Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 5:43 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:53 am
I believe I have posted the following example before, here again,
Here is an analogy:
- 1. Take a river system in the high mountains for example. - empirical fact.
2. Gravity imposes strong forces of kinetic energy in those rivers - empirical fact.
3. A dam as a fixed structure is built across a river inhibiting and regulating the flow of water. - empirical fact.
4. The dam generates resistance against the flow of water which is represented by great tension and forces - empirical fact.
5. In a way this resistance force is an 'ought-not_ness' to prevent water from flowing as before - which is a fact within the scientific-physics FSK.
The term 'ought-not_ness' in the above example is valid but inappropriate for physical things.
Analogously the above is applicable to the moral system work within the human brain.
- 1. Take the evolution of humans. -empirical fact
2. ALL humans are programmed with the potential to kill. -empirical fact
3. All humans are also programmed with inhibitors of 'not to kill' to regulate 2 - empirical fact
4. This not-to-kill inhibitors generate resistance to 2 which are represented by tensions and forces. - this is an empirical biological fact.
5. Within the moral FSK, this resistance is the 'ougth-not-ness' of 'ought-not-to-kill is a moral fact.
The moral framework and system is constituted by the definition of what is morality-proper.
Morality-proper generally is to promote good [ought-to] and avoid evil [ought-not-to] for the well being of the individual and humanity.
The above 1 to 4 are all verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophical within the scientific FSK and when 1-4 are input into the moral FSK, it is a moral fact that is independent of individuals opinions and beliefs.
Therefore I have demonstrated 'oughtness' that are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the respective FSK, in this case the moral FSK.
That analogy about dams is poor, but beside the point. You are sidestepping into a completely different argument with different weaknesses to the one I was attacking.
Either your argument I was referencing is deductive - in which case all-that-there-is can be said to contain 'oughtness' to the exact extent that it contains 'unicornness' and 'tastelesstrouserness'. Or the world-contains-oughntess thing was supposed to be empirical, in which case you can show what an actual unit of oughtness is by pointing to some ought that is there be weighed and tagged.
The 'ougthness' that I intended to justify is not by deduction but rather induction.
As I had stated, whatever is a moral fact must be verified and justified
empirically and
philosophically within a credible framework and system [FSK], like the scientific FSK which is the most credible at present.
You can infer it yourself,
So, to be entirely clear about this, you are absolutely not claiming that
"P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'" is true by definition in any sense at all. You are trying to have that purely as an inference from experience?
Oughtness is imaginary though. Just as weirdness is, and sexiness. You can point at a thing and say it is weird or wrong, but weirdness and wrongness are not empirical properties of the objects you point at. So the dubious claim to observe the existence of some quantitiy of weird by looking at a frog and thinking "weird" is not a claim
about reality in the same sense that the pointing indicates the presence of an actual frog.
So, no. As things stand, the premise "P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'" is simply false and your
"'Ought' is 'Is' within Reality" argument doesn't work.
Attempting to use that FSK thing to justify the premise would as I already tolsd you, be circular because using the premise to prop up the conclusion and the conclusion to prop up the premise is always so. But it can dismissed without that anyeay simply because the whole point of your moral FSK has always been just an effort to formalise a fiction. So if you really need to try and keep this thing alive as an inferential truth, you can't use the contentious FSK thing to justifyit, you have to somehow observe oughtness as a property that inheres to something in the world, even though if that were possible even in principle, this sort of tortured argument would be unnecessary, which gives me confidence you cannot do that.
You would have to try and convert it from an inductive claim that can be dismissed as unreasonable or incoherent, into some form of deductive truth by definition to try and save the argument. But it would be kinder to put it out of its misery to be honest.
