Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

[FlashDangerpants]

I would not response and post [despite the condemnations, antagonism, put-downs from immature people like you] if I think such activities do not contribute to my selfish interests and they really have positive benefits for me personally as a refresher or as leads to new areas of philosophy.

I had never paid serious attention to 'hermeneutics' in the past but I now have to read it up seriously because Rorty mentioned hermeneutics in a rather serious tone.
I had also never paid serious attention to Rorty in the past, but now I have a better grasp of what is 'pragmatism' and its positives along with its limitations.
And wow! I have learned so much re Morality and Ethics [M&E] in the past one+half years to the extent I believe there is nothing left for me to cover on the topic re M&E.

That's nice. So I can now spend the rest of my life bragging about my small role in your rise to greatness.
Quick question: Does this make you the greatest living moral philosopher or are you going to accept the all time number one spot?

We need to know because this forum has so many of the world's greatest philosopher, I need to work out how to assess your rank up against all the greatest living and ever minds that we somehow collect here. You have mighty peers such as the formidable Age, the all conquering Advocate and that legendary grandmaster of the mind Hedgehog7.

What I asserted is I have covered [familiarized with] almost the full range within morality and ethics but did not claim I am an expert or very well versed in all of them.

Don't be so modest. You discovered all there is to discover and found that you had been right all along, where lesser men would be finding out about the mistakes they had made.

And even more spectacular than that, you found out what objective moral fact is, and it turned out that all the personal subjective beliefs you already held were the correct content for that universal category. So once more you were blessed with a full knowledge and it didn't contradict your beliefs in any way.

With two magnificent acheivements of such scale you must be the greatest. The only question is whether that is an all time thing or not?

[Skepdick]

Don't be so modest. You discovered all there is to discover and found that you had been right all along, where lesser men would be finding out about the mistakes they had made.

And even more spectacular than that, you found out what objective moral fact is, and it turned out that all the personal subjective beliefs you already held were the correct content for that universal category. So once more you were blessed with a full knowledge and it didn't contradict your beliefs in any way.

With two magnificent acheivements of such scale you must be the greatest. The only question is whether that is an all time thing or not?

Ah well, the modesty that oozes from the self-appointed asserter of "mistakes".

For somebody who rejects positivism i find it peculiar that you can detect/verify "mistakes"! Don't they stem from some universal category of your own?

It would be miraculous (at the very least) if your beliefs about what is and isn't a mistake could be contradicted in any way. No?

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's nice. So I can now spend the rest of my life bragging about my small role in your rise to greatness.
Quick question: Does this make you the greatest living moral philosopher or are you going to accept the all time number one spot?

We need to know because this forum has so many of the world's greatest philosopher, I need to work out how to assess your rank up against all the greatest living and ever minds that we somehow collect here. You have mighty peers such as the formidable Age, the all conquering Advocate and that legendary grandmaster of the mind Hedgehog7.

What I asserted is I have covered [familiarized with] almost the full range within morality and ethics but did not claim I am an expert or very well versed in all of them.

What matters more than knowing what others have argued is knowing how to assess claims and arguments critically - including our own.

But you are ignorant your views are heavily indoctrinated by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytic philosophers making you dogmatic and stuck with confirmation bias.

In all your posts you have hardly argued with a balanced range of references.
You only have one mantra in your brainwashed mind by the LPs, i.e. whatever the claim re morality from the realists' perspective is nonsense and meaningless, period!

The members of the Vienna Circle—which included Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap and Kurt Gödel—did not all agree in detail but they shared a conviction that all philosophical metaphysics and most ethics to date was not so much wrong as meaningless nonsense.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/phil ... of-aj-ayer

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's nice. So I can now spend the rest of my life bragging about my small role in your rise to greatness.
Quick question: Does this make you the greatest living moral philosopher or are you going to accept the all time number one spot?

We need to know because this forum has so many of the world's greatest philosopher, I need to work out how to assess your rank up against all the greatest living and ever minds that we somehow collect here. You have mighty peers such as the formidable Age, the all conquering Advocate and that legendary grandmaster of the mind Hedgehog7.

What I asserted is I have covered [familiarized with] almost the full range within morality and ethics but did not claim I am an expert or very well versed in all of them.

Don't be so modest. You discovered all there is to discover and found that you had been right all along, where lesser men would be finding out about the mistakes they had made.

And even more spectacular than that, you found out what objective moral fact is, and it turned out that all the personal subjective beliefs you already held were the correct content for that universal category. So once more you were blessed with a full knowledge and it didn't contradict your beliefs in any way.

With two magnificent acheivements of such scale you must be the greatest. The only question is whether that is an all time thing or not?

The only confident claim I've and will make is that I am not ignorant of the wide range of moral topics and issues.

Another point is I am habituated by the basic requirement in preparing any formal thesis is to do a thorough literature review of the said topic to ensure one is not ignorant so as to understand the full perspective and not to waste time trying to prove what is already proven.

[FlashDangerpants]

What I asserted is I have covered [familiarized with] almost the full range within morality and ethics but did not claim I am an expert or very well versed in all of them.

Don't be so modest. You discovered all there is to discover and found that you had been right all along, where lesser men would be finding out about the mistakes they had made.

And even more spectacular than that, you found out what objective moral fact is, and it turned out that all the personal subjective beliefs you already held were the correct content for that universal category. So once more you were blessed with a full knowledge and it didn't contradict your beliefs in any way.

With two magnificent acheivements of such scale you must be the greatest. The only question is whether that is an all time thing or not?

The only confident claim I've and will make is that I am not ignorant of the wide range of moral topics and issues.

Another point is I am habituated by the basic requirement in preparing any formal thesis is to do a thorough literature review of the said topic to ensure one is not ignorant so as to understand the full perspective and not to waste time trying to prove what is already proven.

Again with sudden humility. You also have expressed regular confidence in a set of hidden arguments that are better than the ones you share with us.

You've discovered moral fact and what you learned is that it does correspond to all your previous beliefs, making my moral beliefs factually unsound. That is correct is it not?

And as you have toured these new logical vistas, did you not discover that all the arguments you have been making were right all along, even in respect of all these new things you hadn't previously thought about?

Now you are the king of little hill. You have an argument about morality that nobody can believe except you, because it has no logical force unless you already accept it as true. And you sit on this very small hill - about the size of a bucket, but it only needs seating for one - and as long as you only look down, you can believe that it is all there is to see.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Don't be so modest. You discovered all there is to discover and found that you had been right all along, where lesser men would be finding out about the mistakes they had made.

And even more spectacular than that, you found out what objective moral fact is, and it turned out that all the personal subjective beliefs you already held were the correct content for that universal category. So once more you were blessed with a full knowledge and it didn't contradict your beliefs in any way.

With two magnificent acheivements of such scale you must be the greatest. The only question is whether that is an all time thing or not?

The only confident claim I've and will make is that I am not ignorant of the wide range of moral topics and issues.

Another point is I am habituated by the basic requirement in preparing any formal thesis is to do a thorough literature review of the said topic to ensure one is not ignorant so as to understand the full perspective and not to waste time trying to prove what is already proven.

Again with sudden humility. You also have expressed regular confidence in a set of hidden arguments that are better than the ones you share with us.

You've discovered moral fact and what you learned is that it does correspond to all your previous beliefs, making my moral beliefs factually unsound. That is correct is it not?

And as you have toured these new logical vistas, did you not discover that all the arguments you have been making were right all along, even in respect of all these new things you hadn't previously thought about?

Now you are the king of little hill. You have an argument about morality that nobody can believe except you, because it has no logical force unless you already accept it as true. And you sit on this very small hill - about the size of a bucket, but it only needs seating for one - and as long as you only look down, you can believe that it is all there is to see.

True I have my views on a moral system but is continually reinforcing it by looking for 'holes' [and patching them] from the full perspective of morality and ethics within the philosophical databases I can assess to.
But [if you intend to] where is your credible arguments to counter my views?
So far, there is nothing of substance from you.

[FlashDangerpants]

The only confident claim I've and will make is that I am not ignorant of the wide range of moral topics and issues.

Another point is I am habituated by the basic requirement in preparing any formal thesis is to do a thorough literature review of the said topic to ensure one is not ignorant so as to understand the full perspective and not to waste time trying to prove what is already proven.

Again with sudden humility. You also have expressed regular confidence in a set of hidden arguments that are better than the ones you share with us.

You've discovered moral fact and what you learned is that it does correspond to all your previous beliefs, making my moral beliefs factually unsound. That is correct is it not?

And as you have toured these new logical vistas, did you not discover that all the arguments you have been making were right all along, even in respect of all these new things you hadn't previously thought about?

Now you are the king of little hill. You have an argument about morality that nobody can believe except you, because it has no logical force unless you already accept it as true. And you sit on this very small hill - about the size of a bucket, but it only needs seating for one - and as long as you only look down, you can believe that it is all there is to see.

True I have my views on a moral system but is continually reinforcing it by looking for 'holes' and patching them from the full perspective of morality and ethics within the philosophical databases I can assess to.
But [if you intend to] where is your credible arguments to counter my views?
So far, there is nothing of substance from you.

I'm attempting to locate your imagination right now. Have you not wondered yet at how you went through all this discovery of moral fact only to find out stuff you already just 'knew' by opinion?

Does it not seem a tiny bit suspicious that you constructed this whole method to find out what the universe thinks is right and wrong, and then found that the universe thinks you personally were right about everthing already before you investigated anything?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again with sudden humility. You also have expressed regular confidence in a set of hidden arguments that are better than the ones you share with us.

You've discovered moral fact and what you learned is that it does correspond to all your previous beliefs, making my moral beliefs factually unsound. That is correct is it not?

And as you have toured these new logical vistas, did you not discover that all the arguments you have been making were right all along, even in respect of all these new things you hadn't previously thought about?

Now you are the king of little hill. You have an argument about morality that nobody can believe except you, because it has no logical force unless you already accept it as true. And you sit on this very small hill - about the size of a bucket, but it only needs seating for one - and as long as you only look down, you can believe that it is all there is to see.

True I have my views on a moral system but is continually reinforcing it by looking for 'holes' and patching them from the full perspective of morality and ethics within the philosophical databases I can assess to.
But [if you intend to] where is your credible arguments to counter my views?
So far, there is nothing of substance from you.

I'm attempting to locate your imagination right now. Have you not wondered yet at how you went through all this discovery of moral fact only to find out stuff you already just 'knew' by opinion?

Does it not seem a tiny bit suspicious that you constructed this whole method to find out what the universe thinks is right and wrong, and then found that the universe thinks you personally were right about everthing already before you investigated anything?

I have explained the continuum from opinion to belief to knowledge.

I admit what I proposed is not knowledge [insufficient consensus] but due to the sufficient verifications and justifications I have done, it would be rated a personal belief with high conviction but definitely not opinion [crude conjectures.]

[FlashDangerpants]

True I have my views on a moral system but is continually reinforcing it by looking for 'holes' and patching them from the full perspective of morality and ethics within the philosophical databases I can assess to.
But [if you intend to] where is your credible arguments to counter my views?
So far, there is nothing of substance from you.

I'm attempting to locate your imagination right now. Have you not wondered yet at how you went through all this discovery of moral fact only to find out stuff you already just 'knew' by opinion?

Does it not seem a tiny bit suspicious that you constructed this whole method to find out what the universe thinks is right and wrong, and then found that the universe thinks you personally were right about everthing already before you investigated anything?

I have explained the continuum from opinion to belief to knowledge.

I admit what I proposed is not knowledge [insufficient consensus] but due to the sufficient verifications and justifications I have done, it would be rated a personal belief with high conviction but definitely not opinion [crude conjectures.]

But you will never have any consensus. Your FSK depends on itself for it's claim to describe facts at all. So nobody who doesn't already agree with it will ever be persuaded by it. So you are trapped in opinion.

You should have paid more attention to that circularity problem. After all, you haven't persuaded one person ever, have you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm attempting to locate your imagination right now. Have you not wondered yet at how you went through all this discovery of moral fact only to find out stuff you already just 'knew' by opinion?

Does it not seem a tiny bit suspicious that you constructed this whole method to find out what the universe thinks is right and wrong, and then found that the universe thinks you personally were right about everthing already before you investigated anything?

I have explained the continuum from opinion to belief to knowledge.

I admit what I proposed is not knowledge [insufficient consensus] but due to the sufficient verifications and justifications I have done, it would be rated a personal belief with high conviction but definitely not opinion [crude conjectures.]

But you will never have any consensus. Your FSK depends on itself for it's claim to describe facts at all. So nobody who doesn't already agree with it will ever be persuaded by it. So you are trapped in opinion.

You should have paid more attention to that circularity problem. After all, you haven't persuaded one person ever, have you?

I am not expecting consensus here.
But there is some consensus on the basic, i.e. 56% of philosophers in one poll agree with moral realism.
So far based on what I have proposed there is no convincing counters to my arguments.

[FlashDangerpants]

I have explained the continuum from opinion to belief to knowledge.

I admit what I proposed is not knowledge [insufficient consensus] but due to the sufficient verifications and justifications I have done, it would be rated a personal belief with high conviction but definitely not opinion [crude conjectures.]

But you will never have any consensus. Your FSK depends on itself for it's claim to describe facts at all. So nobody who doesn't already agree with it will ever be persuaded by it. So you are trapped in opinion.

You should have paid more attention to that circularity problem. After all, you haven't persuaded one person ever, have you?

I am not expecting consensus here.
But there is some consensus on the basic, i.e. 56% of philosophers in one poll agree with moral realism.
So far based on what I have proposed there is no convincing counters to my arguments.

You being personally convinced counts for nothing. It's obvious to everyone that your entire FSK that claims to prove morals are facts but also relies on that fact claim for the FSK itself to be justified, is a circular turd. Somehow you don't understand that this is a problem for you, but that is a seperate problem - also for you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But you will never have any consensus. Your FSK depends on itself for it's claim to describe facts at all. So nobody who doesn't already agree with it will ever be persuaded by it. So you are trapped in opinion.

You should have paid more attention to that circularity problem. After all, you haven't persuaded one person ever, have you?

I am not expecting consensus here.
But there is some consensus on the basic, i.e. 56% of philosophers in one poll agree with moral realism.
So far based on what I have proposed there is no convincing counters to my arguments.

You being personally convinced counts for nothing. It's obvious to everyone that your entire FSK that claims to prove morals are facts but also relies on that fact claim for the FSK itself to be justified, is a circular turd. Somehow you don't understand that this is a problem for you, but that is a seperate problem - also for you.

Where did I claim the moral FSK must be justified?
I believe you don't understand what is a FSK i.e. framework and system of knowledge thoroughly.
I explained the moral FSK is similar in principles and organization like the scientific FSK generating its scientific facts, truths and knowledge, and no one is complaining scientific facts are circular.

I believe if you were to put the whole argument in details you will not find any sort of circularity [narrow sense] in it.

Btw, I have read when we look at circularity in the broadest sense, then any system of knowledge has some minute degree of circularity which can be dispensed with for the practical benefits outweigh the theoretical reasonings.

[Peter Holmes]

I'm attempting to locate your imagination right now. Have you not wondered yet at how you went through all this discovery of moral fact only to find out stuff you already just 'knew' by opinion?

Does it not seem a tiny bit suspicious that you constructed this whole method to find out what the universe thinks is right and wrong, and then found that the universe thinks you personally were right about everthing already before you investigated anything?

I have explained the continuum from opinion to belief to knowledge.

I admit what I proposed is not knowledge [insufficient consensus] but due to the sufficient verifications and justifications I have done, it would be rated a personal belief with high conviction but definitely not opinion [crude conjectures.]

But you will never have any consensus. Your FSK depends on itself for it's claim to describe facts at all. So nobody who doesn't already agree with it will ever be persuaded by it. So you are trapped in opinion.

You should have paid more attention to that circularity problem. After all, you haven't persuaded one person ever, have you?

Nailed it.

Claim: what we call truth and knowledge are merely matters of sufficient consensus - leading to no more than polished conjecture.
Conclusion: therefore, sufficient consensus can lead to moral knowledge and truth - manifest in the existence of moral facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have explained the continuum from opinion to belief to knowledge.

I admit what I proposed is not knowledge [insufficient consensus] but due to the sufficient verifications and justifications I have done, it would be rated a personal belief with high conviction but definitely not opinion [crude conjectures.]

But you will never have any consensus. Your FSK depends on itself for it's claim to describe facts at all. So nobody who doesn't already agree with it will ever be persuaded by it. So you are trapped in opinion.

You should have paid more attention to that circularity problem. After all, you haven't persuaded one person ever, have you?

Nailed it.

Claim: what we call truth and knowledge are merely matters of sufficient consensus - leading to no more than polished conjecture.
Conclusion: therefore, sufficient consensus can lead to moral knowledge and truth - manifest in the existence of moral facts.

How come you are so stupid [lack intelligence] on the above.
Consensus do not confirm what is real.
What is real must be confirmed by verification and justification empirically and philosophically within a FSK.

The insufficient consensus refer the lack of consensus of my views which is independent of the existence of the real moral facts in the brain.

If say you joined a Theist Forum where 99% are theists and claim "evolution is true" do you think you will get sufficient consensus to your view 'evolution is true'?

[FlashDangerpants]

I am not expecting consensus here.
But there is some consensus on the basic, i.e. 56% of philosophers in one poll agree with moral realism.
So far based on what I have proposed there is no convincing counters to my arguments.

You being personally convinced counts for nothing. It's obvious to everyone that your entire FSK that claims to prove morals are facts but also relies on that fact claim for the FSK itself to be justified, is a circular turd. Somehow you don't understand that this is a problem for you, but that is a seperate problem - also for you.

Where did I claim the moral FSK must be justified?
I believe you don't understand what is a FSK i.e. framework and system of knowledge thoroughly.

If it isn't justified, it's just opinions.

You make fact claims by referencing that framework of your opinions.
You justify your is/ought argument by referencing your framework of personal opinion.
You pick numbers for the "evilness" of actions based on your own framework of opinions, and you decide what even gets a number on the basis of your personal opinions.