For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I read all your answers but I am not satisfied. Let's see how do you fill the gap between is and ought given the definition.
Existence has to do with correctness.Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:40 pmExistence qua existence has nothing to do with it.
Do you mean rational beings?
Yes, animals are not rational but they are a part of the equation (how we/humans should treat animals).
I agree. The problem however is how you make a relation between is and ought. Noone telling you whether ethics is not a mental concept here.
Yes, and the source is mental.
I think that ethics depends on two principles, feelings and thoughts. Feelings move us while thought put constraints on feelings and give us directions.
How do you find a balanced solution? What are your criteria?
I can.
The issue of Hume's "No Ought From IS" [NOFI] had been discussed earlier and I had raised 13 threads to show it is possible for "ought" to emerge from "IS".
Yes it's insufficient, it doesn't address the issue at all and shows zero understanding of the problem.Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:43 pm >You suppose incorrectly, brevity is good. But understanding the problem before announcing that you've fixed it with the specious contents of a fortune cookie is better still.
The best wisdom is that which is as simple as possible, but no simpler. Are you saying my answer is insufficient? In what particular respect?
>If you understood it properly, the is/ought thing is just an observation about the logical relationship between facts and values. It's not really a problem that needs a solution.
It's a problem at least that people don't understand the logical relationship.
circular at P2Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:22 am
- 'Ought' is 'Is'
Here is the argument and explanation;
- P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.
But reality also includes wrongness. Therefore, C1 does not follow. Therefore, C2 does not follow.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:22 amThe issue of Hume's "No Ought From IS" [NOFI] had been discussed earlier and I had raised 13 threads to show it is possible for "ought" to emerge from "IS".
There were many counters, but I have not received any convincing counters to the 13 threads I raised.
Here is one critical thread
'Ought' is 'Is' within Reality, i.e. All-there-is.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30737
In any case the issue of No Ought From IS [NOFI] is a trivial issue for Morality:
- 'Ought' is 'Is'
Here is the argument and explanation;The point is reality, being, is just all-there-is.
- P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.
However, humans being self-aware is imbued with the awareness of duality for various reasons.
When Hume insisted 'there can be no ought from is' he was trapped in a world of duality but unable to realize the original and more fundamental truth of all-there-is encompasses the human self as well.
The above entrapment is also suffered by the blinded and they failed to realize the fundamental truth of reality just as all-there-is
Note this all-there-is has nothing to do with any God at all but merely refer to what is really-real, i.e. all-there-is, being_ness.
Re the above argument is applicable to Morality [as defined generally];
- P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises and includes moral 'ought_ness'.
C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.
Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29758
There's no standard distinction between the terms.Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:36 pm >That's inventing a novel distinction between morality/ethics simply because they're two different words.
The distinction is real, and matters, as indicated in this conversation and many others. Since the word "ethics" already tends to be used for professional and explicit purposes, mine is the most helpful distinction in language to manage that important difference.
His C1 is okay: if we're making an inventory of all existent phenomena, that inventory will include oughts, simply because people say and think things like "one ought not remove toast from a plugged-in toaster with a fork" and "one ought not force someone else to remove toast from a plugged-in toaster with a fork."bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:38 amBut reality also includes wrongness. Therefore, C1 does not follow. Therefore, C2 does not follow.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:22 amThe issue of Hume's "No Ought From IS" [NOFI] had been discussed earlier and I had raised 13 threads to show it is possible for "ought" to emerge from "IS".
There were many counters, but I have not received any convincing counters to the 13 threads I raised.
Here is one critical thread
'Ought' is 'Is' within Reality, i.e. All-there-is.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30737
In any case the issue of No Ought From IS [NOFI] is a trivial issue for Morality:
- 'Ought' is 'Is'
Here is the argument and explanation;The point is reality, being, is just all-there-is.
- P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.
However, humans being self-aware is imbued with the awareness of duality for various reasons.
When Hume insisted 'there can be no ought from is' he was trapped in a world of duality but unable to realize the original and more fundamental truth of all-there-is encompasses the human self as well.
The above entrapment is also suffered by the blinded and they failed to realize the fundamental truth of reality just as all-there-is
Note this all-there-is has nothing to do with any God at all but merely refer to what is really-real, i.e. all-there-is, being_ness.
Re the above argument is applicable to Morality [as defined generally];
- P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises and includes moral 'ought_ness'.
C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.
Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29758
Think or feel?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:05 pmHis C1 is okay: if we're making an inventory of all existent phenomena, that inventory will include oughts, simply because people say and think things like "one ought not remove toast from a plugged-in toaster with a fork" and "one ought not force someone else to remove toast from a plugged-in toaster with a fork."bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:38 amBut reality also includes wrongness. Therefore, C1 does not follow. Therefore, C2 does not follow.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:22 am
The issue of Hume's "No Ought From IS" [NOFI] had been discussed earlier and I had raised 13 threads to show it is possible for "ought" to emerge from "IS".
There were many counters, but I have not received any convincing counters to the 13 threads I raised.
Here is one critical thread
'Ought' is 'Is' within Reality, i.e. All-there-is.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30737
In any case the issue of No Ought From IS [NOFI] is a trivial issue for Morality:
- 'Ought' is 'Is'
Here is the argument and explanation;The point is reality, being, is just all-there-is.
- P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'.
C1 Thus 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore ought is derivable from "is'.
However, humans being self-aware is imbued with the awareness of duality for various reasons.
When Hume insisted 'there can be no ought from is' he was trapped in a world of duality but unable to realize the original and more fundamental truth of all-there-is encompasses the human self as well.
The above entrapment is also suffered by the blinded and they failed to realize the fundamental truth of reality just as all-there-is
Note this all-there-is has nothing to do with any God at all but merely refer to what is really-real, i.e. all-there-is, being_ness.
Re the above argument is applicable to Morality [as defined generally];
- P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
P2 All-there-is comprises and includes moral 'ought_ness'.
C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.
Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29758
C2 is right if C1 is right.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:05 pm The problem is with C2. The issue is that no is implies any ought. That oughts exist a la people saying and thinking them doesn't itself imply any ought.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:00 pmI think there could be a confusion here. What is the case is that people use 'ought' and 'should' in assertions. That is a fact - a feature of reality. But that doesn't mean that 'oughts' and 'shoulds' - or 'oughtness' and 'shouldness' are 'existent phenomena' - features of reality. And that's what VA means.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:05 pm
His C1 is okay: if we're making an inventory of all existent phenomena, that inventory will include oughts, simply because people say and think things like "one ought not remove toast from a plugged-in toaster with a fork" and "one ought not force someone else to remove toast from a plugged-in toaster with a fork."
It's mental content they have due to a disposition they have. We can call any mental content that's in the form of a sentence a "thought"--that's a common way to use the word "thought," and our dispositions, when conscious at least, are types of feelings.
No. A fact that someone thinks "X ought to y" doesn't imply "X ought to y." We could say it implies that they think this, but it doesn't imply "X ought to y" outside of that context, that it's necessarily just a report of what an individual thinks.C2 is right if C1 is right.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:05 pm The problem is with C2. The issue is that no is implies any ought. That oughts exist a la people saying and thinking them doesn't itself imply any ought.
Why not?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:58 pm A fact that someone thinks "X ought to y" doesn't imply "X ought to y."
No, it isn't. It's a statement reporting that I am thinking about acting upon my intent.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:58 pm We could say it implies that they think this, but it doesn't imply "X ought to y" outside of that context, that it's necessarily just a report of what an individual thinks.
Are you saying that what you are trying to say is not objectively true and it is only your opinion (considering the bold part)?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:58 pmIt's mental content they have due to a disposition they have. We can call any mental content that's in the form of a sentence a "thought"--that's a common way to use the word "thought," and our dispositions, when conscious at least, are types of feelings.
No. A fact that someone thinks "X ought to y" doesn't imply "X ought to y." We could say it implies that they think this, but it doesn't imply "X ought to y" outside of that context, that it's necessarily just a report of what an individual thinks.C2 is right if C1 is right.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:05 pm The problem is with C2. The issue is that no is implies any ought. That oughts exist a la people saying and thinking them doesn't itself imply any ought.
That anything is the case doesn't imply that it should be the case.