'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??

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.

Agree with the above.
It is not easy to realize the truth of the above, I say in this case, you are very in touch with reality.
In contrast, note Peter Holmes who is out of touch with reality at its fundamental level.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

You are too hasty in deflecting [which you regularly do] to esse est percipi of Berkeley and his God who perceives all.
esse est percipi is not totally 'nonsense', it is only nonsense when Berkeley bring in God to consummate his conclusion.

Didn't you read Belinda's point??

That is not to say what is perceived is all there be.

Value is a Thing and it Exists
Here is a serious point about 'values' which I had raised often.

The US Dollar For Example:
If you say values per se do not exists, then those who possess US Dollars in currency should throw all away because according to you 'value' per se do not exist.

Btw, don't confuse the US Dollar the paper [thing], the essence of the US Dollar is its value per se.

In the past, all currencies values are things because they are reducible to something physical of value, i.e. solid gold in vaults of those who issue the respective currency.

However the US had decided to remove this gold representation long time ago.
On June 5, 1933, the United States went off the gold standard, a monetary system in which currency is backed by gold, when Congress enacted a joint resolution nullifying the right of creditors to demand payment in gold.
The government held the $35 per ounce price until August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon announced that the United States would no longer convert dollars to gold at a fixed value, thus completely abandoning the gold standard.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... d-standard#

Where there is a gold standard or silver standard, the US Dollar is grounded on something that is physical, i.e. that equivalent in amount of solid gold or silver.

When there is no more physical representation to the US Dollar what we have is merely trust, i.e. trust in the credibility of the US Government that it will not collapse.

However, there is no denial the US Dollar is a "thing" [not the paper] in the loosest sense because it has values that can be exchanged, traded in financial situations.
So how can anyone deny the US Dollar do not exists?

In this case, the US Dollar is an emergent emerging and sustained in the minds of those who have trust or are forced to trust the credibility of the US Dollar.

In addition, the US Dollar is not something that is perceived [by sense organs] at all.

Also you cannot deny the the value of the US Dollar is objective, because its existence and value is independent of an individual's opinion and beliefs.

What about physical objects you insist exist objectively?
If only you have higher cognitive and philosophical reflective power,
you will get to know, even objects and things which you think exists - ultimately & fundamentally - do not exist independently as objects-by-themselves.

What you think exists independently as objects/facts are fundamentally reducible to atoms, protons-electrons, then to particles [quarks] which are not observer-independent.
All things ultimately are mind-interdependent, i.e. intersubjective.

So your point;
PH: I think values are not attributes or properties that exist, or even 'exist'.
is based on ignorance, shallow and narrow philosophical knowledge.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Rather it the value of your philosophical knowledge that do not have reasonable quality [properties] and do not exists. You are trapped and stuck within your dogmatism and bigotry.
It is time you recognize your philosophical competence and ignorance in this case is f..ked-up.

[Atla]

Peter Holmes wrote:



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.

You are too hasty in deflecting [which you regularly do] to esse est percipi of Berkeley and his God who perceives all.
esse est percipi is not totally 'nonsense', it is only nonsense when Berkeley bring in God to consummate his conclusion.

Didn't you read Belinda's point??

That is not to say what is perceived is all there be.

Value is a Thing and it Exists
Here is a serious point about 'values' which I had raised often.

The US Dollar For Example:
If you say values per se do not exists, then those who possess US Dollars in currency should throw all away because according to you 'value' per se do not exist.

Btw, don't confuse the US Dollar the paper [thing], the essence of the US Dollar is its value per se.

In the past, all currencies values are things because they are reducible to something physical of value, i.e. solid gold in vaults of those who issue the respective currency.

However the US had decided to remove this gold representation long time ago.
On June 5, 1933, the United States went off the gold standard, a monetary system in which currency is backed by gold, when Congress enacted a joint resolution nullifying the right of creditors to demand payment in gold.
The government held the $35 per ounce price until August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon announced that the United States would no longer convert dollars to gold at a fixed value, thus completely abandoning the gold standard.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... d-standard#

Where there is a gold standard or silver standard, the US Dollar is grounded on something that is physical, i.e. that equivalent in amount of solid gold or silver.

When there is no more physical representation to the US Dollar what we have is merely trust, i.e. trust in the credibility of the US Government that it will not collapse.

However, there is no denial the US Dollar is a "thing" [not the paper] in the loosest sense because it has values that can be exchanged, traded in financial situations.
So how can anyone deny the US Dollar do not exists?

In this case, the US Dollar is an emergent emerging and sustained in the minds of those who have trust or are forced to trust the credibility of the US Dollar.

In addition, the US Dollar is not something that is perceived [by sense organs] at all.

Also you cannot deny the the value of the US Dollar is objective, because its existence and value is independent of an individual's opinion and beliefs.

What about physical objects you insist exist objectively?
If only you have higher cognitive and philosophical reflective power,
you will get to know, even objects and things which you think exists - ultimately & fundamentally - do not exist independently as objects-by-themselves.

What you think exists independently as objects/facts are fundamentally reducible to atoms, protons-electrons, then to particles [quarks] which are not observer-independent.
All things ultimately are mind-interdependent, i.e. intersubjective.

So your point;
PH: I think values are not attributes or properties that exist, or even 'exist'.
is based on ignorance, shallow and narrow philosophical knowledge.

Value of the dollar is a lot like morality, they only 'exist' in the loosest sense of the word, where we are basically agreeing to reify human-made abstract ideas. That is why they cannot be objective. Only the various sensations, that people experience about values and morality, are concretely real.

Epic own goal you scored there. Also, you've just proven the existence of God: if I really believe in God, or even hallucinate about God, then God must exist, God is part of all-there-is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Value of the dollar is a lot like morality, they only 'exist' in the loosest sense of the word, where we are basically agreeing to reify human-made abstract ideas. That is why they cannot be objective. Only the various sensations, that people experience about values and morality, are concretely real.

Epic own goal you scored there. Also, you've just proven the existence of God: if I really believe in God, or even hallucinate about God, then God must exist, God is part of all-there-is.

You got it wrong.

Theists insist the God they believed and reified as real exists independent as an entity who listens and answers their prayers, created the Universe with attributes of omnipotence and omni-whatever. Such an absolute God exists independently regardless of humans.
The God that is claimed by theists or those who hallucinated cannot be justified empirically and philosophically.

Morality and its values [US Dollars and the likes] exist as real within ALL humans as supported by the neural algorithms and values pertain to specific groups of humans.
Morality and values are interdependent with all humans and if no humans exist there is no morality and values.
Morality and values [US Dollars and the likes] can be justified empirically and physically.

As Skepdick had always issue the challenge, if you do not believe killing is morally wrong, then for you as you believe, it is not morally wrong for anyone to kill you.

[Atla]

Value of the dollar is a lot like morality, they only 'exist' in the loosest sense of the word, where we are basically agreeing to reify human-made abstract ideas. That is why they cannot be objective. Only the various sensations, that people experience about values and morality, are concretely real.

Epic own goal you scored there. Also, you've just proven the existence of God: if I really believe in God, or even hallucinate about God, then God must exist, God is part of all-there-is.

You got it wrong.

Theists insist the God they believed and reified as real exists independent as an entity who listens and answers their prayers, created the Universe with attributes of omnipotence and omni-whatever. Such an absolute God exists independently regardless of humans.
The God that is claimed by theists or those who hallucinated cannot be justified empirically and philosophically.

Morality and its values [US Dollars and the likes] exist as real within ALL humans as supported by the neural algorithms and values pertain to specific groups of humans.
Morality and values are interdependent with all humans and if no humans exist there is no morality and values.
Morality and values [US Dollars and the likes] can be justified empirically and physically.

If you think you can justifiy the value of the dollar empirically, you are genuinely insane. That's like justifying God using psychology, neural algorithms, temples, holy books..

As Skepdick had always issue the challenge, if you do not believe killing is morally wrong, then for you as you believe, it is not morally wrong for anyone to kill you.

Skepdick? LOL you've lost it

And if you think I believe killing is never morally wrong, then you don't yet reach the cognitive abilities of the average 5 year old. Actually saying that is not just stupid but immoral.

[Belinda]

Atla wrote:

Epic own goal you scored there. Also, you've just proven the existence of God: if I really believe in God, or even hallucinate about God, then God must exist, God is part of all-there-is.

That you "really believe in God" , or believe otherwise,plus you have just stated that, are nodes of the possibly infinite web we call reality. Hallucinations exist and likewise are nodes of reality.

Whether or not there is a Being that can and does view the whole of reality we will never know. In either case such an elevated Being is deterministic , because that Being knows that what It scrutinises is a web of infinite connections, not an aggregate of atoms.

[Atla]

Atla wrote:

Epic own goal you scored there. Also, you've just proven the existence of God: if I really believe in God, or even hallucinate about God, then God must exist, God is part of all-there-is.

That you "really believe in God" , or believe otherwise,plus you have just stated that, are nodes of the possibly infinite web we call reality. Hallucinations exist and likewise are nodes of reality.

Whether or not there is a Being that can and does view the whole of reality we will never know. In either case such an elevated Being is deterministic , because that Being knows that what It scrutinises is a web of infinite connections, not an aggregate of atoms.

That didn't address what I said.

[Belinda]

Atla wrote:

Epic own goal you scored there. Also, you've just proven the existence of God: if I really believe in God, or even hallucinate about God, then God must exist, God is part of all-there-is.

That you "really believe in God" , or believe otherwise,plus you have just stated that, are nodes of the possibly infinite web we call reality. Hallucinations exist and likewise are nodes of reality.

Whether or not there is a Being that can and does view the whole of reality we will never know. In either case such an elevated Being is deterministic , because that Being knows that what It scrutinises is a web of infinite connections, not an aggregate of atoms.

That didn't address what I said.

I should have added the following.

Most modern thinkers believe there is probably no material referent for God. However a claim to believe in God has a referent , especially if others heard or read it.

Modern thinkers might claim the only referent for God is existence itself. Existence itself is not a Person; existence itself lacks intentions-purposes-meanings.

[Skepdick]

Epic own goal you scored there. Also, you've just proven the existence of God: if I really believe in God, or even hallucinate about God, then God must exist, God is part of all-there-is.

You've never heard of Gödel's ontological proof?

It's logically correct - it's a proof-by-contradiction.

It's not really his fault that he's been raised in a philosophical tradition which allows for contradictions to be exploited in that way.

Don't hate the player - hate the game. Or something.

[Atla]

Epic own goal you scored there. Also, you've just proven the existence of God: if I really believe in God, or even hallucinate about God, then God must exist, God is part of all-there-is.

You've never heard of Gödel's ontological proof?

It's logically correct - it's a proof-by-contradiction.

It's not really his fault that he's been raised in a philosophical tradition which allows for contradictions to be exploited in that way.

Don't hate the player - hate the game. Or something.

You done talking to yourself?

[Skepdick]

You done talking to yourself?

You done being a belligerent twat?

[Sculptor]

'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'.

No.
Oranges are not the only fruit.
And not all fruit is orange.

"IS is all there is" (P1), is false, since you have forgotten that "is not" is also part of everything. Isnotness is a keen part of oughts.
Ought is usually not, but an aspiration to be. A thing dreamt of. A thing imagined. A thing if only.
eg
There ought to be more reason out there in the world. Sadly there is only so much reason in the world and you seem to have a lack of it! If only you were blessed with more reason, you'd not have started this thread.

[Atla]

You done talking to yourself?

You done being a belligerent twat?

Looks like you are still talking to yourself

[Skepdick]

Looks like you are still talking to yourself

It's cute that you think you and I are the same person.