What is a right action?

[Terrapin Station]

Why are you still taking about proofs?!?!?!

BECAUSE THAT'S THE REASON YOU'D KEEP LOOKING AT OTHER POSSIBILITIES.

This is empiricism!

Oohhhhhkay? Who cares?

What state of mind is causing you to continue looking for something that you don't believe is there?

What I wrote is the "state of mind" causing one to continue looking.

Give it a name.

"Spaghetti Cemetery." (Who cares what we're naming it?)

[Skepdick]

BECAUSE THAT'S THE REASON YOU'D KEEP LOOKING AT OTHER POSSIBILITIES.

That's incoherent nonsense.

You don't know whether there's a needle in the haystack. Both P and not-P are possibilities. Ontologically, that's Probability(P) = Probability(not-P)

You are of the belief that not-P is more likely than P. Epistemically, that's Probability(not-P) > Probability(P)


If P and not-P are ontologically equiprobable, but epistemically not-P > P why the hell would you keep looking given that you don't believe the other possibility is the case?!?!?!

What I wrote is the "state of mind" causing one to continue looking.

What you wrote sounds like confusion and total lack of comprehension as to how abstract belief influences concrete action.

[Terrapin Station]

BECAUSE THAT'S THE REASON YOU'D KEEP LOOKING AT OTHER POSSIBILITIES.

That's incoherent nonsense.

You don't know whether there's a needle in the haystack. Both P and not-P are possibilities. Ontologically, that's Probability(P) = Probability(not-P)

You are of the belief that not-P is more likely than P. Epistemically, that's Probability(not-P) > Probability(P)


If P and not-P are ontologically equiprobable, but epistemically not-P > P why the hell would you keep looking given that you don't believe the other possibility is the case?!?!?!

There's more to it than just possibility. There are reasons pro and con for believing one possibility over another, such as evidence for one possibility over another.

(Also, I don't buy Bayesian probability. I think even frequentist probability has problems, but at least it's not just intuited nonsense like Bayesian probability.)

[Skepdick]

There's more to it than just possibility. There are reasons pro and con for believing one possibility over another, such as evidence for one possibility over another.

But you literally just said that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. So the evidence (or lack thereof) favours not-P!

According to you every second spent looking for (but not finding) the needle is more evidence that the needle is not there.

And yet, you keep looking.

(Also, I don't buy Bayesian probability. I think even frequentist probability has problems, but at least it's not just intuited nonsense like Bayesian probability.)

it doesn't matter which framework you are using - your claims are incoherent.

[Terrapin Station]

There's more to it than just possibility. There are reasons pro and con for believing one possibility over another, such as evidence for one possibility over another.

But you literally just said that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. So the evidence (or lack thereof) favours not-P!

Me saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absence has what, exactly, to do with me telling you that there's more to it than just possibility right after you wrote a bunch of stuff that suggested you thought it came down to possibility only?

[Skepdick]

Me saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absence has what, exactly, to do with me telling you that there's more to it than just possibility right after you wrote a bunch of stuff that suggested you thought it came down to possibility only?

I didn't suggest "it came down to possibility only"? Are you struggling with reading comprehension?

I suggested that there's the equal possibility of P and not P, and then there's your beliefs favouring not-P.

[Terrapin Station]

Me saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absence has what, exactly, to do with me telling you that there's more to it than just possibility right after you wrote a bunch of stuff that suggested you thought it came down to possibility only?

I didn't suggest "it came down to possibility only"? Are you struggling with reading comprehension?

I suggested that there's the equal possibility of P and not P, and then there's your beliefs favouring not-P.

There's "equal possibility," but not equal reasons to believe both claims, because there's more to it than possibility.

[Skepdick]

There's "equal possibility," but not equal reasons to believe both claims, because there's more to it than possibility.

Yes, numb nuts. The "more to it than possibility" is precisely your belief!

You have more reasons to believe not-P than you have to believe P. That's why you claim that you believe not-P. Because you have more reasons to believe it!

So why are you looking for a needle?

Is there more to it than possibility and belief? What?

[Terrapin Station]

There's "equal possibility," but not equal reasons to believe both claims, because there's more to it than possibility.

Yes, numb nuts. The "more to it than possibility" is precisely your belief!

You have more reasons to believe not-P than you have to believe P. That's why you claim that you believe not-P. Because you have more reasons to believe it!

So why are you looking for a needle?

Is there more to it than possibility and belief? What?

You'd have to explain why it's not clear to you that if you believe that P, it doesn't imply that you think that not-P is an impossibility, or that P might be false.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Answer the questions!

These questions?

• I asked;
  (1)But whose to say what is "proper"?
  (2) What is "Abrahamic religion FSK".?

I had addressed that before many times and I thought it is not a serious issue.
But if you insist,

The 'proper' is with reference to morality-proper.
My point is most of the definition for morality do reflect what is morality-proper.
I have defined what is morality-proper.

• Morality-proper is basically 'how humans ought to act morally'.
  Morally [& ethically] meant doing what is good which is avoiding what is evil.
  Evil is any act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity.

What is Well-Being?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983


Deontology, theistic morality, utilitarianism, etc. are not morality-proper.

"Abrahamic religion FSK" is the framework and system of knowledge of the Abrahamic religions, especially the major ones, i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Their FSK is grounded on the Abrahamic God and the respective FSK are grounded on their supposed God-sent holy texts. All their divine knowledge and doctrines are grounded on the above.

1) The fact that "YOU" define what is "proper" is no concern of anyone except your own subjective judgment.

2) Giving an exposition of your personal moral code does not advance your claims about objective moral values.

In my case what is morality-proper is supported by empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable moral facts within a credible moral framework and system.

See my,
What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Show me where I am wrong on the above?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can have reasons for believing something is morally right or wrong, without needing to believe it's a fact that it's morally right or wrong, and without its being a fact that it's morally right or wrong. Hard to grasp for the intellectually-challenged moral fascist.

Hitler had strong moral reasons for believing killing 6 million Jews and million others was morally right!
That is your moral relativism.

True.
That is exactly right.
QED Morality is in fact subjective. That does not make ANY particular moral value "TRUE" or "FALSE", but that this is simply one example of a culturally subjective moral position.
What about that do you not understand???

In other words, you are condoning what Hitler and other evil actors are entitled to do what they claimed as true and morally right.

So it appear your definition of morality is whatever humans deemed to be true and morally right to do. If not what is your definition of what is morality.

Note what is morality-proper [..I had defined earlier] based on empirical evidence within humanity is generally 'to promote what is good and avoiding evil'.

If someone were to insist it is morally right to commit the worse evil acts to you, your family, relatives, friends and humanity, how would you counter that or has any basis to convince them otherwise?

And that is IN FACT the state of affairs that has pertained since the dawn of human morality.
When you understand that, you realise that morality is a thing you have to fight for.
It's pointless pretending that you are the only person that is right, and everyone else is wrong.

The big problem comes when people, like you, claim that their position is objectively true, much like Hitler claimed his idea to be objectively morally correct.

You are eeling your way around with very loose ideas of what is subjectivity, objectivity and morality.

Nope you got it wrong, it not a fact that humans insisted is it their moral right to commit the worse evil acts to others, their family, relatives, friends and humanity.

Note Steven Pinker's argument, the trend that evil and violence has reduced relatively.
download/file.php?id=2950

How can you fight for morality when you define morality as whatever one deemed as true and right to act based on one's feeling, opinions and beliefs.

If you are to fight for morality, on what grounds are you fighting for?
How do you verify and justify as objective what you claim as moral right is true to override the opposite view?

What I claimed as objective is based on moral facts that are verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you don't think that genocide is objectively wrong?

If it's all relative, then genocide must be as moral as non-genocide.

So we can have the situation where:

(1) Genocide isn't objectively wrong.
(2) Whether genocide is morally wrong is relative to individual opinions.
(3) Out of 7 billion people, all 7 billion individuals feel that genocide is morally wrong.

In that situation, how does it make sense to say that "genocide is 'as moral' as non-genocide"?

You are very lost here.

What is crucial is we must define what is morality, i.e. morality-proper and not just tom, dick and harry's morality.

What is YOUR definition of morality?
It is because you did not provide a specific definition of what is morality that you are able to 'eel' and slide your way around.

I had defined "what is morality-proper" a "1000" times i.e. generally as morality-proper is about promoting 'good' and avoiding 'evil'. ['terms' as defined].

Genocide is a moral issue.
Genocide is evil and is to be avoid in accordance to the definition of morality-proper.

That 7+ billion think genocide is wrong is not necessary objective, e.g. once almost everyone thought the Earth was flat.
But such a high majority will give us a very strong abductive clue that there is a high possibility of 'objectivity' on such a moral issue.

What is "objective" must be a FSK-dependent-fact, e.g. a moral fact that is objective, i.e. independent of individual opinions and beliefs.
I have already argued a moral fact is one that is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK, i.e. the moral fact of inherent ought_ness and inhibition in the brain of ALL humans, i.e.
'no human ought to kill humans'.
thus
'no human ought to commit genocide.'

The above is how we differentiate genocide from the moral standard of no-genocide within a credible moral-FSK.
Note whatever is 'morality' must be qualified to a moral-FSK.

[Skepdick]

You'd have to explain why it's not clear to you that if you believe that P, it doesn't imply that you think that not-P is an impossibility, or that P might be false.

You are projecting your lack of clarity onto me. I am not arriving at the implications you are pinning onto me - that's all you strawmanning me.

I don't think that not-P is an impossibility AND I don't think that P is an impossibility.
P might be false AND P might be true
not-P might be false AND not-P might be true.

Until a needle is actually found; or you've searched the entire haystack exhaustively and concluded that there is no needle ALL of the above exist in superposition! This is how Qubits work.

.... and then! You keep insisting that your belief is such that not-P is more likely to be true, and P more likely to be false!

If you believe not-P then what implies that you should continue searching (S) versus not searching (not-S)?

? -> S

[Sculptor]

So are you then implying that genocide is not objectively wrong?

No

You want to use full sentences here?

One might think you a genocidal maniac...

You might be stupid enough to think that, yes.
But I don't care what you think.
My answer is comprensive.
Nothing I said implied that.

[Sculptor]

These questions?

• I asked;
  (1)But whose to say what is "proper"?
  (2) What is "Abrahamic religion FSK".?

I had addressed that before many times and I thought it is not a serious issue.
But if you insist,

The 'proper' is with reference to morality-proper.
My point is most of the definition for morality do reflect what is morality-proper.
I have defined what is morality-proper.

• Morality-proper is basically 'how humans ought to act morally'.
  Morally [& ethically] meant doing what is good which is avoiding what is evil.
  Evil is any act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity.

What is Well-Being?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983


Deontology, theistic morality, utilitarianism, etc. are not morality-proper.

"Abrahamic religion FSK" is the framework and system of knowledge of the Abrahamic religions, especially the major ones, i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Their FSK is grounded on the Abrahamic God and the respective FSK are grounded on their supposed God-sent holy texts. All their divine knowledge and doctrines are grounded on the above.

1) The fact that "YOU" define what is "proper" is no concern of anyone except your own subjective judgment.

2) Giving an exposition of your personal moral code does not advance your claims about objective moral values.

In my case what is morality-proper is supported by empirically and philosophically verifiable and justifiable moral facts within a credible moral framework and system.

That is what they all say, sweetie.
Hitler used archaeology and inheritance science to justify his genocide.
Nazi theory has much in common with Steve Pinker's work.