Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:51 am I believe you are too 'emotional' with the term 'ought' as if it is a serious command from some authority.
Point is since it is programmed then the 'ought' logically follows.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:38 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 11:41 am
QED
That is PURE doctrinaire.

You can justify the opinion as much as you like. That does not make it a fact.
It is clearly evident that this is NOT an opinion shared by humans throughout history. Killing is as much a part of the human moral experience as any thing else.

People, do, in fact go around killing people: murder, mayhem, revenge, legal executions, warfare- legal and illegal.

"Normal" - what a can of worms that is!!
I do not regard YOU as normal. Because normal people know the difference between suggestions, opinions and doctrines.

I have no need to kill to prove you wrong. "Normal" people (so called) kill people all the time.
Of the tens of thousands of soldiers engaged in warfare the world over - how many of them do you consider the be abnormal?

Being silly does not advance your claim.

It is most ignorant & stupid [relative to this forum] to insist we cannot verify and justify an opinion.

It is always stupid to portray an opinon as objective fact, as you do.

Note most scientific facts started as opinions [conjectures] upon a hunch, then converted into a hypothesis and when the hypothesis is verified and justified scientifically, then that original opinion is a polished-conjecture.

There is a big difference between an hypothesis which requires testing and your opinions. Hypotheses are taked as not "factual" until proven. Your opions as so far expressed and not capable of the most basic forms of scientific falsifyability or epirical verification. They are not even in the right kinds of category of ideas.

One of the most assuring process to a theory and knowledge is self-experience so that it is personally self-evident.

That's what ALL flat earthers say. ANd surely it is alsi self evident that the earth is the centre of the universe.

Why don't you go out and kill some people in a massage parlor or anywhere?
WHY???

Why do people do that. WHY????? WHY???

Hey, you need to go back to the proper philosophical kindergarten school and start again.

You always fall down on insults, when you are flummoxed.
As you answer you know you are failing in your arguments. Rather than tell others to go back to school, you are just projecting as you know you lack critical self awareness, and deep down you know you are wrong.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:51 am I believe you are too 'emotional' with the term 'ought' as if it is a serious command from some authority.
Point is since it is programmed then the 'ought' logically follows.

If that were true you wouldn't need any modifiers. But you do, because psychopaths follow their "programming" to kill, and paedos follows theirs to rape babies. So people can follow this programming to evil ends.

Thus you cannot logically claim that oughtness comes from the progroamming - because there is some programming that ought to be different. So what is this thing that supersedes this programming and confers the ought?

It cannot be that only "normal" programming is good, because then you end up with a categorical imperative to "be normal", which would have the obviously absurd outcome of rendering heroism morally undesirable.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:51 am I believe you are too 'emotional' with the term 'ought' as if it is a serious command from some authority.
Point is since it is programmed then the 'ought' logically follows.

If that were true you wouldn't need any modifiers. But you do, because psychopaths follow their "programming" to kill, and paedos follows theirs to rape babies. So people can follow this programming to evil ends.

Thus you cannot logically claim that oughtness comes from the progroamming - because there is some programming that ought to be different. So what is this thing that supersedes this programming and confers the ought?

It cannot be that only "normal" programming is good, because then you end up with a categorical imperative to "be normal", which would have the obviously absurd outcome of rendering heroism morally undesirable.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:19 am Not to mention that nothing supports "one ought to be normal/one ought to conform to normality" in the first place.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 5:29 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:38 am
It is most ignorant & stupid [relative to this forum] to insist we cannot verify and justify an opinion.

It is always stupid to portray an opinon as objective fact, as you do.

Note most scientific facts started as opinions [conjectures] upon a hunch, then converted into a hypothesis and when the hypothesis is verified and justified scientifically, then that original opinion is a polished-conjecture.

There is a big difference between an hypothesis which requires testing and your opinions. Hypotheses are taked as not "factual" until proven. Your opions as so far expressed and not capable of the most basic forms of scientific falsifyability or epirical verification. They are not even in the right kinds of category of ideas.

One of the most assuring process to a theory and knowledge is self-experience so that it is personally self-evident.

That's what ALL flat earthers say. ANd surely it is alsi self evident that the earth is the centre of the universe.

Why don't you go out and kill some people in a massage parlor or anywhere?
WHY???

Why do people do that. WHY????? WHY???

Hey, you need to go back to the proper philosophical kindergarten school and start again.

You always fall down on insults, when you are flummoxed.
As you answer you know you are failing in your arguments. Rather than tell others to go back to school, you are just projecting as you know you lack critical self awareness, and deep down you know you are wrong.

Point is you keep accusing my views as opinion even I have presented verifications and justification they are moral facts within a moral FSK.

One of the most efficient ways to recognize knowledge is to start with self-evident experience but of course that has to be confirmed with independent verification and justification via a credible FSK.

One may have faith when scientists claimed the fact that lemons are sour but one will depend on less faith and increase one's confidence level if one personally experienced the taste of lemons as sour ceteris paribus

It is the same with the moral fact which is existing within your self and experienced by yourself.

That is the starting point to have a person conviction it is 99.9% true to you personally.
Then you get it verified and justified within a credible moral framework to confirm it is a moral fact objectively to get that AHA! confirmation.

Point is you keep accusing my views as opinion

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 5:50 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:51 am I believe you are too 'emotional' with the term 'ought' as if it is a serious command from some authority.
Point is since it is programmed then the 'ought' logically follows.

If that were true you wouldn't need any modifiers. But you do, because psychopaths follow their "programming" to kill, and paedos follows theirs to rape babies. So people can follow this programming to evil ends.

Thus you cannot logically claim that oughtness comes from the progroamming - because there is some programming that ought to be different. So what is this thing that supersedes this programming and confers the ought?

It cannot be that only "normal" programming is good, because then you end up with a categorical imperative to "be normal", which would have the obviously absurd outcome of rendering heroism morally undesirable.

There are evidence to support the thesis that ALL human are 'programmed' to survive till the inevitable and for that they are "programmed" to kill living things for food, against serious threats, etc.
The main program in this case if 'survival' not killing of humans.

There is no evidence to support any thesis that ALL humans are 'programmed' to kill humans arbitrary without justifications.

Malignant psychopaths kill humans because their program of 'ought not to kill humans' is weakened and or damaged. This is recognized within the psychiatric [DSM-V] and psychology community.
So malignant psychopaths do not follow any inherent 'program' to evil ends. Rather they end up with evil because their inherent program 'not to kill humans' is damaged.

One can still be heroic without killing humans.
Whatever [justified, heroic or not] that involve killing of humans is not in alignment with the inherent moral fact, i.e. "ought-not_ness to kill humans" thus need improvements.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:36 am That a program is normally instantiated in a particular way doesn't imply that it's supposed to be or that it ought to be instantiated that way.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 5:29 am Point is you keep accusing my views as opinion even I have presented verifications and justification they are moral facts within a moral FSK.

Your FSK (WETF that is) IS AN OPINION.

One of the most efficient ways to recognize knowledge is to start with self-evident experience but of course that has to be confirmed with independent verification and justification via a credible FSK.

Your FSK is not credible

One may have faith when scientists claimed the fact that lemons are sour but one will depend on less faith and increase one's confidence level if one personally experienced the taste of lemons as sour ceteris paribus

Faith is for priests and other idiots.
The sourness of lemons is subjective. Take care you do not slip up here. LOL

• The juice of the lemon is about 5% to 6% citric acid, with a pH of around 2.2, giving it a sour taste. The distinctive sour taste of lemon juice makes it a key ingredient in drinks and foods such as lemonade and lemon meringue pie.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon

It is the same with the moral fact which is existing within your self and experienced by yourself.

Yes - like the sourness of lemons , moral "facts" are subjective. And as people have disagreed with yours that verifies their subjectivity.

That is the starting point to have a person conviction it is 99.9% true to you personally.
Then you get it verified and justified within a credible moral framework to confirm it is a moral fact objectively to get that AHA! confirmation.

AHA. LOL

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:36 am That a program is normally instantiated in a particular way doesn't imply that it's supposed to be or that it ought to be instantiated that way.

Once again that simply amounts to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

• 1. All humans are 'programmed' to live till the inevitable.
  2. To live till the inevitable, ALL humans are programmed to breathe, else they die.
  3. IF 1 then 2 ought to follow.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:52 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:36 am That a program is normally instantiated in a particular way doesn't imply that it's supposed to be or that it ought to be instantiated that way.

Once again that simply amounts to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

What is that?

In any program,
IF X, then Y ought to follow.

Whether Y follows or not is not relevant in this case.
What is of relevant here is that 'oughtness' within the program itself that is a fact.

• 1. All humans are 'programmed' to live till the inevitable.
  2. To live till the inevitable, ALL humans are programmed to breathe, else they die.
  3. IF 1 then 2 ought to follow.

What is fact is that oughtness to breathe which is an inherent force that is supported by its physical mechanisms.
If someone who is suicidal and decided not to breathe, one cannot deny that fact of 'the oughtness to breathe' exists while he [any human] is alive.

It is the same with moral oughtness as fact within the brain and physical self of the person.

Your claim of argumentum ad populum fallacy is itself fallacious.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:41 am This argument is invalid, because the premise doesn't entail the conclusion; the conclusion doesn't follow deductively from the premise; it's not the case that in any situation in which the premise is (or is taken to be) true, the conclusion must be (or be taken to be) true.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:41 am You don't understand how English speakers use the word 'ought' in this context.