BDM - It's not a sex thing

[Atla]

Tbh I don't know what you guys are trying to achieve with IC. Are you guys hoping that one day he'll realize all the ways he's been wrong, and feel bad about it? That is literally not possible.

Oh my no. I find him perplexing and I sort of want to find out what makes him the way he is by just poking him. But I can't imagine he's fixable.

He has no conscience. These things used to be called sociopaths, now they are categorized under "antisocial personality disorder".

[Veritas Aequitas]

All the above posts are merely from a circle-jerk / echo-chamber to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances driven by an evolutionary default.

None of the above are based on in-depth knowledge of morality & ethics and critical thinking. FDP tried to but got suck into the whirlpool of naivety.

[FlashDangerpants]

All the above posts are merely from a circle-jerk / echo-chamber to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances driven by an evolutionary default.

None of the above are based on in-depth knowledge of morality & ethics and critical thinking. FDP tried to but got suck into the whirlpool of naivety.

My criticism of your FSK thing is that if we find out the rules of the game any idiot can make up any shit and it's as good as any other idiot's total shit. I'm not assimilating into your project.

But my move is not even that. If I force you to explain the rules of the game in a coherent way, then make you live within your own prison of formalised rules, you will stop wanting to even play your own game.

I don't even need to hide the plan, it's not sneaky.

[Veritas Aequitas]

All the above posts are merely from a circle-jerk / echo-chamber to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances driven by an evolutionary default.

None of the above are based on in-depth knowledge of morality & ethics and critical thinking. FDP tried to but got suck into the whirlpool of naivety.

My criticism of your FSK thing is that if we find out the rules of the game any idiot can make up any shit and it's as good as any other idiot's total shit. I'm not assimilating into your project.

But my move is not even that. If I force you to explain the rules of the game in a coherent way, then make you live within your own prison of formalised rules, you will stop wanting to even play your own game.

I don't even need to hide the plan, it's not sneaky.

Don't be so arrogant when you that ignorant of the whole spectrum of Morality & Ethics.
Your critique of my FSK approach is based on your very limited knowledge of Morality & Ethics.
Even Simon Blackburn who is much better than you also do not have the whole spectrum and depth of Morality and Ethics.

I have downloaded Blackburn "Ruling Passions" on Quasi-Realism and so far, has read parts of it.

Here's WIKI on Quasi-Realism;

Simon Blackburn derived quasi-realism[2][page needed] from a Humean account of the origin of our moral opinions, adapting Hume's genealogical account in the light of evolutionary game theory. To support his case, Blackburn has issued a challenge, Blackburn's Challenge,[3][page needed] to anyone who can explain how two situations can demand different ethical responses without referring to a difference in the situations themselves. Because this challenge is effectively unmeetable, Blackburn argues that there must be a realist component in our notions of ethics.

However, argues Blackburn, ethics cannot be entirely realist either, for this would not allow for phenomena such as the gradual development of ethical positions over time.

In his 1998 book, Ruling Passions, Blackburn likens ethics to Neurath's boat, which can be changed plank by plank over time, but cannot be refitted all at once for risk of sinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-realism

Note, Blackburn acknowledge "there must be a realist component in our notions of ethics."

As such, Blackburn's support of Moral Realism within Morality is UNDENIALLY a 49% support the ideas of moral realists and objectivists, whilst his resulting inclination is 51% moral relativism.
In a way, this refutes the absolute-moral-relativist-maniacs' claims of moral relativism re people like PH and like, and in a way including yourself? [based on your voracious anti-moral_realists rhetorics so far].

Blackburn claimed his basis of morality is Humean.
But I bet, Blackburn does not understand Hume's moral philosophy fully with its limitations.

The Limit of Hume's Knowledge
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34693

A Treatise of Human nature [1739]
Impressions may be divided into two kinds,
1. those of SENSATION and
2. those of REFLEXION.

The first kind arises in the soul originally, from unknown causes.
The second [impression of reflexion] is derived in a great measure from our ideas, and that in the following order.

An [8] impression first strikes upon the senses, and makes us perceive heat or cold, thirst or hunger, pleasure or pain of some kind or other.

The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.
SECTION II.: Division of the Subject.

………………..
Its effects are every where conspicuous; but as to its causes, they are mostly unknown, and must be resolv’d into original qualities of human nature, which I pretend not to explain.
SECTION IV.: Of the connexion or association of ideas.

In the above Hume acknowledged he lacked the knowledge then to know the causes of the moral sentiments and drives he was talking about.

What Hume claimed is Moral Conclusions of oughts are derived from these sources which to him is unknown.
During Hume's time there was little knowledge about the human brain, emotions, neurosciences, etc.

Hume wrote:
The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.
SECTION II.: Division of the Subject.

However, by now we have sufficient knowledge to understand more about the human brain, emotions, neurosciences, evolutionary psychology, etc.
This is the area I am moving towards re biological and neuroscientific facts via the moral FSK-ed facts.

Hume's 'matter of fact' is a FSK-ed fact, not your 'what is fact' [linguistic] which is grounded on an illusion.

Whilst Blackburn is ignorant of the full spectrum of Morality and Ethics, he did allude to the concept of a moral-FSK in terms of input/output which is of course 'system theory' always effectively deliberated with a Framework, thus my human-based Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge.
Blackburn's FSK approach is in his Chapter 2 - Input/Output which is leveraged on the moral entity but any entity is also a system within a Framework.

Chapter 1:2 Inputs and Outputs pg 4.

How is Ethics to be thought about?
---
So we can usefully compare the ethical agent to a device whose function is to take certain inputs and deliver certain outputs.
The input to the system is a representation, for instance of an action, or a situation, or a character, as being of a certain type, as having certain properties.
The output, we are saying, is a certain attitude, or a pressure on attitudes, or a favouring of policies, choices and actions.
Such a device is a function from input to output: an ethical sensibility.

Analogously, a skilled sportsman, for example, is sensitive to features of the delivery and flight of a ball, and for each way the ball is delivered, makes the appropriate response.
A less good player either notices the wrong features, or fails to notice the right ones, or, even if he does so, makes a less effective response.
The player needed training to learn to separate the important features from the 'noise' or useless information that meets the eye.
Similarly the good person has learned to select some features of situations as demanding some responses, and to ignore others as unimportant.
The question is how to analyse this organization of input and output.

Blackburn's views are confined to the "ethical agent" in this case, which is insufficient and inefficient because an "ethical agent" always operates within a collective of "ethical agents" to facilitate its necessary own moral competence.

The above is a sample of your ignorance of the widest spectrum of Morality & Ethics; while you arrogantly spouts as if you are the expert in your circle-jerk, Ultracrepidarian!

[Harbal]

The above is a sample of your ignorance of the widest spectrum of Morality & Ethics; while you arrogantly spouts as if you are the expert in your circle-jerk, Ultracrepidarian!

Ooh, I say, look who's got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning.

[Iwannaplato]

The above is a sample of your ignorance of the widest spectrum of Morality & Ethics; while you arrogantly spouts as if you are the expert in your circle-jerk, Ultracrepidarian!

Ooh, I say, look who's got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning.

But with a versatile tongue.

[FlashDangerpants]

All the above posts are merely from a circle-jerk / echo-chamber to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances driven by an evolutionary default.

None of the above are based on in-depth knowledge of morality & ethics and critical thinking. FDP tried to but got suck into the whirlpool of naivety.

My criticism of your FSK thing is that if we find out the rules of the game any idiot can make up any shit and it's as good as any other idiot's total shit. I'm not assimilating into your project.

But my move is not even that. If I force you to explain the rules of the game in a coherent way, then make you live within your own prison of formalised rules, you will stop wanting to even play your own game.

I don't even need to hide the plan, it's not sneaky.

Don't be so arrogant when you that ignorant of the whole spectrum of Morality & Ethics.
Your critique of my FSK approach is based on your very limited knowledge of Morality & Ethics.

MY criticism of your FSK approach is based on weaknesses of the FSK thing. One being the ad hoc rules you throw together when you want to elevate some particular instance above others. Another being the fallacy of false precision you commit when you make up numbers for things that have no property of quantity.

Even Simon Blackburn who is much better than you also do not have the whole spectrum and depth of Morality and Ethics.

I have downloaded Blackburn "Ruling Passions" on Quasi-Realism and so far, has read parts of it.

Here's WIKI on Quasi-Realism;

Simon Blackburn derived quasi-realism[2][page needed] from a Humean account of the origin of our moral opinions, adapting Hume's genealogical account in the light of evolutionary game theory. To support his case, Blackburn has issued a challenge, Blackburn's Challenge,[3][page needed] to anyone who can explain how two situations can demand different ethical responses without referring to a difference in the situations themselves. Because this challenge is effectively unmeetable, Blackburn argues that there must be a realist component in our notions of ethics.

However, argues Blackburn, ethics cannot be entirely realist either, for this would not allow for phenomena such as the gradual development of ethical positions over time.

In his 1998 book, Ruling Passions, Blackburn likens ethics to Neurath's boat, which can be changed plank by plank over time, but cannot be refitted all at once for risk of sinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-realism

Note, Blackburn acknowledge "there must be a realist component in our notions of ethics."

As such, Blackburn's support of Moral Realism within Morality is UNDENIALLY a 49% support the ideas of moral realists and objectivists, whilst his resulting inclination is 51% moral relativism.
In a way, this refutes the absolute-moral-relativist-maniacs' claims of moral relativism re people like PH and like, and in a way including yourself? [based on your voracious anti-moral_realists rhetorics so far].

That 51% number is one you just made up out of thin air. Anyway, this is all fun, but what makes you think I am a quasi-realist?

I borrowed from the structure of one of that book's chapters to guide my quick overview of Hume's take on moral reason (an extension of the passions) which needs no extra compoent to account for moral motivation in opposition to Kant's (in which hypothetical subjective reason is overruled by objective categorical reasoning) which neuters the normal things we think of as sources of motivation such as desire and thus has a problem accounting for the motivational aspect of morality. That's no a commitment to anything else.

Blackburn claimed his basis of morality is Humean.
But I bet, Blackburn does not understand Hume's moral philosophy fully with its limitations.

You accuse me of arrogance and then you write somethig like that? Do you have any sense of irony?

The Limit of Hume's Knowledge
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34693

A Treatise of Human nature [1739]
Impressions may be divided into two kinds,
1. those of SENSATION and
2. those of REFLEXION.

The first kind arises in the soul originally, from unknown causes.
The second [impression of reflexion] is derived in a great measure from our ideas, and that in the following order.

An [8] impression first strikes upon the senses, and makes us perceive heat or cold, thirst or hunger, pleasure or pain of some kind or other.

The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.
SECTION II.: Division of the Subject.

………………..
Its effects are every where conspicuous; but as to its causes, they are mostly unknown, and must be resolv’d into original qualities of human nature, which I pretend not to explain.
SECTION IV.: Of the connexion or association of ideas.

In the above Hume acknowledged he lacked the knowledge then to know the causes of the moral sentiments and drives he was talking about.

What Hume claimed is Moral Conclusions of oughts are derived from these sources which to him is unknown.
During Hume's time there was little knowledge about the human brain, emotions, neurosciences, etc.

Hume wrote:
The examination of our sensations belongs more to anatomists and natural philosophers than to moral; and therefore shall not at present be enter’d upon.
SECTION II.: Division of the Subject.

However, by now we have sufficient knowledge to understand more about the human brain, emotions, neurosciences, evolutionary psychology, etc.
This is the area I am moving towards re biological and neuroscientific facts via the moral FSK-ed facts.

Hume's 'matter of fact' is a FSK-ed fact, not your 'what is fact' [linguistic] which is grounded on an illusion.

Whilst Blackburn is ignorant of the full spectrum of Morality and Ethics, he did allude to the concept of a moral-FSK in terms of input/output which is of course 'system theory' always effectively deliberated with a Framework, thus my human-based Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge.
Blackburn's FSK approach is in his Chapter 2 - Input/Output which is leveraged on the moral entity but any entity is also a system within a Framework.

Chapter 1:2 Inputs and Outputs pg 4.

How is Ethics to be thought about?
---
So we can usefully compare the ethical agent to a device whose function is to take certain inputs and deliver certain outputs.
The input to the system is a representation, for instance of an action, or a situation, or a character, as being of a certain type, as having certain properties.
The output, we are saying, is a certain attitude, or a pressure on attitudes, or a favouring of policies, choices and actions.
Such a device is a function from input to output: an ethical sensibility.

Analogously, a skilled sportsman, for example, is sensitive to features of the delivery and flight of a ball, and for each way the ball is delivered, makes the appropriate response.
A less good player either notices the wrong features, or fails to notice the right ones, or, even if he does so, makes a less effective response.
The player needed training to learn to separate the important features from the 'noise' or useless information that meets the eye.
Similarly the good person has learned to select some features of situations as demanding some responses, and to ignore others as unimportant.
The question is how to analyse this organization of input and output.

Blackburn's views are confined to the "ethical agent" in this case, which is insufficient and inefficient because an "ethical agent" always operates within a collective of "ethical agents" to facilitate its necessary own moral competence.

The above is a sample of your ignorance of the widest spectrum of Morality & Ethics; while you arrogantly spouts as if you are the expert in your circle-jerk, Ultracrepidarian!

I'm not a quasi realist. And you haven't read the book.

All your waffle does nothing to address any point I have made. All teh good moral philosophers know that morality is motivating, and all the good theories of morality either base themselves upon the motivating features of human psychology (Hume style) or they find a way to account for motivation as a full citizen (Kant, Aristotle, etc). They all know that if we arrive at a belief that X is the right thing to do undser circumstance Y then we are motivated to this extent to do X, and yet we may still very well not do it.

Non motivating morality would be epiphenomenal which is fatal for any form of practical reason. Thus, the proper-morality-proper-FSK (mine) takes that motivational aspect to be central to the understanding of what morality is, and what it does. My proper-morality-proper-FSK is incompatible with your lesser morality-proper-FSK, which only has one "proper" to its name, because yours eschews motivation entirely and provides nothing but an epiphenomenal "CLUE". Your FSK isn't even in the realm of practical reason.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My criticism of your FSK thing is that if we find out the rules of the game any idiot can make up any shit and it's as good as any other idiot's total shit. I'm not assimilating into your project.

But my move is not even that. If I force you to explain the rules of the game in a coherent way, then make you live within your own prison of formalised rules, you will stop wanting to even play your own game.

I don't even need to hide the plan, it's not sneaky.

Don't be so arrogant when you that ignorant of the whole spectrum of Morality & Ethics.
Your critique of my FSK approach is based on your very limited knowledge of Morality & Ethics.

MY criticism of your FSK approach is based on weaknesses of the FSK thing. One being the ad hoc rules you throw together when you want to elevate some particular instance above others. Another being the fallacy of false precision you commit when you make up numbers for things that have no property of quantity.

I had claimed what is realized as reality, fact, truth, knowledge, is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK which dictates objectivity.
A FSR-FSK in general has weaknesses.
But despite the inherent weaknesses, the scientific FSR-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective in terms of the realization of reality and the knowledge of it.
As such, if you critique my FSK as weak, in principle you are also criticizing the scientific-FSK as weak [thus useless??].

Even without a detailed computation, it is obvious to any rational person, scientific claims from the scientific-FSK are more reliable, credible and objective than the theological claims from the theological FSK.

The numbers with reference to any given and selected Standard are not 'made-up'. This are in accordance to the relevant principles and procedures.
I have explained that.

That 51% number is one you just made up out of thin air. Anyway, this is all fun, but what makes you think I am a quasi-realist?

I did not affirm you are a quasi-realist, but likely since you relied on Blackburn's book.
If you are not [should have mentioned it earlier] then what sort of moralist are you?

Blackburn stated he agreed with moral realism.
If he did not further elaborate that would make him a 100% moral realist.
Since he accepted moral realism but more inclined to moral relativism we give him a 51% rating merely to exemplify that bias.
So, his is a 51% moral relativists and 49% moral realist in general.
The above is a convenience to indicate his biasness towards moral relativism.

However, in reality it may not be the case of such numbers if we were to go into the details of his moral belief with a bias towards moral relativism.

I borrowed from the structure of one of that book's chapters to guide my quick overview of Hume's take on moral reason (an extension of the passions) which needs no extra compoent to account for moral motivation in opposition to Kant's (in which hypothetical subjective reason is overruled by objective categorical reasoning) which neuters the normal things we think of as sources of motivation such as desire and thus has a problem accounting for the motivational aspect of morality. That's no a commitment to anything else.

The point is you are taking the above very superficial knowledge of morality to counter my moral views.

Blackburn claimed his basis of morality is Humean.
But I bet, Blackburn does not understand Hume's moral philosophy fully with its limitations.

You accuse me of arrogance and then you write somethig like that? Do you have any sense of irony?

I accuse you of arrogance with ignorance.
I accuse Blackburn based on evidence of what he wrote about Hume and also Kant on morality.

I'm not a quasi realist. And you haven't read the book.

I admitted I have not read the book in full except in part.
I claimed I have covered the full range of morality and ethics in general, thus I don't really need to read the whole book in discussing the main principles involved.

All your waffle does nothing to address any point I have made. All teh good moral philosophers know that morality is motivating, and all the good theories of morality either base themselves upon the motivating features of human psychology (Hume style) or they find a way to account for motivation as a full citizen (Kant, Aristotle, etc). They all know that if we arrive at a belief that X is the right thing to do undser circumstance Y then we are motivated to this extent to do X, and yet we may still very well not do it.

Kant is not in this category in terms of simple motivational factors.

Non motivating morality would be epiphenomenal which is fatal for any form of practical reason.
Thus, the proper-morality-proper-FSK (mine) takes that motivational aspect to be central to the understanding of what morality is, and what it does.
My proper-morality-proper-FSK is incompatible with your lesser morality-proper-FSK, which only has one "proper" to its name, because yours eschews motivation entirely and provides nothing but an epiphenomenal "CLUE". Your FSK isn't even in the realm of practical reason.

Not sure what your Non motivating morality refers to.

My approach is non-motivating.
Clue: In normal every day life, are you* ever motivated 'not-to-kill-humans' or it is just something that is subliminally instinctual, spontaneous and of indifference.
This is practical reason of the spontaneity kind NOT depending on motivational factors, e.g. Hume.
* presumed you are the average normal Joe in normal every day life, but there could be hidden potential evil in you which could be triggered and motivated in special circumstances.

Note also, the following principle:

• Wu wei is an ancient Chinese concept literally meaning "inexertion", "inaction", or "effortless action"
  Oxford's Edward Slingerland qualifies in practice as a "set of ('transformed') dispositions (including physical bearing)... conforming with the normative order"
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei

There are motivation factors that motivate one to act which is supposedly moral, but that is not morality-proper, e.g. because it is morally right or wrong, or will be seen to be morally good.

I have not presented my moral-proper-FSK fully yet [don't intend to], thus your intended critique of it is half-cooked.
Even then your current critique of my moral-FSK is based on very limited range of morality and ethics.

[FlashDangerpants]

Don't be so arrogant when you that ignorant of the whole spectrum of Morality & Ethics.
Your critique of my FSK approach is based on your very limited knowledge of Morality & Ethics.

MY criticism of your FSK approach is based on weaknesses of the FSK thing. One being the ad hoc rules you throw together when you want to elevate some particular instance above others. Another being the fallacy of false precision you commit when you make up numbers for things that have no property of quantity.

I had claimed what is realized as reality, fact, truth, knowledge, is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK which dictates objectivity.
A FSR-FSK in general has weaknesses.
But despite the inherent weaknesses, the scientific FSR-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective in terms of the realization of reality and the knowledge of it.
As such, if you critique my FSK as weak, in principle you are also criticizing the scientific-FSK as weak [thus useless??].

If I say your FSK thing is a fantasy with no basis I am saying nothing derogatory about science whatsoever. The fact that you can draw that spurious conclusion shows that I was right though.

Even without a detailed computation, it is obvious to any rational person, scientific claims from the scientific-FSK are more reliable, credible and objective than the theological claims from the theological FSK.

The numbers with reference to any given and selected Standard are not 'made-up'. This are in accordance to the relevant principles and procedures.
I have explained that.

No rational person thinks there is a science FSK or a theology FSK. There's only one person in the world who believes in those things and he begs AI bots to tell him he is sensible more days than he doesn't.

That 51% number is one you just made up out of thin air. Anyway, this is all fun, but what makes you think I am a quasi-realist?

I did not affirm you are a quasi-realist, but likely since you relied on Blackburn's book.
If you are not [should have mentioned it earlier] then what sort of moralist are you?

Blackburn stated he agreed with moral realism.
If he did not further elaborate that would make him a 100% moral realist.
Since he accepted moral realism but more inclined to moral relativism we give him a 51% rating merely to exemplify that bias.
So, his is a 51% moral relativists and 49% moral realist in general.
The above is a convenience to indicate his biasness towards moral relativism.

However, in reality it may not be the case of such numbers if we were to go into the details of his moral belief with a bias towards moral relativism.

I borrowed from the structure of one of that book's chapters to guide my quick overview of Hume's take on moral reason (an extension of the passions) which needs no extra compoent to account for moral motivation in opposition to Kant's (in which hypothetical subjective reason is overruled by objective categorical reasoning) which neuters the normal things we think of as sources of motivation such as desire and thus has a problem accounting for the motivational aspect of morality. That's no a commitment to anything else.

The point is you are taking the above very superficial knowledge of morality to counter my moral views.

Blackburn claimed his basis of morality is Humean.
But I bet, Blackburn does not understand Hume's moral philosophy fully with its limitations.

You accuse me of arrogance and then you write somethig like that? Do you have any sense of irony?

I accuse you of arrogance with ignorance.
I accuse Blackburn based on evidence of what he wrote about Hume and also Kant on morality.

I'm not a quasi realist. And you haven't read the book.

I admitted I have not read the book in full except in part.
I claimed I have covered the full range of morality and ethics in general, thus I don't really need to read the whole book in discussing the main principles involved.

You haven't read the book. You have nothing useful to say about it. You should have known this and stayed quiet.

All your waffle does nothing to address any point I have made. All teh good moral philosophers know that morality is motivating, and all the good theories of morality either base themselves upon the motivating features of human psychology (Hume style) or they find a way to account for motivation as a full citizen (Kant, Aristotle, etc). They all know that if we arrive at a belief that X is the right thing to do undser circumstance Y then we are motivated to this extent to do X, and yet we may still very well not do it.

Kant is not in this category in terms of simple motivational factors.

Non motivating morality would be epiphenomenal which is fatal for any form of practical reason.
Thus, the proper-morality-proper-FSK (mine) takes that motivational aspect to be central to the understanding of what morality is, and what it does.
My proper-morality-proper-FSK is incompatible with your lesser morality-proper-FSK, which only has one "proper" to its name, because yours eschews motivation entirely and provides nothing but an epiphenomenal "CLUE". Your FSK isn't even in the realm of practical reason.

Not sure what your Non motivating morality refers to.

It's what it says there. Some notional morality that didn't motivate (that only gave some sort of clue) would be epihpenomenal. That a straightforward observation is it not?

My approach is non-motivating.
Clue: In normal every day life, are you* ever motivated 'not-to-kill-humans' or it is just something that is subliminally instinctual, spontaneous and of indifference.
This is practical reason of the spontaneity kind NOT depending on motivational factors, e.g. Hume.
* presumed you are the average normal Joe in normal every day life, but there could be hidden potential evil in you which could be triggered and motivated in special circumstances.

Note also, the following principle:

• Wu wei is an ancient Chinese concept literally meaning "inexertion", "inaction", or "effortless action"
  Oxford's Edward Slingerland qualifies in practice as a "set of ('transformed') dispositions (including physical bearing)... conforming with the normative order"
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei

There are motivation factors that motivate one to act which is supposedly moral, but that is not morality-proper, e.g. because it is morally right or wrong, or will be seen to be morally good.

I have not presented my moral-proper-FSK fully yet [don't intend to], thus your intended critique of it is half-cooked.
Even then your current critique of my moral-FSK is based on very limited range of morality and ethics.

Your morality-proper-FSK thing can be kept secret if you like, nobody was ever going to care much about what it actually said anyway. Who except me or IWP has ever really bothered to critique your theory on the basis of its contents rather than on the basis of their own preferences? You realise if you were a more formidable opponent, or at least had a cohesive theory that others could make some sense of, that would probably have happened more often?


But that matters little. The moral-proper-FSK is epiphenomenal, lacking any causal outcome. Therefore it's non-motivating, and therefore inferior in logical terms to the proper-morality-proper-FSK, which already gains advantage by having one more "proper" than yours. But also it has me and Willy B onboard, giving it double the credibility score of your mere one "proper" FSK that only you even know about and nobody but you believes a word of.

[Veritas Aequitas]

MY criticism of your FSK approach is based on weaknesses of the FSK thing. One being the ad hoc rules you throw together when you want to elevate some particular instance above others. Another being the fallacy of false precision you commit when you make up numbers for things that have no property of quantity.

I had claimed what is realized as reality, fact, truth, knowledge, is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK which dictates objectivity.
A FSR-FSK in general has weaknesses.
But despite the inherent weaknesses, the scientific FSR-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective in terms of the realization of reality and the knowledge of it.
As such, if you critique my FSK as weak, in principle you are also criticizing the scientific-FSK as weak [thus useless??].

If I say your FSK thing is a fantasy with no basis I am saying nothing derogatory about science whatsoever. The fact that you can draw that spurious conclusion shows that I was right though.

It is undeniable that scientific facts [polished conjectures] are conditioned upon a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
I am claiming my FSK is based on exactly the same principles as the human-based scientific FSK.
As such, if you condemned my FSK, then you are condemning the scientific FSK and therefrom its scientific facts.

As long as conclusions are drawn from a valid FSK [it dictates objectivity], the conclusions are objective. E.g. as long as the conclusion follows deductively, it is valid but not necessary sound.
The FSK is a sort of 'deductive' machinery that generate objective conclusions.

Since my FSK's credibility is nearly equivalent to that of the scientific FSK, it cannot be waved off as spurious as you did.
Give me details of your claim that my conclusion is spurious.

Even without a detailed computation, it is obvious to any rational person, scientific claims from the scientific-FSK are more reliable, credible and objective than the theological claims from the theological FSK.

The numbers with reference to any given and selected Standard are not 'made-up'. This are in accordance to the relevant principles and procedures.
I have explained that.

No rational person thinks there is a science FSK or a theology FSK. There's only one person in the world who believes in those things and he begs AI bots to tell him he is sensible more days than he doesn't.

ChatGpt has access to all the accessible information on the internet up to Sept 2021.
ChatGpt in line with what is generally accepted, the concept of FSK is very commonly understood, it is applicable to science in general [implied a rational basis] and other fields of knowledge.
You think you are more knowledgeable [informed] than that AI bot [Chat Gpt]?

I did not affirm you are a quasi-realist, but likely since you relied on Blackburn's book.
If you are not [should have mentioned it earlier] then what sort of moralist are you?

Blackburn stated he agreed with moral realism.
If he did not further elaborate that would make him a 100% moral realist.
Since he accepted moral realism but more inclined to moral relativism we give him a 51% rating merely to exemplify that bias.
So, his is a 51% moral relativists and 49% moral realist in general.
The above is a convenience to indicate his biasness towards moral relativism.

However, in reality it may not be the case of such numbers if we were to go into the details of his moral belief with a bias towards moral relativism.


The point is you are taking the above very superficial knowledge of morality to counter my moral views.


I accuse you of arrogance with ignorance.
I accuse Blackburn based on evidence of what he wrote about Hume and also Kant on morality.

I admitted I have not read the book in full except in part.
I claimed I have covered the full range of morality and ethics in general, thus I don't really need to read the whole book in discussing the main principles involved.

You haven't read the book. You have nothing useful to say about it. You should have known this and stayed quiet.

I have read enough of the book to understand you do not have the competence to understand that Blackburn’s understanding of Hume and Kant is rather shallow. You are just parroting Blackburn’s narrow view.

Kant is not in this category in terms of simple motivational factors.


Not sure what your Non motivating morality refers to.

It's what it says there. Some notional morality that didn't motivate (that only gave some sort of clue) would be epihpenomenal. That a straightforward observation is it not?

My approach is non-motivating.
Clue: In normal every day life, are you* ever motivated 'not-to-kill-humans' or it is just something that is subliminally instinctual, spontaneous and of indifference.
This is practical reason of the spontaneity kind NOT depending on motivational factors, e.g. Hume.
* presumed you are the average normal Joe in normal every day life, but there could be hidden potential evil in you which could be triggered and motivated in special circumstances.

Note also, the following principle:

• Wu wei is an ancient Chinese concept literally meaning "inexertion", "inaction", or "effortless action"
  Oxford's Edward Slingerland qualifies in practice as a "set of ('transformed') dispositions (including physical bearing)... conforming with the normative order"
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei

There are motivation factors that motivate one to act which is supposedly moral, but that is not morality-proper, e.g. because it is morally right or wrong, or will be seen to be morally good.

I have not presented my moral-proper-FSK fully yet [don't intend to], thus your intended critique of it is half-cooked.
Even then your current critique of my moral-FSK is based on very limited range of morality and ethics.

Your morality-proper-FSK thing can be kept secret if you like, nobody was ever going to care much about what it actually said anyway. Who except me or IWP has ever really bothered to critique your theory on the basis of its contents rather than on the basis of their own preferences? You realise if you were a more formidable opponent, or at least had a cohesive theory that others could make some sense of, that would probably have happened more often?

Others??
For some reasons, the majority of posters here are not into serious philosophy.

You will note I am venturing into something that is novel no philosophers had done so in that particular perspective. I am doing real philosophy. Surely I have to start with a hypothesis and slowly polishes it towards the objective I have in mind. That is a sign of intelligence i.e. using existing knowledge to establish something new.

You? you are smelling and taking in the terrible farts of Analytic Philosophy [immature philosophy] and spewing it like a parrot.

But that matters little. The moral-proper-FSK is epiphenomenal, lacking any causal outcome. Therefore it's non-motivating, and therefore inferior in logical terms to the proper-morality-proper-FSK, which already gains advantage by having one more "proper" than yours. But also it has me and Willy B onboard, giving it double the credibility score of your mere one "proper" FSK that only you even know about and nobody but you believes a word of.

The above is driven by your ignorance.

Morality is confined within the human being driven by natural motivating features.
I am striving to highlight the objective factual moral facts which are inherently motivating, just like the 'oughtness to breathe' in all humans.

My objective is to identify so we can activate the moral fact that they motivate more effective to generate moral values on a continual improvement basis.

[FlashDangerpants]

Since my FSK's credibility is nearly equivalent to that of the scientific FSK, it cannot be waved off as spurious as you did.
Give me details of your claim that my conclusion is spurious.

A radical change to how "credibility" works has suddenly occurred. Could this be to do with you being in charge of the whole game and you making up rules to suit yourself as you go?

[Will Bouwman]

It is undeniable that scientific facts [polished conjectures] are conditioned upon a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

That's conditional on your meta-FSK, according to which, polished conjectures are scientific facts. Alternative FSK/models/paradigms include ideas such that scientific facts are empirical facts - observable, measurable and repeatable, and however polished an hypothesis may be, it is still an hypothesis - an explanation of facts, not a fact itself.

I am claiming my FSK is based on exactly the same principles as the human-based scientific FSK.

So what is the human-based scientific FSK that is not reliant on a further FSK?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is undeniable that scientific facts [polished conjectures] are conditioned upon a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

That's conditional on your meta-FSK, according to which, polished conjectures are scientific facts. Alternative FSK/models/paradigms include ideas such that scientific facts are empirical facts - observable, measurable and repeatable, and however polished an hypothesis may be, it is still an hypothesis - an explanation of facts, not a fact itself.

I am claiming my FSK is based on exactly the same principles as the human-based scientific FSK.

So what is the human-based scientific FSK that is not reliant on a further FSK?

Btw, what is the scientific basis of science?
That's where we have the Philosophy of Science.
But what is the Philosophy of Philosophy, one can ask into infinity.
The ultimate basis of all the above is a human-based FSK.

There is of course the FSK of FSKs.

Here is ONE [there are others] critical element of the FSK of FSK.
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?p=674907#p674907

[Veritas Aequitas]

Since my FSK's credibility is nearly equivalent to that of the scientific FSK, it cannot be waved off as spurious as you did.
Give me details of your claim that my conclusion is spurious.

A radical change to how "credibility" works has suddenly occurred. Could this be to do with you being in charge of the whole game and you making up rules to suit yourself as you go?

Rules in this case refer to general rules on how STANDARDS are created, not my own rules.

Any rational and critical thinker at present will accept scientific facts from the human-based scientific FSK [at its best] is the most credible and objectivity. [Mathematics has near credibility and objectivity to science].
This is based on the FSK of FSKs within one critical element, i.e.
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?p=675044#p675044

Show me which other FSK of fields of knowledge is more credible and objective than Science and Mathematics?

If the scientific FSK is the most credible, then, we can use it as a base or Standard all other FSKs can be compared against.
As THE STANDARD, we assign it a value of 100 or 100% as matter of convenience.

The setting of standard approach is a very useful quantitative and objective approach.

[FlashDangerpants]

Since my FSK's credibility is nearly equivalent to that of the scientific FSK, it cannot be waved off as spurious as you did.
Give me details of your claim that my conclusion is spurious.

A radical change to how "credibility" works has suddenly occurred. Could this be to do with you being in charge of the whole game and you making up rules to suit yourself as you go?

Rules in this case refer to general rules on how STANDARDS are created, not my own rules.

Any rational and critical thinker at present will accept scientific facts from the human-based scientific FSK [at its best] is the most credible and objectivity. [Mathematics has near credibility and objectivity to science].
This is based on the FSK of FSKs within one critical element, i.e.
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?p=675044#p675044

Show me which other FSK of fields of knowledge is more credible and objective than Science and Mathematics?

If the scientific FSK is the most credible, then, we can use it as a base or Standard all other FSKs can be compared against.
As THE STANDARD, we assign it a value of 100 or 100% as matter of convenience.

The setting of standard approach is a very useful quantitative and objective approach.

Your own FSK is not is not near equivalent to anything. The criteria for being credible includes multiple people accepting it, so you fail imediately on that score. It is the height of arrogance to insist that your one man crusade is equivalent to the product of centuries of science just because you filled out questionnaire and self-certified your own work as "methodical" and "ethically neutral".

So you are setting the rules in this sandpit to favour your own ideas. Hardly scientific is it?