'Ought' is 'Is'

[Veritas Aequitas]

'Ought' is 'Is'
Here is the argument and explanation;

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
  C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.

The point is reality, being, all-there-is is a monism.
However, humans being self-aware is imbued with the awareness of duality for various reasons.

When Hume insisted 'there can be no ought from is' he was trapped in a world of duality but unable to realize the original and more fundamental truth of all-there-is as a monism.
The above entrapment is also suffered by the blinded and failed to realize the fundamental truth of reality. i.e. monism.

Note this 'monism' has nothing to do with any God at all but merely refer to what is really-real, i.e. all-there-is, being_ness.

Re the above argument is applicable to Morality [as defined generally];

P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises and includes moral 'ought_ness'.
C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

Agree, disagree??

[Peter Holmes]

'Ought' is 'Is'
Here is the argument and explanation;

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
  C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.

The point is reality, being, all-there-is is a monism.
However, humans being self-aware is imbued with the awareness of duality for various reasons.

When Hume insisted 'there can be no ought from is' he was trapped in a world of duality but unable to realize the original and more fundamental truth of all-there-is as a monism.
The above entrapment is also suffered by the blinded and failed to realize the fundamental truth of reality. i.e. monism.

Note this 'monism' has nothing to do with any God at all but merely refer to what is really-real, i.e. all-there-is, being_ness.

Re the above argument is applicable to Morality [as defined generally];

P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises and includes moral 'ought_ness'.
C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

Agree, disagree??

Disagree, because it's unfalsifiable, metaphysical, mystical nonsense. Ought-ness is a thing of some kind, and since there's only one reality, ought-ness is a real thing. Another slam-dunk, I'd say.

[Atla]

'Ought' is 'Is'
Here is the argument and explanation;

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
  C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.

The point is reality, being, all-there-is is a monism.
However, humans being self-aware is imbued with the awareness of duality for various reasons.

When Hume insisted 'there can be no ought from is' he was trapped in a world of duality but unable to realize the original and more fundamental truth of all-there-is as a monism.
The above entrapment is also suffered by the blinded and failed to realize the fundamental truth of reality. i.e. monism.

Note this 'monism' has nothing to do with any God at all but merely refer to what is really-real, i.e. all-there-is, being_ness.

Re the above argument is applicable to Morality [as defined generally];

P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises and includes moral 'ought_ness'.
C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

Agree, disagree??

'Ought_ness' exists, and is implicitly subjective. Objective morality can't be derived from all-there-is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

'Ought' is 'Is'
Here is the argument and explanation;

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
  C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.

The point is reality, being, all-there-is is a monism.
However, humans being self-aware is imbued with the awareness of duality for various reasons.

When Hume insisted 'there can be no ought from is' he was trapped in a world of duality but unable to realize the original and more fundamental truth of all-there-is as a monism.
The above entrapment is also suffered by the blinded and failed to realize the fundamental truth of reality. i.e. monism.

Note this 'monism' has nothing to do with any God at all but merely refer to what is really-real, i.e. all-there-is, being_ness.

Re the above argument is applicable to Morality [as defined generally];

P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises and includes moral 'ought_ness'.
C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

Agree, disagree??

Disagree, because it's unfalsifiable, metaphysical, mystical nonsense. Ought-ness is a thing of some kind, and since there's only one reality, ought-ness is a real thing. Another slam-dunk, I'd say.

I don't understand your point.

Ought_ness is a thing [in the very loose sense*] and if that is the case, the argument is valid.
* in the very loose sense means it is not confined to physical objects only.
Obviously for it to be sound [whatever that is claimed] the existence of that ought_ness has to be verified and justified.
I have already justified that, e.g. in the case of 'no human ought to kill another human'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

'Ought_ness' exists, and is implicitly subjective. Objective morality can't be derived from all-there-is.

Yes, if ought-ness is a view by an individual, that is subjective.
e.g. I ought to eat ice-cream because I feel strongly for it.

But if ought_ness is something like,
I ought to breathe, else I will die is
generic to all human beings,
thus it is independent of individual opinions and beliefs,
therefore such an 'ought' is objective.

Where Morality is involved, all generic moral ought_ness related to human beings are objective, e.g. no killing of another human being because no normal human being would want to be killed voluntarily and this ought_ness is supported by a set of neural algorithm.
Thus, such moral oughtness are objective, i.e. independent of any individual's opinions or beliefs.

[Atla]

'Ought_ness' exists, and is implicitly subjective. Objective morality can't be derived from all-there-is.

Yes, if ought-ness is a view by an individual, that is subjective.
e.g. I ought to eat ice-cream because I feel strongly for it.

But if ought_ness is something like,
I ought to breathe, else I will die is
generic to all human beings,
thus it is independent of individual opinions and beliefs,
therefore such an 'ought' is objective.

Where Morality is involved, all generic moral ought_ness related to human beings are objective, e.g. no killing of another human being because no normal human being would want to be killed voluntarily and this ought_ness is supported by a set of neural algorithm.
Thus, such moral oughtness are objective, i.e. independent of any individual's opinions or beliefs.

Generic ought_ness doesn't exist. It's implicitly subjective.
If someone wants to live, then that person ought to breathe. If people want someone to die, then to them that person ought not breathe, so they push that person underwater for example. By the way, for example we also have 'neural algorithms' for revenge killing.

[Peter Holmes]

'Ought' is 'Is'
Here is the argument and explanation;

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
  C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.

The point is reality, being, all-there-is is a monism.
However, humans being self-aware is imbued with the awareness of duality for various reasons.

When Hume insisted 'there can be no ought from is' he was trapped in a world of duality but unable to realize the original and more fundamental truth of all-there-is as a monism.
The above entrapment is also suffered by the blinded and failed to realize the fundamental truth of reality. i.e. monism.

Note this 'monism' has nothing to do with any God at all but merely refer to what is really-real, i.e. all-there-is, being_ness.

Re the above argument is applicable to Morality [as defined generally];

P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises and includes moral 'ought_ness'.
C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

Agree, disagree??

Disagree, because it's unfalsifiable, metaphysical, mystical nonsense. Ought-ness is a thing of some kind, and since there's only one reality, ought-ness is a real thing. Another slam-dunk, I'd say.

I don't understand your point.

Ought_ness is a thing [in the very loose sense*] and if that is the case, the argument is valid.
* in the very loose sense means it is not confined to physical objects only.
Obviously for it to be sound [whatever that is claimed] the existence of that ought_ness has to be verified and justified.
I have already justified that, e.g. in the case of 'no human ought to kill another human'.

What and where are supposed abstract things, such as ought-ness, and in what way do they exist?

Answers, please, without equivocation on the words 'thing' and 'exist'.

Hint: hand-waving, talk of concepts in minds (more abstract things), or complaints that abstract nouns must have referents - things they denote - don't work. They explain nothing.

[Skepdick]

What and where are supposed abstract things, such as ought-ness, and in what way do they exist?

What and where are suppositions?
What and where is existence?

Answers, please, without equivocation on the words 'thing' and 'exist'.

Hint: hand-waving, talk of concepts in minds (more abstract things), or complaints that abstract nouns must have referents - things they denote - don't work. They explain nothing.

Asserting whether anything "works" (such as an "explanation" - whatever that is) is a judgment. And (according to you) judgments are abstract things, which makes your request incoherent.

Please try and express yourself clarify and re-state what it is that you are asking for without using any abstractions.

[Belinda]

'Ought' is 'Is'
Here is the argument and explanation;

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
  C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.

The point is reality, being, all-there-is is a monism.
However, humans being self-aware is imbued with the awareness of duality for various reasons.

When Hume insisted 'there can be no ought from is' he was trapped in a world of duality but unable to realize the original and more fundamental truth of all-there-is as a monism.
The above entrapment is also suffered by the blinded and failed to realize the fundamental truth of reality. i.e. monism.

Note this 'monism' has nothing to do with any God at all but merely refer to what is really-real, i.e. all-there-is, being_ness.

Re the above argument is applicable to Morality [as defined generally];

P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises and includes moral 'ought_ness'.
C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

Agree, disagree??

I agree. I agree on the ground of reference to reality which applies to values and to existences. True, humans can and do mediate both existences and values through language and even codify species of existences and values, which other animals don't do.
Values relate to specifiable events such as who is the boss,or what is best to do to stay alive, but do not and cannot float around in nothingness as if nobody were there except God.

[Peter Holmes]

'Ought' is 'Is'
Here is the argument and explanation;

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
  C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.

The point is reality, being, all-there-is is a monism.
However, humans being self-aware is imbued with the awareness of duality for various reasons.

When Hume insisted 'there can be no ought from is' he was trapped in a world of duality but unable to realize the original and more fundamental truth of all-there-is as a monism.
The above entrapment is also suffered by the blinded and failed to realize the fundamental truth of reality. i.e. monism.

Note this 'monism' has nothing to do with any God at all but merely refer to what is really-real, i.e. all-there-is, being_ness.

Re the above argument is applicable to Morality [as defined generally];

P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises and includes moral 'ought_ness'.
C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

Agree, disagree??

I agree. I agree on the ground of reference to reality which applies to values and to existences. True, humans can and do mediate both existences and values through language and even codify species of existences and values, which other animals don't do.
Values relate to specifiable events such as who is the boss,or what is best to do to stay alive, but do not and cannot float around in nothingness as if nobody were there except God.

1 If reality applies (?) to values and existences, does that mean values are not in the set of things that exist? Why distinguish values from existences?

2 We're bewitched by the devices of our language. For example, I value both honesty and clean water. But does honesty exist in the way that clean water exists? If not, in what way does honesty exist? And do I have a value in the way I have a headache or a mortgage?

3 The question stands: what and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist? (Answer: they're an ancient metaphysical delusion; mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention.)

[Skepdick]

1 If reality applies (?) to values and existences, does that mean values are not in the set of things that exist? Why distinguish values from existences?

What and where are sets?
What and where is existence?
What and where are distinctions?

Why distinguish values from existences?

Why distinguish anything from anything? Because that's how humans communicate effectively!

2 We're bewitched by the devices of our language. For example, I value both honesty and clean water. But does honesty exist in the way that clean water exists? If not, in what way does honesty exist? And do I have a value in the way I have a headache or a mortgage?

3 The question stands: what and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist? (Answer: they're an ancient metaphysical delusion; mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention.)

What and where is metaphysics?
What and where are delusions?
What and where are mysteries?

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote:

If reality applies (?) to values and existences, does that mean values are not in the set of things that exist? Why distinguish values from existences?

Values are in the set of attributes that 'exist '. Attributes that exist are things that people notice.There are countless events, attributes, or 'things' that are unnoticed because they are meaningless for us.To exist is to be perceived.That is not to say what is perceived is all there be. Men and other animals are aware of what is perceptible to senses. What is perceptible to senses is so because natural selection applied. What is perceptible to senses is a subsection of possibility.If environment changed without wiping out the biosphere it is possible animals would develop sensitivity to features of the novel environment.

If by "values" you mean both negative and positive values, as do I, then values are not distinguishable from other attributes and are as relatively quantifiable as other attributes, except when religious moral codes reify and glorify them.

[Impenitent]

Bigfoot told me that the Ought-ness monster went on vacation with the Moth-man

-Imp

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes wrote:

If reality applies (?) to values and existences, does that mean values are not in the set of things that exist? Why distinguish values from existences?

Values are in the set of attributes that 'exist '. Attributes that exist are things that people notice.There are countless events, attributes, or 'things' that are unnoticed because they are meaningless for us.To exist is to be perceived.That is not to say what is perceived is all there be. Men and other animals are aware of what is perceptible to senses. What is perceptible to senses is so because natural selection applied. What is perceptible to senses is a subsection of possibility.If environment changed without wiping out the biosphere it is possible animals would develop sensitivity to features of the novel environment.

If by "values" you mean both negative and positive values, as do I, then values are not distinguishable from other attributes and are as relatively quantifiable as other attributes, except when religious moral codes reify and glorify them.

Okay. I think values are not attributes or properties that exist, or even 'exist'. They're not things that can be perceived at all. And I think esse est percipi is nonsense. So we probably can't go anywhere with this. Thanks.

[Skepdick]

Okay. I think values are not attributes or properties that exist, or even 'exist'.

Yet you do not deny that you possess values?

They're not things that can be perceived at all. And I think esse est percipi is nonsense.

You literally contradicted yourself in one sentence.

If you possess values, but you can't perceive them then how do you know you have values?

Perhaps you are finally coming around to confessing your nihilism?