What could make morality objective?

[Iwannaplato]

VA, if I still thought it worthwhile to take every one of your fatuous claims seriously, and worthwhile patiently to falsify them - if it had ever once had an effect - if it had once got you to concede your mistake - then I'd still think it worthwhile to argue with you.

But this never happens. You are incapable of actually addressing anything that challenges your dogmas. And that's why it's so boring arguing with you. In all the time we've been sparring, you have never once conceded anything of substance, and provided a coherent, rational defence of your falsehoods. So it's been a waste of time and effort.

Interestingly he concedes your point, without meaning to (I assume).

Why should I concede anything when your fundamental views are grounded on an illusion.

IOW your position is not correct so there is no reason for me to concede anything.

You are wrong, so he need not concede that any particular argument is fallacious.

He seems not to understand that your realism could be false AND at the same time he is making poor arguments. He could be correct at root but arguing terribly. He is on the team that is correct, so he doesn't have any reason to concede things.

Essentially he is blaming your 'fundamental views' for his not conceding anything.

[Skepdick]

You are wrong, so he need not concede that any particular argument is fallacious.

Is that objective or subjective fallaciousness?

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA, if I still thought it worthwhile to take every one of your fatuous claims seriously, and worthwhile patiently to falsify them - if it had ever once had an effect - if it had once got you to concede your mistake - then I'd still think it worthwhile to argue with you.

But this never happens. You are incapable of actually addressing anything that challenges your dogmas. And that's why it's so boring arguing with you. In all the time we've been sparring, you have never once conceded anything of substance, and provided a coherent, rational defence of your falsehoods. So it's been a waste of time and effort.

Here is the implied falsification;

Take the 'ought-ness not to kill humans' which is inherent in ALL humans and represented by its physical neural correlates which is an objective moral fact within the human-based moral* FSK.
(* note, the above imply reference to morality-proper, I shall not repeat this all the time)

The above 'ought-ness not to kill humans' is in a way falsified as in malignant psychopaths [proven with a high inclination to kill humans] where the 'ought-ness not to kill humans' mechanism is damaged due to various reasons.
This example is a crude one because the neural mechanisms involved are very complex.

Note this related point;
SCIENTISTS TURN VIOLENT RAGE ON AND OFF IN MICE
https://www.futurity.org/rage-mice-brains-1105312-2/

There is also the violent rage mechanisms in humans and when this is uninhibited, it is likely to override the 'ought-ness not to kill humans' neural algorithm and driving the raging person to kill humans.

So the above is a falsification you are looking for.

[Iwannaplato]

VA, if I still thought it worthwhile to take every one of your fatuous claims seriously, and worthwhile patiently to falsify them - if it had ever once had an effect - if it had once got you to concede your mistake - then I'd still think it worthwhile to argue with you.

But this never happens. You are incapable of actually addressing anything that challenges your dogmas. And that's why it's so boring arguing with you. In all the time we've been sparring, you have never once conceded anything of substance, and provided a coherent, rational defence of your falsehoods. So it's been a waste of time and effort.

You are just giving silly excuses.

Why should I concede anything when your fundamental views are grounded on an illusion.

I have been in Philosophical Forums discussions for a long time; when I first started as a very naive poster in various forums, I was attack left, right & center and with wider & deeper research had to concede many of my hardcore beliefs then, including theism.

Can you link us to a post where you conceded that someone had a good point about your theism? When you were Spectrum I believe you were already a non-theist. But if Spectrum was originally a theist can you link us to where you conceded someone had made a good argument against your position and you conceded they were right? If it was before Spectrum, same thing. Can you link us?

[Peter Holmes]

VA, if I still thought it worthwhile to take every one of your fatuous claims seriously, and worthwhile patiently to falsify them - if it had ever once had an effect - if it had once got you to concede your mistake - then I'd still think it worthwhile to argue with you.

But this never happens. You are incapable of actually addressing anything that challenges your dogmas. And that's why it's so boring arguing with you. In all the time we've been sparring, you have never once conceded anything of substance, and provided a coherent, rational defence of your falsehoods. So it's been a waste of time and effort.

Here is the implied falsification;

Take the 'ought-ness not to kill humans' which is inherent in ALL humans and represented by its physical neural correlates which is an objective moral fact within the human-based moral* FSK.
(* note, the above imply reference to morality-proper, I shall not repeat this all the time)

The above 'ought-ness not to kill humans' is in a way falsified as in malignant psychopaths [proven with a high inclination to kill humans] where the 'ought-ness not to kill humans' mechanism is damaged due to various reasons.
This example is a crude one because the neural mechanisms involved are very complex.

Note this related point;
SCIENTISTS TURN VIOLENT RAGE ON AND OFF IN MICE
https://www.futurity.org/rage-mice-brains-1105312-2/

There is also the violent rage mechanisms in humans and when this is uninhibited, it is likely to override the 'ought-ness not to kill humans' neural algorithm and driving the raging person to kill humans.

So the above is a falsification you are looking for.

Okay. Here's one point you refuse to acknowledge - one that IWP has made many times.

You agree that there are both 'ought-not-to-kill' and 'violent rage' mechanisms in the human brain. But if that's the case, then if one mechanism is what you call a moral fact, then so is the other.

Your claim that a 'morality fsk' makes 'ought-not-to-kill' a moral fact simply begs the question. It just means that, given the moral judgement that not killing humans is good, and killing them is evil, you believe we should enhance one neural mechanism and inhibit the other.

You refuse to recognise that an is can't entail an ought - so that the ought has to come from elsewhere. That we ought to enhance 'ought-not-to-kill' is a moral judgement or opinion, and can never be a fact.

I don't imagine you'll understand this explanation of your mistake, cos you've never even tried to do so.

[Skepdick]

VA, if I still thought it worthwhile to take every one of your fatuous claims seriously, and worthwhile patiently to falsify them - if it had ever once had an effect - if it had once got you to concede your mistake - then I'd still think it worthwhile to argue with you.

But this never happens. You are incapable of actually addressing anything that challenges your dogmas. And that's why it's so boring arguing with you. In all the time we've been sparring, you have never once conceded anything of substance, and provided a coherent, rational defence of your falsehoods. So it's been a waste of time and effort.

Here is the implied falsification;

Take the 'ought-ness not to kill humans' which is inherent in ALL humans and represented by its physical neural correlates which is an objective moral fact within the human-based moral* FSK.
(* note, the above imply reference to morality-proper, I shall not repeat this all the time)

The above 'ought-ness not to kill humans' is in a way falsified as in malignant psychopaths [proven with a high inclination to kill humans] where the 'ought-ness not to kill humans' mechanism is damaged due to various reasons.
This example is a crude one because the neural mechanisms involved are very complex.

Note this related point;
SCIENTISTS TURN VIOLENT RAGE ON AND OFF IN MICE
https://www.futurity.org/rage-mice-brains-1105312-2/

There is also the violent rage mechanisms in humans and when this is uninhibited, it is likely to override the 'ought-ness not to kill humans' neural algorithm and driving the raging person to kill humans.

So the above is a falsification you are looking for.

Okay. Here's one point you refuse to acknowledge - one that IWP has made many times.

You agree that there are both 'ought-not-to-kill' and 'violent rage' mechanisms in the human brain. But if that's the case, then if one mechanism is what you call a moral fact, then so is the other.

Your claim that a 'morality fsk' makes 'ought-not-to-kill' a moral fact simply begs the question. It just means that, given the moral judgement that not killing humans is good, and killing them is evil, you believe we should enhance one neural mechanism and inhibit the other.

You refuse to recognise that an is can't entail an ought - so that the ought has to come from elsewhere. That we ought to enhance 'ought-not-to-kill' is a moral judgement or opinion, and can never be a fact.

I don't imagine you'll understand this explanation of your mistake, cos you've never even tried to do so.

And here is the point you refuse to acknowledge: if there are no factual oughts then there can't be such things as factual mistakes.

VA has said and done what he has said and done. All of that is a fact, but why is it a "mistake"?

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes wants to have his cake, and eat it too.

[FlashDangerpants]

before Spectrum, same thing. Can you link us?

Exactly how long has he been doing this shit for? I first encounted him here, as VA, and would not have suspected he had much experience in these discussions.

[Skepdick]

Can you link us to a post where you conceded that someone had a good point about your theism? When you were Spectrum I believe you were already a non-theist. But if Spectrum was originally a theist can you link us to where you conceded someone had made a good argument against your position and you conceded they were right? If it was before Spectrum, same thing. Can you link us?

Can you link us to the rule book which determines what makes an argument "good", or "bad" and justify the book's authority?

What makes philosophy's strict adherence and enforcement to arbitrary commandments any different to theism?

Dumb. Fucking. Philosophers.

All of you.

[Iwannaplato]

before Spectrum, same thing. Can you link us?

Exactly how long has he been doing this shit for? I first encounted him here, as VA, and would not have suspected he had much experience in these discussions.

I don't know. But in this other forum...I'd bet the apartment this is VA
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 13#p315513
and Spectrum goes back to.....2010 in that forum.

I have this vague feeling I encounted him before that somewhere.

[Iwannaplato]

Can you link us to a post where you conceded that someone had a good point about your theism? When you were Spectrum I believe you were already a non-theist. But if Spectrum was originally a theist can you link us to where you conceded someone had made a good argument against your position and you conceded they were right? If it was before Spectrum, same thing. Can you link us?

Can you link us to the rule book which determines what makes an argument "good", or "bad" and justify the book's authority?

What makes philosophy's strict adherence and enforcement to arbitrary commandments any different to theism?

Dumb. Fucking. Philosophers.

All of you.

You know I keep hoping you'll actually respond to the posts you quote in some coherent way. I rose-colored-glasses-ish check back to see if maybe this time....because you have had interesting takes and links.

But what you said here has no relevance to what I wrote. I responded to his claim about his behavior.

As an aside: I'm not a philosopher and claim I'm not.

And I am sorry that my post triggered your offense at my not adhering to your commandments.

[Skepdick]

Can you link us to a post where you conceded that someone had a good point about your theism? When you were Spectrum I believe you were already a non-theist. But if Spectrum was originally a theist can you link us to where you conceded someone had made a good argument against your position and you conceded they were right? If it was before Spectrum, same thing. Can you link us?

Can you link us to the rule book which determines what makes an argument "good", or "bad" and justify the book's authority?

What makes philosophy's strict adherence and enforcement to arbitrary commandments any different to theism?

Dumb. Fucking. Philosophers.

All of you.

You know I keep hoping you'll actually respond to the posts you quote in some coherent way. I rose-colored-glasses-ish check back to see if maybe this time....because you have had interesting takes and links.

But what you said here has no relevance to what I wrote. I responded to his claim about his behavior.

As an aside: I'm not a philosopher and claim I'm not.

And I am sorry that my post triggered your offense at my not adhering to your commandments.

If anything I said was "incoherent" to you I'd hapilly attempt to explain it simpler terms - language more aligned to your limited comprehension skills.

Don't let your inability to comprehend serve as a pragmatic tool for dismissing the relevance of my posts.

P.S No apology required for feelings you project onto me. As for anything I say being "interesting"... maybe you should have that neomania examined?

[Peter Holmes]

'Who are you to tell me how I ought to use signs?'

There's no ought, moral or otherwise, to following rules. There's this game, and these are the rules.

You can always play a different game, with different rules.

[Skepdick]

'Who are you to tell me how I ought to use signs?'

There's no ought, moral or otherwise, to following rules. There's this game, and these are the rules.

You can always play a different game, with different rules.

That's not true.

Whatever game you choose to play, and by whatever rules you choose to play it - the rules are always prescriptive.

In any case, who said we are playing any games, and even if we are - who determined what the rules are?

What if I want to play a game without any rules? You are implying that a game ought to have rules.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are just giving silly excuses.

Why should I concede anything when your fundamental views are grounded on an illusion.

I have been in Philosophical Forums discussions for a long time; when I first started as a very naive poster in various forums, I was attack left, right & center and with wider & deeper research had to concede many of my hardcore beliefs then, including theism.

Can you link us to a post where you conceded that someone had a good point about your theism? When you were Spectrum I believe you were already a non-theist. But if Spectrum was originally a theist can you link us to where you conceded someone had made a good argument against your position and you conceded they were right? If it was before Spectrum, same thing. Can you link us?

I have never explicitly conceded to anyone re the above.
It was sort of accumulated and beliefs eroded over some years from discussions in various philosophical forums which had since closed for good.

As a theist, I used to insist atheists are fools, so stupid, unintelligent, etc. in not grasping the so obvious and the need for a creator of the obvious things and universe.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Okay. Here's one point you refuse to acknowledge - one that IWP has made many times.

You agree that there are both 'ought-not-to-kill' and 'violent rage' mechanisms in the human brain. But if that's the case, then if one mechanism is what you call a moral fact, then so is the other.

My principle is this;
1. Whatever is reality, fact, knowledge, truths and objectivity are conditioned within a specific human-based FSK.

In the first place the 'ought-not-to-kill' and 'violent rage' mechanisms are both biological facts within the science biology FSK.
It is obvious the 'ought-not-to-kill' when inputted into the human-based moral [proper] FSK, it is an objective moral fact.
Since the "violent rage' mechanisms" and the 'ought-kill' are also inputted into the human-based moral [proper] FSK [1] as an evil element, it is also an objective moral fact. [... I have never deny this absolutely]

Your claim that a 'morality fsk' makes 'ought-not-to-kill' a moral fact simply begs the question. It just means that, given the moral judgement that not killing humans is good, and killing them is evil, you believe we should enhance one neural mechanism and inhibit the other.

Yes, but only when conditioned upon the human-based moral FSK with its constitution, conditions, etc.

You refuse to recognise that an is can't entail an ought - so that the ought has to come from elsewhere. That we ought to enhance 'ought-not-to-kill' is a moral judgement or opinion, and can never be a fact.

You don't understand Hume thoroughly and the limitations he had then in the 1700s.
Hume's focus on the 'oughts' that were imposed on believers via commands from a God and other oughts from subjective feelings, opinions, beliefs and judgments re right vs wrong.
As an empiricist, Hume's other target were the rationalists' view on ethics.

• Book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739):
  In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs;
  when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.

What Hume was ignorant [in the 1700s] were the inherent biological oughts [which Hume admitted he was ignorant of]. How can anyone deny 'all humans ought to breathe' as evident from the 'is' every human is experiencing and can easily understand?

I don't imagine you'll understand this explanation of your mistake, cos you've never even tried to do so.

I researched extensively and believe I have raised more than 50 threads on the topic of "No Is from Ought' in this Ethical Theory Section.
You?
Have you read Hume and understood thoroughly his thoughts on Ethics?