Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:19 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:23 am
Then why do you keep trying to claim facts on the basis of it, and why do you keep calling everyone who doesn't agree with it a dogmatic bastard?

You haven't persuaded a single person in the whole world that your FSK counts for anything at all. You have zero credibility.

Why do you insist by yourself that you are a dogmatic bastard.

I was referring to you and Peter and the likes being influenced [brainwashed] by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and their arrogance in being dogmatic with their beliefs triggering them to condemn those who do not agree with them in the most derogatory ways.

Note again, I have not presented the full model of my moral FSK here. I don't have any intention to persuade anyone here to consider and accept my full moral FSK/model.

My main contention re morality is that there are moral reality [physical and mental] and truths within morality-proper[as defined] which is to counter Peter's OP,
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

That's a claim which requires agreement with the FSK that asserts it. You don't intend to give anyone any reason to do that. Therefore your argument is empty.

You lose, Pete wins. Can we end the spam now?

How can Peter's views dominate when the bottom line is,
56% of philosophers [not the public] in a poll agree with moral realism.
Note the poll involves philosophers not any Tom, Dick or Harry.
So at least Peter, et al. will have to refute the above poll is totally baseless.

Those who refute moral realism has no credibility since they are brainwashed by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophers which were trashed by Sellars, Quine, Wittgenstein and others.

Who is spamming?
Its Peter who would unilaterally post his views [ignoring what had been offered] to troll and trigger others to respond to his challenge.
I don't mind participating [my own discretion] since it is to my personal selfish interests to give me a chance to keep my views afresh and expanding into other areas.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:24 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:19 am
Why do you insist by yourself that you are a dogmatic bastard.

I was referring to you and Peter and the likes being influenced [brainwashed] by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and their arrogance in being dogmatic with their beliefs triggering them to condemn those who do not agree with them in the most derogatory ways.

Note again, I have not presented the full model of my moral FSK here. I don't have any intention to persuade anyone here to consider and accept my full moral FSK/model.

My main contention re morality is that there are moral reality [physical and mental] and truths within morality-proper[as defined] which is to counter Peter's OP,
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

That's a claim which requires agreement with the FSK that asserts it. You don't intend to give anyone any reason to do that. Therefore your argument is empty.

You lose, Pete wins. Can we end the spam now?

How can Peter's views dominates when the bottom line is,
56% of philosophers [not the public] in a poll agree with moral realism.
Note the poll involves philosophers not any Tom, Dick or Harry.
So at least Peter, et al. will have to refute the above poll is totally baseless.

Who is spamming?
Its Peter who would unilaterally post his views [ignoring what had been offered] to troll and trigger others to respond to his challenge.
I don't mind participating [my own discretion] since it is to my personal selfish interests to give me a chance to keep my views afresh and expanding into other areas.

Well somebody else can beat Pete if they want. But you can't. Your arguments all rely on this FSK thing (whatever those really are) which you openly refuse to explain. So YOU are doomed to fail in this endeavour. It is irrational that you even try.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:26 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:24 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:15 am
That's a claim which requires agreement with the FSK that asserts it. You don't intend to give anyone any reason to do that. Therefore your argument is empty.

You lose, Pete wins. Can we end the spam now?

How can Peter's views dominates when the bottom line is,
56% of philosophers [not the public] in a poll agree with moral realism.
Note the poll involves philosophers not any Tom, Dick or Harry.
So at least Peter, et al. will have to refute the above poll is totally baseless.

Who is spamming?
Its Peter who would unilaterally post his views [ignoring what had been offered] to troll and trigger others to respond to his challenge.
I don't mind participating [my own discretion] since it is to my personal selfish interests to give me a chance to keep my views afresh and expanding into other areas.

Well somebody else can beat Pete if they want. But you can't. Your arguments all rely on this FSK thing (whatever those really are) which you openly refuse to explain. So YOU are doomed to fail in this endeavour. It is irrational that you even try.

Btw, I am not expecting you to comment at all and you are still on my ignore list. What I decide is on my sole discretion for my own selfish interests.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:30 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:26 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:24 am
How can Peter's views dominates when the bottom line is,
56% of philosophers [not the public] in a poll agree with moral realism.
Note the poll involves philosophers not any Tom, Dick or Harry.
So at least Peter, et al. will have to refute the above poll is totally baseless.

Who is spamming?
Its Peter who would unilaterally post his views [ignoring what had been offered] to troll and trigger others to respond to his challenge.
I don't mind participating [my own discretion] since it is to my personal selfish interests to give me a chance to keep my views afresh and expanding into other areas.

Well somebody else can beat Pete if they want. But you can't. Your arguments all rely on this FSK thing (whatever those really are) which you openly refuse to explain. So YOU are doomed to fail in this endeavour. It is irrational that you even try.

Btw, I am not expecting you to comment at all and you are still on my ignore list. What I decide is on my sole discretion for my own selfish interests.

So? Your FSK only becomes credible when you persuade billions of people to agree with it. Your arguments for why they should do that depend on them already believing the FSK. And you won't even explain the FSK anyway. If you put people on ignore to avoid knowing that this is a problem, then that is just an extra problem.

If the premises or axioms of a moral system are moral assertions, they express opinions and are therefore subjective.

If a premise of a moral system is a factual assertion, even one that's true, it can never entail or induce a moral conclusion, unless the inference begs the question. The argument 'X is the case, therefore X-Y-Z ought to be the case' always begs the question.

So VA's invented 'morality framework and system of knowledge (FSK)' cannot establish moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:38 am So? Your FSK only becomes credible when you persuade billions of people to agree with it. Your arguments for why they should do that depend on them already believing the FSK. And you won't even explain the FSK anyway. If you put people on ignore to avoid knowing that this is a problem, then that is just an extra problem.

Maybe his new world order will be a bit like Scientology. Only when you've reached a high enough level, say OT VIII (or OVA VIII), will the full truth of the holy FSK be revealed to you.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:51 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:38 am So? Your FSK only becomes credible when you persuade billions of people to agree with it. Your arguments for why they should do that depend on them already believing the FSK. And you won't even explain the FSK anyway. If you put people on ignore to avoid knowing that this is a problem, then that is just an extra problem.

Maybe his new world order will be a bit like Scientology. Only when you've reached a high enough level, say OT VIII (or OVA VIII), will the full truth of the holy FSK be revealed to you.

Yep. Moral objectivism is a faith, which is why there's no evidence and the arguments are unsound.

'Why is that a moral fact?' 'Well...it just is.'

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:51 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:38 am So? Your FSK only becomes credible when you persuade billions of people to agree with it. Your arguments for why they should do that depend on them already believing the FSK. And you won't even explain the FSK anyway. If you put people on ignore to avoid knowing that this is a problem, then that is just an extra problem.

Maybe his new world order will be a bit like Scientology. Only when you've reached a high enough level, say OT VIII (or OVA VIII), will the full truth of the holy FSK be revealed to you.

It's weird, but under his own terms his FSK would actually become more credible if he were able to market it as a series of mysteries for which the initiate must buy access.

That way he could rope in all the dumb people who fall for that sort of cult thing and acheive the quantity of belief that he reckons confers truthfulness and objectivity.

To establish moral objectivity, VA wants to reduce morality to physical necessity, locating that necessity in our brains. Here's the argument.

We're neurally programmed to breathe, because if we don't, we'll die. Following this programming is a physical necessity. And the 'ought' of physical necessity has nothing to do with the 'ought' of moral obligation. Questions about right or wrong, proper or improper, not-evil (aka good) or evil are irrelevant.

VA then fallaciously applies this argument to neural programming for behaviour. For example: we're programmed not to kill humans; therefore we ought not to kill humans. Supposedly, the 'ought not' here has, similarly, no sense of moral obligation.

Or, to put it another way, talk about moral obligation is really talk about compliance with neural programming. So, hey presto, there are moral facts, and so morality is objective. Genius.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:38 am To establish moral objectivity, VA wants to reduce morality to physical necessity, locating that necessity in our brains. Here's the argument.

We're neurally programmed to breathe, because if we don't, we'll die. Following this programming is a physical necessity. And the 'ought' of physical necessity has nothing to do with the 'ought' of moral obligation. Questions about right or wrong, proper or improper, not-evil (aka good) or evil are irrelevant.

VA then fallaciously applies this argument to neural programming for behaviour. For example: we're programmed not to kill humans; therefore we ought not to kill humans. Supposedly, the 'ought not' here has, similarly, no sense of moral obligation.

Or, to put it another way, talk about moral obligation is really talk about compliance with neural programming. So, hey presto, there are moral facts, and so morality is objective. Genius.

Not to mention that the "ought" there doesn't work in any context--moral or not. Either it's physically possible to do something or it's not. If it's physically possible to not-x, then we can't say that (non-mental) physical facts somehow amount to "ought to x."

"Ought to x" is a recommendation or prescription, where it only makes semantic sense if it's possible to not-x. But (non-mental) physical facts do not make recommendations or prescriptions. Outside of minds, nothing cares if one physical fact obtains rather than another.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:43 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:38 am To establish moral objectivity, VA wants to reduce morality to physical necessity, locating that necessity in our brains. Here's the argument.

We're neurally programmed to breathe, because if we don't, we'll die. Following this programming is a physical necessity. And the 'ought' of physical necessity has nothing to do with the 'ought' of moral obligation. Questions about right or wrong, proper or improper, not-evil (aka good) or evil are irrelevant.

VA then fallaciously applies this argument to neural programming for behaviour. For example: we're programmed not to kill humans; therefore we ought not to kill humans. Supposedly, the 'ought not' here has, similarly, no sense of moral obligation.

Or, to put it another way, talk about moral obligation is really talk about compliance with neural programming. So, hey presto, there are moral facts, and so morality is objective. Genius.

Not to mention that the "ought" there doesn't work in any context--moral or not. Either it's physically possible to do something or it's not. If it's physically possible to not-x, then we can't say that (non-mental) physical facts somehow amount to "ought to x."

"Ought to x" is a recommendation or prescription, where it only makes semantic sense if it's possible to not-x. But (non-mental) physical facts do not make recommendations or prescriptions. Outside of minds, nothing cares if one physical fact obtains rather than another.

Agreed - and nicely put.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:43 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:38 am To establish moral objectivity, VA wants to reduce morality to physical necessity, locating that necessity in our brains. Here's the argument.

We're neurally programmed to breathe, because if we don't, we'll die. Following this programming is a physical necessity. And the 'ought' of physical necessity has nothing to do with the 'ought' of moral obligation. Questions about right or wrong, proper or improper, not-evil (aka good) or evil are irrelevant.

VA then fallaciously applies this argument to neural programming for behaviour. For example: we're programmed not to kill humans; therefore we ought not to kill humans. Supposedly, the 'ought not' here has, similarly, no sense of moral obligation.

Or, to put it another way, talk about moral obligation is really talk about compliance with neural programming. So, hey presto, there are moral facts, and so morality is objective. Genius.

Not to mention that the "ought" there doesn't work in any context--moral or not. Either it's physically possible to do something or it's not. If it's physically possible to not-x, then we can't say that (non-mental) physical facts somehow amount to "ought to x."

"Ought to x" is a recommendation or prescription, where it only makes semantic sense if it's possible to not-x. But (non-mental) physical facts do not make recommendations or prescriptions.
Outside of minds, nothing cares if one physical fact obtains rather than another.

Note my response to the above here;
viewtopic.php?p=508220#p508220

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:56 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:43 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:38 am To establish moral objectivity, VA wants to reduce morality to physical necessity, locating that necessity in our brains. Here's the argument.

We're neurally programmed to breathe, because if we don't, we'll die. Following this programming is a physical necessity. And the 'ought' of physical necessity has nothing to do with the 'ought' of moral obligation. Questions about right or wrong, proper or improper, not-evil (aka good) or evil are irrelevant.

VA then fallaciously applies this argument to neural programming for behaviour. For example: we're programmed not to kill humans; therefore we ought not to kill humans. Supposedly, the 'ought not' here has, similarly, no sense of moral obligation.

Or, to put it another way, talk about moral obligation is really talk about compliance with neural programming. So, hey presto, there are moral facts, and so morality is objective. Genius.

Not to mention that the "ought" there doesn't work in any context--moral or not. Either it's physically possible to do something or it's not. If it's physically possible to not-x, then we can't say that (non-mental) physical facts somehow amount to "ought to x."

"Ought to x" is a recommendation or prescription, where it only makes semantic sense if it's possible to not-x. But (non-mental) physical facts do not make recommendations or prescriptions.
Outside of minds, nothing cares if one physical fact obtains rather than another.

Note my response to the above here;
viewtopic.php?p=508220#p508220

Note the arguments overwhelmingly refuting the case for moral objectivism.

Disturbingly, some moral objectivists, including some theists and religious apologists, are fascinated by the idea of torturing babies for fun. (In my opinion, torturing anyone for any reason is morally wrong.)

The objectivist claim is that, even if nobody thinks torture is morally wrong, it's still morally wrong, so that its moral wrongness is a fact - so that morality is objective.

But a moral opinion, even if held by everyone, and how ever strongly held, is still an opinion. And that's why there are no moral facts, a moral opinion is unfalsifiable, and morality can't be objective.

And this matters, because moral objectivism is evil. It has supposedly justified, and continues to supposedly justify, countless wicked acts. People who think their moral opinions are facts, or are 'true', can cheerfully harm others - and feel justified in doing so - including some theists, who deludedly think their invented god smiles on their wickedness.

Ah, comes the response - if there are no moral facts, how can you say any action is wicked?

That's our moral predicament and dilemma. And moral objectivism is no solution.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 1:18 pm In my opinion, torturing anyone for any reason is morally wrong.

What have you got against masochists?