VALUES

[Veritas Aequitas]

Empirically, a living human being is breathing all the time, thus all human beings are breathing all the time.
Logically, it is a fact, all living human beings ought to breathe, else they die.

Thus "is" is "ought" logically and rationally.

I have applied the same principles above to derive secular objective moral oughts.

There's no logical entailment from 'humans must breathe' (fact) to 'humans must be allowed to breathe' (judgement). No fact can entail a moral judgement. And as for moral rationality - having and providing good reasons for a moral judgement - that still doesn't produce entailment.

Your 'humans ought to breathe' is unclear. If it means ' they must breathe in order to surive', absolutely. That's a fact.

It is

• "all humans must breathe else they die" - fact.

to the moral ought.

• "No human ought to stop another human from breathing - else the latter will die"

the moral ought applies to all humans, thus universal.

If the above moral ought is adopted, then it meant,
"Any human can stop another human from breathing "
On a universal basis, then all humans will die in time.
This will be immoral.

Therefore the moral ought;
"No human ought to stop another human from breathing - else the latter will die"
must be adopted by all humans as a guide to strive for.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, individual propensities contradict. So no collective propensity is possible.

You are spewing nonsense here.

Even you are capable of understanding this. Humans are two groups A & B
Group A has a propensity to wage war.
Groups B has a propensity to make peace.
QED. There are individual propensities. No propensity related to "humans".
So, as I say above propensities contradict. No propensity covers humans.

The above is strawman.
All humans can be divided into many and infinite types of group in terms of propensity.
This is irrelevant to the point.

It is very noticeable a species of living things display its own specific propensity which is different from the individuals.
Every normal individual strives to live as long as possible till the inevitable.
But the species' propensity is to ensure the species is preserved without the care of all the individuals.
Within the human species a certain percentile are "programmed" to take risk to benefit the species expanding population and new resources.

Note the example of mayflies where the majority of individual[s] dies without reaching the necessary river but what serves the species is that based on the principles/strategy of large numbers, that there are sufficient numbers to reproduce the next generations.

Even if it were so; an "IS" does not make an "ought"

You are ignorant because your thinking is too superficial.
Based on linguistic and common sense, yes, "is" cannot be "ought" just as 'black' cannot be 'white'. But if we reflect deeper both are on the same continuum of greyness.
Even you can understand the most simple idea.
Perhaps you should look up the "is/ought problem"; this is a common philosophical trope. Philosophy 101 you might say.
Insulting me, just makes you look more stupid.

It is not an insult but a fact as evident, you are ignorant and thinking too superficially.
You are following the philosophical trope blindly without doing your own thinking.

I am well aware of the is/ought dichotomy brought up by Hume.

Here is where you are ignorant [as evident];

Hilary Putnam argues philosophers that accept Hume's "is–ought" distinction reject his reasons in making this, and thus undermine the entire claim.[22]

Various scholars have also indicated that, in the very work where Hume argues for the is–ought problem, Hume himself derives an "ought" from an "is".[23] Such seeming inconsistencies in Hume have led to an ongoing debate over whether Hume actually held to the is–ought problem in the first place, or whether he meant that ought inferences can be made but only with good argumentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80% ... erstanding

Hume focus on this issue was regarding theists forcing their moral ought from a God which is illusory.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80% ... m#Overview

And note Yin is not [does not make a] Yang yet they work in complementarity within reality.

not relevant. mystical BS. Does not help your argument even if true

Again you are ignorant on this.

A particle is not [does not make] a wave.
But Bohr applied the principle of complementarity to reconcile the two contrasting elements.

I had used the same principles of complementarity to reconcile "is" to "ought" along its shared continuum.
Irrelevant. Humans are more complex, that wavicles,

Strawman again.
What I have done is based on empirical evidence and sound logical arguments.

Empirically, a living human being is breathing all the time, thus all human beings are breathing all the time.
Logically, it is a fact, all living human beings ought to breathe, else they die.

Thus "is" is "ought" logically and rationally.

There is no reason humans ought to live.
Use your brain.[/quote]
It is evident from empirical evidences, all species including the human species has the propensity to strive to preserve itself until the inevitable.

I have applied the same principles above to derive secular objective moral oughts.

You have established zero

Your point don't have any credibility because you are ignorant and thought too superficially.

[Sculptor]

You are spewing nonsense here.

Even you are capable of understanding this. Humans are two groups A & B
Group A has a propensity to wage war.
Groups B has a propensity to make peace.
QED. There are individual propensities. No propensity related to "humans".
So, as I say above propensities contradict. No propensity covers humans.

The above is strawman.
All humans can be divided into many and infinite types of group in terms of propensity.
This is irrelevant to the point.

It is very noticeable a species of living things display its own specific propensity which is different from the individuals.
Every normal individual strives to live as long as possible till the inevitable.
But the species' propensity is to ensure the species is preserved without the care of all the individuals.
Within the human species a certain percentile are "programmed" to take risk to benefit the species expanding population and new resources.

Note the example of mayflies where the majority of individual[s] dies without reaching the necessary river but what serves the species is that based on the principles/strategy of large numbers, that there are sufficient numbers to reproduce the next generations.

Even if it were so; an "IS" does not make an "ought"

You are ignorant because your thinking is too superficial.
Based on linguistic and common sense, yes, "is" cannot be "ought" just as 'black' cannot be 'white'. But if we reflect deeper both are on the same continuum of greyness.
Even you can understand the most simple idea.
Perhaps you should look up the "is/ought problem"; this is a common philosophical trope. Philosophy 101 you might say.
Insulting me, just makes you look more stupid.

It is not an insult but a fact as evident, you are ignorant and thinking too superficially.
You are following the philosophical trope blindly without doing your own thinking.

I am well aware of the is/ought dichotomy brought up by Hume.

Here is where you are ignorant [as evident];

Hilary Putnam argues philosophers that accept Hume's "is–ought" distinction reject his reasons in making this, and thus undermine the entire claim.[22]

Various scholars have also indicated that, in the very work where Hume argues for the is–ought problem, Hume himself derives an "ought" from an "is".[23] Such seeming inconsistencies in Hume have led to an ongoing debate over whether Hume actually held to the is–ought problem in the first place, or whether he meant that ought inferences can be made but only with good argumentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80% ... erstanding

Hume focus on this issue was regarding theists forcing their moral ought from a God which is illusory.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80% ... m#Overview

And note Yin is not [does not make a] Yang yet they work in complementarity within reality.

not relevant. mystical BS. Does not help your argument even if true

Again you are ignorant on this.

A particle is not [does not make] a wave.
But Bohr applied the principle of complementarity to reconcile the two contrasting elements.

I had used the same principles of complementarity to reconcile "is" to "ought" along its shared continuum.
Irrelevant. Humans are more complex, that wavicles,

Strawman again.
What I have done is based on empirical evidence and sound logical arguments.

Empirically, a living human being is breathing all the time, thus all human beings are breathing all the time.
Logically, it is a fact, all living human beings ought to breathe, else they die.

Thus "is" is "ought" logically and rationally.

There is no reason humans ought to live.
Use your brain.

It is evident from empirical evidences, all species including the human species has the propensity to strive to preserve itself until the inevitable.

I have applied the same principles above to derive secular objective moral oughts.

You have established zero

Your point don't have any credibility because you are ignorant and thought too superficially.
[/quote]
You are living in a fantasy world.

[Skepdick]

What and where are concepts and other abstract things? In the mind - another abstract thing? And what and where is the mind? In the head or the brain? And how does a real thing, such as a brain, contain an abstract thing, such as a concept?

What is the relationship between a word or other sign (a real thing) and a concept (an abstract thing)?

What and where is a "thing"?
What and where is a "relationship"?
What and where is a "word"?
What and where is a "sign"?

What concept does the word 'concept' supposedly denote?

What does the english word "I" supposedly denote?

And so on, and so on. The myth of abstract things is ancient, potent and pervasive.

What and where is a "myth"?

Of course there are abstract things! We've been talking about them for at least two and a half thousand years! (Rather like we've been talking about gods.)

So stop talking about them. Stop talking about abstract things...

Time to wake up.

Stop talking about time, words, things, relationships etc...
If you can't denote a word and relate it to a "real" thing - I insist that you remove it from your vocabulary!

Peter is playing his usual game: do as he says not as he does.

[Skepdick]

Before any specific values can be identified or explained, whether they are called, ethics, or morals, or something else, what values are, what their purpose is, and some wrong views of values must be addressed. That is the purpose of this chapter.

Values, like "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong," are concepts of relationship. Things only have values relative to some objective (purpose, end, or goal). The purpose of values is to guide human choice and action in the pursuit of their objectives.

If your abstract values don't translate into concrete actions/consequences/behaviour - your values don't matter in practice and don't concern others.

If you insist that you value X more than Y, but there is no way to measure the distinction - it's all empty words.

This is the difference between stated (using words) and revealed (using actions/behaviours) preferences.

To value X over Y is to maximise for X over Y when given the choice.

Example....

There Are No Collective Values

Values have no other purpose than to be used by human beings to guide their choices in the pursuit of their objective. Values tell them which actions will succeed (are good and right) and which will fail or worse (are bad or wrong).

Given the choice between "succeeding" and "failing" - you value success over failure.

[Belinda]

I heartily agree with nearly all the original post from RC Saunders.

I query

The collective itself has no value other than the sum value of the individuals.

That adequately describes an aggregate but not a society. A society has some different attributes from an aggregate. Chiefly, a society can accomplish more than an aggregate can. Whenever values are discussed we need to include intentions. Societies are an intentional unity often to the extent and technology of codified strategy/morality, whereas aggregates' intentions are not unified.

Also, will you address the idea of criteria as applied to choosing this or that?

Glad you found something of value in the article. I'll try to answer your question.

I do not think we have quite the same view of society. I do not believe societies and their cultures are the result of any strategy. They are and have always been spontaneous or accicental, even when some political power intended to plan them. I'm not sure how your distinction between the nature of a society being the sum of the values and behavior of the individuals that make up a society (my view) is different from society as an, "aggregate." Perhaps you could clarify that.

I'm also not certain what, exactly, you are asking with regard to a, "cirteria," for choosing unless you are referring to the last paragraph of the article and those objectives and purposes that would best meet the requirements of human nature to live successfully as human beings.

I am not prepared to provide a full answer to that question, but can set the foundation. Like all living creatures, human beings have a specific nature that determines how they must behave if they are to survive and be the kind of beings they. While the primary requirements of all animal nature is physiological, the primary requirement of human nature is psychological. Just as no animal can live without certain physical requirements, like food and water, requirements shared by physical aspects of humans as well, the most important requirement of human nature is knowledge without which they cannot live at all.

I'll be posting another article addressing those questions. I'll probably call it, "The Moral Nature," though I do not agree that anything commonly understood as, "moral," exists.

A society is individuals purposively organised . An aggregate of individuals becomes a society as soon as significant individuals among the aggregate have a common purpose for themselves and others.E.g. Want us to move that fallen tree (catch that cow: fight those invaders: discuss the end of the word: and so forth.)

Human nature. Humans will probably always be anatomically recognisable, but even this is uncertain the way scientific advances seem to be heading. Human psychology is and has always been too plastic to be pinned down like some preserved butterfly.

Criteria. No choice including a moral choice is made without a criterion.

Criteria include an immediate need: some notion instilled by a significant other: a wooden metre stick: what one team of oxen can plough in one day: what Jesus said: what logic dictates: a legally or morally binding promise: a definition of ideal proportion: and so forth.
A criterion for value claims may be a value revealed by God: the preservation of the human species as we know it: relief of suffering: life after death: putting food on the family table: personal safety and pleasure at all times : cleansing one's immortal soul: saving others' souls: and so forth.

[RCSaunders]

There Are No Collective Values

Values have no other purpose than to be used by human beings to guide their choices in the pursuit of their objective. Values tell them which actions will succeed (are good and right) and which will fail or worse (are bad or wrong).

Given the choice between "succeeding" and "failing" - you value success over failure.

That's right!

[Skepdick]

Given the choice between "succeeding" and "failing" - you value success over failure.

That's right!

Which necessarily makes the discussion all about criteria (as Belinda points out). The problem of criterion is squarely in the domain of epistemology.

It is meaningless to talk about "success" and "failure" without stating a goal a priori, for one man's success is another man's failure and vice versa.

And it is also meaningless to talk about "success", "failure" and "goals" without acknowledging that we are talking about the future.

We know the past but cannot control it. We control the future but cannot know it. --Claude E. Shannon

[Skepdick]

Well, "assumptions," in this case, means, as I said at the start, "without any reasons provided."...
it means that you haven't thought about the fact that they are required for the rest of what you argue to even be possibly true.

So you are necessarily implying that the idea could be false.

Do you value truth over falsity? Do you have any justifiable reasons for your values?

Your argument shoots Philosophy in the head. With a shotgun.

[Immanuel Can]

it means that you haven't thought about the fact that they are required for the rest of what you argue to even be possibly true. That's why you gave no reasons for them: you didn't think you needed to. But you did.

So you are necessarily stating that the idea could be false.

I'm stating it remains unlegitimated. True or false, it lacks warrant.

If it's true, then, we have no reason or method provided us by the author that we should think it's true. It's unlegitimated.

To correct this, he owes us to say why he maintains what he maintains, if he wants us to believe it's reasonable for us to agree with him. If not, he can leave us without warrant for thinking he's right...but then he can't complain if we don't believe him.

[Skepdick]

I'm stating it remains unlegitimated.

So you value legitimate over illegitimate ideas? Why?

True or false, it lacks warrant.

So you value warranted over unwarranted ideas? Why?

To correct this

So you value correctness over incorrectness? Why?

, he owes us to say why he maintains what he maintains

Nobody owes you anything they didn't take from you in the first place.

, if he wants us to believe it's reasonable for us to agree with him.

So you value reasonableness over unreasonableness? Why?

If not, he can leave us without warrant for thinking he's right...

So you value rightness over wrongness? Why?

In general, you value X over not-X? Why?

You committed Philosophical suicide. Good luck coming back.

ALL distinctions are instrumental. If they weren't useful you wouldn't draw them.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm stating it remains unlegitimated.

So you value legitimate over illegitimate ideas? Why?

Because knowing why you believe something is better than forming opinions in total ignorance of why you hold them.

Did you really have to ask? Nah. You must have known.

Where are you going, Sport?

[Skepdick]

Because knowing why you believe something is better than forming opinions in total ignorance of why you hold them.

So you value knowledge over ignorance? Why?

Did you really have to ask? Nah. You must have known.

If I could read your mind I wouldn't have to ask. But I can't, so I do.

Where are you going, Sport?

I am going to town on ALL of your distinctions.

If a distinction isn't instrumental, then why make it?
If you are making a distinction - justify it.

[Immanuel Can]

I am going to town on ALL of your distinctions.

Yeah, I figured.

"Going to town" is one thing; "out to lunch" is another.

You think maybe you prefer ignorance to getting a rational legitimation, you say?

Okay. Feel free to keep yours. That is always your option.

[Skepdick]

You think maybe you prefer ignorance to getting a rational legitimation, you say?

You are projecting onto me the view you wish to attack, but not the view that I hold. I am sure you know what a strawman is.

I am asking you to justify your preference for knowledge over ignorance. I do believe these are almost your very own words...

You owes us to say why you maintain what you maintain, if you wants us to believe it's reasonable for us to agree with you. If not, you can leave us without warrant for thinking you are right...but then you can't complain if we don't believe you.

Okay. Feel free to keep yours. That is always your option.

Non-sequitur.

If I am ignorant, convince me to value knowledge, or is this "burden of proof" thing reserved for others but not for you?