What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

...

Fix

tower.png

[Veritas Aequitas]

.......

PH, every time I challenged you to prove your 'what is fact' is really real, you responded that that reality can be referred to what scientists supposed 'what is real' in relation to their scientific conclusions.

I have problem tracing to your posts on the above.

Can you confirm the following of "what is really real" in relation to your "what is fact", i.e. a feature of reality, that is just-is, being-so, that is/are the case, states of affairs which scientists [naturalists in particular] are directing their attention at, represent your view;

Scientific Realism is, at the most general level, the view that the world described by science is the real world, as it is, independent of what we might take it to be.
Within philosophy of science, it is often framed as an answer to the question "how is the success of science to be explained?"
The debate over what the success of science involves centers primarily on the status of unobservable entities apparently talked about by scientific theories.
Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make reliable claims about unobservables (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as observables.
Analytic philosophers generally have a commitment to scientific realism, in the sense of regarding the scientific method as a reliable guide to the nature of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... ic_realism

Can you confirm the above represent your 'what is fact' as really real?
If not, give further explanation of your position.

The above scientific Realism is a sub of Philosophical Realism;

Philosophical Realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

If you don't agree with "mind-independence" then substitute it with 'independent of human conditions".

Atm, I can't be bothered to explain my position to you yet again. Just as you can't be bothered to address my and others' falsification of your claims and refutation of your argument. You just repeat your claims and argument.

Where did I run away from your challenges?
Show specific examples.

Appreciate if you can confirm the above with modifications.
If you reject above, provide details as to how you relate science to your 'what is fact'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...

Fix

tower.png

I think it more effective to put 'Computer Science' as a column besides the triangle with a link to each field of knowledge.
The various fields and their interactions in a hierarchy above preceded computer science.

[Skepdick]

I think it more effective to put 'Computer Science' as a column besides the triangle with a link to each field of knowledge.
The various fields and their interactions in a hierarchy above preceded computer science.

The pyramid isn't ordered chronologically.
It's ordered conceptually.

If you want - to think of it chronologically, the future's always at the bottom.

[Iwannaplato]

Biologically within the science-biology FSK there is the 'oughtness-to-breathe' as programmed within human via evolution which is undeniable.
Do you deny this?

Could you cite something from within the science biology FSK where the term oughtness is used? You may have done this elsewhere so a link is fine. But could you give a clear definition of 'oughtness.' Not an argument in favor of it, but a definition.

You do say the following:

This 'oughtness' is the inherent potential, propensity, drive and compulsion to act by humans only, not with reference to non-human objects.

I don't see that as a definition with the science-biology FSK. But if you could link me to something within the biological FSK that says that, that'd be great.

Potential, drive and propensity I could imagine being used in the biological FSK. Compulsion sounds more like something from a psychological FSK, but I guess possible. They don't seem like the same 'things', but I suppose oughtness could be a batching term. Do they all need to be present for it to be an 'oughtness' or just 1 of them?

Perhaps useful would be to know if this applies to all biological processes in humans. Is there an oughtness in the Kreb's cycle? An oughtness to circulate the blood?

In any case here is an article that I think could be considered within the biological FSK..
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482414/
And they refer, in the title, to a respiratory drive.

Great. That's in what might be your definition above.

So, what aspect of breathing is added to drive when we use the word oughtness?
I notice they use the word 'mechanisms' a lot to describe the causal chains involved in respiration.
Are their aspects to this process that are missing and require the use of the term oughtness?
What are they?

You talked about the way information from one FSK can be used by another FSK.
You mentioned physics information being used in Chemistry.
In that use, there is a bridging between the fields of study. IOW we can show the connection between cause and effect in atoms or molecules within physics and how these affect processes at the more macrolevel in chemistry.
Could you explain the bridge between science-biology in terms of cause effect with some research support for the causal or other connection?
I guess I'm wondering is this is an actual parallel case or an analogy and how valid the analogy is.

I tried googling 'oughtness of breathing' 'oughtness to breathe' and then with some synonyms but all I get are your posts. Fine you are developing a terminology.

I think you said elsewhere that this is not a moral ought. Like it's not like the ought in you ought to be kind to your neighbors, etc. So, that's why I am asking what it does mean. The drive to breathe seems like something quite different than what is implied by oughtness to breathe.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This 'oughtness' is the inherent potential, propensity, drive and compulsion to act by humans only, not with reference to non-human objects.

The inherent potential, propensity, drive and compulsion to breathe is fundamentally a term within the science-biology FSK.
These are opened to all sorts of considerations within the science-biology FSK where the mechanisms of these can be compromised, damaged, improved or whatever.
In addition these elements are can also to be inputs in other non-moral FSKs, e.g. medicine, pharmacy, etc.

However when we want to overlap the science-biology FSK with the moral-FSK as much as possible [Venn Diagram] we need a common term for both sets.
This is where the term 'oughtness' is most appropriate as a principle of imperative without room for damage, being compromised or other issues such that it is common to both the science-biology and moral FSK.

I have not deliberated the oughtness-to-breathe as a moral element so far.
The oughtness-to-breathe will be a moral element where suicide is an immoral element, as such the oughtness-to-breathe and not commit suicide via asphyxiation.

I have focused on the oughtness-not-to-kill-humans using oughtness-to-breathe as an analogy, i.e. both are represented by their respective physical neural correlates in the brain and body, thus are moral facts when dealt within a human-based moral FSK.

[Iwannaplato]

This 'oughtness' is the inherent potential, propensity, drive and compulsion to act by humans only, not with reference to non-human objects.

We have a propensity to age. We don't like it, the part after one has come to adulthood, but it's inherent in the processes of our bodies. It happens to everyone who survives to full adulthood. Is there an oughtness to age and what does that add to the meaning of a propensity, potential etc.? We have a propensity to grow hair. Are we going against the oughtness to have body hair, for example, or beards, if we shave these areas? (I know, it's a silly example, but how much are we bound to our propensities.) Is abortion immoral because there is a propensity for a fetus to develop out of a fertilized egg? Is there an oughtness NOT to use ice on strains, because we have a propensity, drive, potential to swell regions of our body that are injured? Is the treatment of congenital diseases going against the oughtnesses inherent in certain bodies? If one decides to kill oneself when one is suffering immensely from terminal cancer, is this going against the oughtness to breathe?

Also, we have propensities to violence and empathy? How do we determine which we will enhance? If we can choose to limit one an enhance the other, why are these considered oughtnesses? Would they merely be propensities?

What rights do we have in relation to our propensities?

However when we want to overlap the science-biology FSK with the moral-FSK as much as possible [Venn Diagram] we need a common term for both sets.

OK, so you are taking a term that is not used in the science biology FSK, but is used in the moral FSK.
Above you said

Biologically within the science-biology FSK there is the 'oughtness-to-breathe' as programmed within human via evolution which is undeniable.

Which makes it sound like the term is in the science-biology FSK, biologically. But it isn't in there. It is used in morality and ethics. So, it's not a bridging term. It is taking a term from morality and assuming it works in the other FSK. There are forces and movements and bonds in both physics and chemistry. We have areas where we can clearly connect terms from physics and ideas in physics directly to many of the same terms and ideas in chemistry. There are scale differences, but the actual fields overlap. For example there are all sorts of terms for energy and mass amounts that overlap. There are forces in common. And so on.

[Skepdick]

This 'oughtness' is the inherent potential, propensity, drive and compulsion to act by humans only, not with reference to non-human objects.

We have a propensity to age. We don't like it, the part after one has come to adulthood, but it's inherent in the processes of our bodies. It happens to everyone who survives to full adulthood. Is there an oughtness to age and what does that add to the meaning of a propensity, potential etc.?

Missing the forrest for the trees in that what "full adulthood" amounted to 5000 years ago and what "full adulthood" amounts to in contemporary biological terms aren't the same thing.

Missing the entire universe in failing to recognize that humanity has practically doubled its own shelf-life.

Adaptation in action. Almost like we have a "propensity" or a "potential" for effective self-preservation.

If self-engineering is in effect please explain what you mean by "full adulthood".

[Iwannaplato]

This 'oughtness' is the inherent potential, propensity, drive and compulsion to act by humans only, not with reference to non-human objects.

We have a propensity to age. We don't like it, the part after one has come to adulthood, but it's inherent in the processes of our bodies. It happens to everyone who survives to full adulthood. Is there an oughtness to age and what does that add to the meaning of a propensity, potential etc.?

Missing the forrest for the trees in that what "full adulthood" amounted to 5000 years ago and what "full adulthood" amounts to in contemporary biological terms aren't the same thing.

Missing the entire universe in failing to recognize that humanity has practically doubled its own shelf-life.

Adaptation in action. Almost like we have a "propensity" or a "potential" for effective self-preservation.

If self-engineering is in effect please explain what you mean by "full adulthood".

None of that matters...in context. Is it ok to to interfere with bodily propensities, which ones, on what grounds?

And I am asking questions, you fucking turd.

[Skepdick]

We have a propensity to age. We don't like it, the part after one has come to adulthood, but it's inherent in the processes of our bodies. It happens to everyone who survives to full adulthood. Is there an oughtness to age and what does that add to the meaning of a propensity, potential etc.?

Missing the forrest for the trees in that what "full adulthood" amounted to 5000 years ago and what "full adulthood" amounts to in contemporary biological terms aren't the same thing.

Missing the entire universe in failing to recognize that humanity has practically doubled its own shelf-life.

Adaptation in action. Almost like we have a "propensity" or a "potential" for effective self-preservation.

If self-engineering is in effect please explain what you mean by "full adulthood".

None of that matters...in context. Is it ok to to interfere with bodily propensities, which ones, on what grounds?

And I am asking questions, you fucking turd.

Is it OK to ask questions and which ones? On what grounds?

You fucking turd.

[Iwannaplato]

Missing the forrest for the trees in that what "full adulthood" amounted to 5000 years ago and what "full adulthood" amounts to in contemporary biological terms aren't the same thing.

Missing the entire universe in failing to recognize that humanity has practically doubled its own shelf-life.

Adaptation in action. Almost like we have a "propensity" or a "potential" for effective self-preservation.

If self-engineering is in effect please explain what you mean by "full adulthood".

None of that matters...in context. Is it ok to to interfere with bodily propensities, which ones, on what grounds?

And I am asking questions, you fucking turd.

Is it OK to ask questions and which ones? On what grounds?

You fucking turd.

It has seemed it wasn't, to you in other instances. It seemed like you took questions as a position - they certainly can be only that, though often you assumed the position incorrectly or assumed that the questions were functioning in a way they weren't for me. It's happened enough times that I react to you like I would finding someone else's turd on the floor. I'm sure you don't care or you'll pretend not to, should I be wrong about you're not caring. It's often ok for others to get asked questions. They seem to deal with it ok. I don't know what their grounds are.

I have found things you've written both interesting and useful. Hence the push pull on my part. But cons have won out.

You take care now.

You fucking turd.

[Skepdick]

None of that matters...in context. Is it ok to to interfere with bodily propensities, which ones, on what grounds?

And I am asking questions, you fucking turd.

Is it OK to ask questions and which ones? On what grounds?

You fucking turd.

It has seemed it wasn't, to you in other instances. It seemed like you took questions as a position - they certainly can be only that, though often you assumed the position incorrectly or assumed that the questions were functioning in a way they weren't for me. It's happened enough times that I react to you like I would finding someone else's turd on the floor. I'm sure you don't care or you'll pretend not to, should I be wrong about you're not caring. It's often ok for others to get asked questions. They seem to deal with it ok. I don't know what their grounds are.

I have found things you've written both interesting and useful. Hence the push pull on my part. But cons have won out.

You take care now.

You fucking turd.

Perfect. Now I can continue talking about you, not to you.

Another useful idiot, so few fellow travellers.

It happens to everyone who survives to full adulthood.

What the fuck does this phrase even mean? Everybody survives all the way to the moment of their death.

Which point in between those two events is "full adulthood" given that we have more than doubled human life expectancy; and as we begin to interfere with our own biology?

[Veritas Aequitas]

This 'oughtness' is the inherent potential, propensity, drive and compulsion to act by humans only, not with reference to non-human objects.

We have a propensity to age. We don't like it, the part after one has come to adulthood, but it's inherent in the processes of our bodies. It happens to everyone who survives to full adulthood.
Is there an oughtness to age and what does that add to the meaning of a propensity, potential etc.?

We have a propensity to grow hair. Are we going against the oughtness to have body hair, for example, or beards, if we shave these areas? (I know, it's a silly example, but how much are we bound to our propensities.)

Is abortion immoral because there is a propensity for a fetus to develop out of a fertilized egg?

Is there an oughtness NOT to use ice on strains, because we have a propensity, drive, potential to swell regions of our body that are injured?
Is the treatment of congenital diseases going against the oughtnesses inherent in certain bodies?

If one decides to kill oneself when one is suffering immensely from terminal cancer, is this going against the oughtness to breathe?

Also, we have propensities to violence and empathy? How do we determine which we will enhance? If we can choose to limit one an enhance the other, why are these considered oughtnesses? Would they merely be propensities?

What rights do we have in relation to our propensities?

It is a desperate rhetoric to equate aging with the propensity to breathe.
There is no option for a any human being at present to stop aging from conception onwards till the inevitable.
However, a human being can opt not to breathe in committing suicide via asphyxiation and other means.

Humans have all sorts of drives and propensities.
Those elements associated with morality [good over evil] are those that has a direct impact of the mortality of the person [even before birth]; note degrees within a continuum with killing of humans as the most critical.
The growth of hair is not relevant for morality.
I have argued somewhere, abortion is immoral but ..
There are loads of nuances to consider but because you don't have the capacity of reflect on nuances relevant to this topic, it is your handicap and annoyance to others.

However when we want to overlap the science-biology FSK with the moral-FSK as much as possible [Venn Diagram] we need a common term for both sets.

OK, so you are taking a term that is not used in the science biology FSK, but is used in the moral FSK.
Above you said

Biologically within the science-biology FSK there is the 'oughtness-to-breathe' as programmed within human via evolution which is undeniable.

Which makes it sound like the term is in the science-biology FSK, biologically. But it isn't in there. It is used in morality and ethics. So, it's not a bridging term. It is taking a term from morality and assuming it works in the other FSK. There are forces and movements and bonds in both physics and chemistry. We have areas where we can clearly connect terms from physics and ideas in physics directly to many of the same terms and ideas in chemistry. There are scale differences, but the actual fields overlap. For example there are all sorts of terms for energy and mass amounts that overlap. There are forces in common. And so on.

1. The drive-to-eat is a science-biological-FSK fact.
2. The oughtness-to-eat is a FSK-ed fact that is relevant within the health, medical, nutrition, well-being FSK. It is very common for professionals in those fields and even laymen, parents to kids, to use the term 'oughtness to eat' or 'must eat this or that.'
3. The term oughtness-to-eat is not in the science-biological-FSK.
4. This prove that scientific FSK-ed facts are fluid enough to enable it to transit effectively [without change in its real meaning] to other FSKs.

Your ignorance [so the resistance] is due to the fact that the "drive-to-breathe" has never been equated with the 'oughtness-to-breathe' in a moral FSK.
Given 4, the scientific FSK-ed "drive-to-breathe" can be inputted into the moral FSK as 'oughtness-to-breathe' as a moral fact.
To do that is a mark of higher intelligence?

[Peter Holmes]

Your ignorance [so the resistance] is due to the fact that the "drive-to-breathe" has never been equated with the 'oughtness-to-breathe' in a moral FSK.
Given 4, the scientific FSK-ed "drive-to-breathe" can be inputted into the moral FSK as 'oughtness-to-breathe' as a moral fact.

To clarify - VA claims that 'inputting' a physical fact into a moral 'framework and system of knowledge' produces a moral fact - here, 'oughtness-to-breathe' - which, however, has nothing to do with moral rightness or wrongness. What utter nonsense.

[iambiguous]

Humans have all sorts of drives and propensities.
Those elements associated with morality [good over evil] are those that has a direct impact of the mortality of the person...

In regard to human morality, this may well be the trickiest conundrum of them all. Yes, we all come into the world hard-wired genetically/biologically to be homo sapiens. On the other hand, how crucial can this be given that historically and culturally we have ever and always been thumped by truly tumultuous conflicting goods? If biological imperatives are the bottom line why aren't we all wholly in alignment with them and able to all share the same moral philosophy?

That's what these guys -- https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora -- ignore. And in regard to race and gender and sexuality and religion and every and all moral and political conflagrations, not only do biological imperatives prevail, but you damn well better embrace their own reactionary prejudices.

And, if you don't?

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum