What is a right action?

[FlashDangerpants]

Why can't y'all start talking Around the subject and start taking About it?

What is necessary for morality? An understanding of what is better than now. An attempt at right action. Not intentionally causing harm...

And what is sufficient? Being generally agree. Having been tested over long periods of time. Having cultural differences in non-necessary ways...

All "What is the nature of..." questions are semantic. How do we use the term? What work do we need it to do?

Is your cake recipe "take one cake, bake the cake, now at last you have cake"?

You gotta aim for slightly less circularity than the necessary ingredients for morality are knowledge of morally desirable outcomes and motives.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is a man with a knife who is attempting to kill you. But you have a shotgun. What do you do?

Within my moral framework and system [FSK], if the only way for me to save myself is to kill the man, then I will kill the man.

But note within the moral FSK,
there is the justified moral standard, 'no human ought to kill humans', which mean a standard of ZERO killing.
In this case of my killing one man, this reality will trigger a moral variance in contrast to the moral standard.
The moral FSK feature procedure is that all of humanity and the individuals must deal with this variance to ensure ZERO killing in the future.

The corrective action is thus to ensure in future I do not land myself in such a situation that I must kill someone. If I have to, then I have to, and the FSK will trigger humanity to find solutions to strive for ZERO killings in the future.

To strive for ZERO killings in the future, humanity will have to establish ways to ensure humans will be able to control their impulse to kill in the future. How? It is not impossible if there is a will.

But humans, being human will somehow kill humans due to various unforeseen conditions, thus, the iterative is humanity must continue to find the root causes and to establish preventive measures to strive toward the justified moral standard of ZERO killing.

I want to know how a single moral principle can lead to two different moral decisions?

You are not getting my point.

A single UNIVERSAL moral principle can be divided into many other sub-moral-principles in relation to different conditions.

For example Kant's Universal Moral Principle, i.e.

• “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”

The above can be applied to many types of human acts, e.g. killing, raping, murder, torture, etc.

As for moral decisions, judgments, opinions, and the likes, they are not directly related to morality per se. Note this;

• Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
  Personal judgments and decisions made by individuals [in real life or from thought experiments] related to moral elements are not Morality Per se.
  These are subjective opinions and beliefs of the individual[s] and they are not moral facts.

Therefore A single UNIVERSAL moral principle CANNOT lead to two different 'moral' decisions, e.g. a decision whether to kill one fat man or 10 others.

[Peter Holmes]

Within my moral framework and system [FSK], if the only way for me to save myself is to kill the man, then I will kill the man.

But note within the moral FSK,
there is the justified moral standard, 'no human ought to kill humans', which mean a standard of ZERO killing.
In this case of my killing one man, this reality will trigger a moral variance in contrast to the moral standard.
The moral FSK feature procedure is that all of humanity and the individuals must deal with this variance to ensure ZERO killing in the future.

The corrective action is thus to ensure in future I do not land myself in such a situation that I must kill someone. If I have to, then I have to, and the FSK will trigger humanity to find solutions to strive for ZERO killings in the future.

To strive for ZERO killings in the future, humanity will have to establish ways to ensure humans will be able to control their impulse to kill in the future. How? It is not impossible if there is a will.

But humans, being human will somehow kill humans due to various unforeseen conditions, thus, the iterative is humanity must continue to find the root causes and to establish preventive measures to strive toward the justified moral standard of ZERO killing.

I want to know how a single moral principle can lead to two different moral decisions?

You are not getting my point.

A single UNIVERSAL moral principle can be divided into many other sub-moral-principles in relation to different conditions.

For example Kant's Universal Moral Principle, i.e.

• “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”

The above can be applied to many types of human acts, e.g. killing, raping, murder, torture, etc.

As for moral decisions, judgments, opinions, and the likes, they are not directly related to morality per se. Note this;

• Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
  Personal judgments and decisions made by individuals [in real life or from thought experiments] related to moral elements are not Morality Per se.
  These are subjective opinions and beliefs of the individual[s] and they are not moral facts.

Therefore A single UNIVERSAL moral principle CANNOT lead to two different 'moral' decisions, e.g. a decision whether to kill one fat man or 10 others.

Claim: There are moral facts which are nothing to do with judgements, decisions or opinions.
Example: It's wrong for humans to kill humans.

It boils down to this: does the claim 'it's wrong for humans to kill humans' assert a fact; or does it express a judgement, belief or opinion?

[Sculptor]

Claim: There are moral facts which are nothing to do with judgements, decisions or opinions.
Example: It's wrong for humans to kill humans.

It boils down to this: does the claim 'it's wrong for humans to kill humans' assert a fact; or does it express a judgement, belief or opinion?

The above example is refuted by the existence of a single exception
Since I can think of more than one valid exception to the example, the claim is false.
Not just false for me, but false for all.

As for the claim: not only is it a judgement in itself, it remains to be established unless, and until a moral fact can be offered without judgement.
I am not sure this is even possible.

[bahman]

Within my moral framework and system [FSK], if the only way for me to save myself is to kill the man, then I will kill the man.

But note within the moral FSK,
there is the justified moral standard, 'no human ought to kill humans', which mean a standard of ZERO killing.
In this case of my killing one man, this reality will trigger a moral variance in contrast to the moral standard.
The moral FSK feature procedure is that all of humanity and the individuals must deal with this variance to ensure ZERO killing in the future.

The corrective action is thus to ensure in future I do not land myself in such a situation that I must kill someone. If I have to, then I have to, and the FSK will trigger humanity to find solutions to strive for ZERO killings in the future.

To strive for ZERO killings in the future, humanity will have to establish ways to ensure humans will be able to control their impulse to kill in the future. How? It is not impossible if there is a will.

But humans, being human will somehow kill humans due to various unforeseen conditions, thus, the iterative is humanity must continue to find the root causes and to establish preventive measures to strive toward the justified moral standard of ZERO killing.

I want to know how a single moral principle can lead to two different moral decisions?

You are not getting my point.

A single UNIVERSAL moral principle can be divided into many other sub-moral-principles in relation to different conditions.

For example Kant's Universal Moral Principle, i.e.

• “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”

The above can be applied to many types of human acts, e.g. killing, raping, murder, torture, etc.

As for moral decisions, judgments, opinions, and the likes, they are not directly related to morality per se. Note this;

• Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
  Personal judgments and decisions made by individuals [in real life or from thought experiments] related to moral elements are not Morality Per se.
  These are subjective opinions and beliefs of the individual[s] and they are not moral facts.

Therefore A single UNIVERSAL moral principle CANNOT lead to two different 'moral' decisions, e.g. a decision whether to kill one fat man or 10 others.

I want to see how do you derive a moral decision based on a moral principle. For example, you should not kill. And how there is an exception to what one ought to do when the person is you with a shotgun.

[Peter Holmes]

Claim: There are moral facts which are nothing to do with judgements, decisions or opinions.
Example: It's wrong for humans to kill humans.

It boils down to this: does the claim 'it's wrong for humans to kill humans' assert a fact; or does it express a judgement, belief or opinion?

The above example is refuted by the existence of a single exception
Since I can think of more than one valid exception to the example, the claim is false.
Not just false for me, but false for all.

As for the claim: not only is it a judgement in itself, it remains to be established unless, and until a moral fact can be offered without judgement.
I am not sure this is even possible.

Nailed smack on the head. Thanks.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Claim: There are moral facts which are nothing to do with judgements, decisions or opinions.
Example: It's wrong for humans to kill humans.

It boils down to this: does the claim 'it's wrong for humans to kill humans' assert a fact; or does it express a judgement, belief or opinion?

I stated judgements, decisions or opinions apparently attributed to morality are not essentially morality-proper. They are not related to moral facts directly.

"The claim 'it's wrong for humans to kill humans'" when expressed without qualification by individual[s] or group is a judgement, belief or opinion.

If it is qualified within a legal FSK [which is very evident] then it is a legal fact, i.e. it is wrong, thus a punishable crime to kill another human. The basis/ground for this fact is based on intersubjective consensus of a government by the people or a dictatorial authority, thus objective.

If it is qualified within the Abrahamic religion FSK, then it is "doctrine" [ ] but such a 'doctrine' has no credibility because it is grounded on an illusory God.

'It's wrong for humans to kill humans' is not directly related to morality-proper.

The related moral fact of morality-proper within a moral FSK is, "no human ought to kill humans' as a moral standard. The grounds of this is based on human nature [evolutionary and biological fact] which is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK.

[Peter Holmes]

Claim: There are moral facts which are nothing to do with judgements, decisions or opinions.
Example: It's wrong for humans to kill humans.

It boils down to this: does the claim 'it's wrong for humans to kill humans' assert a fact; or does it express a judgement, belief or opinion?

I stated judgements, decisions or opinions apparently attributed to morality are not essentially morality-proper. They are not related to moral facts directly.

"The claim 'it's wrong for humans to kill humans'" when expressed without qualification by individual[s] or group is a judgement, belief or opinion.

If it is qualified within a legal FSK [which is very evident] then it is a legal fact, i.e. it is wrong, thus a punishable crime to kill another human. The basis/ground for this fact is based on intersubjective consensus of a government by the people or a dictatorial authority, thus objective.

If it is qualified within the Abrahamic religion FSK, then it is "doctrine" [ ] but such a 'doctrine' has no credibility because it is grounded on an illusory God.

'It's wrong for humans to kill humans' is not directly related to morality-proper.

The related moral fact of morality-proper within a moral FSK is, "no human ought to kill humans' as a moral standard. The grounds of this is based on human nature [evolutionary and biological fact] which is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK.

Still lost in your self-constructed delusion.

You don't think 'it's wrong for humans to kill humans' is a fact, or even directly related to 'morality-proper' at all. It just expresses an opinion.

But you think 'no human ought to kill humans' is a fact - a feature of reality (part of human nature) that exists independent from opinion.

This has always been, and remains, complete nonsense.

[Sculptor]

Claim: There are moral facts which are nothing to do with judgements, decisions or opinions.
Example: It's wrong for humans to kill humans.

It boils down to this: does the claim 'it's wrong for humans to kill humans' assert a fact; or does it express a judgement, belief or opinion?

I stated judgements, decisions or opinions apparently attributed to morality are not essentially morality-proper. They are not related to moral facts directly.

"The claim 'it's wrong for humans to kill humans'" when expressed without qualification by individual[s] or group is a judgement, belief or opinion.

If it is qualified within a legal FSK [which is very evident] then it is a legal fact, i.e. it is wrong, thus a punishable crime to kill another human. The basis/ground for this fact is based on intersubjective consensus of a government by the people or a dictatorial authority, thus objective.

No, I think you are confusing "objective" with "arbitrary".

If it is qualified within the Abrahamic religion FSK, then it is "doctrine" [ ] but such a 'doctrine' has no credibility because it is grounded on an illusory God.

WTF is "Abrahamic religion FSK".?
That god is illusory is your opinion. That opinion is not included in the Abrahamic religions, therefore you are not "normal".

'It's wrong for humans to kill humans' is not directly related to morality-proper.

Promising - But whose to say what is "proper"?

The related moral fact of morality-proper within a moral FSK is, "no human ought to kill humans' as a moral standard.

A cracked pot plays no part in decent ceramic practice

The grounds of this is based on human nature [evolutionary and biological fact] which is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK.

Empty assertion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Claim: There are moral facts which are nothing to do with judgements, decisions or opinions.
Example: It's wrong for humans to kill humans.

It boils down to this: does the claim 'it's wrong for humans to kill humans' assert a fact; or does it express a judgement, belief or opinion?

I stated judgements, decisions or opinions apparently attributed to morality are not essentially morality-proper. They are not related to moral facts directly.

"The claim 'it's wrong for humans to kill humans'" when expressed without qualification by individual[s] or group is a judgement, belief or opinion.

If it is qualified within a legal FSK [which is very evident] then it is a legal fact, i.e. it is wrong, thus a punishable crime to kill another human. The basis/ground for this fact is based on intersubjective consensus of a government by the people or a dictatorial authority, thus objective.

If it is qualified within the Abrahamic religion FSK, then it is "doctrine" [ ] but such a 'doctrine' has no credibility because it is grounded on an illusory God.

'It's wrong for humans to kill humans' is not directly related to morality-proper.

The related moral fact of morality-proper within a moral FSK is, "no human ought to kill humans' as a moral standard. The grounds of this is based on human nature [evolutionary and biological fact] which is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK.

Still lost in your self-constructed delusion.

You don't think 'it's wrong for humans to kill humans' is a fact, or even directly related to 'morality-proper' at all. It just expresses an opinion.

But you think 'no human ought to kill humans' is a fact - a feature of reality (part of human nature) that exists independent from opinion.

This has always been, and remains, complete nonsense.

You think it is nonsense because of your bastardized view of philosophy adopted from the logical positivists who would insist whatever they don't agree with is nonsense.

The influential wrongness of AJ Ayer
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

I am not here to convince you of my views.
If you insist, you can keep the above views to yourself and be stuck in your dogmatic silo.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Claim: There are moral facts which are nothing to do with judgements, decisions or opinions.
Example: It's wrong for humans to kill humans.

It boils down to this: does the claim 'it's wrong for humans to kill humans' assert a fact; or does it express a judgement, belief or opinion?

I stated judgements, decisions or opinions apparently attributed to morality are not essentially morality-proper. They are not related to moral facts directly.

"The claim 'it's wrong for humans to kill humans'" when expressed without qualification by individual[s] or group is a judgement, belief or opinion.

If it is qualified within a legal FSK [which is very evident] then it is a legal fact, i.e. it is wrong, thus a punishable crime to kill another human. The basis/ground for this fact is based on intersubjective consensus of a government by the people or a dictatorial authority, thus objective.

No, I think you are confusing "objective" with "arbitrary".

If it is qualified within the Abrahamic religion FSK, then it is "doctrine" [ ] but such a 'doctrine' has no credibility because it is grounded on an illusory God.

WTF is "Abrahamic religion FSK".?
That god is illusory is your opinion. That opinion is not included in the Abrahamic religions, therefore you are not "normal".

'It's wrong for humans to kill humans' is not directly related to morality-proper.

Promising - But whose to say what is "proper"?

The related moral fact of morality-proper within a moral FSK is, "no human ought to kill humans' as a moral standard.

A cracked pot plays no part in decent ceramic practice

The grounds of this is based on human nature [evolutionary and biological fact] which is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK.

Empty assertion.

As usual you did not provide any sound arguments for your counters.

You are only insulting your own intelligence and intellectual integrity when you keep insisting on,
'I think you are X, etc."
"Empty assertions"
"Blah blah blah"
without giving solid arguments for your counters.

[Sculptor]

I stated judgements, decisions or opinions apparently attributed to morality are not essentially morality-proper. They are not related to moral facts directly.

"The claim 'it's wrong for humans to kill humans'" when expressed without qualification by individual[s] or group is a judgement, belief or opinion.

If it is qualified within a legal FSK [which is very evident] then it is a legal fact, i.e. it is wrong, thus a punishable crime to kill another human. The basis/ground for this fact is based on intersubjective consensus of a government by the people or a dictatorial authority, thus objective.

No, I think you are confusing "objective" with "arbitrary".

If it is qualified within the Abrahamic religion FSK, then it is "doctrine" [ ] but such a 'doctrine' has no credibility because it is grounded on an illusory God.

WTF is "Abrahamic religion FSK".?
That god is illusory is your opinion. That opinion is not included in the Abrahamic religions, therefore you are not "normal".

'It's wrong for humans to kill humans' is not directly related to morality-proper.

Promising - But whose to say what is "proper"?

The related moral fact of morality-proper within a moral FSK is, "no human ought to kill humans' as a moral standard.

A cracked pot plays no part in decent ceramic practice

The grounds of this is based on human nature [evolutionary and biological fact] which is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK.

Empty assertion.

As usual you did not provide any sound arguments for your counters.

You are only insulting your own intelligence and intellectual integrity when you keep insisting on,
'I think you are X, etc."
"Empty assertions"
"Blah blah blah"
without giving solid arguments for your counters.

Empty ssertions can be answers with simlpe denials.
But I gave you the opportunity to do more than provide empty assertions.
I asked several questions which you failed to answer.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As usual you did not provide any sound arguments for your counters.

You are only insulting your own intelligence and intellectual integrity when you keep insisting on,
'I think you are X, etc."
"Empty assertions"
"Blah blah blah"
without giving solid arguments for your counters.

Empty ssertions can be answers with simlpe denials.
But I gave you the opportunity to do more than provide empty assertions.
I asked several questions which you failed to answer.

I made it a point to respond to all valid counters and questions.
Which one did I fail to answer.

[Peter Holmes]

Question: what is a right action?
Answer: a right action is one that is good and not bad or evil.
Question: what is a good action?
Answer: a good action is one that benefits rather than harms people.
Question: why should we benefit rather than harm people?
Answer: because that's the right thing to do.

Rinse and repeat.

[Sculptor]

As usual you did not provide any sound arguments for your counters.

You are only insulting your own intelligence and intellectual integrity when you keep insisting on,
'I think you are X, etc."
"Empty assertions"
"Blah blah blah"
without giving solid arguments for your counters.

Empty ssertions can be answers with simlpe denials.
But I gave you the opportunity to do more than provide empty assertions.
I asked several questions which you failed to answer.

I made it a point to respond to all valid counters and questions.
Which one did I fail to answer.

Answer the questions!