Philosophy Now Forum

Should we tell VA that for example for fathers, "I want to kill the murderer of my daughter" seems to be a pretty hardwired reaction too? It's in the neurons and chemicals of the human brain, so it corresponds to an objective moral fact.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:56 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:47 am
That can only be true AFTER you have persuaded everyone. Until then you have neither consensus nor credibility in that matter. Whatever you are describing as "morality-proper" is just some thing that only you have any interest in and which nobody except you can have any faith in.

I have done a literature review on the full extent of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
Thus I have the background to differentiate my morality-proper from pseudo-morality.
Do you accept theistic morality as reasonable morality.
It is the same with all the existing major moral systems, they have their limited pros but are all heavily criticized for their cons from all angles.
I'd ensured what I proposed as morality-proper do not have the cons of the pseudo-moral systems and I can anticipate whatever objections knowable and possible.

Well that's just adorable. But it's bullshit, everybody knows that morality is about what is right and what is wrong. If everybody knows it (and everybody does know it) then it is truth, it is fact, and you are wrong to deny it.

Everybody???
Doesn't that sound very familiar to you? Remember the flat-earthers or the current >90% of theists on earth.

What counts as credible truth is that it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

If you survey ALL the behaviors of humans from the past to the present, there is a certain pattern of behavior that are preferred to be avoided by people, i.e. generally positive or negative in some ways.
These behaviors could also be termed as good or bad, good or evil, right or wrong, proper or improper, and the likes.

This pattern of behavior, i.e. proper or improper, good or evil, right or wrong is identified as the general term 'morality' aka 'ethics.
However since theism is believed by >80% of humans at present, that pattern of behavior has been identified with good or evil, i.e. evil as influenced by Satan or the devil.

Regardless of the above terms used, what is critical is whether they have any ground or foundation that can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

What grounding does theistic morality [believed by >80% of people] has other than to insist 'God said so!'.
Similarly all other secular moral systems also do not have any solid verifiable and justifiable groundings.
This is why I label them as pseudo-morality.

In my case, what is morality-proper is its foundation is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

Show me a sicentist who thinkgs they can measure rightness and wrongness.
Don't show me skepdick, he's a fuckwit.

I am not partisan to any individual but whosever views are valid and sound, I will accept and refer to them as supporting my arguments.

I never claimed scientist can measure rightness and wrongness.
Besides I don't prefer the terms "rightness" and "wrongness".

If you refer to whether any scientist who measure 'evilness', then yes there are scientists [social science] who measure "evilness" i.e.
[..I have mentioned this before but you are probably blind to it].

Columbia University professor Michael Stone knows evil.
He's a forensic psychologist -- the type of expert that provides testimony on the mental state of accused murderers when a declaration of insanity can mean the difference between life and death row.

Inspired by the structure of Dante's circles of hell, Stone has created his own 22-point "Gradations of Evil" scale, made up of murderers in the 20th century. "I thought it would be an interesting thing to do," he says.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... =129175964

Another is from Michael Welner.
Note Michael Welner's Definition of Evil has utility!
Psychiatrist Helps Court Define ‘Evil Behavior’
https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/ ... d-shared=0

Of course the above ratings are not precise but they can be further improved in co-ordination with what is really going on inside of the brains of evil-doers.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:21 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:27 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:07 am
So in your ontology,

(a) Somehow literal beliefs exist that aren't instantiated in individual persons. (How do such beliefs exist? What is the ontological nature of them?)

Note E=MC2 is a scientific knowledge and it exists.
But E-MC2 is only valid within the Einsteinian-Physics FSK not any individual person.

(b) There are things that can be the case independent of humans, after human invention births them, yet if humans ceased to exist, somehow those independent things would also cease to exist. (Just how does that work ontologically?)

Note conventionally, those things will still exists after human cease to exist.

Thought it can be explained albeit very tedious, I am invoking the claim 'If humans cease to exists then all mind interdependent things cease to exists'.

What I am insisting upon is this thesis;

• 1. Reality is all-there-is.
  2. All-there-is comprise humans
  3. Therefore reality cannot ultimately be independent of humans.

Philosophers has raised the above question long time ago to seek things in reality [from the crudest objects to the thing-in-itself] that are independent of the human conditions but had failed.

Note substance theory,

• Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory positing that objects are constituted each by a substance and properties borne by the substance but distinct from it. In this role, a substance can be referred to as a substratum or a thing-in-itself.
  -wiki

Show me at what location you can stand on to make view a reality that is independent of the human conditions? i.e. the God's eyes view of reality.

You didn't address anything I asked you.

Start with (a). How do such beliefs (or how does such knowledge) exist? What is the ontological nature of it?

I have answered your question but you are blinded by confirmation bias.

It started with this;

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:01 am
When a belief is institutionalized within a FSK, it is then independent of the individuals' beliefs and opinion.
But what is institutionalized within a FSK is still fundamentally not independent of the human conditions.

When a belief is institutionalized within a FSK, it qualify as knowledge and such knowledge is independent of individuals' beliefs or opinions.

Example of the above knowledge is a below;
Note E=MC2 is a scientific knowledge and it exists.
But E=MC2 is only valid within the Einsteinian-Physics FSK as independent from any individual person's belief.
A FSK is a human construct, therefore the above knowledge cannot be independent of the human conditions.

The above knowledge exists because there is a scientific-physics FSK that supports its existence.

What is the ontology of the above knowledge?
The ontology of the above knowledge is grounded on the conditions and structure of the FSK which is constructed by humans.

What is the problem of the above?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:39 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:21 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:27 am
Note E=MC2 is a scientific knowledge and it exists.
But E-MC2 is only valid within the Einsteinian-Physics FSK not any individual person.


Note conventionally, those things will still exists after human cease to exist.

Thought it can be explained albeit very tedious, I am invoking the claim 'If humans cease to exists then all mind interdependent things cease to exists'.

What I am insisting upon is this thesis;

• 1. Reality is all-there-is.
  2. All-there-is comprise humans
  3. Therefore reality cannot ultimately be independent of humans.

Philosophers has raised the above question long time ago to seek things in reality [from the crudest objects to the thing-in-itself] that are independent of the human conditions but had failed.

Note substance theory,

• Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory positing that objects are constituted each by a substance and properties borne by the substance but distinct from it. In this role, a substance can be referred to as a substratum or a thing-in-itself.
  -wiki

Show me at what location you can stand on to make view a reality that is independent of the human conditions? i.e. the God's eyes view of reality.

You didn't address anything I asked you.

Start with (a). How do such beliefs (or how does such knowledge) exist? What is the ontological nature of it?

I have answered your question but you are blinded by confirmation bias.

It started with this;

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:01 am
When a belief is institutionalized within a FSK, it is then independent of the individuals' beliefs and opinion.
But what is institutionalized within a FSK is still fundamentally not independent of the human conditions.

When a belief is institutionalized within a FSK, it qualify as knowledge and such knowledge is independent of individuals' beliefs or opinions.

Example of the above knowledge is a below;
Note E=MC2 is a scientific knowledge and it exists.
But E=MC2 is only valid within the Einsteinian-Physics FSK as independent from any individual person's belief.
A FSK is a human construct, therefore the above knowledge cannot be independent of the human conditions.

The above knowledge exists because there is a scientific-physics FSK that supports its existence.

What is the ontology of the above knowledge?
The ontology of the above knowledge is grounded on the conditions and structure of the FSK which is constructed by humans.

What is the problem of the above?

So then how is any of this independent of human beliefs (So that it's independent of any and all human beliefs in general)?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:39 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:21 pm
You didn't address anything I asked you.

Start with (a). How do such beliefs (or how does such knowledge) exist? What is the ontological nature of it?

I have answered your question but you are blinded by confirmation bias.

It started with this;

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:01 am
When a belief is institutionalized within a FSK, it is then independent of the individuals' beliefs and opinion.
But what is institutionalized within a FSK is still fundamentally not independent of the human conditions.

When a belief is institutionalized within a FSK, it qualify as knowledge and such knowledge is independent of individuals' beliefs or opinions.

Example of the above knowledge is a below;
Note E=MC2 is a scientific knowledge and it exists.
But E=MC2 is only valid within the Einsteinian-Physics FSK as independent from any individual person's belief.
A FSK is a human construct, therefore the above knowledge cannot be independent of the human conditions.

The above knowledge exists because there is a scientific-physics FSK that supports its existence.

What is the ontology of the above knowledge?
The ontology of the above knowledge is grounded on the conditions and structure of the FSK which is constructed by humans.

What is the problem of the above?

So then how is any of this independent of human beliefs (So that it's independent of any and all human beliefs in general)?

E=MC2 is E=MC2 per scientific-physics FSK which is independent of any individuals' belief of it.

To make it simpler,
if the scientific-biological FSK define an eel as a fish, it is independent of any individuals' belief if anyone who insist an eel is a snake.
But the scientific-biological FSK is a human construct, thus the ultimate reality is what is a snake is not independent of the human condition.

Note I argued in the other post,
there is no supposed-real-snake that is absolutely independent of the human mind in the ultimate sense. [note Russell's view therein]

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:17 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:56 am
I have done a literature review on the full extent of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
Thus I have the background to differentiate my morality-proper from pseudo-morality.
Do you accept theistic morality as reasonable morality.
It is the same with all the existing major moral systems, they have their limited pros but are all heavily criticized for their cons from all angles.
I'd ensured what I proposed as morality-proper do not have the cons of the pseudo-moral systems and I can anticipate whatever objections knowable and possible.

Well that's just adorable. But it's bullshit, everybody knows that morality is about what is right and what is wrong. If everybody knows it (and everybody does know it) then it is truth, it is fact, and you are wrong to deny it.

Everybody???
Doesn't that sound very familiar to you? Remember the flat-earthers or the current >90% of theists on earth.

What counts as credible truth is that it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

If you survey ALL the behaviors of humans from the past to the present, there is a certain pattern of behavior that are preferred to be avoided by people, i.e. generally positive or negative in some ways.
These behaviors could also be termed as good or bad, good or evil, right or wrong, proper or improper, and the likes.

This pattern of behavior, i.e. proper or improper, good or evil, right or wrong is identified as the general term 'morality' aka 'ethics.
However since theism is believed by >80% of humans at present, that pattern of behavior has been identified with good or evil, i.e. evil as influenced by Satan or the devil.

Regardless of the above terms used, what is critical is whether they have any ground or foundation that can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

What grounding does theistic morality [believed by >80% of people] has other than to insist 'God said so!'.
Similarly all other secular moral systems also do not have any solid verifiable and justifiable groundings.
This is why I label them as pseudo-morality.

In my case, what is morality-proper is its foundation is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

So the consensus among all the speakers of English, all the dictionaries, and pretty much everyone except you that morality really is about goodness and badness and right and wrong .... this you reject because it doesn't correspond to a fact about the world that you know and that everyone else doesn't.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:17 am In my case, what is morality-proper is its foundation is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

And do you see how circular that is yet? You have a "credible" FSK that is only "credible" AFTER you accept that it grants such credibility. That's why you can't persuade anyone, ever, anywhere, that your FSK counts for anything.

THAT'S WHY CIRCULARITY IS A PROBLEM.
Ignore fools who convince themselves and you that it's just some trick of the philosophical trade to discount arguments for circularity. The reason we do it is because circular arguments have no persuasive power.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:10 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:39 am
I have answered your question but you are blinded by confirmation bias.

It started with this;


When a belief is institutionalized within a FSK, it qualify as knowledge and such knowledge is independent of individuals' beliefs or opinions.

Example of the above knowledge is a below;
Note E=MC2 is a scientific knowledge and it exists.
But E=MC2 is only valid within the Einsteinian-Physics FSK as independent from any individual person's belief.
A FSK is a human construct, therefore the above knowledge cannot be independent of the human conditions.

The above knowledge exists because there is a scientific-physics FSK that supports its existence.

What is the ontology of the above knowledge?
The ontology of the above knowledge is grounded on the conditions and structure of the FSK which is constructed by humans.

What is the problem of the above?

So then how is any of this independent of human beliefs (So that it's independent of any and all human beliefs in general)?

E=MC2 is E=MC2 per scientific-physics FSK which is independent of any individuals' belief of it.

To make it simpler,
if the scientific-biological FSK define an eel as a fish, it is independent of any individuals' belief if anyone who insist an eel is a snake.
But the scientific-biological FSK is a human construct, thus the ultimate reality is what is a snake is not independent of the human condition.

Note I argued in the other post,
there is no supposed-real-snake that is absolutely independent of the human mind in the ultimate sense. [note Russell's view therein]

You are in major contradiction here. Would you like me to set you straight or would you prefer to carry on and provide amusement to others?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:38 am And do you see how circular that is yet? You have a "credible" FSK that is only "credible" AFTER you accept that it grants such credibility. That's why you can't persuade anyone, ever, anywhere, that your FSK counts for anything.

THAT'S WHY CIRCULARITY IS A PROBLEM.
Ignore fools who convince themselves and you that it's just some trick of the philosophical trade to discount arguments for circularity.

That is how science works, you fucking retard!

If you don't accept the credibility of the scientific framework there is no argument anybody can ever present to convince you to accept the credibility of science.

As a scientist you voluntarily accept the orthodoxy of the community - you adopt the prescribed measurement units.
As a scientist you voluntarily calibrate yourself with the existing standard (rather than re-invent your own)
As a scientist you voluntarily adopt the existing language/formalists (rather than re-invent your own)
As a scientist you voluntarily give up some of your autonomy and accept the community's social norms or you will end up being a community of one.

ALL the SI units of measurement are circularly defined.

We didn't define the meter and second in terms of the speed of light.
We defined the speed of light in terms of the units that we invented (meter/second) and then we flipped the definition.

That's as circular as it gets! But it works and so scientists don't give a fuck.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:38 am The reason we do it is because circular arguments have no persuasive power.

You can't even see the irony, can you?

You have a "credible" FSK that is only "credible" AFTER you accept that it grants such credibility.
You have a "persuasive" argument that is only "persuasive" AFTER you accept that argumentation is persuasive

So what argument are you going to present to somebody who doesn't accept the persuasive power of argumentation to accept that arguments should be persuasive?

Philosophy is a circular FSK. And you accept it just fine.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:38 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:17 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:01 am
Well that's just adorable. But it's bullshit, everybody knows that morality is about what is right and what is wrong. If everybody knows it (and everybody does know it) then it is truth, it is fact, and you are wrong to deny it.

Everybody???
Doesn't that sound very familiar to you? Remember the flat-earthers or the current >90% of theists on earth.

What counts as credible truth is that it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

If you survey ALL the behaviors of humans from the past to the present, there is a certain pattern of behavior that are preferred to be avoided by people, i.e. generally positive or negative in some ways.
These behaviors could also be termed as good or bad, good or evil, right or wrong, proper or improper, and the likes.

This pattern of behavior, i.e. proper or improper, good or evil, right or wrong is identified as the general term 'morality' aka 'ethics.
However since theism is believed by >80% of humans at present, that pattern of behavior has been identified with good or evil, i.e. evil as influenced by Satan or the devil.

Regardless of the above terms used, what is critical is whether they have any ground or foundation that can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

What grounding does theistic morality [believed by >80% of people] has other than to insist 'God said so!'.
Similarly all other secular moral systems also do not have any solid verifiable and justifiable groundings.
This is why I label them as pseudo-morality.

In my case, what is morality-proper is its foundation is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

So the consensus among all the speakers of English, all the dictionaries, and pretty much everyone except you that morality really is about goodness and badness and right and wrong .... this you reject because it doesn't correspond to a fact about the world that you know and that everyone else doesn't.

Nope you got it wrong.

As stated I do not prefer the terms right or wrong, because these terms are too loose, while I accept 'goodness' as 'not-evilness' but I do not prefer 'badness' because it does not cover the full taxonomy of acts I considered as 'evil'.
Note this, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/#

Btw, I do not reject the pseudo-moral systems I mentioned totally. There are specific areas within them which has merit and I agree with them. For example I will somewhat agree with the moral maxim of the Ten Commandments, i.e. 'Thou Shalt not Kill' period! I do not agree with the whole theistic moral system as grounded on a God and its other 'moral' maxims.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:17 am In my case, what is morality-proper is its foundation is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

And do you see how circular that is yet? You have a "credible" FSK that is only "credible" AFTER you accept that it grants such credibility. That's why you can't persuade anyone, ever, anywhere, that your FSK counts for anything.

THAT'S WHY CIRCULARITY IS A PROBLEM.
Ignore fools who convince themselves and you that it's just some trick of the philosophical trade to discount arguments for circularity. The reason we do it is because circular arguments have no persuasive power.

When I wrote the above, I had anticipated you will climb up the Mt Everest and shout the mantra of 'Circularity'.

If you put the above in a syllogism, yes there is the circularity of classical logic.

Note I had been insisting,
"scientific truths are credible because they depend on a credible scientific FSK" where there is an obvious 'circularity'.
In you insist it is fallacious because of circularity in accordance to classical logic, then something is missing with classical logic, because scientific truths had been adapted into so much utilities that has been positive to the progress of mankind.

What you are ignorant is that there are two major sense to 'circularity' i.e. in the narrow and the broad sense.
What you are harping on is merely in the narrow sense which is useful but limited.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:07 am So when I reject your power of persuasion, you are left with your dick in your hand trying to persuade anybody with arguments.

No, I just use you as an example of what can go wrong when a grown man becomes addicted to sniffing his own farts. You end up with specious claims to the effect that without adopting scientific axioms nobody would believe that an apple can fall from a tree, or any of the other observations of the real world that preceeded all relevant scientific theory.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:14 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:38 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:17 am
Everybody???
Doesn't that sound very familiar to you? Remember the flat-earthers or the current >90% of theists on earth.

What counts as credible truth is that it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

If you survey ALL the behaviors of humans from the past to the present, there is a certain pattern of behavior that are preferred to be avoided by people, i.e. generally positive or negative in some ways.
These behaviors could also be termed as good or bad, good or evil, right or wrong, proper or improper, and the likes.

This pattern of behavior, i.e. proper or improper, good or evil, right or wrong is identified as the general term 'morality' aka 'ethics.
However since theism is believed by >80% of humans at present, that pattern of behavior has been identified with good or evil, i.e. evil as influenced by Satan or the devil.

Regardless of the above terms used, what is critical is whether they have any ground or foundation that can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

What grounding does theistic morality [believed by >80% of people] has other than to insist 'God said so!'.
Similarly all other secular moral systems also do not have any solid verifiable and justifiable groundings.
This is why I label them as pseudo-morality.

In my case, what is morality-proper is its foundation is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

So the consensus among all the speakers of English, all the dictionaries, and pretty much everyone except you that morality really is about goodness and badness and right and wrong .... this you reject because it doesn't correspond to a fact about the world that you know and that everyone else doesn't.

Nope you got it wrong.

As stated I do not prefer the terms right or wrong, because these terms are too loose, while I accept 'goodness' as 'not-evilness' but I not prefer 'badness' because it does not cover the full taxonomy of acts I considered as 'evil'.
Note this, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/#

Btw, I do not reject the pseudo-moral systems I mentioned. There are specific areas within them which has merit and I agree with them. For example I will somewhat agree with the moral maxim of the Ten Commandments, i.e. 'Thou Shalt not Kill' period! I do not agree with the whole theistic moral system as grounded on a God and its other 'moral' maxims.

Yeah, so you rely on your FSK that only you believe in, and that only you can believe in, because belief in it is a requirement to believe the arguments that sustain it, to argue that everyone else is wrong. But that is entirely contradictory to your own description of what is fact.

You can do a little dance where you call the whole of our moral language "pseudo" if you want, but those of us who have an actual education in philosophy have seen that trick before with such items as "folk psychology", and we aren't fooled.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:14 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:17 am In my case, what is morality-proper is its foundation is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

And do you see how circular that is yet? You have a "credible" FSK that is only "credible" AFTER you accept that it grants such credibility. That's why you can't persuade anyone, ever, anywhere, that your FSK counts for anything.

THAT'S WHY CIRCULARITY IS A PROBLEM.
Ignore fools who convince themselves and you that it's just some trick of the philosophical trade to discount arguments for circularity. The reason we do it is because circular arguments have no persuasive power.

When I wrote the above, I had anticipated you will climbed up the Mt Everest and shout the mantra of 'Circularity'.

If you put the above in a syllogism, yes there is the circularity of classical logic.

Note I had been insisting,
"scientific truths are credible because they depend on a credible scientific FSK" where there is an obvious 'circularity'.
In you insist it is fallacious because of circularity in accordance to classical logic, then something is missing with classical logic, because scientific truths had been adapted into so much utilities that has been positive to the progress of mankind.

What you are ignorant is that there are two major sense to 'circularity' i.e. in the narrow and the broad sense.
What you are harping on is merely in the narrow sense which is useful but limited.

You've been insisting that science is just as circular as your thing for ages. But it's not true. There are exotic branches of modern science that do weird things and arguably require an act of faith to understand. But there is a system there that originated with rather simple explanations for empirical observations with the naked eye, and that is what the rest of it is built up from.

Your FSK relies on itself to ground even its simplest piece of information, which is this notion that you can convert opinions about morality into empirical data about morality without fundamentally changing the type of item you are dealing with.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:39 am I have answered your question but you are blinded by confirmation bias.

Words that emerge from an increasingly desperate struggle to revive a dead hobby horse.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:15 am No, I just use you as an example of what can go wrong when a grown man becomes addicted to sniffing his own farts.

You didn't need me for that - you had thousands of years of Philosophy.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:15 am You end up with specious claims to the effect that without adopting scientific axioms nobody would believe that an apple can fall from a tree, or any of the other observations of the real world that preceeded all relevant scientific theory.

But isn't that the exact same specious claim you are making with respect to morality?!?!?!?

You currently hold this exact belief!

In the absence of a moral theory you reject the objectivity of morality. Even though you can directly observe that which you call morality.
So what is your "disagreement" about, really? Do you even know or are you just disagreeing out of habit/philosophical cultural norm?

Like I said - you are too stupid to even be explained to.

A Newtonian interprets their sense data as "apple falls".
A General Relativists interprets their sense data as "apple is following the curvature of spacetime".

So, is the disagreement really about the contents of our experience or the interpretation/narration thereof?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:25 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:14 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:38 am
So the consensus among all the speakers of English, all the dictionaries, and pretty much everyone except you that morality really is about goodness and badness and right and wrong .... this you reject because it doesn't correspond to a fact about the world that you know and that everyone else doesn't.

Nope you got it wrong.

As stated I do not prefer the terms right or wrong, because these terms are too loose, while I accept 'goodness' as 'not-evilness' but I not prefer 'badness' because it does not cover the full taxonomy of acts I considered as 'evil'.
Note this, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/#

Btw, I do not reject the pseudo-moral systems I mentioned. There are specific areas within them which has merit and I agree with them. For example I will somewhat agree with the moral maxim of the Ten Commandments, i.e. 'Thou Shalt not Kill' period! I do not agree with the whole theistic moral system as grounded on a God and its other 'moral' maxims.

Yeah, so you rely on your FSK that only you believe in, and that only you can believe in, because belief in it is a requirement to believe the arguments that sustain it, to argue that everyone else is wrong. But that is entirely contradictory to your own description of what is fact.

You can do a little dance where you call the whole of our moral language "pseudo" if you want, but those of us who have an actual education in philosophy have seen that trick before with such items as "folk psychology", and we aren't fooled.

When I wrote the above, I had anticipated you will climbed up the Mt Everest and shout the mantra of 'Circularity'.

If you put the above in a syllogism, yes there is the circularity of classical logic.

Note I had been insisting,
"scientific truths are credible because they depend on a credible scientific FSK" where there is an obvious 'circularity'.
In you insist it is fallacious because of circularity in accordance to classical logic, then something is missing with classical logic, because scientific truths had been adapted into so much utilities that has been positive to the progress of mankind.

What you are ignorant is that there are two major sense to 'circularity' i.e. in the narrow and the broad sense.
What you are harping on is merely in the narrow sense which is useful but limited.

You've been insisting that science is just as circular as your thing for ages. But it's not true. There are exotic branches of modern science that do weird things and arguably require an act of faith to understand. But there is a system there that originated with rather simple explanations for empirical observations with the naked eye, and that is what the rest of it is built up from.

Your FSK relies on itself to ground even its simplest piece of information, which is this notion that you can convert opinions about morality into empirical data about morality without fundamentally changing the type of item you are dealing with.

You don't even understand how science escapes circularity in the narrow sense.
In addition you don't understand the limitation of classical logic which strength is based on abstraction, i.e. stripping all elements of reality naked to get its way.

Note I linked following on how science generate credibility, reliability and confidence levels with minimal faith.
The Credibility and Reliability of Science
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

I claimed my moral FSK has almost all of the above features in justifying its credibility thus avoiding circularity in the narrow sense but within acceptable circularity in the broader sense.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:29 am Words that emerge from an increasingly desperate struggle to revive a dead hobby horse.

Words that emerge from Philosopher's own need for self-preservation/self-justification.

Every culture and tribe fights to preserve its traditions, practices and values in its desperate struggle to not be forgotten.