I have argued moral 'ought' can be justified from "is"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245
The argument:
- 1. Surely you are aware humanity is facing a whole range of problems and sufferings with possibility of the human species being exterminated.
2. All human problems re bad and evil are reducible to the question of Morality and Ethics.
3. In this case we need problem solving techniques to resolve, prevent and mitigate those morally related problems.
4. For a problem solving technique to be effective, it need to be embedded with a control - feedback system.
5. To be effective, a control-feedback system must have an objective standard to compare results and so that variances can be feedback for control and improvement. [hope you are not ignorant of this?]
6. Since this is a question of morality, we need the absolute GOOD as an objective standard to be embedded within the moral control-feedback system to facilitate continuous improvements.
7. The absolute Good, i.e. the moral ought as GUIDE or standard only can be justified from empirical evidences. [I have demonstrated 'is' from 'ought' is possible]
The GUIDE is never binding but merely to guide continual improvement towards the impossible ideal.
It is not a claim of a binding-ought but for humanity sake and its future, we need the justifiable moral ought as a necessity [imperative] for guidance.
IF you do not agree to point 1 and all the premises that follow then, you are an ignorant, selfish and an immoral human being toward the future generations of human beings.
Generally it is true of theists, they are very selfish and are desperately clinging to their own selfish salvation [as with other selfish theists] as driven by an inherent psychological desperation to soothe the pains from an inherent existential crisis.
Certain theists [large quantum of Muslims] will kill those who question their beliefs.
Views
due to ignorance.