What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Next question. Do you agree that saying the assertion 'We must do X' is true - is not making any assertion about X?

In other words, do you agree that, if 'We must do X' is a factual assertion with truth value, then it must have its own truth conditions? That, to show it's true, we have to show why we must do X?

Again, I think a very short answer would do. And, at this stage, I'm not asking you to show why we must do X. That's not the point here.

It is the other way round.

X is a factual assertion [morally] with its truth value justified empirically and philosophically.

From the consideration of Morality - i.e. to promote right and good behavior,
'we must do X' is thus the most efficient GUIDE to be used with the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

In this case, 'we must do X' implies we are referring to the assertion of X as justified empirically and philosophically.
Don't forget a lot of effort is exercised in justifying X empirically and philosophically.

No, you did what I asked you not to do - explain what X is, in your opinion. But, in doing that, I think you're agreeing that, in order to show the truth-value of 'We must do X', we have to show why we must do X - which, you say, is in order to achieve, or get nearer to, goal Y.

So your proposals should say this: We must do X to achieve, or get nearer to, goal Y.

Or to put it another way: If we want to achieve, or get nearer to, goal Y, then we must do X.

And you're saying that these are factual assertions with truth-value. Do you agree so far?

You missed my point with the loose context above.

Note I stated;

• From the consideration of Morality - i.e. to promote right and good behavior,
  'we must do X' [vision statement] is thus the most efficient GUIDE to be used with the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

I did not state "we must do X" literally as something that need to be enforced.
In this case, "we must do X" is merely a vision, i.e. a guide not to be enforced.
I did not mention any Goal-Y at all in this case.

For example, say X = "No human ought to kill another human"
This meant there should be ZERO human killed.
This 'ought' is not to be enforced.

In practice, there will be humans who are killed.
Thus the objective is to bring the result nearer to X itself, not any Y [your invention].

To achieve this objective to getting nearer to X -the ought,
what is needed is the expedite self-development of morality competence within the individual's brain/mind.
We cannot expect immediate results but it will be achieved progressively within 50, 75 or > 100 years.

"No human ought to kill another human" has truth-value and is a moral fact as justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning. We have gone through this.

The above moral fact is used a guide to practical ethics in comparing the ideal against the actual number of people killed under various reasons and conditions. These number is obvious and has truth value based on empirical evidences.
If 10,000 are killed then the objective is to bring down this number to as to bring it nearer to X - the ideal moral ought, not any Y.

Your problem is you are stuck with a dogmatic confirmation bias on your personal views, thus unable to understand [not necessary agree with] my views. This is why you are always missing my point.

Looking at it from another perspective may unlock your dogmatism.
Say if you set out to improve the human behavior of all humans towards the right and good, what sort of model will you used?

For any model to work, it must have an embedded standard so that controls can be done to generate variances for improvements.

In my case, the standard I have for my morality model is the ideal [a fixed goal post] which is justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.

You are resisting my use of the ideal [as justified] meaning you are using some sort of variable standards [moving goal posts], thus subjective to the feel of some collective. Such a model is very slipshod.

Can you justify how your model depending on variable standards [moving goal posts] can be efficient in promoting human behavior toward the ideal right or good?

[Peter Holmes]

It is the other way round.

X is a factual assertion [morally] with its truth value justified empirically and philosophically.

From the consideration of Morality - i.e. to promote right and good behavior,
'we must do X' is thus the most efficient GUIDE to be used with the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

In this case, 'we must do X' implies we are referring to the assertion of X as justified empirically and philosophically.
Don't forget a lot of effort is exercised in justifying X empirically and philosophically.

No, you did what I asked you not to do - explain what X is, in your opinion. But, in doing that, I think you're agreeing that, in order to show the truth-value of 'We must do X', we have to show why we must do X - which, you say, is in order to achieve, or get nearer to, goal Y.

So your proposals should say this: We must do X to achieve, or get nearer to, goal Y.

Or to put it another way: If we want to achieve, or get nearer to, goal Y, then we must do X.

And you're saying that these are factual assertions with truth-value. Do you agree so far?

You missed my point with the loose context above.

Note I stated;

• From the consideration of Morality - i.e. to promote right and good behavior,
  'we must do X' [vision statement] is thus the most efficient GUIDE to be used with the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

I did not state "we must do X" literally as something that need to be enforced.
In this case, "we must do X" is merely a vision, i.e. a guide not to be enforced.
I did not mention any Goal-Y at all in this case.

For example, say X = "No human ought to kill another human"
This meant there should be ZERO human killed.
This 'ought' is not to be enforced.

In practice, there will be humans who are killed.
Thus the objective is to bring the result nearer to X itself, not any Y [your invention].

To achieve this objective to getting nearer to X -the ought,
what is needed is the expedite self-development of morality competence within the individual's brain/mind.
We cannot expect immediate results but it will be achieved progressively within 50, 75 or > 100 years.

"No human ought to kill another human" has truth-value and is a moral fact as justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning. We have gone through this.

The above moral fact is used a guide to practical ethics in comparing the ideal against the actual number of people killed under various reasons and conditions. These number is obvious and has truth value based on empirical evidences.
If 10,000 are killed then the objective is to bring down this number to as to bring it nearer to X - the ideal moral ought, not any Y.

Your problem is you are stuck with a dogmatic confirmation bias on your personal views, thus unable to understand [not necessary agree with] my views. This is why you are always missing my point.

Looking at it from another perspective may unlock your dogmatism.
Say if you set out to improve the human behavior of all humans towards the right and good, what sort of model will you used?

For any model to work, it must have an embedded standard so that controls can be done to generate variances for improvements.

In my case, the standard I have for my morality model is the ideal [a fixed goal post] which is justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.

You are resisting my use of the ideal [as justified] meaning you are using some sort of variable standards [moving goal posts], thus subjective to the feel of some collective. Such a model is very slipshod.

Can you justify how your model depending on variable standards [moving goal posts] can be efficient in promoting human behavior toward the ideal right or good?

Oh, now I'm confused. And I thought I was following your argument. Here are your proposals again.

1 We must adopt a code of absolute moral rules, but only as an ideal guide, and never to be imposed on anyone.

2 Those rules must be based on evidence and reached through critical thinking – not authority, least of all a supposed divine authority.

3 While individuals must always strive to follow the rules – to get closer to the ideal – they can adapt them flexibly to cope with specific moral dilemmas, such as the need to kill in extreme self-defence.

And I understood these as calls to action: we must adopt a code; we must base the code, we must strive to follow... And I called an action 'X'. (You said 'For example, say X = "No human ought to kill another human" ' - which is not what I mean by 'X'. We need to use terms in the same way.)

And you said that your proposals are factual assertions with the truth-value 'true'. You'll remember I took trouble to clarify that.

Then I said we need to show why any factual assertion iis indeed true - which means we have to show why 'we must do X' is true.

I apologise for introducing 'goal Y' as an explanation for why 'we must do X' is true. So I withdraw that suggestion.

Please can you now explain why we must do any of the things you propose? I'm sorry if you think you have explained it, here and earlier.

And a very simple explanation would help me, such as 'We must do these things [1,2,3 above] because ... ' What comes next may be 'we want to improve human behaviour' or 'we want to 'expedite self-development of morality competence within the individual's brain/mind'.

I'm sorry to be so pedestrian about this, but I want to understand your argument, to see if it makes sense to me.

(By the way, I have no 'model depending on variable standards [moving goal posts] [that] can be efficient in promoting human behavior toward the ideal right or good'. And I've never proposed such a model. Please don't straw man me. We're discussing your model here.)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oh, now I'm confused. And I thought I was following your argument. Here are your proposals again.

1 We must adopt a code of absolute moral rules, but only as an ideal guide, and never to be imposed on anyone.

2 Those rules must be based on evidence and reached through critical thinking – not authority, least of all a supposed divine authority.

3 While individuals must always strive to follow the rules – to get closer to the ideal – they can adapt them flexibly to cope with specific moral dilemmas, such as the need to kill in extreme self-defence.

And I understood these as calls to action: we must adopt a code; we must base the code, we must strive to follow... And I called an action 'X'.
(You said 'For example, say X = "No human ought to kill another human" ' - which is not what I mean by 'X'. We need to use terms in the same way.)

I believe the confusion is this;

Note;
X = "No human ought to kill another human"
is ONLY an ideal which is an impossibility to achieve now or probably never.
It is not a vision that 'we must strive to follow.'
Therefore there is no such action required called action X.
rather it is a vision for we must strive to get as near as possible to the ideal in practice.

• For example, supposedly;
  X = all humans ought to score 100% in a subjective written test.
  Generally, this is an impossibility for all to score 100% in a subjective test.
  This is only an ideal which is impossible to attain, thus it act as merely a GUIDE.
  So all humans are not expected to strive to comply with the above.
  There is no call for action to score 100% literally.
  rather all humans must strive to achieve as near as possible to achieve 100% or 100/100.
  
  The actual actions that are required is the students must study as hard [intelligently] as possible with the hope they can score as near as possible to 100/100.

In the case of
X = "No human ought to kill another human"
note this is merely a GUIDE not to be enforced into action directly.
the action needed in this case is,
each human must develop and rewire their brain/mind so that they increase their moral competence such that they can behave as close as possible to the impossible ideal.

And you said that your proposals are factual assertions with the truth-value 'true'. You'll remember I took trouble to clarify that.

Then I said we need to show why any factual assertion iis indeed true - which means we have to show why 'we must do X' is true.

Please can you now explain why we must do any of the things you propose? I'm sorry if you think you have explained it, here and earlier.

And a very simple explanation would help me, such as 'We must do these things [1,2,3 above] because ... ' What comes next may be 'we want to improve human behaviour' or 'we want to 'expedite self-development of morality competence within the individual's brain/mind'.

As explained above, there is no action "we must do X".
The necessary actions are to rewire [foolproof] the brain/mind of the individual. This would entail another complex phase of my morality project.

Note the saying;

• aim for the stars
  = Don't limit yourself—aspire to achieve greatness, even if it seems impossible or impractical.

In the above, surely there is no action for one to reach a star [a Sun in the galaxy] which is an impossible ideal. What they need to do is to do their very best without compromise, so that they will achieve the optimal results. The role of the ideal is to drive them to perform their optimal rather than being lackadaisical if they do not set high goals.

In my case, it is like invoking to "aim for the stars" which is the ideal absolute moral laws. In this case, the absolute moral law is justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning. [see point 2 above].

I'm sorry to be so pedestrian about this, but I want to understand your argument, to see if it makes sense to me.

(By the way, I have no 'model depending on variable standards [moving goal posts] [that] can be efficient in promoting human behavior toward the ideal right or good'. And I've never proposed such a model. Please don't straw man me. We're discussing your model here.)

It is not a straw-man.

You missed my points too often, caused me to waste time repeating.
My proposal is, if you can shift perspective to yourself on the same objective, you would likely understand my point why I prefer an impossible 'Aim for the Stars' vision.

[Peter Holmes]

I believe the confusion is this...

Okay. Let's go along with your terminology, if that means we can understand each other. Have I got this straight?

You're saying there are two things:

1 An impossible ideal, vision or guide, such as: 'no human ought to kill another human being' or 'all humans must strive to achieve as near as possible to achieve 100% or 100/100 in tests'. And you call this ideal, vision or guide 'X'. And since it's a goal or end result, I want to call it 'goal X'. Please can you go along with this terminology, just to humour me? So a 'goal X' is an impossible ideal, vision or guide'.

2 Then there are actions aimed at getting nearer to those impossible goals, such as: 'each human must develop and rewire their brain/mind so that they increase their moral competence such that they can behave as close as possible to the impossible ideal that no human ought to kill another human being' or 'the students must study as hard [intelligently] as possible with the hope they can score as near as possible to 100/100.'

Now, we haven't given such an action a name yet, so I want to call it 'action Z'. So an 'action Z' is an action aimed at getting us closer to a 'goal X'.

Do you understand and accept that terminology? : 'Action Z is an action aimed at goal X' - given that goal X is impossible.

I'm really, really really hoping you'll just say 'yes'. Time is passing and life is brief.

[Peter Holmes]

Veritas Aequitas

Oh, to hell with it. Here's why your argument is unsound. And I'm going to use my terminology. Your argument is this:

P1: If we want goal Y, then we must do X.
P2: We want goal Y.
C: Therefore we must do X.

For the sake of this argument, the nature of goal Y is irrelevant. We can insert any goal we like, moral or otherwise.

If P1 and P2 are true, the argument is not only valid, but also sound. And negating every clause in the argument maintains its soundness.

But P1 is false, because wanting goal Y need not entail any action X.

And anyway, the claim that action X does lead to goal Y can be a matter of opinion, and if so, is subjective.

And anyway, wanting goal Y is a matter of preference, and is therefore subjective.

And the claim that we must want goal Y is a matter of opinion, and is therefore subjective.

I think the above demolishes the argument for moral objectivism.

[Skepdick]

I think the above demolishes the argument for moral objectivism.

Fallacy Fallacy.

Deduction doesn't work in this universe. Try another logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Another crucial difference between these two types of argument is that deductive certainty is impossible in non-axiomatic systems such as reality, leaving inductive reasoning as the primary route to (probabilistic) knowledge of such systems.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe the confusion is this...

Okay. Let's go along with your terminology, if that means we can understand each other. Have I got this straight?

You're saying there are two things:

1 An impossible ideal, vision or guide, such as: 'no human ought to kill another human being' or 'all humans must strive to achieve as near as possible to achieve 100% or 100/100 in tests'.
And you call this ideal, vision or guide 'X'. And since it's a goal or end result, I want to call it 'goal X'.
Please can you go along with this terminology, just to humour me?
So a 'goal X' is an impossible ideal, vision or guide'.

Nope it is only a vision or guide 'X' - preferable a GUIDE.
I would not want to associate it as a "goal" or "end" results since it is recognized as an impossible ideal and vision only.
If one use a fixed lighthouse as a guide, we do not strive to reach the lighthouse but some specific destination.
I have always stated it is to be used as a GUIDE only, vision which I added was merely to expound the point and is secondary.
(my background is from the corporate world, we use "vision" as an ideal Guide on a long term basis and "mission" for the immediate annual objectives as is the typical 'Vision and Mission' of an Organization.)

The focus here should be as a GUIDE only, note when I extend it to 'Vision' you are sliding it to 'Goal'.
I have highlighted "GUIDE ONLY" many times.
So do not deviate from this main point.

2 Then there are actions aimed at getting nearer to those impossible goals, such as: 'each human must develop and rewire their brain/mind so that they increase their moral competence such that they can behave as close as possible to the impossible ideal that no human ought to kill another human being' or 'the students must study as hard [intelligently] as possible with the hope they can score as near as possible to 100/100.'

Now, we haven't given such an action a name yet, so I want to call it 'action Z'. So an 'action Z' is an action aimed at getting us closer to a 'goal X'.

Do you understand and accept that terminology? : 'Action Z is an action aimed at goal X' - given that goal X is impossible.

I'm really, really really hoping you'll just say 'yes'. Time is passing and life is brief.

I want to add this;

• 1. Each individual will use "GUIDE-X" as merely a Guide-Only and only as a Guide.
  
  2. Then each individual will set a Flexible "Goal-Y" which is optimal, i.e. the best one can do in accordance his current state, ability and competence.
  
  3. Each individual must then be mindful of the MORAL-GAP, i.e. GUIDE-X minus GOAL-Y, then in this case strive to close the Moral-Gap on a long term basis, i.e. not immediately.
  (Note the student strive to score 100/100 and the lighthouse analogies are not applicable to this stage).
  The effective analogy would be that of Flexible Budgeting.
  
  • A Flexible Budget is a budget that adjusts or flexes with changes in volume or activity. The flexible budget is more sophisticated and useful than a static budget. (The static budget amounts do not change. They remain unchanged from the amounts established [as ideal] at the time that the static budget was prepared and approved.)
    https://www.accountingcoach.com/blog/flexible-budget
    
    -the STATIC BUDGET is GUIDE-X while the Flexible Budget is Goal-Y
  4. Each individual will then apply Action Z1 and Z2.
  ZI is the short term action to strive to be as near as Goal-Y.
  Z2 is the long term actions to close the Moral Gap between GUIDE-X and Flexible Goal-Y.
  Actions Z1 and Z2 will involve neural improvements simultaneously.

Hope you get it?
Btw, from the above it is still a long way to the complete Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas

Oh, to hell with it. Here's why your argument is unsound. And I'm going to use my terminology. Your argument is this:

P1: If we want goal Y, then we must do X.
P2: We want goal Y.
C: Therefore we must do X.

For the sake of this argument, the nature of goal Y is irrelevant. We can insert any goal we like, moral or otherwise.

If P1 and P2 are true, the argument is not only valid, but also sound. And negating every clause in the argument maintains its soundness.

But P1 is false, because wanting goal Y need not entail any action X.

And anyway, the claim that action X does lead to goal Y can be a matter of opinion, and if so, is subjective.

And anyway, wanting goal Y is a matter of preference, and is therefore subjective.

And the claim that we must want goal Y is a matter of opinion, and is therefore subjective.

I think the above demolishes the argument for moral objectivism.

Don't shout and exclaim 'Eureka!!' too prematurely.
You misunderstood my point, thus your strawman.
Note your unconscious deceptive rhetoric and slide [sleight of hand] from Guide to Vision to Goal - that is due to psychological desperation within your subconscious mind.

Note my new respond above to get you back to point.

Btw, I am giving up on you re this preliminary point [wasting a lot of my time] until you get a grip and understand of my argument [not necessary agree with] and provide counters to it.

[Peter Holmes]

I believe the confusion is this...

Okay. Let's go along with your terminology, if that means we can understand each other. Have I got this straight?

You're saying there are two things:

1 An impossible ideal, vision or guide, such as: 'no human ought to kill another human being' or 'all humans must strive to achieve as near as possible to achieve 100% or 100/100 in tests'.
And you call this ideal, vision or guide 'X'. And since it's a goal or end result, I want to call it 'goal X'.
Please can you go along with this terminology, just to humour me?
So a 'goal X' is an impossible ideal, vision or guide'.

Nope it is only a vision or guide 'X' - preferable a GUIDE.
I would not want to associate it as a "goal" or "end" results since it is recognized as an impossible ideal and vision only.
If one use a fixed lighthouse as a guide, we do not strive to reach the lighthouse but some specific destination.
I have always stated it is to be used as a GUIDE only, vision which I added was merely to expound the point and is secondary.
(my background is from the corporate world, we use "vision" as an ideal Guide on a long term basis and "mission" for the immediate annual objectives as is the typical 'Vision and Mission' of an Organization.)

The focus here should be as a GUIDE only, note when I extend it to 'Vision' you are sliding it to 'Goal'.
I have highlighted "GUIDE ONLY" many times.
So do not deviate from this main point.

2 Then there are actions aimed at getting nearer to those impossible goals, such as: 'each human must develop and rewire their brain/mind so that they increase their moral competence such that they can behave as close as possible to the impossible ideal that no human ought to kill another human being' or 'the students must study as hard [intelligently] as possible with the hope they can score as near as possible to 100/100.'

Now, we haven't given such an action a name yet, so I want to call it 'action Z'. So an 'action Z' is an action aimed at getting us closer to a 'goal X'.

Do you understand and accept that terminology? : 'Action Z is an action aimed at goal X' - given that goal X is impossible.

I'm really, really really hoping you'll just say 'yes'. Time is passing and life is brief.

I want to add this;

• 1. Each individual will use "GUIDE-X" as merely a Guide-Only and only as a Guide.
  
  2. Then each individual will set a Flexible "Goal-Y" which is optimal, i.e. the best one can do in accordance his current state, ability and competence.
  
  3. Each individual must then be mindful of the MORAL-GAP, i.e. GUIDE-X minus GOAL-Y, then in this case strive to close the Moral-Gap on a long term basis, i.e. not immediately.
  (Note the student strive to score 100/100 and the lighthouse analogies are not applicable to this stage).
  The effective analogy would be that of Flexible Budgeting.
  
  • A Flexible Budget is a budget that adjusts or flexes with changes in volume or activity. The flexible budget is more sophisticated and useful than a static budget. (The static budget amounts do not change. They remain unchanged from the amounts established [as ideal] at the time that the static budget was prepared and approved.)
    https://www.accountingcoach.com/blog/flexible-budget
    
    -the STATIC BUDGET is GUIDE-X while the Flexible Budget is Goal-Y
  4. Each individual will then apply Action Z1 and Z2.
  ZI is the short term action to strive to be as near as Goal-Y.
  Z2 is the long term actions to close the Moral Gap between GUIDE-X and Flexible Goal-Y.
  Actions Z1 and Z2 will involve neural improvements simultaneously.

Hope you get it?
Btw, from the above it is still a long way to the complete Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

It's sweet that you think what you're saying refutes my argument. How about this?

P1: If we want to use ideal guide X, then we should set flexible goal Y.
P2: We want to use ideal guide X.
C: Therefore, we should set flexible goal Y.

For this argument, the nature of X and Y is irrelevant. Any ideal guide and flexible goal will do.

If P1 and P2 are true, the argument is not only valid, but also sound. And negating every clause in the argument maintains its soundness.

But P1 is false, because wanting to use ideal guide X need not entail setting any flexible goal Y.

And anyway, the claim that flexible goal Y does follow ideal guide X can be a matter of opinion, and if so, is subjective.

And anyway, wanting to use ideal guide X is a matter of preference, and is therefore subjective.

And the claim that we should use ideal guide X is a matter of opinion, and is therefore subjective.

From the start, you haven't grasped the issue, which is to do with wanting and choosing moral guides and rules. If wanting and choosing come into it, then we're dealing with subjectivity - and which moral guides and rules makes no difference. They can be as rational and evidence-based as we want. This is what I and others have been pointing out to you all along. Perhaps this time the penny will drop. Pigs may also fly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's sweet that you think what you're saying refutes my argument. How about this?

P1: If we want to use ideal guide X, then we should set flexible goal Y.
P2: We want to use ideal guide X.
C: Therefore, we should set flexible goal Y.

For this argument, the nature of X and Y is irrelevant. Any ideal guide and flexible goal will do.

If P1 and P2 are true, the argument is not only valid, but also sound. And negating every clause in the argument maintains its soundness.

But P1 is false, because wanting to use ideal guide X need not entail setting any flexible goal Y.

And anyway, the claim that flexible goal Y does follow ideal guide X can be a matter of opinion, and if so, is subjective.

And anyway, wanting to use ideal guide X is a matter of preference, and is therefore subjective.

And the claim that we should use ideal guide X is a matter of opinion, and is therefore subjective.

From the start, you haven't grasped the issue, which is to do with wanting and choosing moral guides and rules. If wanting and choosing come into it, then we're dealing with subjectivity - and which moral guides and rules makes no difference. They can be as rational and evidence-based as we want. This is what I and others have been pointing out to you all along. Perhaps this time the penny will drop. Pigs may also fly.

I haven't grasped the issue??
You are the one who is very incompetence on the topic of morality.
I wrote this in the other thread and it is applicable to you as well;
viewtopic.php?p=445307#p445307

Your response is philosophically immature.

Your'e relying too much and blindly on hearsay of Hume's Guillotine.
You are ignorant of the basis of Hume's Guillotine.
Note;

Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739):

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.
This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence.

For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.

But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Note Hume's counter is primarily targeted as ontological moral oughts from a God and other baseless arguments.

As Hume expected;

• 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given

I have provided the argument how the secular ought can be justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
Most philosophers did not think of starting and using the imperative breathing as a basis.

Your argument is a strawman and totally off from my intention;

P1: If we want to use ideal guide X, then we should set flexible goal Y.
P2: We want to use ideal guide X.
C: Therefore, we should set flexible goal Y.

My argument is this;

1. Humanity has evolved with a moral faculty to prevent 'evil' and 'wrong' behaviors to facilitate a greater chance of survival and preservation of the human species.

2. To do 1 effective, there is a need for an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics which must be embedded and GUIDED by GUIDE-X.

3. Since GUIDE-X is ideal and thus impossible for fallible humans as they currently are, the most optimal approach is to set a FLEXIBLE GOAL-Y which is aligned and be as near as optimal to GUIDE-X.

4. To strive toward GOAL-X and achieving GOAL-Y, there is an imperative strategy to rewire the brain to increase moral competence of the individual.

5. The above process will entail continuous improvement of FLEXIBLE GOAL-Y with increasing optimality towards the impossible GUIDE-X.

I don't expect you to grasp the above except to throw in more strawman that suit your present psychology of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

If you don't get it, just forget it.
Even if you understand the above initial feasibility -tip of the iceberg - there is still a lot to go in the later phases of my Framework of Morality.

[Peter Holmes]

It's sweet that you think what you're saying refutes my argument. How about this?

P1: If we want to use ideal guide X, then we should set flexible goal Y.
P2: We want to use ideal guide X.
C: Therefore, we should set flexible goal Y.

For this argument, the nature of X and Y is irrelevant. Any ideal guide and flexible goal will do.

If P1 and P2 are true, the argument is not only valid, but also sound. And negating every clause in the argument maintains its soundness.

But P1 is false, because wanting to use ideal guide X need not entail setting any flexible goal Y.

And anyway, the claim that flexible goal Y does follow ideal guide X can be a matter of opinion, and if so, is subjective.

And anyway, wanting to use ideal guide X is a matter of preference, and is therefore subjective.

And the claim that we should use ideal guide X is a matter of opinion, and is therefore subjective.

From the start, you haven't grasped the issue, which is to do with wanting and choosing moral guides and rules. If wanting and choosing come into it, then we're dealing with subjectivity - and which moral guides and rules makes no difference. They can be as rational and evidence-based as we want. This is what I and others have been pointing out to you all along. Perhaps this time the penny will drop. Pigs may also fly.

I haven't grasped the issue??
You are the one who is very incompetence on the topic of morality.
I wrote this in the other thread and it is applicable to you as well;
viewtopic.php?p=445307#p445307

Your response is philosophically immature.

Your'e relying too much and blindly on hearsay of Hume's Guillotine.
You are ignorant of the basis of Hume's Guillotine.
Note;

Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739):

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.
This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence.

For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.

But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Note Hume's counter is primarily targeted as ontological moral oughts from a God and other baseless arguments.

As Hume expected;

• 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given

I have provided the argument how the secular ought can be justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
Most philosophers did not think of starting and using the imperative breathing as a basis.

Your argument is a strawman and totally off from my intention;

P1: If we want to use ideal guide X, then we should set flexible goal Y.
P2: We want to use ideal guide X.
C: Therefore, we should set flexible goal Y.

My argument is this;

1. Humanity has evolved with a moral faculty to prevent 'evil' and 'wrong' behaviors to facilitate a greater chance of survival and preservation of the human species.

2. To do 1 effective, there is a need for an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics which must be embedded and GUIDED by GUIDE-X.

3. Since GUIDE-X is ideal and thus impossible for fallible humans as they currently are, the most optimal approach is to set a FLEXIBLE GOAL-Y which is aligned and be as near as optimal to GUIDE-X.

4. To strive toward GOAL-X and achieving GOAL-Y, there is an imperative strategy to rewire the brain to increase moral competence of the individual.

5. The above process will entail continuous improvement of FLEXIBLE GOAL-Y with increasing optimality towards the impossible GUIDE-X.

I don't expect you to grasp the above except to throw in more strawman that suit your present psychology of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

If you don't get it, just forget it.
Even if you understand the above initial feasibility -tip of the iceberg - there is still a lot to go in the later phases of my Framework of Morality.

QED. Thanks. It hasn't been fun.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't expect you to grasp the above except to throw in more strawman that suit your present psychology of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

QED. Thanks. It hasn't been fun.

That is where I predicted the psychological elements and cognitive dissonance is a very painful and cause sufferings.

[Peter Holmes]

I don't expect you to grasp the above except to throw in more strawman that suit your present psychology of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

QED. Thanks. It hasn't been fun.

That is where I predicted the psychological elements and cognitive dissonance is a very painful and cause sufferings.

I suggest you publish your Framework of Morality, and wait for the plaudits.

[Veritas Aequitas]

QED. Thanks. It hasn't been fun.

That is where I predicted the psychological elements and cognitive dissonance is a very painful and cause sufferings.

I suggest you publish your Framework of Morality, and wait for the plaudits.

Good idea. As long as my arguments are sound [with appropriate qualifications] - not God commanded ontological oughts, it should be agreeable at least in theory. Btw, it is already done in practice crudely but not organized and systematic.

[Peter Holmes]

That is where I predicted the psychological elements and cognitive dissonance is a very painful and cause sufferings.

I suggest you publish your Framework of Morality, and wait for the plaudits.

Good idea. As long as my arguments are sound [with appropriate qualifications] - not God commanded ontological oughts, it should be agreeable at least in theory. Btw, it is already done in practice crudely but not organized and systematic.

I agree. You're proposing that we formalise what we actually do anyway - and have been doing, progressively, for millennia. No argument there. The problem with your view is simply the idea of objectivity - independence from opinion. But we've done this to death.