'Ought' is 'Is'

[Sculptor]

As usual your typical one-liner without justifications.
That is more precise in reflecting your own 'not-very-bright' and intellectual capacity.

You are too dull to see that I already trashed you absurd "proof".
Neither oughts nor ises exist as "real" things, they are just ideas to help us describe the world around us. They are words that help us forge relationship of ideas.
There is no necessary real connection between "all" and these words, since the universe is quite happy to abide without us and our petty concerns.
There is a good reason we make a distinction between ought and is, and that is because we use those ideas for DIFFERENT things. Ought is not "IS".

Now at least you are trying to talk and argue but I will show you won't go very far with the above.

Too Dull??
Note I am thinking 3 to 5 steps ahead of your constipated ideas.

You need to think wide, i.e. the 'meta-' then 'meta-meta-' then 'meta-meta-meta-' of reality.

If 'oughts' are merely ideas, aren't 'ideas' part of reality i.e. all-there-is.
As such ideas are "is_es" thus
An 'Ought' which is an idea is also an 'is".

As I had stated the reason why 'ought' is separated from "is" is due to the necessary inherent dualism [more critical for survival] evolved in humans differentiating from the 'unity' of all-there-is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism
The problem is when humans are driven to the more dominant dualism of "ought" from "is" they totally forget about the underlying encompassing unity "is."

When you insist on playing the game of dualism, the rule of dualism and classical logic is 'ought' cannot be derived from "is" and it is rightly so because that is the rule!
But you forget rules are set by the common human mind within a common reality of 'all-there-is', i.e. whatever [diversity] of the 'all' it is "is" [part of unity].

You are too dull to understand there is unity [is] within diversity [is-es, oughts, etc.]

God help you.

[FlashDangerpants]

'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'.

One of your shittest arguments yet. Admittedly I am only bothering to look at about one in ten of your threads because as noted many times before, they are all just the same pile of mistaken warmed over trash which you repeat on an endless loop of non-learning.

P2 only makes sense if you are asserting that oughtness is an actual property of actual objects, which is absurd.
Otherwise you are insisting that all-there-is includes all ideas, including the fantastical ones (unicorns, phlogiston, and both flat and donut shaped Earths), as well as the logical impossibilities (married batchelors). Most importantly though, it allows for mutually contradictory "is" things, such as the round Earth, and the donut Earth and the flat Earth all at once, rendering your argument, predictably by now to all sane men, completely fucking worthless.

Don't be too arrogant when you are the very fucking ignorant one.
Your philosophy grade is only kindergarten level or at best Grade 3 level.

I have a university degree in the subject. I had to write many essays examining the logical structure of arguments and assessing them for strengths and weaknesses, because that is the key skill in this subject, and those essays were marked by professors who were paid to examine my writings for logical structure and to expose any weaknesses they found there. You are clearly self-taught and you have spent years marking your own homework.

'Oughtness' is a property of humans in this case which is part of all-there-is.

In what way is "oughtness" a property of humans that "religion" is not? Or that imaginary objects such as unicorns are not?

Thus wherever there is 'oughtness' [to be justified] it is part of all-there-is, i.e. "is".
Oughtness within Morality and Ethics are only confined to human duty and obligations.
Whatever is 'oughtness' in this case must be justified empirically and philosophically.

Word salad.

[Veritas Aequitas]

One of your shittest arguments yet. Admittedly I am only bothering to look at about one in ten of your threads because as noted many times before, they are all just the same pile of mistaken warmed over trash which you repeat on an endless loop of non-learning.

P2 only makes sense if you are asserting that oughtness is an actual property of actual objects, which is absurd.
Otherwise you are insisting that all-there-is includes all ideas, including the fantastical ones (unicorns, phlogiston, and both flat and donut shaped Earths), as well as the logical impossibilities (married batchelors). Most importantly though, it allows for mutually contradictory "is" things, such as the round Earth, and the donut Earth and the flat Earth all at once, rendering your argument, predictably by now to all sane men, completely fucking worthless.

Don't be too arrogant when you are the very fucking ignorant one.
Your philosophy grade is only kindergarten level or at best Grade 3 level.

I have a university degree in the subject. I had to write many essays examining the logical structure of arguments and assessing them for strengths and weaknesses, because that is the key skill in this subject, and those essays were marked by professors who were paid to examine my writings for logical structure and to expose any weaknesses they found there. You are clearly self-taught and you have spent years marking your own homework.

A university degree is relatively 'kindergarten' to philosophy-proper, more so if your degree is related to language and logic.

'Oughtness' is a property of humans in this case which is part of all-there-is.

In what way is "oughtness" a property of humans that "religion" is not? Or that imaginary objects such as unicorns are not?

Moral 'oughtness' within Moral Empirical Realism is grounded and traceable to empirical properties within the human mind, brain and body operating within the Universe. Such justifiable moral facts supervening upon empirical properties are not imaginary. These moral facts are testable and repeatable as true.

Theistic religions are mentally based and are grounded on an impossible-to-be-real-GOD. As such the claim of a God is not justifiable, testable and repeatable as real.

Thus wherever there is 'oughtness' [to be justified] it is part of all-there-is, i.e. "is".
Oughtness within Morality and Ethics are only confined to human duty and obligations.
Whatever is 'oughtness' in this case must be justified empirically and philosophically.

Word salad.

That is due to your kindergarten knowledge and ignorance.

• Whatever exists is 'is' i.e. being.
  Reality is all-there-is or all is_es there are.
  'Oughtness' exists supervened upon its physical things.
  Therefore 'oughtness' is 'is'.

Show me which of my premise is wrong or do not follow.

Notes:

• In philosophy, being means the material or immaterial existence of a thing.[1] Anything that exists is being. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies being. Being is a concept encompassing objective and subjective features of reality and existence.[2]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

One self-evident 'oughtness' is the oughtness to breathe, i.e.
"All humans ought to breathe"
is a natural default and an imperative which can be objectively verified as real.

As with the above oughtness to breathe, it is the same for moral oughts within the moral Framework and System.

[FlashDangerpants]

Don't be too arrogant when you are the very fucking ignorant one.
Your philosophy grade is only kindergarten level or at best Grade 3 level.

I have a university degree in the subject. I had to write many essays examining the logical structure of arguments and assessing them for strengths and weaknesses, because that is the key skill in this subject, and those essays were marked by professors who were paid to examine my writings for logical structure and to expose any weaknesses they found there. You are clearly self-taught and you have spent years marking your own homework.

A university degree is relatively 'kindergarten' to philosophy-proper, more so if your degree is related to language and logic.

"philosophy-proper" is nothing but sour grapes bullshit that you use to justify nonsense which fails as actual philosophy. Learn how to do the real thing properly.

'Oughtness' is a property of humans in this case which is part of all-there-is.

In what way is "oughtness" a property of humans that "religion" is not? Or that imaginary objects such as unicorns are not?

Moral 'oughtness' within Moral Empirical Realism is grounded and traceable to empirical properties within the human mind, brain and body operating within the Universe. Such justifiable moral facts supervening upon empirical properties are not imaginary. These moral facts are testable and repeatable as true.

Theistic religions are mentally based and are grounded on an impossible-to-be-real-GOD. As such the claim of a God is not justifiable, testable and repeatable as real.

That is circular. You are trying to demonstrate that oughts are ises, so you can't use any of that above as justification because it assumes that oughts are ises. this is simple entry level stuff that a "philosopher-proper" wouldn't need to be told about.

Thus wherever there is 'oughtness' [to be justified] it is part of all-there-is, i.e. "is".
Oughtness within Morality and Ethics are only confined to human duty and obligations.
Whatever is 'oughtness' in this case must be justified empirically and philosophically.

Word salad.

That is due to your kindergarten knowledge and ignorance.

• Whatever exists is 'is' i.e. being.
  Reality is all-there-is or all is_es there are.
  'Oughtness' exists supervened upon its physical things.
  Therefore 'oughtness' is 'is'.

Show me which of my premise is wrong or do not follow.

The supervenience is a baseless assertion, you need the argument you are defending to support it, so claiming it in support of that argument is circular. You've tried this same silly trick thousands of times already. You apparently don't find it boring to just do the same stupid thing every single day, but I am tiring of this shit again.

Notes:

• In philosophy, being means the material or immaterial existence of a thing.[1] Anything that exists is being. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies being. Being is a concept encompassing objective and subjective features of reality and existence.[2]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

One self-evident 'oughtness' is the oughtness to breathe, i.e.
"All humans ought to breathe"
is a natural default and an imperative which can be objectively verified as real.

As with the above oughtness to breathe, it is the same for moral oughts within the moral Framework and System.

You've been told enough times already what is wrong with that, if you haven't learned yet, then your ability to learn is clearly a problem.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote:

As with the above oughtness to breathe, it is the same for moral oughts within the moral Framework and System.

"You ought to breathe" literally implies "You owe it to yourself to breathe other wise you will suffocate".

A slightly less obvious example of ought is factual claim: "you ought to keep a social distance otherwise you will spread this intractable infection".

And the following is a less obvious example of how oughtness is a factual claim:

"You ought to fear God otherwise He will strike you down with a thunderbolt" which implies God is real and also punishes people, which people used to believe was a fact.

Here is another ought which is a factual claim, and this ought is largely about owing to others rather than to self:

"One ought to be kind to others who are poor people, as the children of the poor need decent food."

Notice that every ought claim implies a rationale same as all other claims.Just because the rationales are usually not made explicit does not mean the rationales don't exist.

The rationales of oughtness usually reflect cultural claims; religions and their moral codes are of course cultural same as ideas of beauty.

[FlashDangerpants]

Here is another ought which is a factual claim, and this ought is largely about owing to others rather than to self:

"One ought to be kind to others who are poor people, as the children of the poor need decent food."

That's not a factual claim. If somebody holds one of many potential opposing opinions - that the poor don't deserve handouts, or that it harms more than it helps to provide them or that there is no real reason to do anything - there is no fact of the universe that makes their thing an opinion but yours a truth.

The whole moral deal is predicated on normative judgments which in every case could have been different in some important way. That's not a sufficient basis for anything that conforms meaningfully to the concept of fact.

[Skepdick]

"philosophy-proper" is nothing but sour grapes bullshit that you use to justify nonsense which fails as actual philosophy. Learn how to do the real thing properly.

Dismissing a normative claim with another normative claim.

Irony. The gift that keeps on giving.

[FlashDangerpants]

"philosophy-proper" is nothing but sour grapes bullshit that you use to justify nonsense which fails as actual philosophy. Learn how to do the real thing properly.

Dismissing a normative claim with another normative claim.

Irony. The gift that keeps on giving.

Yeah, I still don't give a fuck about any of your nonsense. Try again next week.

[Skepdick]

Yeah, I still don't give a fuck about any of your nonsense. Try again next week.

Great. Because I wasn't pointing at my nonsense - I was pointing at yours.

My "nonsense" is what you seem to call a "factual claim"

FlashDangerDork used a normative claim to dismiss VA's normative claim.

It actually happened.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you think you have uncovered some grand truth there, you should submit for reevalution next year rather than next week.

[Belinda]

Here is another ought which is a factual claim, and this ought is largely about owing to others rather than to self:

"One ought to be kind to others who are poor people, as the children of the poor need decent food."

That's not a factual claim. If somebody holds one of many potential opposing opinions - that the poor don't deserve handouts, or that it harms more than it helps to provide them or that there is no real reason to do anything - there is no fact of the universe that makes their thing an opinion but yours a truth.

The whole moral deal is predicated on normative judgments which in every case could have been different in some important way. That's not a sufficient basis for anything that conforms meaningfully to the concept of fact.

That is as much a fact as "If you don't feed children they will starve" .Or "If you don't feed children there will not be a new generation of adults". Or "If there is not a new generation of adult humans that would be all the better for the natural environment."

What are often taken to be facts are significant probabilities. Moral propositions are propositions that are less explicit than what are usually claimed to be factual propositions. However all propositions are based on inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning seldom explains all the evidence, and if it did always did explain all the evidence then each inductive proposition would take the conditional form if___ then. E.G. "If we don't feed children then there not be a new generation".

Every proposition implies a criterion or more often multiple criteria . True, there is always a metaphysical axiomatic ultimate which is truth,goodness, or beauty.

[Skepdick]

If you think you have uncovered some grand truth there, you should submit for reevalution next year rather than next week.

It ain't grand - just obvious.

Your "evaluation" is not required. Lucky you.

[FlashDangerpants]

Here is another ought which is a factual claim, and this ought is largely about owing to others rather than to self:

"One ought to be kind to others who are poor people, as the children of the poor need decent food."

That's not a factual claim. If somebody holds one of many potential opposing opinions - that the poor don't deserve handouts, or that it harms more than it helps to provide them or that there is no real reason to do anything - there is no fact of the universe that makes their thing an opinion but yours a truth.

The whole moral deal is predicated on normative judgments which in every case could have been different in some important way. That's not a sufficient basis for anything that conforms meaningfully to the concept of fact.

That is as much a fact as "If you don't feed children they will starve" .Or "If you don't feed children there will not be a new generation of adults". Or "If there is not a new generation of adult humans that would be all the better for the natural environment."

What are often taken to be facts are significant probabilities. Moral propositions are propositions that are less explicit than what are usually claimed to be factual propositions. However all propositions are based on inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning seldom explains all the evidence, and if it did always did explain all the evidence then each inductive proposition would take the conditional form if___ then. E.G. "If we don't feed children then there not be a new generation".

Every proposition implies a criterion or more often multiple criteria . True, there is always a metaphysical axiomatic ultimate which is truth,goodness, or beauty.

I am going to tell you a fact which is not inductive, it is a priori, necessary, and frankly should be tautologous. Facts do not allow for mutual contraditiction, in such cases, either one fact claim is true and the other false, or neither is true. No discussion of facts that needs to sidestep this issue has any right to progress any further.

If you don't feed people they starve is a factual answer to an inductive question of the sort "what happens to people who don't have any food?"

The question "ought we feed people who don't have any food?" is a moral one, it is not inductive, the answer depends on a normative judgment.

[Skepdick]

The question "ought we feed people who don't have any food?" is a moral one, it is not inductive, the answer depends on a normative judgment.

So exactly like the question "ought we do philosophy properly?"

Which depends on a normative judgment on "properness" in order to answer whichever way.

Obviously, you already know this. So how have you exempted yourself from the supposed is-ought gap?

[Peter Holmes]

(Yawn.)

What we call truth, facts and (therefore) objectivity are what we say they are - because how could they be otherwise? Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean. Only the metaphysically deluded think otherwise.

Any description - and so any truth-claim - is contextual and conventional. So the claim that truth is relative to a descriptive context is trivially true and inconsequential.

If what we call truth, facts and (therefore) objectivity are not what we say they are - the claim that there are moral facts (and therefore moral objectivity) is incoherent. We can choose not to value coherence and use logical rules. But we can't have it both ways.

The assertions 'the sky here today is blue' and 'abortion is morally wrong' don't have the same function. One makes a factual assertion, with a truth-value which, in context, is independent from opinion, about a feature of reality. The other doesn't, because it expresses a moral opinion and could not be falsified, because it has no truth-value.