ALL Humans Ought To Breathe is a Moral Objective

[FlashDangerpants]

Your reasoning power is too low.

There are at most 3-5% of adult males who are pedophiles.

• The prevalence of pedophilic disorder is unknown, but the highest possible prevalence in the male population is theorized to be approximately three to five percent. The prevalence in the female population is thought to be a small fraction of the prevalence in males.https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/co ... pedophilia

If all paedophiles ought to fuck children, and if universalized in theory, that will not lead to the potential, the human species will be exterminated.

On the other hand, if "all human ought not to breathe" is universalized, then in theory, it will have the potential to exterminate the human race.

Then the ought wasn't derived from the is at all. It derived from other oughts that you simply didn't mention when it didn't suit you.

Nah, it is not merely from other oughts, they are the whole package and complementary to the justification of the resulting 'ought'.

Note my argument on how ought is inferred from "is" logically.

• The "is" is very evident, every living human is breathing at present.
  Thus it can be inferred [derived, abstracted] an 'ought' - 'all living humans must breath or else they all will die and the human species will be extinct.
  My derivation of an 'ought' from 'is' is very logical.

It is so obvious, I have derived the principle, i.e. an objective ought from empirical evidence.
This is so logical, rational, sound and justifiable -what's there for you to complain otherwise.

You just smuggled in a moral ought there. Namely that eradicating the human race ought not.
Now you are going to try and derive that one from an is. And the below is how I am going to fuck you over when you try that.

• The "is" is very evident, every paedophile is committed to the fucking of children.
  Thus it can be inferred [derived, abstracted] an 'ought' - 'all paedophiles humans must fuck children.
  My derivation of an 'ought' from 'is' is very logical.

It is so obvious, I have derived the principle, i.e. an objective ought from empirical evidence.
This is so logical, rational, sound and justifiable -what's there for you to complain otherwise.

I told you already what the problem is with your logic. You are trying to infer substantiated moral fact from morally neutral goals that can be either bad or good depending on the rationale behind them. Your failure is guaranteed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You just smuggled in a moral ought there. Namely that eradicating the human race ought not.
Now you are going to try and derive that one from an is. And the below is how I am going to fuck you over when you try that.

• The "is" is very evident, every paedophile is committed to the fucking of children.
  Thus it can be inferred [derived, abstracted] an 'ought' - 'all paedophiles humans must fuck children.
  My derivation of an 'ought' from 'is' is very logical.

It is so obvious, I have derived the principle, i.e. an objective ought from empirical evidence.
This is so logical, rational, sound and justifiable -what's there for you to complain otherwise.

I told you already what the problem is with your logic. You are trying to infer substantiated moral fact from morally neutral goals that can be either bad or good depending on the rationale behind them. Your failure is guaranteed.

Are you that ignorant?
How can you compare the 'breathing' and paedophile fucking children.

The need to breath is so obvious but we cannot exclude it from the subject of morality.
Note I provided the definition of morality above, did you read that.

• Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
  The imperative to breath by a human can be subsumed within the distinction between right/good and wrong/evil behavior.
  Therefore the imperative to breath by a human has elements of morality.

Therefore the imperative to breath by a human is not a morally neutral goals.

My view is those who use loads of unnecessary vulgar and expletive words are immoral and are bastards. Such words has no philosophical values other than reflecting there is something very wrong with the mental state of the person who use it.
I will not be responding where I see vulgar, swear and expletive word[s] is any response.

[FlashDangerpants]

You just smuggled in a moral ought there. Namely that eradicating the human race ought not.
Now you are going to try and derive that one from an is. And the below is how I am going to fuck you over when you try that.

• The "is" is very evident, every paedophile is committed to the fucking of children.
  Thus it can be inferred [derived, abstracted] an 'ought' - 'all paedophiles humans must fuck children.
  My derivation of an 'ought' from 'is' is very logical.

It is so obvious, I have derived the principle, i.e. an objective ought from empirical evidence.
This is so logical, rational, sound and justifiable -what's there for you to complain otherwise.

I told you already what the problem is with your logic. You are trying to infer substantiated moral fact from morally neutral goals that can be either bad or good depending on the rationale behind them. Your failure is guaranteed.

Are you that ignorant?
How can you compare the 'breathing' and paedophile fucking children.

The problem is that you have failed to distinguish between moral goals and just any old desire that can be good or bad. So YOU cannot distinguish between any goals, good, bad or neutral. So I gave you an example of a bad goal that your logic, if it were true, would justify. It's trivially simple to do more, just pick any bad motivation that people have, and because you are using all motivations as a source of is goodness, you will have the same issue.

Eventually, if you have the intelligence to get ever there, you will realise that this is a fundamental problem with your argument. It is something you cannot paper over with yet another restatement of the same reasoning.

The need to breath is so obvious but we cannot exclude it from the subject of morality.

Trying to justify breaching the is-ought barrier on the basis of an is assumed as an ought is a circular argument.
Breathing is not a moral decision that we make.

Note I provided the definition of morality above, did you read that.

• Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
  The imperative to breath by a human can be subsumed within the distinction between right/good and wrong/evil behavior.
  Therefore the imperative to breath by a human has elements of morality.

You just skip from a boring definition about right and wrong to some nonsense about subsuming a biological function. Breathing cannot just be subsumed into morality by asserting it without justification.

My view is those who use loads of unnecessary vulgar and expletive words are immoral and are bastards. Such words has no philosophical values other than reflecting there is something very wrong with the mental state of the person who use it.
I will not be responding where I see vulgar, swear and expletive word[s] is any response.

Don't be a wanker.

[surreptitious57]

Hume Father of Postmodernism and Anti rationalism

I will have to read this because I would have said that the founders of post modernism were Foucault and Sartre and not Hume
They developed it in I948 and it was adopted in the humanities and social sciences in Europe after the collapse of Communism

[Veritas Aequitas]

You just smuggled in a moral ought there. Namely that eradicating the human race ought not.
Now you are going to try and derive that one from an is. And the below is how I am going to fuck you over when you try that.

I told you already what the problem is with your logic. You are trying to infer substantiated moral fact from morally neutral goals that can be either bad or good depending on the rationale behind them. Your failure is guaranteed.

Are you that ignorant?
How can you compare the 'breathing' and paedophile fucking children.

The problem is that you have failed to distinguish between moral goals and just any old desire that can be good or bad. So YOU cannot distinguish between any goals, good, bad or neutral. So I gave you an example of a bad goal that your logic, if it were true, would justify. It's trivially simple to do more, just pick any bad motivation that people have, and because you are using all motivations as a source of is goodness, you will have the same issue.

Eventually, if you have the intelligence to get ever there, you will realise that this is a fundamental problem with your argument. It is something you cannot paper over with yet another restatement of the same reasoning.

The need to breath is so obvious but we cannot exclude it from the subject of morality.

Trying to justify breaching the is-ought barrier on the basis of an is assumed as an ought is a circular argument.
Breathing is not a moral decision that we make.

Note I provided the definition of morality above, did you read that.

• Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
  The imperative to breath by a human can be subsumed within the distinction between right/good and wrong/evil behavior.
  Therefore the imperative to breath by a human has elements of morality.

You just skip from a boring definition about right and wrong to some nonsense about subsuming a biological function. Breathing cannot just be subsumed into morality by asserting it without justification.

My view is those who use loads of unnecessary vulgar and expletive words are immoral and are bastards. Such words has no philosophical values other than reflecting there is something very wrong with the mental state of the person who use it.
I will not be responding where I see vulgar, swear and expletive word[s] is any response.

Don't be a wanker.

The 'all humans ought to breathe' can be extrapolated and subsumed as a moral ought for morality.

• P1. Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour or activities.
  P2. Breathing is a human activity and behavior
  C1. Therefore breathing is subsumed within Morality.

Example,
"no human ought to stop a human from breathing"
because,
'all humans ought to breathe' so obvious and easily verified and justified as a true fact.
else, the human species will be extinct.

Thus it is morally wrong for one human to stop another from breathing, for example,
1. -covering and seal the person's head with a plastic.
2. -poisoning the person with carbon monoxide,
3. -do whatever to stop another from breathing, thus caused death.

Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

The above 1-3 are wrong and bad human behavior thus immoral which belong to the Philosophy of Morality.

Your philosophy is too narrow and shallow, thus you are ignorant and cannot see the relevance.
You are so blinded by your dogma within your silo, I am not expecting you to see the truth of the above anyway.

[FlashDangerpants]

• P1. Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour or activities.
  P2. Breathing is a human activity and behavior
  C1. Therefore breathing is subsumed within Morality.

Example,
"no human ought to stop a human from breathing"
because,
'all humans ought to breathe' so obvious and easily verified and justified as a true fact.
else, the human species will be extinct.

Thus it is morally wrong for one human to stop another from breathing, for example,
1. -covering and seal the person's head with a plastic.
2. -poisoning the person with carbon monoxide,
3. -do whatever to stop another from breathing, thus caused death.

That's not an ought derived from an is though. It's just a statement that murder is morally wrong and therefore murdering people by closing their airways is wrong too. That's an ought from an ought.

Your argument that it is morally wrong to hold your breath if somebody farts in your elevator will not stand.

[Veritas Aequitas]

• P1. Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour or activities.
  P2. Breathing is a human activity and behavior
  C1. Therefore breathing is subsumed within Morality.

Example,
"no human ought to stop a human from breathing"
because,
'all humans ought to breathe' so obvious and easily verified and justified as a true fact.
else, the human species will be extinct.

Thus it is morally wrong for one human to stop another from breathing, for example,
1. -covering and seal the person's head with a plastic.
2. -poisoning the person with carbon monoxide,
3. -do whatever to stop another from breathing, thus caused death.

That's not an ought derived from an is though. It's just a statement that murder is morally wrong and therefore murdering people by closing their airways is wrong too. That's an ought from an ought.

Your argument that it is morally wrong to hold your breath if somebody farts in your elevator will not stand.

Your response is philosophically immature.

Your'e relying too much and blindly on hearsay of Hume's Guillotine.
You are ignorant of the basis of Hume's Guillotine.
Note;

Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739):

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs;
when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.
This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence.

For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.

But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Note Hume's counter is primarily targeted as ontological moral oughts from a God and other baseless arguments.

As Hume expected;

• 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given

I have provided the argument how the secular ought can be justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
Most philosophers did not think of starting and using the imperative breathing as a basis.

Farts or otherwise, no human can hold their breathe forever!
World record without taking oxygen first is about 11:54 minutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_apnea
With pre-breath oxygen is 24 minutes.

[FlashDangerpants]

Farts or otherwise, no human can hold their breathe forever!
World record without taking oxygen first is about 11:54 minutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_apnea
With pre-breath oxygen is 24 minutes.

So the wrongness of the breath holding is not inherited from an is, it is dependent on an ought - namely that you ought not to kill people.
It isn't an ought from an is.

Do you understand your fundamental failure yet? Of course not, you are a fanatic. So you will just put the same argument into different words and assume that makes it new.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Farts or otherwise, no human can hold their breathe forever!
World record without taking oxygen first is about 11:54 minutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_apnea
With pre-breath oxygen is 24 minutes.

So the wrongness of the breath holding is not inherited from an is, it is dependent on an ought - namely that you ought not to kill people.
It isn't an ought from an is.

Do you understand your fundamental failure yet? Of course not, you are a fanatic. So you will just put the same argument into different words and assume that makes it new.

Note my argument;

• P1. At first the ought to breathe is inferred from "is" the evident empirical, i.e. all living are [IS] observed to be breathing.
  P2. Thus is in directly inferred 'all human ought to breathe' else the human species will be extinct.
  C1. Then it deductively follows from no human can kill another human by preventing people from breathing by whatever the means.

I have also linked the above to morality:

• P1. Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour or activities.
  P2. Breathing is a human activity and behavior
  C1. Therefore breathing is subsumed within Morality.

All my premises followed to the conclusion.
Just don't say, show me systematically where did my subsumption of the premises failed.

[FlashDangerpants]

Farts or otherwise, no human can hold their breathe forever!
World record without taking oxygen first is about 11:54 minutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_apnea
With pre-breath oxygen is 24 minutes.

So the wrongness of the breath holding is not inherited from an is, it is dependent on an ought - namely that you ought not to kill people.
It isn't an ought from an is.

Do you understand your fundamental failure yet? Of course not, you are a fanatic. So you will just put the same argument into different words and assume that makes it new.

Note my argument;

• P1. At first the ought to breathe is inferred from "is" the evident empirical, i.e. all living are [IS] observed to be breathing.
  P2. Thus is in directly inferred 'all human ought to breathe' else the human species will be extinct.
  C1. Then it deductively follows from no human can kill another human by preventing people from breathing by whatever the means.

Some humans must breathe or else the species becomes extinct, so " 'all human ought to breathe' else the human species will be extinct." is obviously untrue. This sort of clumsiness is a hallmark of all your work.

Your P1 has a goal-directed, morally neutral ought.
Your P2 adds nothing and is only there becuase you think syllogisms need a set number of Ps.
Your conclusion isn't a moral ought, it is practical one. Even if the P2 were valid the conclusion would not be a sound moral argument.

I have also linked the above to morality:

• P1. Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour or activities.
  P2. Breathing is a human activity and behavior
  C1. Therefore breathing is subsumed within Morality.

All my premises followed to the conclusion.
Just don't say, show me systematically where did my subsumption of the premises failed.

P1 is fine
P2 is fine
C is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Neither P shows that ALL human activity or behaviour constitutes a moral choice. You just wrote that morality refers to human behaviours. So you have to find a reason for breathing in your sleep to become a moral decision to make this argument work, but that was the point of the argument, so it fails.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So the wrongness of the breath holding is not inherited from an is, it is dependent on an ought - namely that you ought not to kill people.
It isn't an ought from an is.

Do you understand your fundamental failure yet? Of course not, you are a fanatic. So you will just put the same argument into different words and assume that makes it new.

Note my argument;

• P1. At first the ought to breathe is inferred from "is" the evident empirical, i.e. all living are [IS] observed to be breathing.
  P2. Thus is in directly inferred 'all human ought to breathe' else the human species will be extinct.
  C1. Then it deductively follows from no human can kill another human by preventing people from breathing by whatever the means.

Some humans must breathe or else the species becomes extinct,
so " 'all human ought to breathe' else the human species will be extinct." is obviously untrue.
This sort of clumsiness is a hallmark of all your work.

The above is due to the clumsiness of your thinking and reasoning not mine.

My P1 above did not assert 'SOME' but to ALL living humans.
This is observed from empirical evidences.
What is critical it is a personal confirmation you and each individual humans, i.e. they must breathe or else they know they will die.
You dispute this?
Science confirmed it is human nature that all humans but breathe to survive.
Thus by reasoning and theory,
ALL human ought to breathe, else the human species will be extinct.
How can this theory be untrue?

Your P1 has a goal-directed, morally neutral ought.
Your P2 adds nothing and is only there becuase you think syllogisms need a set number of Ps.
Your conclusion isn't a moral ought, it is practical one. Even if the P2 were valid the conclusion would not be a sound moral argument.

"ALL human ought to breathe" is basically a biological fact.
However, for the sake of improving good and right human behavior to preserve the human species, this biological fact can be deducted as a moral fact via the argument below as confined within the moral framework.

• P1. Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour or activities.
  P2. Breathing is a human activity and behavior
  C1. Therefore breathing is subsumed within Morality.

Note what Hume condemned was ontological ought out of nowhere from an justified God [illusory] based on faith and not based on sound reasoning.
You keep thinking of such a moral ought from theological model of morality.

What I have introduced is a secular model of morality and ethics based on secular moral oughts not God-driven-oughts.
The point is when I embed the secular ought as justified above, it will work to facilitate improvements in right and good behavior of the individual human.

I have also linked the above to morality:

• P1. Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour or activities.
  P2. Breathing is a human activity and behavior
  C1. Therefore breathing is subsumed within Morality.

All my premises followed to the conclusion.
Just don't say, show me systematically where did my subsumption of the premises failed.

P1 is fine
P2 is fine
C is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Neither P shows that ALL human activity or behaviour constitutes a moral choice. You just wrote that morality refers to human behaviours. So you have to find a reason for breathing in your sleep to become a moral decision to make this argument work, but that was the point of the argument, so it fails.

You are off tangent with "moral choice."
You have no basis to assert "C is neither necessary nor sufficient" when it is soundly deducted and followed.
Draw the relevant Vern Diagrams to check the 'subsumption'.

I asserted "all human ought to breathe" as a moral ought which is to be used as a GUIDE only. There is no question of having to make choice here.

Since it is merely a guide, there are no moral decisions as such.
What we have are flexible ethical decisions, e.g. in euthanasia, murder by strangling, asphyxiation, and other evil acts that deprived one of oxygen leading to death.

Whilst the moral ought and absolute is merely a GUIDE only, it will not be enforced.

• Example
  Thus where euthanasia is flexed [breathing stop artificially] and allowed due to circumstances, it must be contrasted with the moral GUIDE.
  Say, there are 1000 cases of permitted euthanasia.
  Because the moral GUIDE is ZERO euthanasia, the variance between the GUIDE and actual, is 1000 cases of euthanasia.
  This will trigger actions to reduce the number of cases to as many as possible to the moral GUIDE - an ideal, most likely impossible to achieve .

Without the ZERO GUIDE, there will be no standard to improve on the number of euthanasia which could keep increasing each year and vulnerable to be abused by evil people.

Therefore to improve on good and right human behavior, we need an efficient moral framework where a secular moral ought as GUIDE is imperative.
I have justified secular moral ought as GUIDE as argued above.

YOU? you are not contributing an efficient framework nor system to guide the human individuals to improve on good and right human behavior in alignment with the natural flow of humanity.

[FlashDangerpants]

Note my argument;

• P1. At first the ought to breathe is inferred from "is" the evident empirical, i.e. all living are [IS] observed to be breathing.
  P2. Thus is in directly inferred 'all human ought to breathe' else the human species will be extinct.
  C1. Then it deductively follows from no human can kill another human by preventing people from breathing by whatever the means.

Some humans must breathe or else the species becomes extinct,
so " 'all human ought to breathe' else the human species will be extinct." is obviously untrue.
This sort of clumsiness is a hallmark of all your work.

The above is due to the clumsiness of your thinking and reasoning not mine.

My P1 above did not assert 'SOME' but to ALL living humans.
This is observed from empirical evidences.

Dealing with you is beneath me, so I am going to stop again. To illustrate why, look at your words above. If the following statement is true...
'all human ought to breathe' else the human species will be extinct.
Then it follows as an entailment that every time any person stops breathing, the human species goes extinct.
So the human species has been extinguished billions of times.

Otherwise my correction: Some humans must breathe or else the species becomes extinct, is more accurate. Techinically I should say ONE human must breathe or else the species is extinct.

Having to beat this simple shit into your worthless head over and over again is not interesting to me, especially as we both know you will only present the same stupid argument in new words again anyway.

Your argument is bad, I have given you the reasons. This bullshit about 'guides' makes no difference and isn't worth discussing. Hume's original intentions aren't a factor in the least. You can't turn values into facts or facts into values because one is inherently quantitative and the other is qualitative and none of the garbage you throw up here changes that essential distinction. This is information you have been given before and it went straight over your head. Obviously that is happening again now.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Some humans must breathe or else the species becomes extinct,
so " 'all human ought to breathe' else the human species will be extinct." is obviously untrue.
This sort of clumsiness is a hallmark of all your work.

The above is due to the clumsiness of your thinking and reasoning not mine.

My P1 above did not assert 'SOME' but to ALL living humans.
This is observed from empirical evidences.

Dealing with you is beneath me, so I am going to stop again. To illustrate why, look at your words above. If the following statement is true...
'all human ought to breathe' else the human species will be extinct.
Then it follows as an entailment that every time any person stops breathing, the human species goes extinct.
So the human species has been extinguished billions of times.

Otherwise my correction: Some humans must breathe or else the species becomes extinct, is more accurate. Techinically I should say ONE human must breathe or else the species is extinct.

Having to beat this simple shit into your worthless head over and over again is not interesting to me, especially as we both know you will only present the same stupid argument in new words again anyway.

Your argument is bad, I have given you the reasons. This bullshit about 'guides' makes no difference and isn't worth discussing. Hume's original intentions aren't a factor in the least. You can't turn values into facts or facts into values because one is inherently quantitative and the other is qualitative and none of the garbage you throw up here changes that essential distinction. This is information you have been given before and it went straight over your head. Obviously that is happening again now.

It is your perogative and discretion to discuss whenever you want.
It is me who is hesitant to discuss with you, given your natural propensity to get intellectually violent, thus immoral.

You missed this point of mine;

• Science confirmed it is human nature that all humans MUST breathe to survive.
  Thus by reasoning and theory,
  ALL human ought to breathe, else the human species will be extinct.
  How can this theory be untrue?

It is very logical,

• ALL humans ought to breathe [1],
  else
  IF ALL human ought not to breathe [2],
  then, [logically and in theory]
  the human species will be extinct.

What you are ignorant with morality is this:
Point is a moral law is applicable to each individual universally.
In the above, thus when [2] is universalized, the logical result in theory is ALL will die and the human species will be extinct.

Therefore "ALL humans ought to breathe [1]" should be adopted as an moral ideal, thus secular objective absolute moral law, to act as a GUIDE for an Framework of Morality and System.
Note the absolute moral 'GUIDE' is NEVER enforced.

OK, for you dealing with me, is beneath you, my arguments are bad, so I suggest you stop responding to my posts.
Personally I am thinking the same especially you have this strong proclivity to be very violent, evil and immoral in your postings.