VALUES

[Peter Holmes]

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!

Right - let's bank that before we go on, as follows.

1 You believe we should adopt '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.

Next question. Does believing something is so make it so? In other words, does believing that X mean that X is the case? (Again, yes/no.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

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!

Right - let's bank that before we go on, as follows.

1 You believe we should adopt '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.

Next question. Does believing something is so make it so? In other words, does believing that X mean that X is the case? (Again, yes/no.)

You are getting rhetoric here.
What is critical is the term 'objective' as stated above.
'Objective' in this case is independent of any individual's opinion or view but conditioned by the justified collective [generic human] view.
Note Hume is also into this.

Merely yes/no without elaboration do not work here.
This is not a court case with no room for additional comments.

You should ask,

• In other words, does believing that X [justified via empirically and philosophical reasoning] mean that X is objective? (Again, yes/no.)

If that is the question, then 'YES'.

[Peter Holmes]

YES!

Right - let's bank that before we go on, as follows.

1 You believe we should adopt '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.

Next question. Does believing something is so make it so? In other words, does believing that X mean that X is the case? (Again, yes/no.)

You are getting rhetoric here.
What is critical is the term 'objective' as stated above.
'Objective' in this case is independent of any individual's opinion or view but conditioned by the justified collective [generic human] view.
Note Hume is also into this.

Merely yes/no without elaboration do not work here.
This is not a court case with no room for additional comments.

You should ask,

• In other words, does believing that X [justified via empirically and philosophical reasoning] mean that X is objective? (Again, yes/no.)

If that is the question, then 'YES'.

Okay. You think that, if there's empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning to justify the belief that X is the case, then X is the case.

But that's obviously false. X is or isn't the case regardless of what anyone believes. What you really mean is: it's rational to believe X is the case iff there's empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning to justify the belief.

Do you agree with my formulation? (If not, this conversation is over.)

[Sculptor]

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.

LOL
You are a child screaming at his elder.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Right - let's bank that before we go on, as follows.

1 You believe we should adopt '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.

Next question. Does believing something is so make it so? In other words, does believing that X mean that X is the case? (Again, yes/no.)

You are getting rhetoric here.
What is critical is the term 'objective' as stated above.
'Objective' in this case is independent of any individual's opinion or view but conditioned by the justified collective [generic human] view.
Note Hume is also into this.

Merely yes/no without elaboration do not work here.
This is not a court case with no room for additional comments.

You should ask,

• In other words, does believing that X [justified via empirically and philosophical reasoning] mean that X is objective? (Again, yes/no.)

If that is the question, then 'YES'.

Okay. You think that, if there's empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning to justify the belief that X is the case, then X is the case.

But that's obviously false. X is or isn't the case regardless of what anyone believes. What you really mean is: it's rational to believe X is the case iff there's empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning to justify the belief.

Do you agree with my formulation? (If not, this conversation is over.)

You are being rhetoric and forcing the term 'case' I never used nor agreed with.
The term "case" itself is irrelevant in this case, what is relevant is the contexts of the case.

Note again note - this is what I meant,

• if there's empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning to justify [collectively] the belief that X is the true, then X is objective, i.e. independent of any individual's belief.

The argument is whether X, i.e. the secular moral ought is objective [independent of individual opinions and beliefs].

You are ignoring the main argument.

It is your discretion whether to continue or not.
You are running away with that 'is/ought' trope without understanding its context and its place in the Philosophy of Morality.

As I had suggested you must track the 'is/ought' issue back to its roots and source.
In this case you have to read Hume's

• Treatise of Human Nature and
  "An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals".

Then we can argue from the basis of Hume's original idea.
I have refreshed on the above two books of Hume and is ready.

Note as far as I understand, Hume's point on 'is/ought' was not intended to be used in the manner you had abused it and argued for re objective secular moral oughts.

Don't run away from this, else you are shirking your philosophical responsibility and integrity.

[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.

You are suffering from ignorance with stupidity and arrogance.

LOL
You are a child screaming at his elder.

As usual, you are deflecting and running away without arguments.

Since 'is/ought' is from Hume, suggest you read Hume's
1. Treatise of Human Nature and
2. "An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals".
then present your argument from these books to justify your stance.

[Peter Holmes]

You are getting rhetoric here.
What is critical is the term 'objective' as stated above.
'Objective' in this case is independent of any individual's opinion or view but conditioned by the justified collective [generic human] view.
Note Hume is also into this.

Merely yes/no without elaboration do not work here.
This is not a court case with no room for additional comments.

You should ask,

• In other words, does believing that X [justified via empirically and philosophical reasoning] mean that X is objective? (Again, yes/no.)

If that is the question, then 'YES'.

Okay. You think that, if there's empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning to justify the belief that X is the case, then X is the case.

But that's obviously false. X is or isn't the case regardless of what anyone believes. What you really mean is: it's rational to believe X is the case iff there's empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning to justify the belief.

Do you agree with my formulation? (If not, this conversation is over.)

You are being rhetoric and forcing the term 'case' I never used nor agreed with.
The term "case" itself is irrelevant in this case, what is relevant is the contexts of the case.

Note again note - this is what I meant,

• if there's empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning to justify [collectively] the belief that X is the true, then X is objective, i.e. independent of any individual's belief.

The argument is whether X, i.e. the secular moral ought is objective [independent of individual opinions and beliefs].

You are ignoring the main argument.

It is your discretion whether to continue or not.
You are running away with that 'is/ought' trope without understanding its context and its place in the Philosophy of Morality.

As I had suggested you must track the 'is/ought' issue back to its roots and source.
In this case you have to read Hume's

• Treatise of Human Nature and
  "An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals".

Then we can argue from the basis of Hume's original idea.
I have refreshed on the above two books of Hume and is ready.

Note as far as I understand, Hume's point on 'is/ought' was not intended to be used in the manner you had abused it and argued for re objective secular moral oughts.

Don't run away from this, else you are shirking your philosophical responsibility and integrity.

Yeah, it looks like this conversation is over again. But you managed to agree that the following is true:

You believe we should adopt '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.

Of course, it's not a fact that we should do this - it's your belief, which is subjective, and others can believe something different. No moral objectivity here.

And in the expression 'secular objective moral ought', the word 'objective' is redundant or meaningless. An 'ought' that we can choose to adopt isn't objective - independent from belief. No moral objectivity here.

So all you're doing - and have ever done - is propose a course of action, which, in your judgement, will produce the best outcome for all of us. And that's fine. Just leave moral objectivity out of it, because there are no moral facts, but only more or less rational moral judgements.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Okay. You think that, if there's empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning to justify the belief that X is the case, then X is the case.

But that's obviously false. X is or isn't the case regardless of what anyone believes. What you really mean is: it's rational to believe X is the case iff there's empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning to justify the belief.

Do you agree with my formulation? (If not, this conversation is over.)

You are being rhetoric and forcing the term 'case' I never used nor agreed with.
The term "case" itself is irrelevant in this case, what is relevant is the contexts of the case.

Note again note - this is what I meant,

• if there's empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning to justify [collectively] the belief that X is the true, then X is objective, i.e. independent of any individual's belief.

The argument is whether X, i.e. the secular moral ought is objective [independent of individual opinions and beliefs].

You are ignoring the main argument.

It is your discretion whether to continue or not.
You are running away with that 'is/ought' trope without understanding its context and its place in the Philosophy of Morality.

As I had suggested you must track the 'is/ought' issue back to its roots and source.
In this case you have to read Hume's

• Treatise of Human Nature and
  "An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals".

Then we can argue from the basis of Hume's original idea.
I have refreshed on the above two books of Hume and is ready.

Note as far as I understand, Hume's point on 'is/ought' was not intended to be used in the manner you had abused it and argued for re objective secular moral oughts.

Don't run away from this, else you are shirking your philosophical responsibility and integrity.

Yeah, it looks like this conversation is over again. But you managed to agree that the following is true:

You believe we should adopt '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.

Of course, it's not a fact that we should do this - it's your belief, which is subjective, and others can believe something different. No moral objectivity here.

Note my belief is adopted from a supposedly a shared-belief by human beings generically as justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
I have already provided the generic justification and argument for this.

• E.g. The moral fact, "all humans ought to breathe" [and the likes] as justified is objective and is independent of any individual subjective belief and opinion.

And in the expression 'secular objective moral ought', the word 'objective' is redundant or meaningless. An 'ought' that we can choose to adopt isn't objective - independent from belief. No moral objectivity here.

So all you're doing - and have ever done - is propose a course of action, which, in your judgement, will produce the best outcome for all of us. And that's fine. Just leave moral objectivity out of it, because there are no moral facts, but only more or less rational moral judgements.

You have conflated an objective moral fact as justified with empirical fact.
A moral fact that is justified empirically and philosophically is objective.

How can you decide what is a more or less rational moral judgment if you don't have a fixed-standard to judge upon?

This is why we need a fixed grounded objective moral ought as a standard.

Note I have not provided any course of moral action.
What I have presented is an objective moral ought as a GUIDE.
The individual has to initiate his own actions in alignment with his inherent moral function to align with the objective moral GUIDE.

If you don't read Hume's book related to the issue, you will continue to grope blindly.

The latter-Hume definitely would had agreed to my proposals - here is a clue to that;

Late in his life Hume deemed the Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals [1751] [EPM] his best work, and in style it is a model of elegance and subtlety.
His method in that work differs from that of the Treatise: instead of explicating the nature of Virtue and Vice and our knowledge of them in terms of underlying features of the human mind,
he proposes to collect all the traits we know from common sense to be Virtues and Vices, observe what those in each group have in common, and from that observation discover the “foundation of ethics” (EPM 1.10).

What do you gather from the above?

Hume's "is/ought" dichotomy was from his earlier "Treatise of Human Nature" where many of his views were overridden by the latter 'Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals' [1751] [EPM]

That's is how Hume would have derived his secular objective moral oughts [foundation, grounds, standards] from observations and empirical evidences.
Can you counter this?

[Belinda]

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).

By "in the round" I mean four dimensional: I imagine a continuum as two dimensional a line from one polarity to its opposite polarity.

It's a good idea to imagine Yin and Yang. I'd rather think of their complementarity as together making a sphere or block which also includes the dimension of time.Yin and Yang are a great image of how everything relates to everything else.

There is of course no place within relativity for supernaturally originated values which fall to man to work on. How is man free to " work on" human values? By means of reason . It would seem man is the only animal that can reason about abstractions such as values.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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).

By "in the round" I mean four dimensional: I imagine a continuum as two dimensional a line from one polarity to its opposite polarity.

It's a good idea to imagine Yin and Yang. I'd rather think of their complementarity as together making a sphere or block which also includes the dimension of time.Yin and Yang are a great image of how everything relates to everything else.

There is of course no place within relativity for supernaturally originated values which fall to man to work on. How is man free to " work on" human values? By means of reason . It would seem man is the only animal that can reason about abstractions such as values.

Where humans "work on" human values it must be justified with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

There is no free ride for reason to work on human values. Where it does, it end up with values from the supernatural, God, deities, Satan, etc.

To paraphrase Kant;

• Reason without basic-human-nature is empty [illusory].
  Basic-human-nature without reason is blind.

Basic-human-nature = primal + emotions + intellect + sense + concepts + empirical elements.

Reason = the mental capacities of the neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex demonstrated only by humans at present.

Thus the imperative complementarity of [1] basic-human-nature with reason, [2] the empirical with reason [philosophical] and [3] IS and OUGHT.

[Sculptor]

You are suffering from ignorance with stupidity and arrogance.

LOL
You are a child screaming at his elder.

As usual, you are deflecting and running away without arguments.

Since 'is/ought' is from Hume, suggest you read Hume's
1. Treatise of Human Nature and
2. "An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals".
then present your argument from these books to justify your stance.

I was probably studying Hume when you were sucking on your Mum's tit.
I'd advise you to read the Enquiry, since Hume declared himself that his Treatise sprang dead from the press and went largely unread since it was too windy. The Enquiry is essentially covers the same ground more succinctly.
When you have opened one of these books come back.

[Belinda]

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).

By "in the round" I mean four dimensional: I imagine a continuum as two dimensional a line from one polarity to its opposite polarity.

It's a good idea to imagine Yin and Yang. I'd rather think of their complementarity as together making a sphere or block which also includes the dimension of time.Yin and Yang are a great image of how everything relates to everything else.

There is of course no place within relativity for supernaturally originated values which fall to man to work on. How is man free to " work on" human values? By means of reason . It would seem man is the only animal that can reason about abstractions such as values.

Where humans "work on" human values it must be justified with empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

There is no free ride for reason to work on human values. Where it does, it end up with values from the supernatural, God, deities, Satan, etc.

To paraphrase Kant;

• Reason without basic-human-nature is empty [illusory].
  Basic-human-nature without reason is blind.

Basic-human-nature = primal + emotions + intellect + sense + concepts + empirical elements.

Reason = the mental capacities of the neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex demonstrated only by humans at present.

Thus the imperative complementarity of [1] basic-human-nature with reason, [2] the empirical with reason [philosophical] and [3] IS and OUGHT.

What would you have instead of reason? You will find knowledge and fine judgement are better than anything else for predicting the best course of future action.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thus the imperative complementarity of [1] basic-human-nature with reason, [2] the empirical with reason [philosophical] and [3] IS and OUGHT.

What would you have instead of reason? You will find knowledge and fine judgement are better than anything else for predicting the best course of future action.

Judgment of whatever type (fine or otherwise) needs reason.
The alternatives to reason are instinct, guessing, intuition, hunch n the likes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

LOL
You are a child screaming at his elder.

As usual, you are deflecting and running away without arguments.

Since 'is/ought' is from Hume, suggest you read Hume's
1. Treatise of Human Nature and
2. "An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals".
then present your argument from these books to justify your stance.

I was probably studying Hume when you were sucking on your Mum's tit.
I'd advise you to read the Enquiry, since Hume declared himself that his Treatise sprang dead from the press and went largely unread since it was too windy. The Enquiry is essentially covers the same ground more succinctly.
When you have opened one of these books come back.

I've read them both sometime ago and is refreshing them at present.
Since you have read them long ago, i dont believe you have a super memory nor you have grasped Hume's view thoroughly.

Suggest u reread them again and justify yr points with references from the books directly.

Ps. Computer broke down, using handphone at present so response is limited.

[Belinda]

Thus the imperative complementarity of [1] basic-human-nature with reason, [2] the empirical with reason [philosophical] and [3] IS and OUGHT.

What would you have instead of reason? You will find knowledge and fine judgement are better than anything else for predicting the best course of future action.

Judgment of whatever type (fine or otherwise) needs reason.
The alternatives to reason are instinct, guessing, intuition, hunch n the likes.

Yes, those plus obedience to authority including the authority of priests, peddlers, PR specialists, old fashioned royalty and aristocrats, popular public figures such as actors some of whom have turned into politicians, and popular war lords.

Some individuals have better judgement and know more than other individuals. Empirical knowledge, reasoned judgement, and values are inseparable. Human freedom of choice is perhaps not important to you as a supreme value. However if it is, then good men work towards every man being able to maximise his choices.