evil.

In contrast, the moral relativists will tolerate or even encourage those who want to steal because it is their culture [e.g. gypsies, the robin hood, etc.] or because they are entitled to due to past exploitations and whatever the reasons.
Because the moral relativist do not apprehend any moral facts, there is no standard for them to promote moral improvements and prevention or elimination of the evil acts.

If only repeating one's fantasies again and again made them into fact. The reality is there is no known DNA locus specifically related to human's "oughtness" against murder. And even if there were, a mutation at that locus would create individuals who lacked this (fake) "fact".

As to your breathing analogy, plenty of humans don't have the drive to breathe, they just don't survive infancy.

So according to your red statements there are exceptions to moral "facts", thus they're not hard and fast objective, ie they're open to human subjective "interpretation". Okay. How is that substantively different from morality being subjective?

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 9:11 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 11:04 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2024 7:22 am

Well, 2-3% of humans don't have a neurological 'oughtness' not to kill humans. Not all of these people are murderers.

As to moral "facts", everyone picks the lowest possible hanging fruit (murder) to try to make their point. Okay. Is it a moral fact to not steal? What if your children are starving, is it a moral fact that it's wrong to steal a crust of bread?

Its about fundamental human nature.
There is no exception that there is a biological oughtness to breathe inherent with ALL humans. This is hardwired in the DNA.

Some people may decide not to breathe by asphyxiation but that is due to damage, weakness due to various reason of their inherent embedded oughtness to breathe.
So they do have the neurological 'oughtness' but it damaged.

It is the same with the neurological 'oughtness' not to kill humans which is embedded in ALL humans without exception.
There may be 2-3% who has the the urge to kill, e.g. the malignant psychopaths and others but this is due to their weak neurological 'oughtness' not to kill humans algorithm.

This is where Ethical Theory is critical in recognizing the fact of the actual physical 'oughtness' not to kill humans in all humans, and taking steps in the future [not possible now] to ensure there are no weakness in this algorithm for all newborns and then no humans will have the urge to kill humans.
There may be very exceptional cases where humans has to be killed for good reasons but this should be kept of the minimum and ideally should be ZERO.

As to moral "facts", everyone picks the lowest possible hanging fruit (murder) to try to make their point. Okay. Is it a moral fact to not steal? What if your children are starving, is it a moral fact that it's wrong to steal a crust of bread?

If at present one has to steal for a greater good for the self or tribe, then go ahead but humanity must always look for prevention of such evil from its root causes in the future.

If starvation is the reason, then strive to ensure there is sufficient food [at least the basic] to go around in the future.

The point is with ethical theory, humanity must recognize it is moral fact [represented by it neural correlates] that stealing is immoral, then it has standard, physical and objective basis for prevention and elimination of the said evil.

In contrast, the moral relativists will tolerate or even encourage those who want to steal because it is their culture [e.g. gypsies, the robin hood, etc.] or because they are entitled to due to past exploitations and whatever the reasons.
Because the moral relativist do not apprehend any moral facts, there is no standard for them to promote moral improvements and prevention or elimination of the evil acts.

If only repeating one's fantasies again and again made them into fact. The reality is there is no known DNA locus specifically related to human's "oughtness" against murder. And even if there were, a mutation at that locus would create individuals who lacked this (fake) "fact".

Repeating one's fantasies?? You seem to be ignorant on this topic.
We already have the clues that empathy [a mainstay of morality, note nuances] has its objective physical correlates [scientifically verified and verifiable] represented by mirror neurons.

The inference is, whatever is basic to human nature is encoded in the DNA and the genome. It is just that at present we do not have the competence to trace it to the related codes [not necessary specific but could be a combinations of hardwired codes].

As I had stated if there is damage [mutations] to the algorithm at the DNA stage or later, there could be exceptions but it would not have made the overall intended system disappear.
What results is merely a damaged system.
For example, there could be damage to the inherent digestive system and if the person[s] is still alive, we still have an inherent digestive system albeit a damaged or not normal one.

So the fact of the ought_notness-of-killing-of-humans [not murder by any killing] still remain albeit damaged.
The fact that the Earth's population rose from 100 million in year 0 to 8.5 billion in 2024 is very evident the ought_notness-of-killing-of-humans [very adaptive] is at work.

As to your breathing analogy, plenty of humans don't have the drive to breathe, they just don't survive infancy.

For those who do not survive infancy, that do not imply they did not have the inherent physical system that triggers the drive to breathe.
They could have died for many reasons but that does not obviate the inherent physical system that triggers the drive to breathe.

So according to your red statements there are exceptions to moral "facts", thus they're not hard and fast objective, ie they're open to human subjective "interpretation". Okay. How is that substantively different from morality being subjective?

Take the analogy of the universal inherent digestive [nutritional] system in ALL human encoded in the DNA.
Here there are the objective elements [the physical and basic expressions] and the subjective elements [the preferences for type, preparation taste of food].

It is the same with the inherent moral system; there are the objective and subjective elements.
Some percentile could be exceptions with subjective preferences due to various reasons, but that does not obviate the inherent physical moral system and basic processes & algorithm [the objective moral facts] within them.
What are moral facts I argued are the the inherent physical moral system and basic processes, not the personal subjective conditional opinions, beliefs and judgments that are expressed from these basic physical system.

There are many cases where evil was committed [these were the exceptions and subjective] but the guilt was so strong and painful that they could not live with it, so they confess their crime or commit suicide.
These cases are evident there is an inherent objective [standard] moral facts [embedded] which act as objective standards that activate the conscience.