VALUES

[RCSaunders]

You agree "mutual benefit" applies to societies. Mutual benefit is nearly always purposive and hardly applies to any random collection.

It depends on what you mean by mutual benefit. What I mean is that each individual determines it is in their own personal benefit to participate in whatever relationships they choose in a society. When I go to a store to purchase things I want, I do that for my own benefit, and the store owner runs his store for his own personal benefit, and our sales transaction benefits us both. That is what I mean by mutual benefit. When I meat some friends for dinner I do it for my benefit, my enjoyment of their company and conversation, and assume all the others do as well. None of those benefits are for the sake of society, only for the individuals.

Human nature. You say "if it changed substantially it would no longer be human". Who is the arbiter of substantial change? You? The Pope? Jesus? Aristotle? Darwin?

You! You use the word, "human," to identify something. A thing is whatever the attributes and characteristics of that thing are by which you identify it. Whatever attributes you think make a human being a human being, if they were no longer its attributes, it would no longer be human, but something else. When an ice cube melts (loses the solid attribute) it is no longer an ice cube but a puddle, or when a cat is run over (and loses the attribute life) it is no longer a cat but a corpse. I do not accept the evolutionary hypothesis, but if I did, I'd point out, evolution produces new species, not just variations of existing species.

RC Saunders wrote:

the ultimate goal or purpose relative to which all other values are proximate, is the life of the individual.

This is indeed a criterion of your ultimate value. It is not mine as I support doctor assisted dying i.e. voluntary euthanasia.

I mean one's own life and how they choose to use it, I do not mean life itself, as though the objective was the perpetuation protoplasm. The measure of a life is not how long it lasts but how well it is lived. There is no conflict between my view and an individual judging when his own life is complete.

I never regarded Romain Gary a great writer (though sometimes entertaining) and think his ideas were mostly wrong, but I found what he wrote in a note, just before he killed himself, poignant: "I have at last said all I have to say." His death followed a brief description of his life in, "The Life and Death of Emile Ajar," (a pseudonym), in which he wrote, "I had a great deal of fun. Au revoir et merci."

There are two possible choices: 1. the ultimate objective or purpose of a human life is one's own life, or 2. the ultimate objective or purpose of a human life is something other than one's own life.

I agree. That is the big one. There are a lot of sources that dictate which of these one ought to choose. All the religions tell you the ultimate objective or purpose of a human life is something other than one's own life. Even the antiquated heroic moral attitude said

the ultimate objective or purpose of a human life is something other than one's own life.

It's not a question at all for me. My life and my love of it are my reason for living. Anyone who chooses otherwise has no reason to live and is probably mistaking a fear of death for a love of life.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

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

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.

You are living in a fantasy world.

I have countered every your point with evidence.
You have run out of arguments?

[Belinda]

I think it was Veritas Aequitas who wrote the following however I found the nested quotes almost impenetrable:

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.

But there is an 'ought' criterion embedded in "else they die"; the criterion being whatever tends to maintenance of life.
Tendency to maintenance of life is not an objective value, but may reflect a further criterion which is whatever is closest to inherited instincts.
So what Veritas Aequitas claims is logical and rational is neither logical nor rational.

[Belinda]

You agree "mutual benefit" applies to societies. Mutual benefit is nearly always purposive and hardly applies to any random collection.

It depends on what you mean by mutual benefit. What I mean is that each individual determines it is in their own personal benefit to participate in whatever relationships they choose in a society. When I go to a store to purchase things I want, I do that for my own benefit, and the store owner runs his store for his own personal benefit, and our sales transaction benefits us both. That is what I mean by mutual benefit. When I meat some friends for dinner I do it for my benefit, my enjoyment of their company and conversation, and assume all the others do as well. None of those benefits are for the sake of society, only for the individuals.

Human nature. You say "if it changed substantially it would no longer be human". Who is the arbiter of substantial change? You? The Pope? Jesus? Aristotle? Darwin?

You! You use the word, "human," to identify something. A thing is whatever the attributes and characteristics of that thing are by which you identify it. Whatever attributes you think make a human being a human being, if they were no longer its attributes, it would no longer be human, but something else. When an ice cube melts (loses the solid attribute) it is no longer an ice cube but a puddle, or when a cat is run over (and loses the attribute life) it is no longer a cat but a corpse. I do not accept the evolutionary hypothesis, but if I did, I'd point out, evolution produces new species, not just variations of existing species.

RC Saunders wrote:

the ultimate goal or purpose relative to which all other values are proximate, is the life of the individual.

This is indeed a criterion of your ultimate value. It is not mine as I support doctor assisted dying i.e. voluntary euthanasia.

I mean one's own life and how they choose to use it, I do not mean life itself, as though the objective was the perpetuation protoplasm. The measure of a life is not how long it lasts but how well it is lived. There is no conflict between my view and an individual judging when his own life is complete.

I never regarded Romain Gary a great writer (though sometimes entertaining) and think his ideas were mostly wrong, but I found what he wrote in a note, just before he killed himself, poignant: "I have at last said all I have to say." His death followed a brief description of his life in, "The Life and Death of Emile Ajar," (a pseudonym), in which he wrote, "I had a great deal of fun. Au revoir et merci."

There are two possible choices: 1. the ultimate objective or purpose of a human life is one's own life, or 2. the ultimate objective or purpose of a human life is something other than one's own life.

I agree. That is the big one. There are a lot of sources that dictate which of these one ought to choose. All the religions tell you the ultimate objective or purpose of a human life is something other than one's own life. Even the antiquated heroic moral attitude said

the ultimate objective or purpose of a human life is something other than one's own life.

It's not a question at all for me. My life and my love of it are my reason for living. Anyone who chooses otherwise has no reason to live and is probably mistaking a fear of death for a love of life.

Mutual benefit.I agree with your description of mutual benefit .

You! You use the word, "human," to identify something. A thing is whatever the attributes and characteristics of that thing are by which you identify it. Whatever attributes you think make a human being a human being, if they were no longer its attributes, it would no longer be human, but something else. When an ice cube melts (loses the solid attribute) it is no longer an ice cube but a puddle, or when a cat is run over (and loses the attribute life) it is no longer a cat but a corpse. I do not accept the evolutionary hypothesis, but if I did, I'd point out, evolution produces new species, not just variations of existing species.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

RCS wrote:

I mean one's own life and how they choose to use it, I do not mean life itself, as though the objective was the perpetuation protoplasm. The measure of a life is not how long it lasts but how well it is lived. There is no conflict between my view and an individual judging when his own life is complete.

I did wonder which of the two meanings of 'life' you intended. I understand now.

RCS wrote:

It's not a question at all for me. My life and my love of it are my reason for living. Anyone who chooses otherwise has no reason to live and is probably mistaking a fear of death for a love of life.

If I introspect honestly I find that motivation too, and I agree with your reasoning. However what it shows is moral values are societal values and moral values often conflict with individuals' desires or even individuals' needs.

[Sculptor]

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.



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];



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




Again you are ignorant on this.


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


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.

You have established zero

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

You are living in a fantasy world.

I have countered every your point with evidence.
You have run out of arguments?

No. I've also got a bag full of "you are an idiot" too.
You have offered ZERO evidence and have no argument at all.
Offer some substance and I'll give you a response.
Failing that why don't you inject yourself with Dettol like your blond friend suggests?

[RCSaunders]

However what it shows is moral values are societal values and moral values often conflict with individuals' desires or even individuals' needs.

What is a, "societal value?" If that is what moral values are they are useless and meaningless. If you eliminate all individual values, what values does society have, and to whom? If my life is not the primary value, what possible value can society, as society, have for me? If any so-called societal value takes precedence over my own values, society is less than worthless to me, it is a threat and danger to me.

Within most societies I find countess individuals of real value to me and to others and those others and I could be considered a kind of society within society because we are mutually beneficial to each other. The rest of society is nothing but an impediment and threat to all human life.

[Skepdick]

However what it shows is moral values are societal values and moral values often conflict with individuals' desires or even individuals' needs.

What is a, "societal value?" If that is what moral values are they are useless and meaningless. If you eliminate all individual values, what values does society have, and to whom? If my life is not the primary value, what possible value can society, as society, have for me? If any so-called societal value takes precedence over my own values, society is less than worthless to me, it is a threat and danger to me.

Within most societies I find countess individuals of real value to me and to others and those others and I could be considered a kind of society within society because we are mutually beneficial to each other. The rest of society is nothing but an impediment and threat to all human life.

Societal value is the very reason/goal/purpose for which individuals incorporate and cooperate. Without shared goals/values - incorporation is impossible.

Society is the very institution we formed for the purposes of minimising harm to humans.

If you are older than 35 you are past your anti-social shelf-life.

[RCSaunders]

Societal value is the very reason/goal/purpose for which individuals incorporate and cooperate. Without shared goals/values - incorporation is impossible.

Society is the very institution we formed for the purposes of minimising harm to humans.

If you are older than 35 you are past your anti-social shelf-life.

Nothing has done more harm to human beings than social institutions. Human beings cooperate all the time without being, "incorporated," which is nothing but a government means of relieving some individuals of responsibility for their actions. If one is not producing something of value by their own effort or has any relationships with other human beings not freely chosen by them all, one is not only socially worthless, but a social menace.

[Skepdick]

Nothing has done more harm to human beings than social institutions.

Bullshit. The top 20 or so causes of death are all nature's bidding against us.

Entropy is the common enemy. Not society.

Human beings cooperate all the time without being, "incorporated,"

Obviously human beings cooperate. That's how societies form. If you don't like the word "incorporated" use another one.

which is nothing but a government means of relieving some individuals of responsibility for their actions.

Surely responsible individuals are capable of making their own choices on the matter? If I so choose to delegate some of my responsibilities to a social institution that works in my interests - surely I am individually responsible for that choice?

Why should I be individually responsible for being my own doctor? And being my own policeman? And being my own farmer? And being my own lawyer? And my own plumber. And car mechanic. And electrician. And house builder. And architect. And structural engineer.

If I could be a specialist in everything I wouldn't need others. But I am not, so I do.

If one is not producing something of value by their own effort or has any relationships with other human beings not freely chosen by them all, one is not only socially worthless, but a social menace.

It goes both ways.

If other members of society offer nothing of value why should I cooperate with them?
If society doesn't offer me anything of value, why should I be part of it?

But it does offer value. There's value in cooperation.

Which is why it is my individual choice to be part of the collective.

[RCSaunders]

Which is why it is my individual choice to be part of the collective.

It's your choice. You might like Venezuela since it is the poster child of collectivist cooperation.

[Skepdick]

It's your choice. You might like Venezuela since it is the poster child of collectivist cooperation.

I grew up in the Eastern Bloc. I've lived through bread lines, empty shelves and food coupons - I am pretty sure Venezuela/communism is not what I have in mind.

My poster-child for a functional society is Switzerland.

But if a strawman is all you have at your disposal, I guess we can all conclude that you've lost the argument.

[RCSaunders]

It's your choice. You might like Venezuela since it is the poster child of collectivist cooperation.

I grew up in the Eastern Bloc. I've lived through bread lines, empty shelves and food coupons - I am pretty sure Venezuela/communism is not what I have in mind.

My poster-child for a functional society is Switzerland.

But if a strawman is all you have at your disposal, I guess we can all conclude that you've lost the argument.

Were we having an argument? If you had said so, I'd have declared you the winner long ago. I'm not interested in winning arguments.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have countered every your point with evidence.
You have run out of arguments?

No. I've also got a bag full of "you are an idiot" too.
You have offered ZERO evidence and have no argument at all.
Offer some substance and I'll give you a response.
Failing that why don't you inject yourself with Dettol like your blond friend suggests?

That is typical of you in spewing nonsense when running out of argument.

Note I pointed out Hume no "is" from 'ought' was his focus on the theistic ought from God.

and this;

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

Where are your rational counter to the above?

Based on your ignorance, I anticipate you will continue to spew ad hominens and all sorts of nonsense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think it was Veritas Aequitas who wrote the following however I found the nested quotes almost impenetrable:

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.

But there is an 'ought' criterion embedded in "else they die"; the criterion being whatever tends to maintenance of life.
Tendency to maintenance of life is not an objective value, but may reflect a further criterion which is whatever is closest to inherited instincts.
So what Veritas Aequitas claims is logical and rational is neither logical nor rational.

What??

Where did I use the term "tend".
It is so objective that one has to breathe in order to live life.

If what I claimed is not logical nor rational,
then you are implying,
all of humanity should not be too bothered to live effectively and thus they can die whenever they want from birth to 100 years old.
Where is your rationality and wisdom in such a loose view.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Which is why it is my individual choice to be part of the collective.

It's your choice. You might like Venezuela since it is the poster child of collectivist cooperation.

You have a very skewed and constipated meaning of collective & collectivity which you conflated and screwed up with collectivism - note "ism".