Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 5:27 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:54 am Read Robert Greene's works. You may change your mind on your definitions of 'morality' as something literally 'universal'.

What you might think is 'universal' value is actually universal acceptance of No-univeral-values. I argue that Totality cannot occur without contradiction. This then means that contradiction is the 'universal rule' and that the subjective particular perspective is where 'morals' appear fixed or constant because to you all that matters is if your environment is concordant with your own selfish wills. When this occurs, you interpret the world as "universally moral" when this illusion is only fitting of how you successful you are IN that environment.

The "48 Laws of Power" is more on politics than morality where both are dealt separately by different functions in the brain.

It is not a matter how how successful one is IN that environment.

Morality is individual human centric on a generic basis - thus universal as applicable to all human beings.

So the focus in my case is, how well an individual can be successful as a human being within ANY environment.

To do so, as I had proposed we need secular objective moral laws as a GUIDE for our proposed Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

To ensure efficiency the Framework, the human activities of each individual human must be leverage on the neural circuits of their brain to enable success.
I believe I have mentioned Mirror Neurons, the Human Connectome Project, the Human Genomic Project, advances in neurosciences, information technology, etc. which we must bring them into focus.

Note the final outcome is not focus on the secular objective absolute moral laws, but how can humanity can increase and improve on the morality quotient and competence of each individual person.

What you have proposed for morality and good/right behavior, i.e. with the significant involvement from Politics, it will not be efficient since as you should know [very evident], politics and its desperation for POWER is inherent very 'dirty' with those in control, the elites.

If I am alone and isolated from anybody, what does it mean to have any 'morals'? The idea of morals is about how we RELATE with others and why I interpret this as a 'politic', a convention between two or more people where we negotiate means to enhance cooperative behaviors that don't infringe upon one anothers freedoms.

When discussing neural activity, I don't define any activity on this level as relevant to relationships, even if they may have logic that aides in cooperative behaviors externally. On this level, 'morals' are non-existent.

Can you, for instance, assert some point at which something at the most elemental level of physics/chemistry that is a 'moral' atom? And if you do, what should that element mean? Would you not have to then ask if such an atom is sincerely something 'moral' without begging some even more elemental interatomic 'moral' part that lacks it?

Maybe define "moral" for me.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:22 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 5:27 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:54 am Read Robert Greene's works. You may change your mind on your definitions of 'morality' as something literally 'universal'.

What you might think is 'universal' value is actually universal acceptance of No-univeral-values. I argue that Totality cannot occur without contradiction. This then means that contradiction is the 'universal rule' and that the subjective particular perspective is where 'morals' appear fixed or constant because to you all that matters is if your environment is concordant with your own selfish wills. When this occurs, you interpret the world as "universally moral" when this illusion is only fitting of how you successful you are IN that environment.

The "48 Laws of Power" is more on politics than morality where both are dealt separately by different functions in the brain.

It is not a matter how how successful one is IN that environment.

Morality is individual human centric on a generic basis - thus universal as applicable to all human beings.

So the focus in my case is, how well an individual can be successful as a human being within ANY environment.

To do so, as I had proposed we need secular objective moral laws as a GUIDE for our proposed Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

To ensure efficiency the Framework, the human activities of each individual human must be leverage on the neural circuits of their brain to enable success.
I believe I have mentioned Mirror Neurons, the Human Connectome Project, the Human Genomic Project, advances in neurosciences, information technology, etc. which we must bring them into focus.

Note the final outcome is not focus on the secular objective absolute moral laws, but how can humanity can increase and improve on the morality quotient and competence of each individual person.

What you have proposed for morality and good/right behavior, i.e. with the significant involvement from Politics, it will not be efficient since as you should know [very evident], politics and its desperation for POWER is inherent very 'dirty' with those in control, the elites.

If I am alone and isolated from anybody, what does it mean to have any 'morals'? The idea of morals is about how we RELATE with others and why I interpret this as a 'politic', a convention between two or more people where we negotiate means to enhance cooperative behaviors that don't infringe upon one anothers freedoms.

Hey.. social intercourse and sexual intercourse, marriage, culture, contracts, etc. also involve two or more people not infringing upon each other rights.

When discussing neural activity, I don't define any activity on this level as relevant to relationships, even if they may have logic that aides in cooperative behaviors externally. On this level, 'morals' are non-existent.

You cannot make claims and proposition based on ignorance and avoidance [neural basis in this case] of the relevant facts involved.

Can you, for instance, assert some point at which something at the most elemental level of physics/chemistry that is a 'moral' atom? And if you do, what should that element mean? Would you not have to then ask if such an atom is sincerely something 'moral' without begging some even more elemental interatomic 'moral' part that lacks it?

Maybe define "moral" for me.

Physics and Chemistry are irrelevant to morality in a direct sense.
However neural activities are directly fundamental to morality.

You are don't know what 'morality' is after all going so far on the topic??

Morality:
= principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

• P1 Morality: = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
  
  P2. The fundamentals of acting and distinguishing between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour is from neural activities within the brain.
  
  C1. Therefore the fundamental of Morality is based on neural activities within the brain.

Note this experiment that linked neural activation to resulting behavior;

The young woman is clad in hospital garb, sitting upright in a bed. A white hospital cap mushrooms above her head, wires splay from its rear. She’s due for brain surgery in a few days to treat a difficult, disruptive kind of epilepsy. She’s been worried and anxious.

The patient breaks into a radiant smile, laughter flowing uninhibited.

“I’m kind of like smiling because I can’t help it,” she says. A bit later, “Sorry, that’s just a really good feeling. That’s awesome.”

Neuroscientists just administered a tiny jolt of electricity to wires threaded through her skull and into her brain. The wires are there to guide surgeons to the source of her seizures. But before the procedure, she’s agreed to play guinea pig to a team of Emory University researchers.

Patients like her offer an unprecedented opportunity for researchers to test the workings of various brain regions with unparalleled specificity. By delivering targeted bursts of electricity through the electrodes, they can watch what happens when specific neural circuits are activated.

The team was sending small bursts of electricity to her cingulum, a horseshoe of brain matter that links to regions associated with emotion, self-assessment, social interaction and motivation, among other things. It’s also known to regulate anxiety and depression.

This kind of research, though hardly common, is not new. The patient’s reaction is.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/i ... actual-joy

Scientists had been triggering specific parts of the brain to link them their specific human actions and behavior.

Where the brain part responsible for rage is triggered in the brain of a person, the person could end up doing something immoral when the 'kill' circuit is also triggered together with it.

One of the most critical part of the brain related to morality is empathy/compassion which I have already highlighted plus the circuits re impulse control.
When a person's impulse control circuits are strengthened, the person would be made more mindful of his future actions and their consequences.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 6:13 am ...
Morality:
= principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

I asked because there has to be something you are not seeming to understand and I need to narrow it down.

Your definition here doesn't assure that what is 'right' or 'wrong', or 'good' or 'bad' behaviors are themselves anything real outside of human conventions.

If you disagree that VALUES themselves are subjective conventions between people, you need an example of behavior that is 'good' (or 'bad') that exists where one is isolated from others. Can you give some example idea that is 'genetically' moral behavior that assures that where one is alone, they are bound to obey. Then what is the RISK or consequence of such a behavior for someone disobeying it?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:23 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 6:13 am ...
Morality:
= principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

I asked because there has to be something you are not seeming to understand and I need to narrow it down.

Your definition here doesn't assure that what is 'right' or 'wrong', or 'good' or 'bad' behaviors are themselves anything real outside of human conventions.

If you disagree that VALUES themselves are subjective conventions between people, you need an example of behavior that is 'good' (or 'bad') that exists where one is isolated from others. Can you give some example idea that is 'genetically' moral behavior that assures that where one is alone, they are bound to obey. Then what is the RISK or consequence of such a behavior for someone disobeying it?

I don't understand or YOU don't understand??

Have you read how I justified secular objective absolute moral laws/rules/'maxims', i.e. moral oughts from "is" in these two threads;

ALL Humans Ought To Breathe is a Moral Objective
viewtopic.php?p=445494#p445494

What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?p=445495#p445495
note the latter discussions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:30 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:23 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 6:13 am ...
Morality:
= principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

I asked because there has to be something you are not seeming to understand and I need to narrow it down.

Your definition here doesn't assure that what is 'right' or 'wrong', or 'good' or 'bad' behaviors are themselves anything real outside of human conventions.

If you disagree that VALUES themselves are subjective conventions between people, you need an example of behavior that is 'good' (or 'bad') that exists where one is isolated from others. Can you give some example idea that is 'genetically' moral behavior that assures that where one is alone, they are bound to obey. Then what is the RISK or consequence of such a behavior for someone disobeying it?

I don't understand or YOU don't understand??

Have you read how I justified secular objective absolute moral laws/rules/'maxims', i.e. moral oughts from "is" in these two threads;

ALL Humans Ought To Breathe is a Moral Objective
viewtopic.php?p=445494#p445494

What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?p=445495#p445495
note the latter discussions.

You are intentionally begging a link of an 'a-moral' concept to a 'moral' one by transference. The technique is similar to Anselm's Ontological argument he thought 'proves' God's existence. He argued how the logical concept of "that which nothing greater can be conceived" exists rationally. Then he labeled this, "God". The transference is begging a necessary link to a particular religious "supreme being" with a history as spelled out in Scripture.

So you are the one who requires explaining how you link the idea of morality as you define, "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour," relates to the abstraction layer of evolution that only deals with "survival versus non-survival". These latter concepts are only 'good' for those that "survive" who look have a hardwired system that doesn't normally OPT for death. The fact THAT those things that just happen to have a fixed commandment to evade death by its 'hardware', doesn't mean that it is 'good' by Nature itself. It is always strictly relative to the environment.

I can't invest in reading two other threads as though I should doubt my own understanding of your confusion in order to sincerely follow. I KNOW what your confusion and it is a fallacy of illegitimate transference of distinct meanings of 'value'. Nature's values are equivalently essential of each other; 'Moral' values are selectively FAVORED concepts of behavior that one tends to extend to all people when their own interpretations are subjective.

I would VOTE to accept a law that demands universal concern for us all to have fresh breathable air. This is NOT a rule of Nature's value universally shared for all things in Nature other than the fact that we happen to BE part of it. But you deny that morals are not CONVENTIONS of negotiation that require 'politics'. If a bear that needs fresh air to live wants to eat you because its Nature requires meat to survive, that factor goes against my own similar desire to live. That we share the air is coincidental and necessary. But would you define the NECESSITY of something, like air, as a behavior one can CHOOSE to deny themselves?

Morals are understood to be the distinctive beliefs about one set of behaviors in contrast to others. If some universal set is NECESSARY, then no being can LACK those special behaviors universally regardless. You can't impose some charge of 'mental illness' upon those who go against these because other competing 'values' are involved that are also NECESSARY by their perspective. For instance, is it 'right' to save a life of someone who tries to end their life to stop their suffering just because life is 'good' to you? You would say no, that person doesn't have a 'right' because they must be abnormally delusional about their 'values'.

Laws are what people require to use to define 'morals' and have to be flexible. Essential laws are those that get 'constituted' for membership regardless of moral differences. Those 'rights' that assert privilege to specific cases should not be 'constitutional', even though political interests DO impose such laws constitutionally where they might recognize some religion or genetic 'right' of special inheritances (like Royalty, for instance).

Behaviors that are shared universally are 'right' by default coincidentally and so are not subject to one's conscience to pick of one over the other. But these only matter where they are convened because I am guessing that if cows, for instance, had their way, they would prefer to think it 'right' for them to continue to breathe air by default.

A present example of universal necessity is the Covid-19 epidemic where the World Health Organization, a government body, is needed in order to defeat this virus' for the negotiated interest of us all. It is not able to be done 'voluntarily' by each and every individual, though we BEG this behavior to be reflected upon. If one, for instance, KNEW they had this disease and KNEW they were going to die, if they lack any fair treatment for them by other people by default of their experience in life, they would not have the environmental factors that contribute to a particular moral that might be defined as, "the human race needs to persist". This is because if you are expected to sacrifice for the sake of some 'whole', you need some reason to believe it matters. This can only be begged by some religious ideal that might 'sell' to such an individual a reward or punishment condition upon them in some afterlife in order to be considered worth abiding.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:28 pm You are intentionally begging a link of an 'a-moral' concept to a 'moral' one by transference. The technique is similar to Anselm's Ontological argument he thought 'proves' God's existence. He argued how the logical concept of "that which nothing greater can be conceived" exists rationally. Then he labeled this, "God". The transference is begging a necessary link to a particular religious "supreme being" with a history as spelled out in Scripture.

Yours is a strawman.
St Anselm's ontological God is pure reason only - crude reasoning but without any linked to the real provable empirical world.
Note my argument which include countering St Anselm's ontological God.

God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

I have this counter point of your well covered!

So you are the one who requires explaining how you link the idea of morality as you define, "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour," relates to the abstraction layer of evolution that only deals with "survival versus non-survival".
These latter concepts are only 'good' for those that "survive" who look have a hardwired system that doesn't normally OPT for death. The fact THAT those things that just happen to have a fixed commandment to evade death by its 'hardware', doesn't mean that it is 'good' by Nature itself. It is always strictly relative to the environment.

I can't invest in reading two other threads as though I should doubt my own understanding of your confusion in order to sincerely follow. I KNOW what your confusion and it is a fallacy of illegitimate transference of distinct meanings of 'value'. Nature's values are equivalently essential of each other; 'Moral' values are selectively FAVORED concepts of behavior that one tends to extend to all people when their own interpretations are subjective.

I would VOTE to accept a law that demands universal concern for us all to have fresh breathable air. This is NOT a rule of Nature's value universally shared for all things in Nature other than the fact that we happen to BE part of it. But you deny that morals are not CONVENTIONS of negotiation that require 'politics'. If a bear that needs fresh air to live wants to eat you because its Nature requires meat to survive, that factor goes against my own similar desire to live. That we share the air is coincidental and necessary. But would you define the NECESSITY of something, like air, as a behavior one can CHOOSE to deny themselves?

Morals are understood to be the distinctive beliefs about one set of behaviors in contrast to others. If some universal set is NECESSARY, then no being can LACK those special behaviors universally regardless. You can't impose some charge of 'mental illness' upon those who go against these because other competing 'values' are involved that are also NECESSARY by their perspective. For instance, is it 'right' to save a life of someone who tries to end their life to stop their suffering just because life is 'good' to you? You would say no, that person doesn't have a 'right' because they must be abnormally delusional about their 'values'.

Laws are what people require to use to define 'morals' and have to be flexible. Essential laws are those that get 'constituted' for membership regardless of moral differences. Those 'rights' that assert privilege to specific cases should not be 'constitutional', even though political interests DO impose such laws constitutionally where they might recognize some religion or genetic 'right' of special inheritances (like Royalty, for instance).

Behaviors that are shared universally are 'right' by default coincidentally and so are not subject to one's conscience to pick of one over the other. But these only matter where they are convened because I am guessing that if cows, for instance, had their way, they would prefer to think it 'right' for them to continue to breathe air by default.

Note my argument here on how I deduced from empirical "is" to a moral ought with sound arguments;

viewtopic.php?p=445699#p445699

Note the starting point is;
how to improve the right and good human behavior so correspondingly to reduce the bad and evil acts.
The efficient method is to introduce a model, i.e. a framework of morality that is guided by secular moral oughts justified from empirical evidences.

The alternative is no proposed efficient model or framework of morality, thus left to the wind to blow morality to wherever it goes.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:37 pm A present example of universal necessity is the Covid-19 epidemic where the World Health Organization, a government body, is needed in order to defeat this virus' for the negotiated interest of us all. It is not able to be done 'voluntarily' by each and every individual, though we BEG this behavior to be reflected upon. If one, for instance, KNEW they had this disease and KNEW they were going to die, if they lack any fair treatment for them by other people by default of their experience in life, they would not have the environmental factors that contribute to a particular moral that might be defined as, "the human race needs to persist". This is because if you are expected to sacrifice for the sake of some 'whole', you need some reason to believe it matters. This can only be begged by some religious ideal that might 'sell' to such an individual a reward or punishment condition upon them in some afterlife in order to be considered worth abiding.

Religious - another strawman?

Whilst the Covid19 epidemic is something that should be avoided to ensure the preservation of the species, essentially it is not a moral issue.
This is because COVID19 is caused by a virus not by humans' intentions.
This is the same if humans are killed by lions and other animals since these animals are not capable of morally driven intentions.

It is only a moral/ethical issue if someone knows he has the Covid19 infections then intentionally spread it to other humans that end up killing them.
In this case, my proposed Moral Model and Framework with secular moral oughts will work effectively in theory and in the long run [not immediately].

The secular objective moral law/rule/maxim i.e. 'no human shall kill another human' will act as a GUIDE.
This GUIDE will drive actions to improve the moral competence of the individuals such that they will have a high moral mindfullness that they will not kill another human no what the circumstances except with unavoidable justified exceptions as with Ethics.
In this case a highly moral competent person Guided by the moral ought and who is infected with Covid19 will seek medical help and ensures he is not in a position to infect others.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:46 am Whilst the Covid19 epidemic is something that should be avoided to ensure the preservation of the species, essentially it is not a moral issue.
This is because COVID19 is caused by a virus not by humans' intentions.
This is the same if humans are killed by lions and other animals since these animals are not capable of morally driven intentions.

You are the dumbest Philosopher that has ever walked this Earth.

Here is the list of Top 20 causes of mortality throughout the world.

How many of those deaths have anything to do with "human intentions"? Just because diseases don't have intentions it doesn't mean they don't cause human suffering.

Why are you so obsessed with humans harming humans?

Truth be told, you don't want to reduce ALL human suffering - you just want to reduce ONLY the human suffering caused intentionally by other humans.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:56 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:46 am Whilst the Covid19 epidemic is something that should be avoided to ensure the preservation of the species, essentially it is not a moral issue.
This is because COVID19 is caused by a virus not by humans' intentions.
This is the same if humans are killed by lions and other animals since these animals are not capable of morally driven intentions.

You are the dumbest Philosopher that has ever walked this Earth.

Here is the list of Top 20 causes of mortality throughout the world.

How many of those deaths have anything to do with "human intentions"? Just because diseases don't have intentions it doesn't mean they don't cause human suffering.

Why are you so obsessed with humans harming humans?

Truth be told, you don't want to reduce ALL human suffering - you just want to reduce ONLY the human suffering caused intentionally by other humans.

You are really stupid philosophically.

Are you not aware you are posting in the 'Ethically Theory' section of this Philosophical Forum.
Board index: Philosophical Discussion: Ethical Theory
Check again to remind yourself to keep to topic.

Human Mortality in General is not related to 'Ethical Theory'

Note the definition of;

• Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
  
  Ethics = moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

Don't be so intellectual stupid.

What I have been posting is directly related to Ethical [Moral] Theory.

Human Mortality in General is not related to 'Ethical Theory'

Btw, you are always catching up and I have to provide tutorship to you on the basics, but never once is the other way round from you. If you think so, show me where?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 9:01 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:56 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:46 am Whilst the Covid19 epidemic is something that should be avoided to ensure the preservation of the species, essentially it is not a moral issue.
This is because COVID19 is caused by a virus not by humans' intentions.
This is the same if humans are killed by lions and other animals since these animals are not capable of morally driven intentions.

You are the dumbest Philosopher that has ever walked this Earth.

Here is the list of Top 20 causes of mortality throughout the world.

How many of those deaths have anything to do with "human intentions"? Just because diseases don't have intentions it doesn't mean they don't cause human suffering.

Why are you so obsessed with humans harming humans?

Truth be told, you don't want to reduce ALL human suffering - you just want to reduce ONLY the human suffering caused intentionally by other humans.

You are really stupid philosophically.

Are you not aware you are posting in the 'Ethically Theory' section of this Philosophical Forum.
Board index: Philosophical Discussion: Ethical Theory
Check again to remind yourself to keep to topic.

Human Mortality in General is not related to 'Ethical Theory'

Note the definition of;

• Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
  
  Ethics = moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

Don't be so intellectual stupid.

What I have been posting is directly related to Ethical [Moral] Theory.

Human Mortality in General is not related to 'Ethical Theory'

Btw, you are always catching up and I have to provide tutorship to you on the basics, but never once is the other way round from you. If you think so, show me where?

Your definitions are wrong. That's why you are immoral and unethical.

You are so ignorant you can't even tell that you are behind.

None of your definitions capture the objectives of science&medicine which is "human health". If you think human health does not fall under ethics/morality - you are an idiot.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 9:06 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 9:01 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:56 am
You are the dumbest Philosopher that has ever walked this Earth.

Here is the list of Top 20 causes of mortality throughout the world.

How many of those deaths have anything to do with "human intentions"? Just because diseases don't have intentions it doesn't mean they don't cause human suffering.

Why are you so obsessed with humans harming humans?

Truth be told, you don't want to reduce ALL human suffering - you just want to reduce ONLY the human suffering caused intentionally by other humans.

Are you not aware you are posting in the 'Ethically Theory' section of this Philosophical Forum.
Board index: Philosophical Discussion: Ethical Theory
Check again to remind yourself to keep to topic.

Human Mortality in General is not related to 'Ethical Theory'

Note the definition of;

• Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
  
  Ethics = moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

Don't be so intellectual stupid.

What I have been posting is directly related to Ethical [Moral] Theory.

Human Mortality in General is not related to 'Ethical Theory'

Btw, you are always catching up and I have to provide tutorship to you on the basics, but never once is the other way round from you. If you think so, show me where?

Your definitions are wrong. That's why you are immoral and unethical.

You are so ignorant you can't even tell that you are behind.

None of your definitions capture the objectives of science&medicine which is "human health". If you think human health does not fall under ethics/morality - you are an idiot.

How can you be so moronic?

You are really stupid philosophically.

Your top 20 causes of human mortality list included Traffic Accidents and Self-Inflicted Injuries.

In any case, Human health is related to every human activities, i.e. politics, morality/ethics, economics, social, customs, science, etc. etc.

Each of these activities and knowledge has been allocated to their specific section in this Philosophy Forum.

Human Mortality in General is not the main topic of Ethics/Morality Theory.
There is no Philosophy of Health in this Forum, thus the subject of Health is insignificant to this Forum. Those who are interested in Health and Traffic Accident should joint another Forum. E.g.
https://patient.info/forums
on Health Matters

or
https://www.traumasurvivorsnetwork.org/ ... 3/topics/1
on Traffic Accidents.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 9:29 am Your top 20 causes of human mortality list included Traffic Accidents and Self-Inflicted Injuries.

The key word in "traffic accidents" is ACCIDENTS. Accidents are called that because they are NOT intentional.

So out of the 20 things that have nothing to do with intent, you keep focusing ONLY on intent. Why are you narrow-minded?

Morality is about human well-being. Anything which takes away from that is immoral.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 9:29 am Human Mortality in General is not the main topic of Ethics/Morality Theory.

If you think that human health/well-being (in general) is not a concern of "morality in general" then you are an immoral idiot.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 9:29 am There is no Philosophy of Health in this Forum, thus the subject of Health is insignificant to this Forum.

Q.E.D you are an immoral idiot.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 9:29 am Those who are interested in Health and Traffic Accident should joint another Forum

Translation: Those who care about True Morality should go elsewhere. This is a forum about immorality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:31 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:28 pm You are intentionally begging a link of an 'a-moral' concept to a 'moral' one by transference. The technique is similar to Anselm's Ontological argument he thought 'proves' God's existence. He argued how the logical concept of "that which nothing greater can be conceived" exists rationally. Then he labeled this, "God". The transference is begging a necessary link to a particular religious "supreme being" with a history as spelled out in Scripture.

Yours is a strawman.
St Anselm's ontological God is pure reason only - crude reasoning but without any linked to the real provable empirical world.
Note my argument which include countering St Anselm's ontological God.

God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

I have this counter point of your well covered!

Is anything that one uses as an analogy that you disagree to as applicable to your proposal considered a "strawman"?

Fallacies are conditioned. I was NOT setting up your argument FALSELY or with deception. If you disagree, you need to express HOW you believe I was making some deceptive and deliberate distortion that is not related to your argument.

Your own linked discussion may be interesting to read but is irrelevant itself and misses the point of my use of the argument. In a reduced expression of my OPINION without argument is that you are 'transferring' a non-moral related idea into a moral one. The relevance of using St Anselm's argument was to show how he DID make a proper argument technically but defined GOD is identical to what we might call TOTALITY, a non-religious idea. It IS true that many interpret Totality == God, and is something I DO believe was originally how religion actually started from rational secular questions about reality. But the "transference" from Totality, as a secular concept into the same label that is applied to a SPECIFIC religious being, is what I was drawing a comparison to in order to help you understand what I mean by TRANSFERENCE. I did not set this up to ridicule your belief as 'religious' but used what was thought to be a SOUND argument that Anselm used that was logical but NOT sound for falsely linking an essential minimal element of 'God' to a label that has OTHER intents.

It is begging that religious people use the term God to mean "All that can be conceived (infinitely)". If we ACCEPT this convention, then it makes it inappropriately easier for the religious person to falsely get you to agree that this meaning exist and voila,....so the religious idea of God is real!

You are begging that SOMETHING on the neurological level exists that you BEG is some type of moral element or moral source. I expressed that "morality" is a convention between at least two people. But you want me to accept that since we can create the idea of 'morality' and since WE are dependent upon our thoughts due to neurons, then if you can beg we label some phenomena on the level of neurons as "moral" by some means, then we'd have to accept that if the phenomena is real, the label YOU assign to it is TRANSERABLE to the different meaning of 'preferential behavior between people'.

This is not only NOT a fallacy but is accurately argued by me here because you are attempting to fight against the conventional meaning of "morality" as "rules of appropriate conduct between people." I then asked if you can have such without people. For instance, do you believe that it is 'right' or 'wrong' for me to swear and insult others out loud when no one is around to hear it? While such behavior might be validly treated 'immoral' among people, when one is alone, the worst you can say is that I might be wasting my breathe for doing so when I could be conserving wasted energy. That wasted energy, though true whether people are around to hear it or not, is not an elemental justification for WHY it would be 'immoral'.

Extend that to the possibility that I might choose to commit suicide in isolation on an island. What 'right' or 'wrong' is implicit in this behavior where it has no effect upon others not around? While the act would go against my biological existence for succeeding, there is nothing universally applicable other than that I CAN behave this way and succeed. The 'success' of such an attempt is just as Natural as the success of living should I NOT try to commit suicide.

The point is that morality requires 'goals' based upon ideals that relate to more than one person.

So you are the one who requires explaining how you link the idea of morality as you define, "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour," relates to the abstraction layer of evolution that only deals with "survival versus non-survival".
...

Note my argument here on how I deduced from empirical "is" to a moral ought with sound arguments;

viewtopic.php?p=445699#p445699

Note the starting point is;
how to improve the right and good human behavior so correspondingly to reduce the bad and evil acts.
The efficient method is to introduce a model, i.e. a framework of morality that is guided by secular moral oughts justified from empirical evidences.

The alternative is no proposed efficient model or framework of morality, thus left to the wind to blow morality to wherever it goes.

And since you are talking about a GOAL that relates to behaviors between people, you are necessarily moving into the realm of 'politics'. Your 'empirical' expectation is not about morals but about seeking "minimal necessities for survival of the human species of goals we agree to are shared". We all need air to breathe.

IF we agree that each person deserves to live regardless of who they are, AND since air is needed for all humans, THEN we should act to assure our air is breathable.

That is a political goal based upon negotiating agreement to the CONDITIONS. That condition that needs to be negotiated is to whether we "agree that each person deserves to live regardless of who they are".

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:44 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:31 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:28 pm You are intentionally begging a link of an 'a-moral' concept to a 'moral' one by transference. The technique is similar to Anselm's Ontological argument he thought 'proves' God's existence. He argued how the logical concept of "that which nothing greater can be conceived" exists rationally. Then he labeled this, "God". The transference is begging a necessary link to a particular religious "supreme being" with a history as spelled out in Scripture.

Yours is a strawman.
St Anselm's ontological God is pure reason only - crude reasoning but without any linked to the real provable empirical world.
Note my argument which include countering St Anselm's ontological God.

God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

I have this counter point of your well covered!

Is anything that one uses as an analogy that you disagree to as applicable to your proposal considered a "strawman"?

Fallacies are conditioned. I was NOT setting up your argument FALSELY or with deception. If you disagree, you need to express HOW you believe I was making some deceptive and deliberate distortion that is not related to your argument.

Your own linked discussion may be interesting to read but is irrelevant itself and misses the point of my use of the argument.
In a reduced expression of my OPINION without argument is that you are 'transferring' a non-moral related idea into a moral one.
The relevance of using St Anselm's argument was to show how he DID make a proper argument technically but defined GOD is identical to what we might call TOTALITY, a non-religious idea. It IS true that many interpret Totality == God, and is something I DO believe was originally how religion actually started from rational secular questions about reality. But the "transference" from Totality, as a secular concept into the same label that is applied to a SPECIFIC religious being, is what I was drawing a comparison to in order to help you understand what I mean by TRANSFERENCE. I did not set this up to ridicule your belief as 'religious' but used what was thought to be a SOUND argument that Anselm used that was logical but NOT sound for falsely linking an essential minimal element of 'God' to a label that has OTHER intents.

It is begging that religious people use the term God to mean "All that can be conceived (infinitely)". If we ACCEPT this convention, then it makes it inappropriately easier for the religious person to falsely get you to agree that this meaning exist and voila,....so the religious idea of God is real!

You are begging that SOMETHING on the neurological level exists that you BEG is some type of moral element or moral source. I expressed that "morality" is a convention between at least two people. But you want me to accept that since we can create the idea of 'morality' and since WE are dependent upon our thoughts due to neurons, then if you can beg we label some phenomena on the level of neurons as "moral" by some means, then we'd have to accept that if the phenomena is real, the label YOU assign to it is TRANSERABLE to the different meaning of 'preferential behavior between people'.

This is not only NOT a fallacy but is accurately argued by me here because you are attempting to fight against the conventional meaning of "morality" as "rules of appropriate conduct between people." I then asked if you can have such without people. For instance, do you believe that it is 'right' or 'wrong' for me to swear and insult others out loud when no one is around to hear it? While such behavior might be validly treated 'immoral' among people, when one is alone, the worst you can say is that I might be wasting my breathe for doing so when I could be conserving wasted energy. That wasted energy, though true whether people are around to hear it or not, is not an elemental justification for WHY it would be 'immoral'.

Extend that to the possibility that I might choose to commit suicide in isolation on an island. What 'right' or 'wrong' is implicit in this behavior where it has no effect upon others not around? While the act would go against my biological existence for succeeding, there is nothing universally applicable other than that I CAN behave this way and succeed. The 'success' of such an attempt is just as Natural as the success of living should I NOT try to commit suicide.

OK, your analogy is not applicable to my point.

You missed all my major points.

Re your critique [bolded above], "there is 'transference' from amoral to morality."
I have addressed this point in the other thread, i.e.

• P1. Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour or activities.
  P2. Breathing is a human activity and behavior
  C1. Therefore breathing is relevant [subsumed] within Morality.

Re choosing to commit suicide in an isolated island.
"A person ought not to commit suicide" is a secular objective absolute moral law.
This absolute moral law should only be used as a GUIDE only within a Moral Framework. It should NEVER be enforced.

Now if any one committed suicide in an isolated island, this meant he was a statistics as a variance [negative 1] to the GUIDE.
Thus humanity as GUIDED need to investigate the variance why the person committed suicide and find solutions to prevent it.

What is critical here is, it is only because there is a GUIDE, i.e. a standard to be measured against that triggered investigation, else suicide would be accepted as a norm and no investigation would be done.
If suicide is accepted as normal [not immoral] and no investigation is done, there could be a root cause that could be missed which eventually can cause more suicides, then mass suicides and possibly total suicide of the human species triggered by some parasites.

The point is that morality requires 'goals' based upon ideals that relate to more than one person.

So you are the one who requires explaining how you link the idea of morality as you define, "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour," relates to the abstraction layer of evolution that only deals with "survival versus non-survival".
...

Note my argument here on how I deduced from empirical "is" to a moral ought with sound arguments;

viewtopic.php?p=445699#p445699

Note the starting point is;
how to improve the right and good human behavior so correspondingly to reduce the bad and evil acts.
The efficient method is to introduce a model, i.e. a framework of morality that is guided by secular moral oughts justified from empirical evidences.

The alternative is no proposed efficient model or framework of morality, thus left to the wind to blow morality to wherever it goes.

And since you are talking about a GOAL that relates to behaviors between people, you are necessarily moving into the realm of 'politics'. Your 'empirical' expectation is not about morals but about seeking "minimal necessities for survival of the human species of goals we agree to are shared". We all need air to breathe.

IF we agree that each person deserves to live regardless of who they are, AND since air is needed for all humans, THEN we should act to assure our air is breathable.

That is a political goal based upon negotiating agreement to the CONDITIONS. That condition that needs to be negotiated is to whether we "agree that each person deserves to live regardless of who they are".

Nah, you missed my point again.
I stated secular objective absolute moral laws are merely a GUIDE only and not to be enforced.
Note they are ideals as GUIDEs ONLY, thus cannot be a Goal to be achieved or enforced.
Ideals are in generally impossible in practice, thus ideals as goals is an oxymoron.

In politics goals are set and enforced.

Therefore Politics [goal oriented] cannot be conflated with Morality.

Note I mentioned Ethics, i.e. the Applied where goals can be set in alignment [i.e. parallel] with the moral GUIDEs.

Let me know, if I missed any of your points.