Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 4:48 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:20 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 6:02 am I am not referring to any personal nor groups' moral edict nor moral judgment.

To be precise what need to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically are the moral facts which are to be used as moral standards within a moral FSK.

Here is an analogy;

• 1. ALL humans are 'programmed' to breathe else they die.
  2. Biologically, all humans ought to breathe, else they die.
  3. The imperative to breathe can be tested empirically via biological experiments.
  4. The above 'ought_ness to breathe' is represented by the human physical and neural matter, physiological and mental mechanisms and processes.

"Ought" in the above do not refer to a rule that is enforceable by any external authority, rather 'ought' in this sense = proper, correct, in order to be in alignment to being-human.

The moral fact [ought_ness] 'no human ought to kill humans' can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically just like the above procedures and ultimately it must be reducible to its physical referent.
Note there are many other approaches to justify the existence of the above moral fact.

I have already explain reasonably in many instances how the moral facts, re killing humans and slavery could be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

The above is sufficient and reasonable for the above purpose, but it is still a long way to a consummated answer which I am keeping up my sleeve.

1 We can use modal 'ought to' and 'should' morally or non-morally.

2 If a modal is used non-morally, the assertion can have no moral significance.

3 The claim 'humans ought to breathe or they die' is non-moral, so it can't be a moral assertion, asserting a moral fact.

Note I mentioned "analogy" in the above.
In the case of "ought to breathe" that is the biological modal of ought-to as verified and justified within the biological FSK.

The claim 'humans ought to breathe or they die' is definitely a biological modal of ought-to or the biological FSK's ought-to, thus CANNOT be a moral element or moral ought.
I did not claim "humans ought to breathe or they die" is a moral ought.
This biological ought is merely to be used as an analogy to a moral ought.

Thus analogous to the above, for any moral ought, it has to be verified and justified within a moral FSK, e.g.
the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK.
As I had explained many times, the above moral fact is represented by its specific mental states and physical referent.

Okay, spell out the analogy between 'humans ought to breath, or else they die' and 'humans ought not to kill humans'.

You agree that the biological use of 'ought' has no moral sense - so that the claim just means 'if humans don't breath, they die' - which is a true factual assertion.

Now, please explain why 'humans ought not to kill humans' is an analogous moral fact. For example, is there an 'or else ...' that follows as a factual, empirically demonstrable moral consequence?

Truth is, you know the functional difference between the non-moral (factual or instrumental) use of modal 'ought' on the one hand, and on the other its moral use. And yet you want to gloss over that crucial difference, in order to maintain that the moral use is factual. Doesn't work.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 4:48 am The claim 'humans ought to breathe or they die' is definitely a biological modal of ought-to or the biological FSK's ought-to, thus CANNOT be a moral element or moral ought.

No biology textbook says that humans "ought" to breathe. Breathing is how human respiration occurs, and that enables a human to keep living ceteris paribus, but there's no "ought" to it in biology. Biology, or more specifically medicine, will also note that not breathing causes a human to die. Biology doesn't take sides on which possibility ought to be the case. There are no "oughts" in the natural world (aside from using "ought" as a synonym for a precondition or prerequisite, but the sciences don't use that sense of "ought") apart from human preferences/desires. That's where "oughts" come from. And in that case, it just depends on what the particular human in question prefers or desires.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:06 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 4:48 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:20 pm 1 We can use modal 'ought to' and 'should' morally or non-morally.

2 If a modal is used non-morally, the assertion can have no moral significance.

3 The claim 'humans ought to breathe or they die' is non-moral, so it can't be a moral assertion, asserting a moral fact.

Note I mentioned "analogy" in the above.
In the case of "ought to breathe" that is the biological modal of ought-to as verified and justified within the biological FSK.

The claim 'humans ought to breathe or they die' is definitely a biological modal of ought-to or the biological FSK's ought-to, thus CANNOT be a moral element or moral ought.
I did not claim "humans ought to breathe or they die" is a moral ought.
This biological ought is merely to be used as an analogy to a moral ought.

Thus analogous to the above, for any moral ought, it has to be verified and justified within a moral FSK, e.g.
the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK.
As I had explained many times, the above moral fact is represented by its specific mental states and physical referent.

Okay, spell out the analogy between 'humans ought to breath, or else they die' and 'humans ought not to kill humans'.

You agree that the biological use of 'ought' has no moral sense - so that the claim just means 'if humans don't breath, they die' - which is a true factual assertion.

Now, please explain why 'humans ought not to kill humans' is an analogous moral fact. For example, is there an 'or else ...' that follows as a factual, empirically demonstrable moral consequence?

Truth is, you know the functional difference between the non-moral (factual or instrumental) use of modal 'ought' on the one hand, and on the other its moral use. And yet you want to gloss over that crucial difference, in order to maintain that the moral use is factual. Doesn't work.

Hey.. I explained that above and a "1000" times in other posts.

Whatever is a fact is verified and justified from a specific FSK.
E.g. whatever is a scientific fact is verified and justified from the Scientific FSK.
E.g. Whatever is a biological fact is verified and justified from the Biology FSK.
Thus whatever is a moral fact is verified and justified from the Moral FSK.

"ALL humans ought to breathe else they die" as verified and justified within the Biology FSK is a biological fact.
Analogously 'No human ought to kill humans else they are evil*' as verified and justified within the Moral FSK is a moral fact.

* evil need to be defined precisely, its potential is negative to the individual and humanity.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 1:15 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 4:48 am The claim 'humans ought to breathe or they die' is definitely a biological modal of ought-to or the biological FSK's ought-to, thus CANNOT be a moral element or moral ought.

No biology textbook says that humans "ought" to breathe. Breathing is how human respiration occurs, and that enables a human to keep living ceteris paribus, but there's no "ought" to it in biology. Biology, or more specifically medicine, will also note that not breathing causes a human to die. Biology doesn't take sides on which possibility ought to be the case.

There are no "oughts" in the natural world (aside from using "ought" as a synonym for a precondition or prerequisite, but the sciences don't use that sense of "ought") apart from human preferences/desires. That's where "oughts" come from. And in that case, it just depends on what the particular human in question prefers or desires.

That science do not use the term 'ought' commonly is because it is so obvious and taken for granted. However note it is common to hear the biological fact "whales, dolphins and their likes, must, ought, is-imperative-to, should, breathe out of their water world else they will die."
When it comes to philosophical analysis, we should leave no stones unturned into the more refined details.

There is no denial that,
all humans must, should, ought to breathe, else they die, is a biological fact within the Biology FSK.
It is the same with,
all humans must, should, ought to drink, eat, else they die, is a biological fact.
Yes the above features of human nature are preconditioned.
When humans are in a critical situations, then the above ought[s] are critical.
It is because that humans ought to breathe else they die, that ventilators are needed in times of the current pandemic.

The point is the justified true moral fact 'ought-not-to-kill-humans' as verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK [ note this bolded criterial is critical] is also preconditioned ["programmed"] within humans via evolution and natural selection, albeit not as obvious as the ought_ness to breathe, drink water or eat food.

You are ignorant that your views on morality are merely based on hearsays [ from bits of Hume, Frege, Moore, Russell, early-Wittgenstein, Ayer, logical positivists] which are without solid philosophical groundings.
Even if are able to track you moral views to the above mentioned, all their moral related views have been countered and failed.

I bet you [like PH] will not be able to justify your views re morality from any philosophical stances but at most merely make noises based on hearsays without justifications, else show otherwise.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:57 am
That science do not use the term 'ought' commonly is because it is so obvious and taken for granted. However note it is common to hear the biological fact "whales, dolphins and their likes, must, ought, is-imperative-to, should, breathe out of their water world else they will die."

Source for either claim there?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:26 am
Whatever is a fact is verified and justified from a specific FSK.
E.g. whatever is a scientific fact is verified and justified from the Scientific FSK.
E.g. Whatever is a biological fact is verified and justified from the Biology FSK.
Thus whatever is a moral fact is verified and justified from the Moral FSK.

"ALL humans ought to breathe else they die" as verified and justified within the Biology FSK is a biological fact.
Analogously 'No human ought to kill humans else they are evil*' as verified and justified within the Moral FSK is a moral fact.

Claim: what we call a fact exists only within a descriptive context.

If by 'fact' we mean 'feature of reality that is or was the case', then this claim is false. A feature of reality, such as a dog, just is or was the case. The claim that a dog exists only within a descriptive context is ridiculous.

If by 'fact' we mean 'description of a feature of reality that is or was the case', then this claim is true. A description - a truth-claim - is always contextual. There is no such thing as a context-free description.

But the truth of a description - such as a description of a dog - depends on the existence of the thing being described, not the existence of the description. A description does not create or change the thing being described. For example, a biological description of the human need to breathe does not make the human need to breathe a reality. That reality is independent from the description.

The claim that moral facts (features of reality) exist because there is a moral framework and system of knowledge (a moral descriptive context) is obviously ridiculous. No fact (feature of reality) of any kind exists because of a descriptive context.

If moral features of reality exist, then their existence is independent from any descriptive context; a supposed 'moral framework and system of knowledge' can't make them exist - any more than a scientific descriptive context can make a scientific feature of reality exist.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:42 am The claim that moral facts (features of reality) exist because there is a moral framework and system of knowledge (a moral descriptive context) is obviously ridiculous. No fact (feature of reality) of any kind exists because of a descriptive context.

Stop talking and start demonstrating.

If facts are not linguistic or contextual, then show us a fact without contextualising/framing it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:26 am Whatever is a fact is verified and justified from a specific FSK.

Facts are defined to be independent of FSKs. Can you point to dictionaries which claim otherwise?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:35 pm Facts are defined...

You should talk to Peter about this. He keeps insisting facts are not linguistic.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:45 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:35 pm Facts are defined...

You should talk to Peter about this. He keeps insisting facts are not linguistic.

You can't even understand three words. Fascinating

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:50 pm You can't even understand three words. Fascinating

You can't even understand.

Stupefying.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:50 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:45 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:35 pm Facts are defined...

You should talk to Peter about this. He keeps insisting facts are not linguistic.

You can't even understand three words. Fascinating

He doesn't at all understand the notion of reference.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:03 am He doesn't at all understand the notion of reference.

One of us doesn't understand referencing/dereferencing, alright.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:40 pm What the F--- is "dereference"??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference ... r_science)

In computer science, a reference is a value that enables a program to indirectly access a particular datum, such as a variable's value or a record, in the computer's memory or in some other storage device. The reference is said to refer to the datum, and accessing the datum is called dereferencing the reference.

I should also probably remind you how retarded you are in believing that names are not descriptions.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:33 pm No, it's the name of that sort of flower (which isn't always red). It's not a description of it. "A rose" doesn't state anything, it just names something. Propositions are statements.

There is a thing in my garden.
There is a flower in my garden.
There is a rose in my garden.

Notice how your mind dereferences the hose three sentences differently.

Almost as if they describe different things.

Of course, morality is subjective. The mind is objective.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:44 am Of course, morality is subjective. The mind is objective.

What definition of subjective and objective are you using?