Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote:
Why do you think that God thinks that you human beings are somewhat special

It is not God who thinks human beings are somewhat special but human beings

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
I have demonstrated in the other thread how secular absolute moral rules can be established as guides

Why are they absolute if they are only intended to be used as guides
By what specific criteria are they determined to be absolute anyway

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:53 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:53 pm But establishing ONE moral rule for EVERY one was a very easy and simple thing to do..

Just do what ought to be done from what is the right thing to do for EVERY one.

It really does not get much more simpler and easier than that.

Your above is too short-sighted.

If that is what you see, and say, then okay.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:53 amIt is not the establishing of one moral rule FOR everyone from outside or externally.

What is NOT what you say here? What is the 'it'n

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:53 amThe strategy is to ensure that EVERY one establish their own absolute moral rule of good for themselves internally as guide, which will be the same as everyone's else absolute moral rule.

But this is EXACTLY what I said. Why did you ASSUME otherwise?

Have you NOT heard me talk about agreement and what 'it' IS that is in agreement before?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:53 amNote Kant Categorical Imperative No. 1 of 5;

• Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

Who cares what just "another" human being has said? 'you', human beings, have been talking about, disagreeing, bickering, disputing, arguing, fighting over what "others" have been saying and meaning for thousands of years, to no avail. So, WHY continue doing that?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:53 amthat is;

• Act only according to that [your own] maxim [established by yourself] whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law [as established by other selves on their own].

In this approach, there is no question of external enforcement by laws established by others, the individual will be his own law-maker, enforcer, judge, jury and executioner within himself culminating as same with everyone else, thus a spontaneous emergence of universality.

EXACTLY what I say.

I just use different words.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:53 amThat would be a moral skill that need to be developed within the individual. It is not easy but feasible in the future.

But it is an extremely easy and simple thing to do. That is; once you have gained the KNOW-HOW of how to do it.

Gaining this KNOW-HOW is also very easy indeed.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:53 amIf you are stuck in the current state, obviously the above is impossible. Actually you are stuck with a narrow and shallow mind, thus not likely to project any possibility of what I proposed.

Okay, if you say so.

You do, after all, like to come across as though you are always right.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:53 amWith the evident positive trend at present, what I proposed is very possible if one think wider and deeper philosophically into the future and initiating the process in the present.

Why not just be completely OPEN now, instead of just into the future?

If you were completely OPEN already, then you would already have ALL the answers and the actual Truth anyway, instead of just saying what you have been so far.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:38 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
I have demonstrated in the other thread how secular absolute moral rules can be established as guides

Why are they absolute if they are only intended to be used as guides
By what specific criteria are they determined to be absolute anyway

In this case 'absolute' is not absolutely absolute like God and God's Law.

Secular absolutes are like absolute temperature and the likes.
Absolute in this secular sense means these moral rules are 'fixed' and 'permanent' to the maximum we can think of to be used as guides.
To be an effective guide, it has to be fixed and permanent. A guide of changing goals all the time or too often will only add confusion and decrease efficiency.

What is supposedly absolute [secular] in this case is not absolutely-absolute, meaning it can be changed if a more improved one can be justified. However such changes are expected to be rare. However if we set the secular absolute rule at 'No killing of another human' how lower can be go.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:32 pm

Age wrote:
Why do you think that God thinks that you human beings are somewhat special

It is not God who thinks human beings are somewhat special but human beings

Yes I KNOW this.

That is WHY I asked the question that I did.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:44 am

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:38 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
I have demonstrated in the other thread how secular absolute moral rules can be established as guides

Why are they absolute if they are only intended to be used as guides
By what specific criteria are they determined to be absolute anyway

In this case 'absolute' is not absolutely absolute like God and God's Law.

Why do you propose God and God's, so called, law are 'absolutely absolute'?

And, what do you say is the difference between 'absolutely absolute' and just plain old 'absolute'?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:44 amSecular absolutes are like absolute temperature and the likes.
Absolute in this secular sense means these moral rules are 'fixed' and 'permanent' to the maximum we can think of to be used as guides.
To be an effective guide, it has to be fixed and permanent. A guide of changing goals all the time or too often will only add confusion and decrease efficiency.

So, in essence, YOUR 'secular absolutes' once decided by YOU are NOT open to being "changed". Is this correct?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:44 amWhat is supposedly absolute [secular] in this case is not absolutely-absolute, meaning it can be changed if a more improved one can be justified.

When will YOU know when change is 'too often' or not?

And can you see the contradictions in what you are saying but 'trying to' wriggle out of?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:44 amHowever such changes are expected to be rare.

It appears that you already know what the future moral rules WIlL BE, and their expected changes. Is this correct?

Why do expect changes to be rare?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:44 amHowever if we set the secular absolute rule at 'No killing of another human' how lower can be go.

YOU can set this absolute moral rule, for yourself,, if you like. But how do you explain the indirect killing of human beings that you have done and continue to do now?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:38 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:44 am

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:38 pm
Why are they absolute if they are only intended to be used as guides
By what specific criteria are they determined to be absolute anyway

In this case 'absolute' is not absolutely absolute like God and God's Law.

Why do you propose God and God's, so called, law are 'absolutely absolute'?

And, what do you say is the difference between 'absolutely absolute' and just plain old 'absolute'?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:44 amSecular absolutes are like absolute temperature and the likes.
Absolute in this secular sense means these moral rules are 'fixed' and 'permanent' to the maximum we can think of to be used as guides.
To be an effective guide, it has to be fixed and permanent. A guide of changing goals all the time or too often will only add confusion and decrease efficiency.

So, in essence, YOUR 'secular absolutes' once decided by YOU are NOT open to being "changed". Is this correct?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:44 amWhat is supposedly absolute [secular] in this case is not absolutely-absolute, meaning it can be changed if a more improved one can be justified.

When will YOU know when change is 'too often' or not?

And can you see the contradictions in what you are saying but 'trying to' wriggle out of?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:44 amHowever such changes are expected to be rare.

It appears that you already know what the future moral rules WIlL BE, and their expected changes. Is this correct?

Why do expect changes to be rare?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:44 amHowever if we set the secular absolute rule at 'No killing of another human' how lower can be go.

YOU can set this absolute moral rule, for yourself,, if you like. But how do you explain the indirect killing of human beings that you have done and continue to do now?

The term absolute is quite a loose term.

In the secular world, we have absolute temperature, absolute monarch, absolute power, and the likes. Such secular absolute implied ultimate limit, maximum and the likes but they are not totally unconditional. Example,
Absolute temperature is independent of any one's view but it is ultimately conditioned upon the Scientific Framework and Method and has not meaning out that framework.
Secular absolute power is conditioned by some Laws or threats of punishments.

However there is an absolute attributed to the all powerful God.
The absolute re God is totally unconditional and independent i.e. not conditioned upon any thing.
To differentiate God as totally unconditional, I have to used absolutely-absolute.
What is absolutely-absolute of God is immutable, e.g. God moral laws.

The secular absolute can be changed, the absolute temperature by Science can be changed upon new evidence to support it. Absolute power given to kings and dictators can be changed via various means.

Thus secular absolute moral rules can also be changed but if they are based and relied upon the best reason can reasoned out, there will not be any reason to change it. But the possibility to change it still there albeit very low.

For example, re the reasoned moral absolute rules on killing another human,
"no human shall kill another human being"
why should we need to change the above.
What we do is to keep this ideal as a guide to strife for, thus there is no need to change it.

It would be very stupid, silly and immoral to allow the following rules'
"a human being can kill another human being" or
" a human being can kill up to X number of human being per year or in a life time".
This is what happened with Islam where permission is given to Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims upon vague conditions of threats [fasadin].

In contrast, Christianity has the absolute moral law from the Christian God,
"Thou shall not kill" period, not allowance given.
"love all -even enemies'
In the above Christians are not permitted to kill another human being.

Obviously, some Christians as human beings will kill for various reasons, but they will be judged against the absolute ideal and they will have to justify for their acts to God on judgment day.
Thus Christianity morality is more efficient than Islamic morality where Christianity imputes absolute moral rules into its model, in this case absolutely-absolute moral rules enforced by fear of perdition and hell fire. But Christianity morality has it cons beside whatever pros there are.

Humans are not perfect thus their use of reason may not be the most efficient.
Due to the accepted imperfection of human reasoned absolute moral rules, there is a likelihood there will be changes.
Changes will not be known until future feedback are provided.

YOU can set this absolute moral rule, for yourself,, if you like. But how do you explain the indirect killing of human beings that you have done and continue to do now?

I have explained many times.
It is not applicable at the present due to the low average moral quotient of the average person. My scenario is applicable to the future where all conditions are met and the established model is initiated into action.

First we established the secular absolute moral rules from the empirical "is' as I had done in the other thread.
Say if I have reasoned and set the absolute moral rules re killing, i.e.
"I will NEVER kill another human being" as a guide only.
Being human, there is always a probability I could kill another human being, e.g. due to extreme passion, or whatever the reason.
However the above is within the condition I [and others] have higher IQ, EQ, moral quotient, wisdom quotient, and others.

Given that I have killed another human being,
and being problem-solving orientated, I will be instantly aware of a moral gap, i.e. a cognitive dissonance [variance] to be resolved.
This moral gap will drive me to find the causes and establish preventive strategies to avoid future recurrence of killing another human being. In the background society as a whole will be involved in assisting the individual[s].

It will not only be me but all individual[s] will have the same ability as me to deal with any moral gap.
If there is NO absolute moral rules on killing as a guide, then we will not have an efficient standard to generate the necessary moral gap. This is the problem with the utilitarianism and consequentialism model of Morality and Ethics where goals and objectives are subjective to the individuals or groups.

The above is the reason why we need secular absolute moral rules to be imputed into a Morality & Ethics Model and System. These secular absolute moral rules, i.e. ought can be abstracted from 'is' as proposed in the OP and proven in the other thread,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:38 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:44 am
In this case 'absolute' is not absolutely absolute like God and God's Law.

Why do you propose God and God's, so called, law are 'absolutely absolute'?

And, what do you say is the difference between 'absolutely absolute' and just plain old 'absolute'?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:44 amSecular absolutes are like absolute temperature and the likes.
Absolute in this secular sense means these moral rules are 'fixed' and 'permanent' to the maximum we can think of to be used as guides.
To be an effective guide, it has to be fixed and permanent. A guide of changing goals all the time or too often will only add confusion and decrease efficiency.

So, in essence, YOUR 'secular absolutes' once decided by YOU are NOT open to being "changed". Is this correct?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:44 amWhat is supposedly absolute [secular] in this case is not absolutely-absolute, meaning it can be changed if a more improved one can be justified.

When will YOU know when change is 'too often' or not?

And can you see the contradictions in what you are saying but 'trying to' wriggle out of?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:44 amHowever such changes are expected to be rare.

It appears that you already know what the future moral rules WIlL BE, and their expected changes. Is this correct?

Why do expect changes to be rare?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:44 amHowever if we set the secular absolute rule at 'No killing of another human' how lower can be go.

YOU can set this absolute moral rule, for yourself,, if you like. But how do you explain the indirect killing of human beings that you have done and continue to do now?

The term absolute is quite a loose term.

Is that what it is, to you.

To me, the term 'absolute' seems a fairly tight term, and NOT loose term at all. In fact, to me, it appears to be a very absolute term.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amIn the secular world,

What do you mean by the word or term 'world' here?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amwe have absolute temperature, absolute monarch, absolute power, and the likes.

Who has 'absolute power'? And when do they have 'absolute power'?

Also, what is 'absolute temperature'? When you, for example, say, "it is hot", is that 'absolute temperature'? To me, that is VERY relative.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 am Such secular absolute implied ultimate limit, maximum and the likes but they are not totally unconditional. Example,
Absolute temperature is independent of any one's view but it is ultimately conditioned upon the Scientific Framework and Method and has not meaning out that framework.

But where do you think scientific framework and method come from?

Do they come from some one's view?

If yes, then HOW exactly are they independent of any one's view?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amSecular absolute power is conditioned by some Laws or threats of punishments.

Do these things change? Can they be changed?

If yes to either, then WHERE exactly is the 'absoluteness' within them?

Also, has human being made up laws and threats of punishment already being tested and tried?

If no, then maybe have a look back on the last few thousand years or so.
If yes, then did/does it work?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amHowever there is an absolute attributed to the all powerful God.
The absolute re God is totally unconditional and independent i.e. not conditioned upon any thing.
To differentiate God as totally unconditional, I have to used absolutely-absolute.
What is absolutely-absolute of God is immutable, e.g. God moral laws.

Yep. ALL of this can very easily and very simply be proven to be True.

Unfortunately, however, I am unable to SHOW things, let alone prove things, to those that BELIEVE otherwise.

For example; I am completely unable to show and prove that God exists to those that BELIEVE God does NOT exist, and conversely, I am also completely unable to show and prove that God does NOT exist to those that BELIEVE God does exist.

Although I can SHOW and PROVE how both cases are True, I am completely unable to do this to those who are just NOT open enough YET.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amThe secular absolute can be changed, the absolute temperature by Science can be changed upon new evidence to support it. Absolute power given to kings and dictators can be changed via various means.

So, HOW exactly is it 'absolute'?

The word 'absolute' brings with it a connotation of NOT CHANGING or UNCHANGING.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amThus secular absolute moral rules can also be changed but if they are based and relied upon the best reason can reasoned out, there will not be any reason to change it.

LOL Absolutely EVERY thing you human beings 'reason out', which can be and is supposedly 'based and relied upon the best reasons' can be so WRONG, and NEEDS changing, that this is it just laughable.

For example, 'you', human beings, have reasoned out with the so called "best reasons", which by the way ALL the reasons you give for what you think and do is ALWAYS supposedly the "best reasons" you have, anyway, from the 'flat earth', to 'the sun revolves around the earth', to 'the Universe began and is finite', to the 'we can't do this', to the 'that is impossible', to the 'we need money to live', to the 'we have to keep growing the economy and if we keep polluting then that does not matter', to the 'countless other so called "reasoned out, based upon best reason" ideas, rules, values, et cetera, et cetera, while all the time BELIEVING "there will not be any reason to change" could NOT be more laughable a concept and idea even if you tried to make it more laughable. This concept and idea that you just proposed is as STUPID a concept and idea that 'you', human beings, have come up with and have 'tried to' "reasoned out", "based and relied upon your "best reasons" also" ideas and concepts.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amBut the possibility to change it still there albeit very low.

How do you KNOW, in the future, it will be "low"?

IF there is a possibility to change it, then that 'possibility' just remains a 'possibility'. There is NO actual 'high' nor 'low' possibility, as you have NO way of KNOWING what the future holds. How any one could decide if that possibility is high or low makes me wonder if that one actually thinks or believes that they HAVE THEE ANSWER, which they do NOT like to admit could very easily be WRONG, and thus a NEED exists already to change it, and the possibility that the NEED for change is a high probability, just may NOT want to be LOOKED AT discussed just yet.

We will have to wait and see what plays out here.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amFor example, re the reasoned moral absolute rules on killing another human,
"no human shall kill another human being"
why should we need to change the above.
What we do is to keep this ideal as a guide to strife for, thus there is no need to change it.

Do you somehow think this "ideal" is some sort of new "idea"?

Have you human beings been "striving" (another very laughable word) to keep the "guide" "shall not kill" an ideal for thousands upon thousands of years, yet the killing some might say is worse now, when this is written, then it ever has been?

Obviously STUPID rules like that DO NOT WORK.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amIt would be very stupid, silly and immoral to allow the following rules'
"a human being can kill another human being" or
" a human being can kill up to X number of human being per year or in a life time".
This is what happened with Islam where permission is given to Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims upon vague conditions of threats [fasadin].

It eventually ends back with the so called "muslims".

Do the governments of some so called "western" society make it a rule to kill human beings if they do NOT do what we say?

Do these governments say, if you do NOT follow us, and what we want from you, then you will be sentenced to death?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amIn contrast, Christianity has the absolute moral law from the Christian God,
"Thou shall not kill" period, not allowance given.
"love all -even enemies'
In the above Christians are not permitted to kill another human being.

Well they seem to be the "perfect" group of people to "follow", so would do you say, "let us follow them", then EVERY thing will be just dandy?

It is so called "christian societies" who make up the law, which states: Kill human beings when sentenced to death.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amObviously, some Christians as human beings will kill for various reasons, but they will be judged against the absolute ideal and they will have to justify for their acts to God on judgment day.

HOW? To you, God is an impossibility to exist.

We have gone through this a number of times already. But you NEVER answer sensibly nor reasonably.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amThus Christianity morality is more efficient than Islamic morality where Christianity imputes absolute moral rules into its model, in this case absolutely-absolute moral rules enforced by fear of perdition and hell fire. But Christianity morality has it cons beside whatever pros there are.

But as long as you can keep informing us of how "bad" muslims are and islam is, then you are happy right?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amHumans are not perfect thus their use of reason may not be the most efficient.

Really? I had NEVER noticed this. (This is SARCASM if unaware).

Human beings use of so called "reason" not being the most efficient is SEEN and NOTICED in EVERY thread of yours if I recall correctly.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amDue to the accepted imperfection of human reasoned absolute moral rules, there is a likelihood there will be changes.
Changes will not be known until future feedback are provided.

Yet the possibility is still 'low' correct? That is; IF they accept and follow the rules that you say are the best for people

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 am

YOU can set this absolute moral rule, for yourself,, if you like. But how do you explain the indirect killing of human beings that you have done and continue to do now?

I have explained many times.
It is not applicable at the present due to the low average moral quotient of the average person. My scenario is applicable to the future where all conditions are met and the established model is initiated into action.

So, you, as quickly as you could, 'tried to' "justify" your own obviously WRONG behaviors, with your "reasoned out" responses, that you could best muster up based and relied upon by your "best reasons", which, by the way, are some of the worst attempts at 'trying to' "justify" that I have ever seen.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amFirst we established the secular absolute moral rules from the empirical "is' as I had done in the other thread.
Say if I have reasoned and set the absolute moral rules re killing, i.e.
"I will NEVER kill another human being" as a guide only.
Being human, there is always a probability I could kill another human being, e.g. due to extreme passion, or whatever the reason.
However the above is within the condition I [and others] have higher IQ, EQ, moral quotient, wisdom quotient, and others.

So, your rule is; "I will NEVER kill another human being", but I just might because of an "extreme passion" or "whatever the reason" I will choose to use, (as a "reasoned out" response based and relied upon my "best reasons" that I have at the time). This sounds EXACTLY like what has been going on for thousands of years with 'you', human beings, which , by the way, is the EXACT SAME rule anyway.

So, REALLY NOTHING at all is changing.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amGiven that I have killed another human being,
and being problem-solving orientated, I will be instantly aware of a moral gap, i.e. a cognitive dissonance [variance] to be resolved.
This moral gap will drive me to find the causes and establish preventive strategies to avoid future recurrence of killing another human being. In the background society as a whole will be involved in assisting the individual[s].

But depending on the society that you live in, you might be sentenced to death and so using any so called "established preventative strategies" is just a complete and utter waste of time. Because, remember, in that country the rule IS; Killing human beings is ALL RIGHT and OKAY.

The government actually says it is ALL RIGHT and OKAY because they are the ones who make it law that is was ALL RIGHT and OKAY to kill human beings.

Also, if you are as "problem-solving orientated" as you say you are and wish to be, then why did you not just use your so called "problem-solving orientated" skills BEFORE you killed that human being?

Just saying, "I killed them because of "extreme passion" or "whatever other reason" is just a cope out and excuse for doing WRONG. Do you really think that the words 'extreme' and/or 'passion" somehow "justify" the action of killing a human being?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amIt will not only be me but all individual[s] will have the same ability as me to deal with any moral gap.

When is that? AFTER they KILL, a human being?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amIf there is NO absolute moral rules on killing as a guide, then we will not have an efficient standard to generate the necessary moral gap. This is the problem with the utilitarianism and consequentialism model of Morality and Ethics where goals and objectives are subjective to the individuals or groups.

So, if moral and ethics are not best found from individuals of groups of individuals, then WHERE exactly do you propose they come from exactly?

Would you be kind enough to consider that you HAVE the model?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amThe above is the reason why we need secular absolute moral rules to be imputed into a Morality & Ethics Model and System. These secular absolute moral rules, i.e. ought can be abstracted from 'is' as proposed in the OP and proven in the other thread,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

Sounds like you have EVERY thing wrapped up then. So, WHY are you NOT putting it into place?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:43 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 am The term absolute is quite a loose term.

Is that what it is, to you.

To me, the term 'absolute' seems a fairly tight term, and NOT loose term at all. In fact, to me, it appears to be a very absolute term.

Refer to the dictionaries, e.g.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute
There are 15 meanings to the term "absolute".

Such a misunderstanding is likely to corrupt the rest of your argument.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:50 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:43 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 am The term absolute is quite a loose term.

Is that what it is, to you.

To me, the term 'absolute' seems a fairly tight term, and NOT loose term at all. In fact, to me, it appears to be a very absolute term.

Refer to the dictionaries, e.g.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute
There are 15 meanings to the term "absolute".

Such a misunderstanding is likely to corrupt the rest of your argument.

Could you have a misunderstanding?

Or, is the absolute definition of the word 'absolute' state that the term 'absolute' IS quite a loose term?

Also, is using the word 'term' in relation to just one word really the correct usage of that word?

And, did I have an argument here? If yes, then what is it?

And is there any way in the whole possibilities of the whole of the Universe that you could have a misunderstanding of the word 'absolute', which has then corrupted the rest of your so called "argument", or are you absolutely confident that the whole of your "argument" is absolutely purely flawless and faultless as it stands right now?

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:43 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amIf there is NO absolute moral rules on killing as a guide, then we will not have an efficient standard to generate the necessary moral gap. This is the problem with the utilitarianism and consequentialism model of Morality and Ethics where goals and objectives are subjective to the individuals or groups.

So, if moral and ethics are not best found from individuals of groups of individuals, then WHERE exactly do you propose they come from exactly?

Would you be kind enough to consider that you HAVE the model?

Point it is inefficient to have moral rules that are subjected to individual[s] or group[s] expectation, i.e. on man's meat is another's poison.

I have already stated many times, whatever the secular moral rules they are the established by the individual[s] which at the same time are the same as everyone's else.

Example each individual will establish a moral rule not to kill any other human which is the same with every other, i.e. all individual[s].
It would not be efficient if different individual[s] have different moral rules re killing another human being, e.g. can kill x number a year, under certain conditions, etc. Such is not effective as a secular moral rule as a standard and guide.

Yes what I have is a hypothetical complete model to be tested before implementation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:25 amThe above is the reason why we need secular absolute moral rules to be imputed into a Morality & Ethics Model and System. These secular absolute moral rules, i.e. ought can be abstracted from 'is' as proposed in the OP and proven in the other thread,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

Sounds like you have EVERY thing wrapped up then. So, WHY are you NOT putting it into place?

I am confident I have a workable model at least in theory at present.
At the present whatever the model proposed, at this stage the most appropriate is to open it for discussion and counter proposals if any.

One plus point is the model I had proposed is already being practiced partially and has produced some results. Note the example of the 'some reasonable' achievement we have achieved re Chattel Slavery, racism, misogyny, and others.
Thus what is needed is to wrap up what is being practiced with principles and into a formal framework which will then expedite the processes.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:50 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:43 pm

Is that what it is, to you.

To me, the term 'absolute' seems a fairly tight term, and NOT loose term at all. In fact, to me, it appears to be a very absolute term.

Refer to the dictionaries, e.g.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute
There are 15 meanings to the term "absolute".

Such a misunderstanding is likely to corrupt the rest of your argument.

Could you have a misunderstanding?

Or, is the absolute definition of the word 'absolute' state that the term 'absolute' IS quite a loose term?

Also, is using the word 'term' in relation to just one word really the correct usage of that word?

And, did I have an argument here? If yes, then what is it?

And is there any way in the whole possibilities of the whole of the Universe that you could have a misunderstanding of the word 'absolute', which has then corrupted the rest of your so called "argument", or are you absolutely confident that the whole of your "argument" is absolutely purely flawless and faultless as it stands right now?

I did not take it serious earlier.

You confirmed you are autistic?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:37 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:50 am
Refer to the dictionaries, e.g.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute
There are 15 meanings to the term "absolute".

Such a misunderstanding is likely to corrupt the rest of your argument.

Could you have a misunderstanding?

Or, is the absolute definition of the word 'absolute' state that the term 'absolute' IS quite a loose term?

Also, is using the word 'term' in relation to just one word really the correct usage of that word?

And, did I have an argument here? If yes, then what is it?

And is there any way in the whole possibilities of the whole of the Universe that you could have a misunderstanding of the word 'absolute', which has then corrupted the rest of your so called "argument", or are you absolutely confident that the whole of your "argument" is absolutely purely flawless and faultless as it stands right now?

I did not take it serious earlier.

You confirmed you are autistic?

So in the previous thread where you wanted to say some thing and be heard, there is no issue at all and you will just keep on talking.

But, when I pose five questions to you here, which you obviously do NOT want to answer, because of what will be SHOWN if you did answer them honestly, so then now you ask me am I a confirmed autistic, and somehow that allows you to NOT talk and answer the questions.

Okay. Yes I have answered you at least twice now. I am a confirmed, certified autistic.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:37 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:55 am

Could you have a misunderstanding?

Or, is the absolute definition of the word 'absolute' state that the term 'absolute' IS quite a loose term?

Also, is using the word 'term' in relation to just one word really the correct usage of that word?

And, did I have an argument here? If yes, then what is it?

And is there any way in the whole possibilities of the whole of the Universe that you could have a misunderstanding of the word 'absolute', which has then corrupted the rest of your so called "argument", or are you absolutely confident that the whole of your "argument" is absolutely purely flawless and faultless as it stands right now?

I did not take it serious earlier.

You confirmed you are autistic?

So in the previous thread where you wanted to say some thing and be heard, there is no issue at all and you will just keep on talking.

But, when I pose five questions to you here, which you obviously do NOT want to answer, because of what will be SHOWN if you did answer them honestly, so then now I am a confirmed autistic, and somehow that allows you to NOT talk.

Okay.

When a person is autistic, there is a problem in communication with ordinary people.
One of the problem is due to the lack [in a range of degrees] of the autistic person to have an effective Theory of Mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#In_autism

• Theory of mind is crucial for everyday human social interactions and is used when analyzing, judging, and inferring others' behaviors.[2] Deficits can occur in people with autism spectrum disorders, ...(& etc.).

I believe you are likely to have some degrees [not serious] on the deficit of theory of mind.

This is reflected in most of my discussions with you.
It is odd you used 'you humans' to differentiate us from yourself, presumably you prefer not to be human but something else greater perhaps than all other humans.

Most of the time you will go off tangent and do not understand [not necessary to agree with] my point of view.
Note the recent point re 'absolute' which I stated is a loose term which I presume you will agree as this is a common point as reflected in all dictionaries, e.g.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute
and even in Wiki, there is long list of meanings associated with the term 'absolute'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute

But, instead you will go off tangent with all sorts of babblings.

I'd differentiated between absolutely-absolute and relative-absolutes.
The absolutely-absolute is reserved for God [theists' definition].

Note the point with absolute temperature;
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_temperature

• Common temperatures in the absolute scale are:
  0 °C (freezing point of water) = 273.15 K
  25 °C (room temperature) = 298.15 K
  100 °C (boiling point of water) = 373.15 K
  0K (absolute zero) = - 273.15 Celsius
  232.15K(equal measures in Celsius and Farenheit)=-41 Celsius

In the above the 'absolute' is a relative-absolute not an absolutely-absolute which are secular oughts derived from empirical observations.

My point is we can derived relative-absolute of moral rules as secular oughts derived from empirical evidences.

Re the definition of God, you insist I must provide my "own" definition of God to your expectations.
In applying the theory of mind I had step into the minds of theists and argued against theists based on their definition of God.
In all arguments against God's existence as real, the definition used is always that of the theists' and never the [a]theists'.

I find it difficult and very tough to reconcile and reach common understanding [not necessary agreements] on most general points. Thus I would prefer not to go further.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 10:41 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:37 am
I did not take it serious earlier.

You confirmed you are autistic?

So in the previous thread where you wanted to say some thing and be heard, there is no issue at all and you will just keep on talking.

But, when I pose five questions to you here, which you obviously do NOT want to answer, because of what will be SHOWN if you did answer them honestly, so then now I am a confirmed autistic, and somehow that allows you to NOT talk.

Okay.

When a person is autistic, there is a problem in communication with ordinary people.

Define 'ordinary people'?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:37 amOne of the problem is due to the lack [in a range of degrees] of the autistic person to have an effective Theory of Mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#In_autism

• Theory of mind is crucial for everyday human social interactions and is used when analyzing, judging, and inferring others' behaviors.[2] Deficits can occur in people with autism spectrum disorders, ...(& etc.).

I believe you are likely to have some degrees [not serious] on the deficit of theory of mind.

This is reflected in most of my discussions with you.
It is odd you used 'you humans' to differentiate us from yourself, presumably you prefer not to be human but something else greater perhaps than all other humans.

Most of the time you will go off tangent and do not understand [not necessary to agree with] my point of view.
Note the recent point re 'absolute' which I stated is a loose term which I presume you will agree as this is a common point as reflected in all dictionaries, e.g.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute
and even in Wiki, there is long list of meanings associated with the term 'absolute'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute

But, instead you will go off tangent with all sorts of babblings.

I'd differentiated between absolutely-absolute and relative-absolutes.
The absolutely-absolute is reserved for God [theists' definition].

Note the point with absolute temperature;
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_temperature

• Common temperatures in the absolute scale are:
  0 °C (freezing point of water) = 273.15 K
  25 °C (room temperature) = 298.15 K
  100 °C (boiling point of water) = 373.15 K
  0K (absolute zero) = - 273.15 Celsius
  232.15K(equal measures in Celsius and Farenheit)=-41 Celsius

In the above the 'absolute' is a relative-absolute not an absolutely-absolute which are secular oughts derived from empirical observations.

My point is we can derived relative-absolute of moral rules as secular oughts derived from empirical evidences.

Re the definition of God, you insist I must provide my "own" definition of God to your expectations.
In applying the theory of mind I had step into the minds of theists and argued against theists based on their definition of God.
In all arguments against God's existence as real, the definition used is always that of the theists' and never the [a]theists'.

I find it difficult and very tough to reconcile and reach common understanding [not necessary agreements] on most general points. Thus I would prefer not to go further.

The reason you do not want to go any further is because you can not successfully answer the most basic and simple clarifying questions I ask you.

You can not go further because you so tied up and stuck in your OWN beliefs, which are obviously DISTORTED and WRONG.

You are free to not answer questions and clarify yourself, so do not go any further and just stay back where you are now.