The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Have you ever thought of commit suicide? There are people who live with it.

I stated the fundamental of well-being is to survive well - note 3 below,

Scientific approaches to well being
Three subdisciplines in psychology are critical for the study of psychological well-being:[15]

1. Developmental psychology, in which psychological well-being may be analyzed in terms of a pattern of growth across the lifespan.
2. Personality psychology, in which it is possible to apply Maslow's concept of self-actualization, Rogers' concept of the fully functioning person, Jung's concept of individuation, and Allport's concept of maturity to account for psychological well-being.[16]
3. Clinical psychology, in which well-being consists of biological, psychological and social needs being met.

All human beings are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable of mortality.

Those who are prone to suicide is because their above inherent program is defective thus not 'normal' which is recognized as an illness within psychiatry.

How about those who fight for the land and kill each other. The fight is for survival. Are they sick too?

You are a bit lost here.
What is considered 'sick' is within the medical and psychiatric guidelines, e.g. DSM-V.

• The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5) is the product of more than 10 years of effort by hundreds of international experts in all aspects of mental health. Their dedication and hard work have yielded an authoritative volume that defines and classifies mental disorders in order to improve diagnoses, treatment, and research.

Those who fight for survival are not 'sick' as defined above.

However,
All human beings are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable of mortality.
When the above is inputed into the Moral FSK,
we have the moral fact, 'no human ought to kill humans' as a moral standard and guide.

Thus when any human is killed by whatever means, that is against the moral standard.
To meet this moral standard, the solution is then to research into the root causes to prevent humans from killing humans, e.g. in self-defense, fights, wars, legal executions, etc. IN THE FUTURE.
The 'how to prevent' is not an impossibility in the future.

[Sculptor]

Note my point above, repeat,

All human beings are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable of mortality.

Those who are prone to suicide and has committed suicide is because their above inherent program is defective thus not 'normal' which is recognized as an illness within psychiatry.




Note 'will'.
It is an inference from the above, i.e. DNA wise and generically ALL humans are "programmed" to survive [till inevitable mortality].

Those who are prone to suicide and has committed suicide is because their above inherent program is defective thus not 'normal' which is recognized as an illness within psychiatry.

As usual you answer is empty of content.

You are complaining about yourself, i.e. your responses are most empty of content; most of the time it is merely brushing off the arguments of others.
For your own intellectual sanity sake, you must provide well justified arguments to counter why my points are wrong.

You would have to make valid agrued points rather than just empty assertions.
You bandy words as if they are unproblematic.
Take "normal" for example. Your entire opinion rests on the meaning of that word, yet you seem to think it is meaningful.

[Sculptor]

Thus when any human is killed by whatever means, that is against the moral standard.

Empty assertion.
Where does the Samurai Bushido fit into your moral scheme?

[Terrapin Station]

What makes you think scientific facts are not "distorted" by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations.

Are you banking on me thinking that beliefs, knowledge, etc. when it comes to science wouldn't be subjective/wouldn't be distorted by personal feelings, prejudices and interpretations?

Beliefs, knowledge, etc. are subjective, period. Anything mental in nature is subjective. And that's on the definition you're preferring. Because anything mental is a factor of personal feelings and/or prejudices and/or interpretations. The difference when it comes to science--a difference between it and morality, is that scientific knowledge is about objective stuff, in the sense that the goal is to "match" objective stuff. Morality can't match objective stuff, because there are no objective moral maxims to match.

The point is the scientific FSK has its constitutions [all necessary requirements] to ensure as much personal bias are filtered out, thus maintaining objectivity

The definition of "objectivity" isn't that "as much personal feelings, prejudices and interpretations are filtered out as can be" (which we'd know how, exactly? The definition you gave is that objectivity denotes something without of personal feelings, prejudices and interpretations.

Note,
b]Clinical psychology,[/b] in which well-being consists of biological, psychological and social needs being met.
What is so difficult in measuring and being objective about meeting basic biological needs and psychological. Social needs are merely the extra merits for well being.
Biological basic needs can be measured via physical examinations and blood-tests to determine the well-being of the person.
The psychological and mental well being can be assessed by psychologist and psychiatry.

The point is that what counts as well-being is subjective there, as it is everywhere. What counts as subjective isn't without "distortion" from personal feelings, prejudices and interpretations, especially because what counts as well-being is ONLY personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations.

[Skepdick]

Beliefs, knowledge, etc. are subjective, period. Anything mental in nature is subjective. And that's on the definition you're preferring. Because anything mental is a factors of personal feelings and/or prejudices and/or interpretations. The difference when it comes to science--a difference between it and morality, is that scientific knowledge is about objective stuff, in the sense that the goal is to "match" objective stuff. Morality can't match objective stuff, because there are no objective moral maxims to match.

Science doesn't concern itself with the objective/subjective distinction. Only philosophers do. Philosophers care very much about distinctions for some reason. They spend a lot of time defending their distinctions, but they seem to spend even more time undermining the moral/immoral distinction.

"Scientific observation" is an interaction between two objects. One of those objects is the observer (me).

[Terrapin Station]

Science doesn't concern itself with the objective/subjective distinction.

The vast majority of scientists believe that they're addressing the objective world.

[Skepdick]

The vast majority of scientists believe that they're addressing the objective world.

The vast majority of scientists make no such proclamations.

Some scientists have even recognized that we always interpret our experience through some lens.

In this case, the objective/subjective distinction is just another lens of interpretation.

[Terrapin Station]

I can't find any of the surveys of scientists about this yet (I remember a couple different ones from my academic days)--I'm still looking for them, but here's one re philosophers:

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

81.6% accept or lean towards non-skeptical realism.

Only 4.3% accept or lean towards idealism.

[Terrapin Station]

The vast majority of scientists believe that they're addressing the objective world.

The vast majority of scientists make no such proclamations.

Yeah, they do when surveyed, and surveys of this have been done.

Some scientists have even recognized that we always interpret our experience through some lens.

That is in no way incompatible with realism/acceptance that we're addressing an objective world.

[Skepdick]

I can't find any of the surveys of scientists about this yet (I remember a couple different ones from my academic days)--I'm still looking for them, but here's one re philosophers:

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

81.6% accept or lean towards non-skeptical realism.

Ah well, since you've chosen the source...


Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?
Accept or lean toward: objective 382 / 931 (41.0%)
Accept or lean toward: subjective 321 / 931 (34.5%)
Other 228 / 931 (24.5%)

[Terrapin Station]

I can't find any of the surveys of scientists about this yet (I remember a couple different ones from my academic days)--I'm still looking for them, but here's one re philosophers:

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

81.6% accept or lean towards non-skeptical realism.

Ah well, since you've chosen the source...


Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?
Accept or lean toward: objective 382 / 931 (41.0%)
Accept or lean toward: subjective 321 / 931 (34.5%)
Other 228 / 931 (24.5%)

Sure. More philosophers accept objective moral and aesthetic value rather than subjective.

[Skepdick]

Sure. More philosophers accept objective moral and aesthetic value than subjective.

And fewer scientists yet accept self-reporting as a valid mode of assessing the contents of belief.

Somebody is yet to explain to me how I am supposed to determine whether I believe in God (or anything) for that matter...

[Terrapin Station]

I certainly wasn't suggesting that just because most scientists or philosophers had whatever belief, that belief must be right.

I hope you weren't suggesting that on the supposition that scientists do not accept scientific antirealism, the notions of scientific antirealism must be the case.

You're the one always stumping for consensus, after all. I'm not. Argumentum ad populums and arguments from authority are fallacious.

It's just that what most scientists or philosophers believe determines what most scientists or philosophers believe. So if we make a claim that most scientists believe such and such, that's false just in case most scientists actually said otherwise.

[Skepdick]

I certainly wasn't suggesting that just because most scientists or philosophers had whatever belief, that belief must be right.

I hope you weren't suggesting that on the supposition that scientists do not accept scientific antirealism, the notions of scientific antirealism must be the case.

You are just going in circles. "The case" and "being right" is at best a tautology in some system of knowledge. It's coherent within the system.

But it's still just an interpretation.

You're the one always stumping for consensus, after all. I'm not. Argumentum ad populums and arguments from authority are fallacious.

You are the one always stumping for arguing. Fallacies are fallacious.

Human communication is session-based. It's not supposed to have any permanence. Anything said is valid within the context of the conversation. 30 seconds later when the conversation is over - the words are meaningless. The context changes.

It's just that what most scientists or philosophers believe determines what most scientists or philosophers believe. So if we make a claim that most scientists believe such and such, that's false just in case most scientists actually said otherwise.

It's just words, dude. In order for any of your words to have coherence you must assume (a priori) that people have the ability to express the contents of their minds precisely and exactly, and that everybody in the entire cohort shares a language, and has shared understanding of the precise meaning of those terms and that they are not mistaken about their use.

Worse yet, you are in the habit of asking yes/no questions. Any worth-while scientist understands that this is a recipe for failure/confirmation bias.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo

[Terrapin Station]

If you think, by the way, that the goal in the sciences isn't to match objective stuff (in one's claims, etc.), then what do you think the goal is--to report one's imaginings?