VALUES

[Sculptor]

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.

Linking other people's thinking is not the same as thinking for yourself.
When you yourself understand the is/ought problem, come back to me.
Until then, I'll not be holding my breath.

[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.

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.

'Ought' refers to what is owed according to some moral or legal value. 'Ought' does not refer to a prediction such as 'if they don't breathe then they die.'

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Linking other people's thinking is not the same as thinking for yourself.
When you yourself understand the is/ought problem, come back to me.
Until then, I'll not be holding my breath.

You have understood the "is/ought problem" very superficially without giving any deeper thought to it.

I've linked the above [Putnam and others] because I agreed with their point.

Note I've quoted Hume's words on the point;
viewtopic.php?p=452563#p452563

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

Insisting on the "is/ought" dichotomy as absolutely irreconciliable is stupidity.

Why should I get back to you, rather it is better you are stuck to your ignorance and mediocre thoughts on the issue.

[Sculptor]

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;



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.

Linking other people's thinking is not the same as thinking for yourself.
When you yourself understand the is/ought problem, come back to me.
Until then, I'll not be holding my breath.

You have understood the "is/ought problem" very superficially without giving any deeper thought to it.

I've linked the above [Putnam and others] because I agreed with their point.

Note I've quoted Hume's words on the point;
viewtopic.php?p=452563#p452563

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

Insisting on the "is/ought" dichotomy as absolutely irreconciliable is stupidity.

Why should I get back to you, rather it is better you are stuck to your ignorance and mediocre thoughts on the issue.

I'm continually puzzled by moral objectivity. It is as if you inhabit a parallel world, in which the meaning of the most simple words are continually misunderstood by you.
It is a world of Peter Pans who have listened too deferentially to their parents and believe they know the truth. They carry this infantilism to their adult lives and try to maintain a sense of security by attempting to impose their own set of idiosyncratic values onto any they meet.
Open your eyes and look around you. Life is not that simple.

[Peter Holmes]

I'm continually puzzled by moral objectivity. It is as if you inhabit a parallel world, in which the meaning of the most simple words are continually misunderstood by you.
It is a world of Peter Pans who have listened too deferentially to their parents and believe they know the truth. They carry this infantilism to their adult lives and try to maintain a sense of security by attempting to impose their own set of idiosyncratic values onto any they meet.
Open your eyes and look around you. Life is not that simple.

Agreed - and I hadn't thought of it that way - that thinking our own moral opinions, or those of some invented god, are facts - is infantile.

Perhaps that explains the determination of the moral objectivists here to cling to it, how ever clearly we explain the mistake. There's something deep and primitive that must be defended at all costs.

[Sculptor]

I'm continually puzzled by moral objectivity. It is as if you inhabit a parallel world, in which the meaning of the most simple words are continually misunderstood by you.
It is a world of Peter Pans who have listened too deferentially to their parents and believe they know the truth. They carry this infantilism to their adult lives and try to maintain a sense of security by attempting to impose their own set of idiosyncratic values onto any they meet.
Open your eyes and look around you. Life is not that simple.

Agreed - and I hadn't thought of it that way - that thinking our own moral opinions, or those of some invented god, are facts - is infantile.

Perhaps that explains the determination of the moral objectivists here to cling to it, how ever clearly we explain the mistake. There's something deep and primitive that must be defended at all costs.

I think the phrase "sky daddy" to describe god is apposite.
The fear of loosing moral objectivity is the fear of leaving the family home; safe and certain, for a complex, uncertain and often dangerous world.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Linking other people's thinking is not the same as thinking for yourself.
When you yourself understand the is/ought problem, come back to me.
Until then, I'll not be holding my breath.

You have understood the "is/ought problem" very superficially without giving any deeper thought to it.

I've linked the above [Putnam and others] because I agreed with their point.

Note I've quoted Hume's words on the point;
viewtopic.php?p=452563#p452563

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

Insisting on the "is/ought" dichotomy as absolutely irreconciliable is stupidity.

Why should I get back to you, rather it is better you are stuck to your ignorance and mediocre thoughts on the issue.

I'm continually puzzled by moral objectivity. It is as if you inhabit a parallel world, in which the meaning of the most simple words are continually misunderstood by you.
It is a world of Peter Pans who have listened too deferentially to their parents and believe they know the truth. They carry this infantilism to their adult lives and try to maintain a sense of security by attempting to impose their own set of idiosyncratic values onto any they meet.
Open your eyes and look around you. Life is not that simple.

You are suffering from ignorance with stupidity and arrogance.

Actually it is you and your likes who stuck with the classical philosophies of the older generations like those who are stuck with Newtonian Physics and resisted the reality of the Physics of Einstein and QM.

The issue of "IS/OUGHT" originated and came about from Hume [1711-76] during the middle 18th century. Since then till the present, a lot of knowledge [philosophical] had been presented to contra and improved on this "IS/OUGHT" dichotomy but it is not brought forth to the majority.
Have you even read those counter views especially from Kant and others.

Btw, I just refreshed on Hume's "A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE" [ATOHN] with a focus on the chapters related to the "is/ought" dichotomy. There are a lot of holes in Hume "is/ought" theory where he was ignorant [due to his time] of whatever new knowledge had been discovered within human nature since he died in 1776.

Note one example among the many rhetorical comparisons by Hume;

Vice and virtue, therefore, may be compared to sounds, colours, heat and cold, which, according to modern philosophy, are not qualities in objects, but perceptions in the mind: And this discovery in morals, like that other in physics, is to be regarded as a considerable advancement of the speculative sciences; though, like that too, it has little or no influence on practice.
ATOHN - BkII_PtI_Sii

Note, Hume stated where he admit ignorance and doubt on this issue;

Should it be asserted, that the sense of morality consists in the discovery of some relation, distinct from these, and that our enumeration was not complete, when we comprehended all demonstrable relations under four general heads:
To this I know not what to reply, till someone be so good as to point out to me this new relation.
ATOHN - BkII_PtI_Sii

Since Hume's time, many philosophers and scientists had explored the new relation.

IF you insists to continue with your arrogance based on ignorance to counter my views with substance arguments, I suggest you read up Hume's "A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE" and make reference from that book, since the IS/OUGHT issue originated from that book with the argument for it.

• A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE
  BY DAVID HUME
  Summary Content.
  
  VOLUME I
  INTRODUCTION BY THE AUTHOR.
  BOOK I OF THE UNDERSTANDING
  PART I OF IDEAS, THEIR ORIGIN, COMPOSITION, CONNEXION,
  ABSTRACTION, ETC.
  PART II. OF THE IDEAS OF SPACE AND TIME,
  PART III. OF KNOWLEDGE AND PROBABILITY. ~55
  PART IV. OF THE SCEPTICAL AND OTHER SYSTEMS OF PHILOSOPHY. ~135
  
  VOLUME II
  BOOK II OF THE PASSIONS
  PART I OF PRIDE AND HUMILITY
  PART II OF LOVE AND HATRED
  PART III OF THE WILL AND DIRECT PASSIONS
  
  BOOK III OF MORALS
  PART I OF VIRTUE AND VICE IN GENERAL
  PART II OF JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE
  PART III OF THE OTHER VIRTUES AND VICES
  APPENDIX TO THE TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm continually puzzled by moral objectivity. It is as if you inhabit a parallel world, in which the meaning of the most simple words are continually misunderstood by you.
It is a world of Peter Pans who have listened too deferentially to their parents and believe they know the truth. They carry this infantilism to their adult lives and try to maintain a sense of security by attempting to impose their own set of idiosyncratic values onto any they meet.
Open your eyes and look around you. Life is not that simple.

Agreed - and I hadn't thought of it that way - that thinking our own moral opinions, or those of some invented god, are facts - is infantile.

Perhaps that explains the determination of the moral objectivists here to cling to it, how ever clearly we explain the mistake. There's something deep and primitive that must be defended at all costs.

As far as I am concern, your view above is a strawman.
I am not proposing any moral opinions,but rather secular objective moral oughts/rules/laws/maxims which are solely to be used as a GUIDE only.

As far as theistic morality which claim theistically objective moral laws, that is pseudo-morality, not morality proper.

Note my points [rationally argued] above to Sculptor, it is people like you and him who are controlled by a primitive zombie defense-mechanisms to stick to your common sense and philosophical immature views.
It is so obvious, you and Sculptor are stuck with the status quo [the majority said so] while I am bring in new philosophical vista and argument to counter the status quo.

[Peter Holmes]

I am not proposing any moral opinions,but rather secular objective moral oughts/rules/laws/maxims which are solely to be used as a GUIDE only.

And in you opinion, we should adopt these 'secular objective moral oughts/rules/laws/maxims which are solely to be used as a GUIDE only.'

Am I right to say that? Have I understood you correctly? Hint: a one word answer - yes or no - will do.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am not proposing any moral opinions,but rather secular objective moral oughts/rules/laws/maxims which are solely to be used as a GUIDE only.

And in you opinion, we should adopt these 'secular objective moral oughts/rules/laws/maxims which are solely to be used as a GUIDE only.'

Am I right to say that? Have I understood you correctly? Hint: a one word answer - yes or no - will do.

YES!

• Important Notes:
  That is not an opinion but a belief as justified with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
  
  The "how" is a very complicated process for the longer term towards the future generations not at present.

[Peter Holmes]

I am not proposing any moral opinions,but rather secular objective moral oughts/rules/laws/maxims which are solely to be used as a GUIDE only.

And in you opinion, we should adopt these 'secular objective moral oughts/rules/laws/maxims which are solely to be used as a GUIDE only.'

Am I right to say that? Have I understood you correctly? Hint: a one word answer - yes or no - will do.

YES!

• Important Notes:
  That is not an opinion but a belief as justified with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
  
  The "how" is a very complicated process for the longer term towards the future generations not at present.

So it's not your opinion. Instead you believe we should adopt these 'secular objective moral oughts/rules/laws/maxims which are solely to be used as a GUIDE only.' And you have empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning to justify your belief.

Is that right? Have I understood you correctly now? Again, a one word answer will do.

[Belinda]

You have understood the "is/ought problem" very superficially without giving any deeper thought to it.

I've linked the above [Putnam and others] because I agreed with their point.

Note I've quoted Hume's words on the point;
viewtopic.php?p=452563#p452563



Insisting on the "is/ought" dichotomy as absolutely irreconciliable is stupidity.

Why should I get back to you, rather it is better you are stuck to your ignorance and mediocre thoughts on the issue.

I'm continually puzzled by moral objectivity. It is as if you inhabit a parallel world, in which the meaning of the most simple words are continually misunderstood by you.
It is a world of Peter Pans who have listened too deferentially to their parents and believe they know the truth. They carry this infantilism to their adult lives and try to maintain a sense of security by attempting to impose their own set of idiosyncratic values onto any they meet.
Open your eyes and look around you. Life is not that simple.

You are suffering from ignorance with stupidity and arrogance.

Actually it is you and your likes who stuck with the classical philosophies of the older generations like those who are stuck with Newtonian Physics and resisted the reality of the Physics of Einstein and QM.

The issue of "IS/OUGHT" originated and came about from Hume [1711-76] during the middle 18th century. Since then till the present, a lot of knowledge [philosophical] had been presented to contra and improved on this "IS/OUGHT" dichotomy but it is not brought forth to the majority.
Have you even read those counter views especially from Kant and others.

Btw, I just refreshed on Hume's "A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE" [ATOHN] with a focus on the chapters related to the "is/ought" dichotomy. There are a lot of holes in Hume "is/ought" theory where he was ignorant [due to his time] of whatever new knowledge had been discovered within human nature since he died in 1776.

Note one example among the many rhetorical comparisons by Hume;

Vice and virtue, therefore, may be compared to sounds, colours, heat and cold, which, according to modern philosophy, are not qualities in objects, but perceptions in the mind: And this discovery in morals, like that other in physics, is to be regarded as a considerable advancement of the speculative sciences; though, like that too, it has little or no influence on practice.
ATOHN - BkII_PtI_Sii

Note, Hume stated where he admit ignorance and doubt on this issue;

Should it be asserted, that the sense of morality consists in the discovery of some relation, distinct from these, and that our enumeration was not complete, when we comprehended all demonstrable relations under four general heads:
To this I know not what to reply, till someone be so good as to point out to me this new relation.
ATOHN - BkII_PtI_Sii

Since Hume's time, many philosophers and scientists had explored the new relation.

IF you insists to continue with your arrogance based on ignorance to counter my views with substance arguments, I suggest you read up Hume's "A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE" and make reference from that book, since the IS/OUGHT issue originated from that book with the argument for it.

• A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE
  BY DAVID HUME
  Summary Content.
  
  VOLUME I
  INTRODUCTION BY THE AUTHOR.
  BOOK I OF THE UNDERSTANDING
  PART I OF IDEAS, THEIR ORIGIN, COMPOSITION, CONNEXION,
  ABSTRACTION, ETC.
  PART II. OF THE IDEAS OF SPACE AND TIME,
  PART III. OF KNOWLEDGE AND PROBABILITY. ~55
  PART IV. OF THE SCEPTICAL AND OTHER SYSTEMS OF PHILOSOPHY. ~135
  
  VOLUME II
  BOOK II OF THE PASSIONS
  PART I OF PRIDE AND HUMILITY
  PART II OF LOVE AND HATRED
  PART III OF THE WILL AND DIRECT PASSIONS
  
  BOOK III OF MORALS
  PART I OF VIRTUE AND VICE IN GENERAL
  PART II OF JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE
  PART III OF THE OTHER VIRTUES AND VICES
  APPENDIX TO THE TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE

But the 'is/ought' dichotomy is one among other dichotomies such as 'me/not me': 'mental/physical': 'order/disorder': 'natural/artificial': 'add/multiply': 'subjective/objective'. These apparent dichotomies become mutually consistent when the apparent dichotomy is viewed in the round , if you will accept the metaphor. If you won't accept the metaphor the more usual way to express the mutually consistent is to refer to the aspect with which one views the dichotomy.

If the 'is/ought' dichotomy is viewed from the aspect of natural necessity , of which any individual's beliefs or opinions are necessary constituents, then 'ought' becomes as necessary as 'is'.

There is no other way to reconcile 'is' and 'ought' other than by reference to necessity as a state of natural orderedness. God has hi-jacked nature for the purpose of social control.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And in you opinion, we should adopt these 'secular objective moral oughts/rules/laws/maxims which are solely to be used as a GUIDE only.'

Am I right to say that? Have I understood you correctly? Hint: a one word answer - yes or no - will do.

YES!

• Important Notes:
  That is not an opinion but a belief as justified with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
  
  The "how" is a very complicated process for the longer term towards the future generations not at present.

So it's not your opinion. Instead you believe we should adopt these 'secular objective moral oughts/rules/laws/maxims which are solely to be used as a GUIDE only.' And you have empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning to justify your belief.

Is that right? Have I understood you correctly now? Again, a one word answer will do.

YES!

[Veritas Aequitas]

But the 'is/ought' dichotomy is one among other dichotomies such as 'me/not me': 'mental/physical': 'order/disorder': 'natural/artificial': 'add/multiply': 'subjective/objective'. These apparent dichotomies become mutually consistent when the apparent dichotomy is viewed in the round , if you will accept the metaphor. If you won't accept the metaphor the more usual way to express the mutually consistent is to refer to the aspect with which one views the dichotomy.

If the 'is/ought' dichotomy is viewed from the aspect of natural necessity , of which any individual's beliefs or opinions are necessary constituents, then 'ought' becomes as necessary as 'is'.

There is no other way to reconcile 'is' and 'ought' other than by reference to necessity as a state of natural orderedness. God has hi-jacked nature for the purpose of social control.

The various dichotomies are normally confined within the same perspective, i.e. empirical, epistemological, etc.

The "is/ought" dichotomy is a bit special because it involves morality and ethics. Here the "is" [empirical] has to be conflated with the "ought" [moral - reason].

You mean "round" = something like a continuum.
As I had stated, is/ought is within a continuum of the fundamental human grounding of the self.
Black and White are a dichotomy but both are within a continuum of degree of greys [degrees whiteness + blackness].

One good analogy is the dichotomy of Yin and Yang which are distinctly different but they work in complementarity within a continuum.

If Bohr can rely on the complementarity of Yin and Yang for his QM theories which has worked very well till the present, so why not such complementarity be applied to the "is/ought" dichotomy.

Actually, Hume who introduced the idea of 'is cannot be ought' in his 'Treatise of Human Nature" [1739] relented somewhat in reconciling 'is" with "ought" with some other common grounds re Human Nature in his later different perspective on morality, i.e. "An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751).

[Veritas Aequitas]

But the 'is/ought' dichotomy is one among other dichotomies such as 'me/not me': 'mental/physical': 'order/disorder': 'natural/artificial': 'add/multiply': 'subjective/objective'. These apparent dichotomies become mutually consistent when the apparent dichotomy is viewed in the round , if you will accept the metaphor. If you won't accept the metaphor the more usual way to express the mutually consistent is to refer to the aspect with which one views the dichotomy.

If the 'is/ought' dichotomy is viewed from the aspect of natural necessity , of which any individual's beliefs or opinions are necessary constituents, then 'ought' becomes as necessary as 'is'.

There is no other way to reconcile 'is' and 'ought' other than by reference to necessity as a state of natural orderedness. God has hi-jacked nature for the purpose of social control.

The various dichotomies are normally confined within the same perspective, i.e. empirical, epistemological, etc.

The "is/ought" dichotomy is a bit special because it involves morality and ethics. Here the "is" [empirical] has to be conflated with the "ought" [moral - reason].

You mean "round" = something like a continuum.
As I had stated, is/ought is within a continuum of the fundamental human grounding of the self.
Black and White are a dichotomy but both are within a continuum of degree of greys [degrees whiteness + blackness].

One good analogy is the dichotomy of Yin and Yang which are distinctly different but they work in complementarity within a continuum.

If Bohr can rely on the complementarity of Yin and Yang for his QM theories which has worked very well till the present, so why not such complementarity be applied to the "is/ought" dichotomy.

Actually, Hume who introduced the idea of 'is cannot be ought' in his 'Treatise of Human Nature" [1739] relented somewhat in reconciling 'is" with "ought" with some other common grounds re Human Nature in his later different perspective on morality, i.e. "An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751).

There is no other way to reconcile 'is' and 'ought' other than by reference to necessity as a state of natural orderedness.

"Natural Orderedness" - yes and agree - that was what Hume resorted to in his later deliberation on moral.
If one were to read Hume's work on morality thoroughly then one will understand how he resorted to rely on the common grounds of all humans.
Hume also brought in the concept of empathy [mirror neurons - neurosciences] which he labelled as 'sympathy'.