TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:34 am
In principle there must be 'absolute' objective ground to justify why an act is absolutely wrong, otherwise the other people who oppose will argue why should they accept it.
As such we need to establish these grounds in which there is not other ways but to accept them as 'absolute'.
The symbol-grounding problem stands in your way though. From game theory I have two strategies to interact with you - I can either co-operate, or oppose you. If you are accusing me of "moral wrong-doing" (whereas I think it's selfish well-being) then I have every incentive to oppose you.
And so I can deploy tactics like deconstruction, skepticism to justify that your "rules" were not "clear enough" to be unambiguously interpreted.
Game theory is win-lose or vice versa. I am proposing a win-win model.
What I have proposed is not based on existing conditions but rather in the future with its expected conditions.
When the Framework is implemented eventually you will not be opposing any argument but will spontaneously flow and align toward the ideals on your own.
At present there is an existing trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, especially the neurosciences, genomics, and others.
Based on the above trends, I am confident in the near future there will be available fool proofs way to increase the IQ, EQ, spiritual quotient, philosophical wisdom Q, moral quotient [MQ] and other relevant Qs.
In the case of the self-improving and regulating moral function within humans, we will need to increase the average existing MQ with a >300% increase in order for my proposed Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to be effective. This take years, may >50, 75 or 100 years but it is feasible.
Note at present all humans has the potential to kill but 95% [debatable ?] of people don't kill other humans intentionally. Why?
We need to find out why and make it explicit in terms of neurosciences and other fields of knowledge to driven the inherent progressive Morality expeditiously.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:34 am
We can use the above formula to establish '
absolute moral laws which no greater morality can exist.'
I have provided a starting basis, the question is how we get to it.
If you intend to define such framework in language (logos/logic) then Godel's incompleteness theorems stand in your way.
My proposed Framework and System will be something like the Scientific Framework but it is driven by objective moral principles abstracted from empirical evidences.
Because it is not jurisprudence, the established objective moral principles are not enforceable but it processed and worked within the individual brains as supported by the appropriate neural networks.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:34 am
Killing another human being is the worst act of immorality.
Eh? I disagree. Killing is amoral. Murder is immoral. Self-defence is moral.
With the moral framework I proposed 'killing another human being is absolutely not permitted' no ifs nor buts.
Where killing is amoral, that is dealt within politics and the legislature and judiciary.
As the Framework increases in efficiency within the individual[s] the legislature/judiciary will have less work to do.
In your case, it is a matter of indifference, i.e. because it is human nature, so some forms of killing are unavoidable, therefore acceptable. So let the courts decide. QED??
In my case, if there are any killings and in line with the purpose of the moral Framework of 'no killing', we will strive to dig out the root causes to prevent future killings re self-defense, passion, war, legal executions, suicides, etc.
I believe in the future humanity is capable of achieving no killing by another human being except in accidental or natural cases. But we need an effective Framework to facilitate continual improvements toward that goal.
And if we disagree on this, then we can use it as a perfect platform for demonstrating Game Theory. Try and convince me that killing is wrong.
There are grounds why 'Killing' is absolutely wrong as a non-enforceable objective principle. I am not going into the details on this.
At one level it has to do with basic human dignity because killing another person is an insult [dehumanizing] to oneself as a human being, i.e. a self recognition that one is an animal and expect oneself to be treated as such.
There are people who will agree to be dehumanized but we cannot generalize that for humanity.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:10 am
The Morality and Ethical functions are confined within the mind of the person where the individual is the moral Police, Persecutor, Judge and Jury all by him/herself activated spontaneously.
Language is a tool for communication. It is terribly flawed when you want to define any "absolutes" with it and is open to interpretation. In fact - a single error leads to the Principle of explosion (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion )
As I had proposed whatever absolutes we arrived for moral consideration is merely a guide and not something enforceable.
These reasoned absolutes [inevitable to all by consensus*] are the necessary fixed goal posts for humanity to improve morality on a continual basis.
Note no normal human being would volunteer or agree to be killed by another human or other means.
Thus it is not difficult to postulate this as an absolute moral law [an ideal], i.e.
"Killing another human being is not permitted, no its, no buts"
I also don't think any such framework can be formulated in a deontologoical (which is mathematically isomorphic to axiomatic) framework.
Consequentialism is your best and only bet. I am willing to role-play it out with you to convince you
The above is not a deontological Framework.
If you note, what I have proposed is a System-based Framework of Morality and Ethics with absolute objective principles as the main input as fixed goals and good moral acts as output by the individuals.
Consequentialism itself is based on moving goal posts.
My proposed framework will include consequentialism where results must be controlled against the fixed objective ideals to enable corrective actions and thus continuous improvements.