Philosophy Now Forum

oopsy

oopsy

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 11:07 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 10:49 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:49 pm I remain utterly unconvinced as to the validity of Hume's and it seems Kant's objection, the so-called is-ought problem.

Hume's and Kant's insistence of "No Ought From Is" in relation to Morality is valid where oughts are imposed and enforced on others based on opinions, beliefs and feelings of individual[s], groups, a cult leader or dictator. Such oughts are not based on matter-of-fact which can be verified and justified universally as objective.

However there are biological oughts for all humans [even most living organisms], the oughtness to breathe or oughtness to drink water, oughtness to ingest food.
Such oughts are a matter of fact which can be verified and justified scientifically.
For all normal humans, such oughts are spontaneous and there is no need for enforcements nor rules to dictate these oughts.

They are very subtle; there are biological oughts that are related to morality that are represented by neural correlates within all humans albeit they are not active in the majority of people. But there is no denial these biological moral oughts existing objectively as a matter of fact.

Problem is, for most it is quite a task to identify and recognize them.
Whilst Kant rejected opinionated oughts, he had indirectly presented such 'biological' [human nature] moral oughts.

Every time you look at morality through a reductionist lens (such as physics, biology, sociology; ethics;) etc you will always fail at figuring it out.

Health is better than sickness is not a matter for reductionism. And philosophy amounts to nothing more than linguistic reductionism.

You are wasting your time trying to define the ineffable.

Since you're a computer scientist, it is obvious the computer hardware is physical, a matter of fact and is objective.
Would you also consider an executable program [a software] installed in the computer hardware, is also an empirically verifiable and justifiable matter of fact and is objective. i.e. its existence is real and is independent of opinions and beliefs?

The brain is organic but nevertheless can be viewed as a sort of organic hardware with its software within.
Do you agree there are executable software programs within our brain that are 'programmed' grounded on human nature via evolution?

As such, we have a program like,
The conditions are as follows;
Humans exist to survive till the inevitable,
To survive all humans need oxygen,
As with Basic human nature to obtain oxygen all humans must breathe.
We have the "if X.... then Y.. else Z"
If no oxygen one ought to breathe.

I believe in the brain there are perhaps thousands and millions of such "if X.... then Y.. else Z" existing in the human brain at various neural nodes.

It is because we have to date understood so much of neuroscience and many "if X.... then Y.. else Z" codes within the human brain that humanity is able to facilitate so much progress in human skills, intelligence, prevention of diseases, improve health, etc. even possibly longevity

Health is better than sickness is not a matter for reductionism.

I have just finished a course on Genetics, Molecular Biology, Genomics & Rational Medicines from MIT to note the future of Health will be most effectively dealt with from the atomic and molecular level via the basic DNA information and coding together with epigenetic elements.

You familiar with the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology?
"The central dogma of molecular biology explains the flow of genetic information, from DNA to RNA, to make a functional product, a protein.
It was first proposed in 1958 by Francis Crick, discoverer of the structure of DNA."
Since 1958, there has been correction to the above dogma, i.e. where information can also flow from RNA to DNA.

Surely you are familiar with 'Information' and therefrom programming and coding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

My hypothesis is there are loads of molecular "if X.... then Y.. else Z" related to morality, i.e. doing what good and avoiding evil.
This is already very evident to some, but humanity must get understand them at the molecular level [as objective facts] so that improvements of the program coding can be expedited to improve moral competence for the future generations [too late for any improvements to the current and next few generations].

If you insist on shutting the door to the above, that is an ideological resistance to change. If not for the above path, where else can we seek improvement for moral competence for future generations?

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 12:31 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 10:49 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:49 pm I remain utterly unconvinced as to the validity of Hume's and it seems Kant's objection, the so-called is-ought problem.

Hume's and Kant's insistence of "No Ought From Is" in relation to Morality is valid where oughts are imposed and enforced on others based on opinions, beliefs and feelings of individual[s], groups, a cult leader or dictator. Such oughts are not based on matter-of-fact which can be verified and justified universally as objective.

However there are biological oughts for all humans [even most living organisms], the oughtness to breathe or oughtness to drink water, oughtness to ingest food.
Such oughts are a matter of fact which can be verified and justified scientifically.
For all normal humans, such oughts are spontaneous and there is no need for enforcements nor rules to dictate these oughts.

They are very subtle; there are biological oughts that are related to morality that are represented by neural correlates within all humans albeit they are not active in the majority of people. But there is no denial these biological moral oughts existing objectively as a matter of fact.

Problem is, for most it is quite a task to identify and recognize them.
Whilst Kant rejected opinionated oughts, he had indirectly presented such 'biological' [human nature] moral oughts.

I'm afraid Kant had something else in mind when he said whatever it was that he said about is-ought. There really is no issue at all with an ought from an is unless Kant's suggesting/implying the arbitratiness of the link between the two.

Btw, I would consider myself a reasonable expert on Kant, given the much time I have devoted to research Kant. So I know what Kant is talking about.

There are definitely issues with 'No Ought From Is' where Hume's focus was mainly on religious oughts and commands from a non-existent God and is enforced by the Church and other cleric authorities;

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

Worst are the oughts from the Islamic God which are enacted as Laws [Shariah] where non-believers ought to be killed for any threats against the religion. As such we have to agree with Hume and Kant on NOFI from this perspective.

The above cannot be exclusive, there are other benign 'oughts from is' which are a matter of fact and are objective real independent of any individual's beliefs and opinion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:24 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 12:31 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 10:49 am
Hume's and Kant's insistence of "No Ought From Is" in relation to Morality is valid where oughts are imposed and enforced on others based on opinions, beliefs and feelings of individual[s], groups, a cult leader or dictator. Such oughts are not based on matter-of-fact which can be verified and justified universally as objective.

However there are biological oughts for all humans [even most living organisms], the oughtness to breathe or oughtness to drink water, oughtness to ingest food.
Such oughts are a matter of fact which can be verified and justified scientifically.
For all normal humans, such oughts are spontaneous and there is no need for enforcements nor rules to dictate these oughts.

They are very subtle; there are biological oughts that are related to morality that are represented by neural correlates within all humans albeit they are not active in the majority of people. But there is no denial these biological moral oughts existing objectively as a matter of fact.

Problem is, for most it is quite a task to identify and recognize them.
Whilst Kant rejected opinionated oughts, he had indirectly presented such 'biological' [human nature] moral oughts.

I'm afraid Kant had something else in mind when he said whatever it was that he said about is-ought. There really is no issue at all with an ought from an is unless Kant's suggesting/implying the arbitratiness of the link between the two.

Btw, I would consider myself a reasonable expert on Kant, given the much time I have devoted to research Kant. So I know what Kant is talking about.

There are definitely issues with 'No Ought From Is' where Hume's focus was mainly on religious oughts and commands from a non-existent God and is enforced by the Church and other cleric authorities;

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

Worst are the oughts from the Islamic God which are enacted as Laws [Shariah] where non-believers ought to be killed for any threats against the religion. As such we have to agree with Hume and Kant on NOFI from this perspective.

The above cannot be exclusinve, there are other benign 'oughts from is' which are a matter of fact and are objective real independent of any individual's beliefs and opinion.

I believe ethics is an interplay of facts, desiderata, and recommendations.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:28 am I believe ethics is an interplay of facts, desiderata, and recommendations.

Noted you agree ethics [morality] has elements of facts.
Beside being of factual elements, Ethics is interdependent with many other factors and issues.

However the main focus and most contentious issue [here and in every Philosophy Forum] are the questions;
Are there moral facts?
What could make morality objective?
Is morality objective or subjective?

The Moral Facts Deniers like Peter Holmes banked on the obvious, i.e.
- one cannot convert the descriptive to be prescriptive,
- subjective moral beliefs, opinions and feeling cannot be facts and objective real like physical things.
I agree with these obvious points.

However Moral Facts Deniers are ignorant there are facts related to morality of 'oughtness' that are factual and exist like software programs in the brain.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:44 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:28 am I believe ethics is an interplay of facts, desiderata, and recommendations.

Noted you agree ethics [morality] has elements of facts.
Beside being of factual elements, Ethics is interdependent with many other factors and issues.

However the main focus and most contentious issue [here and in every Philosophy Forum] are the questions;
Are there moral facts?
What could make morality objective?
Is morality objective or subjective?

The Moral Facts Deniers like Peter Holmes banked on the obvious, i.e.
- one cannot convert the descriptive to be prescriptive,
- subjective moral beliefs, opinions and feeling cannot be facts and objective real like physical things.
I agree with these obvious points.

However Moral Facts Deniers are ignorant there are facts related to morality of 'oughtness' that are factual and exist like software programs in the brain.

My point is rather simple - an ought doesn't make sense without an is, but of course that's only two-thirds of the story.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 2:54 am My hypothesis is there are loads of molecular "if X.... then Y.. else Z" related to morality, i.e. doing what good and avoiding evil.
This is already very evident to some, but humanity must get understand them at the molecular level [as objective facts] so that improvements of the program coding can be expedited to improve moral competence for the future generations [too late for any improvements to the current and next few generations].

Making his same old errors. Let's accept for the sake of argument that his formulation about molecular software is present in our DNA. That doesn't mean that certain things we do or even attitudes are morally objective. They are objective in that they exist. We do X or tend to do X. Or we tend to have attitude Y. Those are behavioral and attitudinal patterns. That doesn't mean they are morally correct. They simply may help us survive. However, we don't even know if, in the long term, being a species that hasn't been around that long, are effective for the long term survival of the species. And we certainly have no way of knowing they are objectively moral. They would simply have been selected for, so far, via natural selection. So far, those with those traits survived more than those without them. That's it. This would mean that wasps laying their eggs inside other creatures are being moral because it is a pattern that has worked so far and not been selected out. Their larvae eat their way out of the hosts and neither they nor the parent wasp cares at all about the possible incredible suffering and death of the host. These aren't morally good, objectively good behaviors or attitudes. It's just patterns that got selected for in natural selection.

Of course patterns of behavior and attitudinal patterns exist. There can be facts about these, but saying because they are real, then they are morally good is idiocy. And it explains nothing at all that is not already covered by seeing these as selected for patterns. And ours haven't been around as long as the wasp's, so we don't even know how effective they are, let alone the category error conclusion that they are moral.

DPMartin wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 10:05 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 4:13 pm

DPMartin wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 3:59 pm “Morality is experienced” is not a fact...

Yes, it's a fact. In exactly the same sanse as "gravity is experienced" is a fact. It has tangible consequences!

When you experience healthcare (doctors and nurses trying to keep your ass healthy and alive) that's morality in action.

If you can't see all the moral behaviour everywhere, all around you, and you don't recognize how you benefit from it - then yeah... you aren't experiencing it because you are taking it for granted.

it seems Your argument has nothing to do with “No Ought From Is”

What argument? I am merely reporting on factual observations.

DPMartin wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 10:05 pm lets see; morality, principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. note principles. not experience. also, principles are the specifics of law such as the US constitution, or ten commandments which are a covenant which is an agreement same with the constitution, an agreement between a gov and its people.
What you experience maybe a person’s adherence or none adherence to the laws of the land, the principles the people of the land agree to, or morals.

That's a terrible misconception of what morality is. Rewind the clock a few thousand years - a time before we had constitutions, laws, governments; contracts or even - written words. Morality existed even then.

After all, why should humans even bother to invent written text, contracts, laws, governments and constitusions?!?

DPMartin wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 10:05 pm and healthcare isn't a true example of morals or principles, people work for money if they didn't get paid with real money they would be there to provided health services, nor the hospitals nor the ambulances nor the doctors nor the medicine.

Ooooohh. The good ol' cynical "it's all about the money". But why did humans even invent money?!?

DPMartin wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 10:05 pm The idea that one is entitled healthcare is a matter of agreements one is in. such as insurance or gov. provided so on and so forth. Nothing moral about it, other than whether or not the parties in the agreement honor the agreement.

The fucking irony of your privilege! That you get to live in a society where you get to take governments, legal agreements and health care for granted!

DPMartin wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 10:05 pm also gravity is not a principle or moral, it physical energy experienced.

Gravity is an observable phenomenon. Exactly like morality.

DPMartin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 4:44 pm na, What ought to be would be classified as an “idea” of which personal desires, social priorities, and most personal acts, are, ideas. Morals are derived from, what ought to be, or the idea of what ought to be, whereas nature is merely experienced, and not moral. Morals or moral content require an agreement between two or more that can agree, otherwise its just experiences.

That you [hopefully my assessment is right] don't go about killing, raping, kidnap and enslave and being violent-to the nearest human[s] you see does not need an agreement between you and them.

The acts of evil are moral elements and that you spontaneously do not act upon them imply you are a moral person with a certain degree of moral competence.

Why you spontaneously do not act out those evil deed is because there is some kind of inherent of moral-ought-not_ness that inhibit you from committing those evil deeds naturally.

You just cannot go about making agreement with every 8 billion on Earth in not to commit moral evil upon them.

The truth is there are already moral facts of moral ought-not-ness inherent in you that you don't go about committing evil on any other human. You can call these moral 'brakes' within your brain.

The moral brakes are facts in the brain and human self.
Those who commit immoral evil deeds is because their moral brakes are not working effectively but there is no denial these moral brakes exist in them as a matter of fact.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 6:19 am Making his same old errors. Let's accept for the sake of argument that his formulation about molecular software is present in our DNA. That doesn't mean that certain things we do or even attitudes are morally objective. They are objective in that they exist.

Yes, they are objective in so far as they are ontological. And any and all debate/arguments should cease at this point.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 6:19 am We do X or tend to do X. Or we tend to have attitude Y. Those are behavioral and attitudinal patterns. That doesn't mean they are morally correct.

That doesn't mean they aren't morally correct either.

What you are doing (consciously; or otherwise) is you are grappling for control of the narrative; and over all the implicit presuppositions. What determines moral correctness?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 6:19 am They simply may help us survive. However, we don't even know if, in the long term, being a species that hasn't been around that long, are effective for the long term survival of the species. And we certainly have no way of knowing they are objectively moral.

That's a cute deflationist tactic right there. Of course, if human survival has no moral content to you; and human extinction has no moral content to you then nothing does why do you even care if morality is; or isn't objective?

It seems the question is of no significance; irrespective the answer.

Starting two threads on the same topic is not going to give you any Brownie points

You are definitely bewildered.
Given what you say there must be several oughts which could be necessarily derived from an is.
Please give us all an ought which is necessarily derived from an is. The we can go on from there.

One example should suffice.

I shall not be holding my breath

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 9:30 am Yes, they are objective in so far as they are ontological. And any and all debate/arguments should cease at this point.

I truly doubt anyone thinks morality doesn't exist. That is, humans follow rules or break them and/or are aware of them and these rules, human made affect behavior. they are a subset of thoughts, and then come in other forms, like texts and are used in making laws and so on.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 6:19 am We do X or tend to do X. Or we tend to have attitude Y. Those are behavioral and attitudinal patterns. That doesn't mean they are morally correct.

That doesn't mean they aren't morally correct either.

Tell that to VA. He assumes that if we have some kind of wired in behavioral or attitudinal heuristic (he is much more focused on the latter) then it shows us what is morally good. But that's a leap I see no justification for. We can't even demonstrate that what humans prefer, including their survival, is objectively good.

What you are doing (consciously; or otherwise) is you are grappling for control of the narrative; and over all the implicit presuppositions. What determines moral correctness?

I'm a moral antirealist. I see people create norms/values in a variety of ways or follow traditional ones that others have created. People then conclude using these or in reaction to these what they think is morally correct.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 6:19 am They simply may help us survive. However, we don't even know if, in the long term, being a species that hasn't been around that long, are effective for the long term survival of the species. And we certainly have no way of knowing they are objectively moral.

That's a cute deflationist tactic right there. Of course, if human survival has no moral content to you; and human extinction has no moral content to you then nothing does why do you even care if morality is; or isn't objective?

I don't see my caring as objectively correct. But I care about many things. Other mammals care about a lot of things, including us sometimes.

It seems the question is of no significance; irrespective the answer.

If it seems that way to you then it is of no significance to you.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:30 am Tell that to VA. He assumes that if we have some kind of wired in behavioral or attitudinal heuristic (he is much more focused on the latter) then it shows us what is morally good.

Whichever way you describe it - it's pretty much how it works! Either you have the intuition of self-preservation, and the intuition to look after the well-being of your people; or you've been educated (indoctrinated?) well enough to have those thoughts.

One way or another - those attitudes and fuzzy ideas drive your moral decision-making.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:30 am But that's a leap I see no justification for. We can't even demonstrate that what humans prefer, including their survival, is objectively good.

Of course we can, that's literally how all of our empiricism works with respect to market research and consumer preference. Revealed preferences.

Do you trust people's arguments or their choices? None of the "moral subjectivists" have arbitrarily chosen voluntary death for some reason.

It would certainly convince me that they are right if they choose to die for their cause.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:30 am I'm a moral antirealist. I see people create norms/values in a variety of ways or follow traditional ones that others have created. People then conclude using these or in reaction to these what they think is morally correct.

All of that realism/anti-realism crap is just philosophical posturing. Differentiating yourself philosophically does't in any way change your moral decision making in practice; or the causal effect of your choices.

Is it that realists prefer health to sickness; but anti-realists do the opposite? No!

It's just stupid language games. In general abstract terms there's infinite room for disagreement; but in concrete/explicit situations consensus magically emerges across the philosophical divide once evidence is presented.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:30 am I don't see my caring as objectively correct. But I care about many things.

That's pretty vague and abstract answer in the context of human extinction. I mean, if you don't think our extinction event is the most immoral thing that can happen to humans then... do you actually care about humans?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:30 am If it seems that way to you then it is of no significance to you.

It only seems that way to me because the extinction of you; and your species appears to be of no moral concern to you.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:46 am Whichever way you describe it - it's pretty much how it works! Either you have the intuition of self-preservation, and the intuition to look after the well-being of your people; or you've been educated (indoctrinated?) well enough to have those thoughts.

One way or another - those attitudes and fuzzy ideas drive your moral decision-making.

or just decision-making.

Of course we can, that's literally how all of our empiricism works with respect to market research and consumer preference. Revealed preferences.

In your words or images or whatever, demonstrate that the survival of humans is objectively good.

Do you trust people's arguments or their choices? None of the "moral subjectivists" have arbitrarily chosen voluntary death for some reason.

Oh, I am quite sure some have, just as moral realists have.

It would certainly convince me that they are right if they choose to die for their cause.

Are you saying that moral antirealists wouldn't volunteer to fight in war, run into a burning building to save someone, etc. Can you demonstrate this is the case?

All of that realism/anti-realism crap is just philosophical posturing. Differentiating yourself philosophically does't in any way change your moral decision making in practice; or the causal effect of your choices.

Have I asserted that it changes my choices or their effects?

Is it that realists prefer health to sickness; but anti-realists do the opposite? No!

The argument is missing steps. If I don't believe in objective morals, I won't care if I survive or love people or have preferences? demonstrate this?

Which is objectively better tasting: vanilla or chocolate ice cream?

In general abstract terms there's infinite room for disagreement; but in concrete/explicit situations consensus magically emerges across the philosophical divide once evidence is presented.

On what issue? What are you talking about here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:30 am I don't see my caring as objectively correct. But I care about many things.

That's pretty vague and abstract answer in the context of human extinction. I mean, if you don't think our extinction event is the most immoral thing that can happen to humans then... do you actually care about humans?

Are you saying I can passionately, radically, extremely prefer something or hate something without thinking it is objective horrible?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:30 am If it seems that way to you then it is of no significance to you.

It only seems that way to me because the extinction of you; and your species appears to be of no moral concern to you.

It's of extreme concern to me. I just don't believe in objective morals.

If you think that's just stupid language games, notice that you are playing one. Since you want me to use objective for some reason, when for all you know I care even more than you do about the extinction of humans.

So, see if you can stop attributing positions and feelings to me: strawmanning.