Philosophy Now Forum

I'll address some of the points not done earlier.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:30 am From the above, from one fact of a heap, there are so many corresponding facts to the same heap with different referents - but they all must [imperative] be qualified to the perspective, framework and context

This one line bankrupts your whole argument. You've been claiming simple facts such as the price of a chair as moral knowledge, and now you are exposing even simple facts as incomplete and subject to interpretation at many levels.

Imagine what happens when you take a complex moral issue where none of the inputs are even quantifiable?

Repeat: As I had stated, the default of progress and improvement, i.e. morality in this case, has to be justified and quantified from empirical evidences.
Note axiology - the measurement of values [re Prof].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:30 am Thus my point, what is fact is generated from the respective Framework of Knowledge and there can be no fixed referent for each fact.

The big white heap was a fact with a referent.
The 0.01% Fe and 99.99% C-O-H was fact with referent.
Your work there, at best, demonstrates that an object in the universe cannot be reduced to a single fact, but that it is actually the referent to an uncountable number of facts available for an unimaginable number of purposes. And yet, the one sort of fact you want to be able to assert about it is moral, and that one still isn't working for you.

Repeat: As I had stated, the default of progress and improvement, i.e. morality in this case, has to be justified and quantified from empirical evidences.
Note axiology - the measurement of values [re Prof].

That is where intelligence and wisdom are necessary to produce the effective quantification of values for the purpose of morality.

I have shown example how the fact of the value of the US Dollar is totally based on sentiments of confidence levels on trust and performance of the US Government. Note what happened to the Zimbabwe Dollar and currencies of other 'banana republics'.

Re Morality, for example if I rate the evil act of genocide with a base index of 100 evilness, any normal person can rate any petty crime at 1/100 evilness in relative equivalents and that would be acceptable by all who are normal human.
From the above extremes, we can estimate the evilness of the in-between to the best accuracy possible based on effective justifications, intelligence, wisdom, rationality, philosophical reasoning, etc.

In fact the above exercise is already done intuitively, roughly and crudely* in political Justice [which is not morality] with different equivalent level of punishments for different degrees of evilness.
* evident by the varying punishments by different courts of laws and in different nations, culture, etc.

The framework and System of Morality and Ethics [proposed for the future not now] will deal with, eliminate or prevent the same acts of evilness but without enforcement and punishments but rather inculcate spontaneous dispositions of good by the individuals.

One thing for sure, I an endeavoring to strive for improving the well being of the individuals and humanity in the future, while you are dogmatically insisting and stuck with the status quo.
You are so typical with those who were solidly resistance to change in terms of philosophy, technology, medicines, etc. Why? It has something to do with the defense mechanisms from the existential crisis.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:00 am Yin-Yang is not any MYSTICAL cosmic forces but it is present in all your [all human] actions and life.

• Example:
  When you walk forward, one leg is Yin and the other is Yang in term of placements and forces involved.
  When you stand straight on your left leg [say, Yin] - there is 99.99% Yin & 0.01% Yang and as you move forward with your right leg [Yang], then the % starts to change inversely as you move forward until you stand straight on the right [Yang] which is then 99.99 Yang, 0.01% Yin.
  This is how the principles of the Tai Chi Chuan [Chinese Martial Art] are intuitively derived.
  To get accurate %s, we can do that with scientific measurements.

The above is applicable to all human actions and reality - the task is to identify the relevant opposing variables.

Oh man this is why I love coming here.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am I'll address some of the points not done earlier.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:30 am From the above, from one fact of a heap, there are so many corresponding facts to the same heap with different referents - but they all must [imperative] be qualified to the perspective, framework and context

This one line bankrupts your whole argument. You've been claiming simple facts such as the price of a chair as moral knowledge, and now you are exposing even simple facts as incomplete and subject to interpretation at many levels.

Imagine what happens when you take a complex moral issue where none of the inputs are even quantifiable?

Repeat: As I had stated, the default of progress and improvement, i.e. morality in this case, has to be justified and quantified from empirical evidences.
Note axiology - the measurement of values [re Prof].

Prof is unable to measure them too, all of his nonsense is pretty much the same as yours. There is nothing with which to measure moral outcomes as if quantifiable objects.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:30 am Thus my point, what is fact is generated from the respective Framework of Knowledge and there can be no fixed referent for each fact.

The big white heap was a fact with a referent.
The 0.01% Fe and 99.99% C-O-H was fact with referent.
Your work there, at best, demonstrates that an object in the universe cannot be reduced to a single fact, but that it is actually the referent to an uncountable number of facts available for an unimaginable number of purposes. And yet, the one sort of fact you want to be able to assert about it is moral, and that one still isn't working for you.

Repeat: As I had stated, the default of progress and improvement, i.e. morality in this case, has to be justified and quantified from empirical evidences.
Note axiology - the measurement of values [re Prof].

What you do is apply your faith. You make an observation of something that can be quantified, and then you decide to have faith that it represents something else that you cannot. That's all Prof's thing is, and it's all yours is too.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am That is where intelligence and wisdom are necessary to produce the effective quantification of values for the purpose of morality.

That's unfortunate. Wise and intelligent people will just tell you that effective quantification of moral outcomes or inputs is impossible and you should stop pretending that they are better than estimates.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am I have shown example how the fact of the value of the US Dollar is totally based on sentiments of confidence levels on trust and performance of the US Government. Note what happened to the Zimbabwe Dollar and currencies of other 'banana republics'.

You have not. You are never going to be able to show that money tracks some particular sentiment (i.e, when trust in the US government increases the dollar rises by the same amount). You can get about as far as this: If the Fed or the ECB promises to create as much money as it takes to reach a specific monetary outcome, the markets usually believe them and respond appropriately.

If you are measuring something that is not the thing itself and extrapolating via that measurement, the thing being measured needs to track the thing being being measured by proxy.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am Re Morality, for example if I rate the evil act of genocide with a base index of 100 evilness, any normal person can rate any petty crime at 1/100 evilness in relative equivalents and that would be acceptable by all who are normal human.
From the above extremes, we can estimate the evilness of the in-between to the best accuracy possible based on effective justifications, intelligence, wisdom, rationality, philosophical reasoning, etc.

None of those things has resolved the controversies of ethics before. Just presenting a chart with worst_crime=Maximum Naughties; least_crime = Minimum Naughties is no use. That's tautologous. You have provided no new method to resolve controversy.

You can put abortion wherever you like on your chart, and somebody is well within their rights to just say you put it in the wrong place. And then what? When you come back at them with your bullshit measurement? They are going to say you measured wrong, or they will say that these things cannot be measured at all.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am The framework and System of Morality and Ethics [proposed for the future not now] will deal with, eliminate or prevent the same acts of evilness but without enforcement and punishments but rather inculcate spontaneous dispositions of good by the individuals.

Oooh, excellent. Once you have determined the experts to decide what everyone should think, you will wash our brains to make sure that we do.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am One thing for sure, I an endeavoring to strive for improving the well being of the individuals and humanity in the future, while you are dogmatically insisting and stuck with the status quo.
You are so typical with those who were solidly resistance to change in terms of philosophy, technology, medicines, etc. Why? It has something to do with the defense mechanisms from the existential crisis.

Your work is shit though. You never learn from your mistakes. You are endeavouring to do something unintelligible.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:00 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:09 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am I am approaching the above from Eastern Philosophy re Yin and Yang which is a generic principle of reality without exceptions.

I'm sorry. Are you telling me that this argument of yours has had an unwritten dependency on the competition between two cosmic forces that I don't believe exist? Cosmic forces which your own probability matrix would deny exists?

And you think that you can just insert that now and demand it be taken seriously? This will not happen.

Note my explanation above [exposing your ignorance] that Yin-Yang is from Chinese Philosophy not directly from any religion nor pseudo-religion.

Yin-Yang is not any MYSTICAL cosmic forces but it is present in all your [all human] actions and life.

• Example:
  When you walk forward, one leg is Yin and the other is Yang in term of placements and forces involved.
  When you stand straight on your left leg [say, Yin] - there is 99.99% Yin & 0.01% Yang and as you move forward with your right leg [Yang], then the % starts to change inversely as you move forward until you stand straight on the right [Yang] which is then 99.99 Yang, 0.01% Yin.
  This is how the principles of the Tai Chi Chuan [Chinese Martial Art] are intuitively derived.
  To get accurate %s, we can do that with scientific measurements.

The above is applicable to all human actions and reality - the task is to identify the relevant opposing variables.

That's a mystical belief, I'm simply not going to cater for it outside the religion sub.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:11 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am I'll address some of the points not done earlier.

This one line bankrupts your whole argument. You've been claiming simple facts such as the price of a chair as moral knowledge, and now you are exposing even simple facts as incomplete and subject to interpretation at many levels.

Imagine what happens when you take a complex moral issue where none of the inputs are even quantifiable?

Repeat: As I had stated, the default of progress and improvement, i.e. morality in this case, has to be justified and quantified from empirical evidences.
Note axiology - the measurement of values [re Prof].

Prof is unable to measure them too, all of his nonsense is pretty much the same as yours. There is nothing with which to measure moral outcomes as if quantifiable objects.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am

The big white heap was a fact with a referent.
The 0.01% Fe and 99.99% C-O-H was fact with referent.
Your work there, at best, demonstrates that an object in the universe cannot be reduced to a single fact, but that it is actually the referent to an uncountable number of facts available for an unimaginable number of purposes. And yet, the one sort of fact you want to be able to assert about it is moral, and that one still isn't working for you.

Repeat: As I had stated, the default of progress and improvement, i.e. morality in this case, has to be justified and quantified from empirical evidences.
Note axiology - the measurement of values [re Prof].

What you do is apply your faith. You make an observation of something that can be quantified, and then you decide to have faith that it represents something else that you cannot. That's all Prof's thing is, and it's all yours is too.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am That is where intelligence and wisdom are necessary to produce the effective quantification of values for the purpose of morality.

That's unfortunate. Wise and intelligent people will just tell you that effective quantification of moral outcomes or inputs is impossible and you should stop pretending that they are better than estimates.

What do you mean by 'impossible'? as if there are absolutely absolute measurements.
There are no absolutely absolute measurements.
All measurements even if claimed to be 'absolute' [e.g. absolute temperature] are fundamentally relative and justified estimates.
Even in Science, whatever is ultimately measured is at best 'polished conjectures' [Popper].

I agree it is easier to measure physical objects while it is more difficult with abstract things.

But nevertheless, my point is everything is quantifiable and measurable as long as the Framework of Measurement is established rationally and steps are taken to ensure it is fool proof, and there is consensus.

Note I never claimed to measure 'moral outcomes,' to me that is Ethics not morality.
What I claimed are moral facts and principles based on justified empirical evidences and philosophically reasoning.

It is a moral fact, no [100% none] normal human being would want to be killed by another human. This can be tested empirically.
Then from the Framework and System of Morality, the following moral fact is established, i.e,
No human ought to kill another human. [period]
this is extended to babies in the womb.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am I have shown example how the fact of the value of the US Dollar is totally based on sentiments of confidence levels on trust and performance of the US Government. Note what happened to the Zimbabwe Dollar and currencies of other 'banana republics'.

You have not. You are never going to be able to show that money tracks some particular sentiment (i.e, when trust in the US government increases the dollar rises by the same amount). You can get about as far as this: If the Fed or the ECB promises to create as much money as it takes to reach a specific monetary outcome, the markets usually believe them and respond appropriately.

If you are measuring something that is not the thing itself and extrapolating via that measurement, the thing being measured needs to track the thing being being measured by proxy.

Yours is a strawman.
I am not arguing about specific sentiments, e.g. fear, love, trust, confidence, etc.

My point is, it is a fact, the US Dollar is totally [100%] based on sentiments, no gold equivalent like the past.
Thus my point, this fact of the USD is fact of value that is based on 100% sentiment.
Your point is, a "fact" cannot be a value nor be evaluative.
Can you dispute this?

Nevertheless, it may not be practical to track every sentiment, but if say, Trump is assassinated and suddenly there is anarchy in the US, then next day the US Dollar dropped by 20% against all other currency. We can estimate the 20% drop is due mostly to the sentiment of fear.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am Re Morality, for example if I rate the evil act of genocide with a base index of 100 evilness, any normal person can rate any petty crime at 1/100 evilness in relative equivalents and that would be acceptable by all who are normal human.
From the above extremes, we can estimate the evilness of the in-between to the best accuracy possible based on effective justifications, intelligence, wisdom, rationality, philosophical reasoning, etc.

None of those things has resolved the controversies of ethics before. Just presenting a chart with worst_crime=Maximum Naughties; least_crime = Minimum Naughties is no use. That's tautologous. You have provided no new method to resolve controversy.

You can put abortion wherever you like on your chart, and somebody is well within their rights to just say you put it in the wrong place. And then what? When you come back at them with your bullshit measurement? They are going to say you measured wrong, or they will say that these things cannot be measured at all.

Your don't have any idea of what morality-proper is.

Note I stated, morality is about establishing moral facts and principles.
The following moral facts as standard is established via a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
From above;
No human ought to kill another human. [period]
this is extended to babies in the womb.

This moral fact is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, thus, it is objective, albeit relative.

Thus from the above, 'abortion' is morally wrong!
But the above standard is only a GUIDE, there will be no enforcement.

In practice, at present many people, being human, will not be able to control their sexual lust [inherent] and thus resulting in the need for abortion for various reasons [justified or unjustified].
Within the Moral Framework and System, there is no enforcement nor punishments for abortion.

However the establishment of the moral standard as a moral objective, i.e. a GUIDE, when contrasted with what is actually happening, i.e. abortions need to be performed, a moral variance is generated.

The task for humanity is establish strategies on HOW to reduce the moral variance re abortion progressively and optimally.

Point is you are ignorant what is morality proper inherently in alignment with human nature.
Instead you are veering off to some idea of pseudo-morality, trolley dilemmas, etc.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am The framework and System of Morality and Ethics [proposed for the future not now] will deal with, eliminate or prevent the same acts of evilness but without enforcement and punishments but rather inculcate spontaneous dispositions of good by the individuals.

Oooh, excellent. Once you have determined the experts to decide what everyone should think, you will wash our brains to make sure that we do.

Again you are ignorant of what is going within the human brain since 100,000 years ago to the present.
It is very evident, for example, the dormant mirror neurons within the average human brain is unfolding and being activated.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am One thing for sure, I an endeavoring to strive for improving the well being of the individuals and humanity in the future, while you are dogmatically insisting and stuck with the status quo.
You are so typical with those who were solidly resistance to change in terms of philosophy, technology, medicines, etc. Why? It has something to do with the defense mechanisms from the existential crisis.

Your work is shit though. You never learn from your mistakes. You are endeavouring to do something unintelligible.

What I am doing is, given the current state of humanity, I have a concern for humanity, thus taking the responsibility to generate and proposed solutions.
What is critical is whether what I presented is supported by empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
You have not show any of my premises are false or illusory.

All you do is to stir the shit of others from a very ignorant state.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:11 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am I'll address some of the points not done earlier.


Repeat: As I had stated, the default of progress and improvement, i.e. morality in this case, has to be justified and quantified from empirical evidences.
Note axiology - the measurement of values [re Prof].

Prof is unable to measure them too, all of his nonsense is pretty much the same as yours. There is nothing with which to measure moral outcomes as if quantifiable objects.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am
Repeat: As I had stated, the default of progress and improvement, i.e. morality in this case, has to be justified and quantified from empirical evidences.
Note axiology - the measurement of values [re Prof].

What you do is apply your faith. You make an observation of something that can be quantified, and then you decide to have faith that it represents something else that you cannot. That's all Prof's thing is, and it's all yours is too.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am That is where intelligence and wisdom are necessary to produce the effective quantification of values for the purpose of morality.

That's unfortunate. Wise and intelligent people will just tell you that effective quantification of moral outcomes or inputs is impossible and you should stop pretending that they are better than estimates.

What do you mean by 'impossible'? as if there are absolutely absolute measurements.
There are no absolutely absolute measurements.
All measurements even if claimed to be 'absolute' [e.g. absolute temperature] are fundamentally relative and justified estimates.
Even in Science, whatever is ultimately measured is at best 'polished conjectures' [Popper].

I just Googled that phrase "polished conjectures" and all I got was your posts on two forums and a youtube comment in your giveaway P1 P2 C3 format that demonstrates you think premise and conclusion is just an order to put sentences in. I'm not saying you made the phrase up, but I am saying nobody else seems to think it's as important as you do.

Imperfection of physical measurement of quantities and distances and so on is incredibly slight, sure the job is never complete with limitless precision, but that's just part of the game. Nonetheless, when I get out a ruler and measure my computer desk to be 14mm thick, you, at great distance, can measure your computer desk thickness and determine it to be 16mm thick, and then you can say with justification, that you have a thicker computer desk than I do.****

The same can never be said of a "moral truth". no matter which measurable analogue you insert in place of the moral truth you are pretending to measure, there is no tracking between them. We use volumetric sounding terms to describe our emotions and so on, but you have allowed that to mislead you into imagining actual quantities love and loathing and so on.

And that's before we mention that if you say "this desk is thinner than that one, but it's fatter too" about physical measurement, that is clearly understood as a direct contradiction. But if you say "I love it but I hate it", "it's nice but it's sort of nasty", "that dress is classy but only a prostitute would wear it", these obvious contradictions are permissable in normative language. Spititual woo-woo like Yin Yang has nothing to do with it, normative judgments are just not the sort of thing where we apply the same rules as we do to physical objects.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am I agree it is easier to measure physical objects while it is more difficult with abstract things.

It's not more difficult, it's strictly irrational. To measure a thing, the thing must be there to be measured. Abstract things are not there, therfore they are not there to be measured. If you can't grasp this simple a priori truth you are hopelessly delusional.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am But nevertheless, my point is everything is quantifiable and measurable as long as the Framework of Measurement is established rationally and steps are taken to ensure it is fool proof, and there is consensus.

You also have no hope of getting any consensus. Everyone except you and Prof understands that that things like Gross Domestic Happiness are very limited easily gamed fake indexes. But you two just insist that such things measure an immeasurable phenomenon and that's never going to work for you. The consensus will be that you are a pair of loons.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am Note I never claimed to measure 'moral outcomes,' to me that is Ethics not morality.
What I claimed are moral facts and principles based on justified empirical evidences and philosophically reasoning.

It is a moral fact, no [100% none] normal human being would want to be killed by another human. This can be tested empirically.
Then from the Framework and System of Morality, the following moral fact is established, i.e,
No human ought to kill another human. [period]
this is extended to babies in the womb.

Euthenasia is mercy and mercy is a moral good. You can't apply your system, it's too easy to reject it as a premise and ignore its findings.

I'm saving you a lot of work here, you could devote a lifetime to trying to polish this turd like Prof has and just waste your life because you can't see the weakness of the foundations on which your edifice is constrcted but everyone else can.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am I have shown example how the fact of the value of the US Dollar is totally based on sentiments of confidence levels on trust and performance of the US Government. Note what happened to the Zimbabwe Dollar and currencies of other 'banana republics'.

You have not. You are never going to be able to show that money tracks some particular sentiment (i.e, when trust in the US government increases the dollar rises by the same amount). You can get about as far as this: If the Fed or the ECB promises to create as much money as it takes to reach a specific monetary outcome, the markets usually believe them and respond appropriately.

If you are measuring something that is not the thing itself and extrapolating via that measurement, the thing being measured needs to track the thing being being measured by proxy.

Yours is a strawman.
I am not arguing about specific sentiments, e.g. fear, love, trust, confidence, etc.

Well that's worse. If you buy some pills from the drug store and the contents is listed as "100% assorted medicines" then the fact that the concents have been measured only to contain some medicine is not helpful with your heart condition. You want to know which medicine is there no?

But here you are happily claiming to measure an undifferentiated mass of "sentiment" without separating hate from trust from itchiness.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am My point is, it is a fact, the US Dollar is totally [100%] based on sentiments, no gold equivalent like the past.
Thus my point, this fact of the USD is fact of value that is based on 100% sentiment.
Your point is, a "fact" cannot be a value nor be evaluative.
Can you dispute this?

Of course I can. Currencies are priced by supply and demand same as any commodity. The relevant sentiments drive demand. The dollar is not a measure of sentiment, a rising dollar does not mean there is "more sentiment" and a falling dollar does not mean there is "less sentiment". Strictly, it tracks behaviour, and sentiment informs that, but each participant in the bond market is working according to their own sentiment, which is basically fear when the dollar goes up, and optimism when it goes down. Also greed, honor, pride and all the others, in a unique blend for each person.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am Nevertheless, it may not be practical to track every sentiment, but if say, Trump is assassinated and suddenly there is anarchy in the US, then next day the US Dollar dropped by 20% against all other currency. We can estimate the 20% drop is due mostly to the sentiment of fear.

Estimate. Estiamte what? 20% more fear than yesterday? 20% less enthusiasm for TBills? 20% more desire for the Euro? 20% more

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am Re Morality, for example if I rate the evil act of genocide with a base index of 100 evilness, any normal person can rate any petty crime at 1/100 evilness in relative equivalents and that would be acceptable by all who are normal human.
From the above extremes, we can estimate the evilness of the in-between to the best accuracy possible based on effective justifications, intelligence, wisdom, rationality, philosophical reasoning, etc.

None of those things has resolved the controversies of ethics before. Just presenting a chart with worst_crime=Maximum Naughties; least_crime = Minimum Naughties is no use. That's tautologous. You have provided no new method to resolve controversy.

You can put abortion wherever you like on your chart, and somebody is well within their rights to just say you put it in the wrong place. And then what? When you come back at them with your bullshit measurement? They are going to say you measured wrong, or they will say that these things cannot be measured at all.

Your don't have any idea of what morality-proper is.

Note I stated, morality is about establishing moral facts and principles.
The following moral facts as standard is established via a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
From above;
No human ought to kill another human. [period]
this is extended to babies in the womb.

This moral fact is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, thus, it is objective, albeit relative.

Everything you do badly you just append a "-proper" on the end of, instead of improving. Morality-proper is a meaningless expression of faith.

Any idiot can make a chart with blaming a fart on the dog at zero and genocide at 100. Only an idiot would find it inspiriational.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am Thus from the above, 'abortion' is morally wrong!
But the above standard is only a GUIDE, there will be no enforcement.

In practice, at present many people, being human, will not be able to control their sexual lust [inherent] and thus resulting in the need for abortion for various reasons [justified or unjustified].
Within the Moral Framework and System, there is no enforcement nor punishments for abortion.

However the establishment of the moral standard as a moral objective, i.e. a GUIDE, when contrasted with what is actually happening, i.e. abortions need to be performed, a moral variance is generated.

The task for humanity is establish strategies on HOW to reduce the moral variance re abortion progressively and optimally.

Moral fact: more anal = less abortion. Cool. You have fallen between the stools a little and I can't see the abolitionists agreeing that abortion is a minor tragedy to be slowly eased out. And I don't want to unpack your lust comments because you seem like somebody not to discuss sexual congress with under any circumstances.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am The framework and System of Morality and Ethics [proposed for the future not now] will deal with, eliminate or prevent the same acts of evilness but without enforcement and punishments but rather inculcate spontaneous dispositions of good by the individuals.

Oooh, excellent. Once you have determined the experts to decide what everyone should think, you will wash our brains to make sure that we do.

Again you are ignorant of what is going within the human brain since 100,000 years ago to the present.
It is very evident, for example, the dormant mirror neurons within the average human brain is unfolding and being activated.

Total fucking gibberish. What are you trying to say, and how does it relate to what I said?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am

Your work is shit though. You never learn from your mistakes. You are endeavouring to do something unintelligible.

What I am doing is, given the current state of humanity, I have a concern for humanity, thus taking the responsibility to generate and proposed solutions.
What is critical is whether what I presented is supported by empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
You have not show any of my premises are false or illusory.

All you do is to stir the shit of others from a very ignorant state.

Dude, I am not even the only one. Loads of people have shown you that YOUR PREMISES NEVER SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS
You are completely shit at philosophical reasoning.


*** Admit it, you are all proud of me for not measuring something more interesting than a fucking desk.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:44 am Dude, I am not even the only one. Loads of people have shown you that YOUR PREMISES NEVER SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS
You are completely shit at philosophical reasoning.

Show me a philosopher whose premises "support" their conclusions?

All philosophers are shit at philosophical reasoning because all philosophers are shit at reasoning.

ALL beliefs are contingent! Reasoning starts when you begin mitigating around the contingency of beliefs.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:29 pmShow me a philosopher whose premises "support" their conclusions?

All philosophers are shit at philosophical reasoning because all philosophers are shit at reasoning.

ALL beliefs are contingent! Reasoning starts when you begin mitigating around the contingency of beliefs.

Skepdick, the pills are wearing off; you're ranting again.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:41 pm Skepdick, the pills are wearing off; you're ranting again.

Not really. What I am telling you is a fact.

Like the redness of THIS COLOR or THIS COLOR is a fact.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:51 pmLike the redness of THIS COLOR or THIS COLOR is a fact.

Uh huh.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:57 amYour linguistic description of colors are not facts - they are interpretations.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:33 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:51 pmLike the redness of THIS COLOR or THIS COLOR is a fact.

Uh huh.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:57 amYour linguistic description of colors are not facts - they are interpretations.

Yeah, but I was wrong about interpretations - I adopted your standard for "factuality".

The English description "Philosophers are idiots" is a factual account of the idiocy of philosophers.

Any competent English communicator can see that, even if English speakers can't.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am What do you mean by 'impossible'? ...

...

The following is impossible

What I claimed are moral facts and principles based on justified empirical evidences and philosophically reasoning.
....
It is a moral fact, no [100% none] normal human being would want to be killed by another human. This can be tested empirically.

FALSE.
You are simply WRONG.
There are numerous examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whose_Lif ... %3F_(film) , is based on numberless accounts of people wanted assisted death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whose_Lif ... %3F_(film)
Fought legal battles for the right to have someone assist her death.

https://exitinternational.net/about-exit/history/
A movement devoted to do what you claim is "100%" not the case.

Then from the Framework and System of Morality, the following moral fact is established, i.e,
No human ought to kill another human. [period]

FALSE.
Legal warfare is a massive exception to this.
Capital punishment is a massive exception to this.

...this is extended to babies in the womb.

Again. NO, NO, and No.
Fetuses are not babies.
and are legally and morally terminated regularly, and justifiably.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:10 pm FALSE.
You are simply WRONG.
There are numerous examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whose_Lif ... %3F_(film) , is based on numberless accounts of people wanted assisted death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whose_Lif ... %3F_(film)
Fought legal battles for the right to have someone assist her death.

Fucking idiot.

Normal means normal. You know? Like a NORMAL DISTRIBUTION.
It doesn't mean "universal" or "absolute" or any of philosophical crutches you have defaulted to in order to disagree.

Obviously the distribution has outliers. The outliers are not "normal". That's why they are called fucking "outliers".

All rules have exceptions, that doesn't invalidate the rule. Only idiots think that way.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:14 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:10 pm FALSE.
You are simply WRONG.
There are numerous examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whose_Lif ... %3F_(film) , is based on numberless accounts of people wanted assisted death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whose_Lif ... %3F_(film)
Fought legal battles for the right to have someone assist her death.

Fucking idiot.

Normal means normal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn3hlyCv_f8

"NORMAL" is tyranny

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:17 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn3hlyCv_f8

"NORMAL" is tyrany

Well, the NORMAL distribution of people prefer life to death.

If normal is "tyrany" - go kill yourself. Youtube it as proof.