Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:32 am The above paradox is merely a side logical 'deviant' which does not warrant the total rejection of the 'if X, then Y' model which is used commonly with convincing results, e.g. IT, etc.

The resultant of 'if X then Y' must be justified and validated empirically and philosophically.

Thus the usual theists' claim 'if X, then God exists' will not pass as real until they can justified God exists as real empirically and philosophically.

You are still appealing to justification. If X then Y is the same as saying "X entails/validates/justifies Y".

Pick your poison; or embrace the suck

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 8:38 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:34 pmIf X then Y is sufficient to derive paradoxes.

That's lovely Skepdick. Now can you give me a reason to give a fuck?

You have this "epistemology" thing figured backwards.

I've given you a reason to NOT give a fuck.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:02 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:42 amWhat is the problem with the above?

Suppose you can discover a way to positively identify everyone with a "potential to commit evil acts [defined]". Who gets to define "evil acts"? And what do you do about potential evil act committers?

I have done extensive and deep research into 'what is evil' and thus is very familiar with the topic.
Here is a clue to 'what is evil.'
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

Re what is evil, which normal person in the world would deny 'genocide' is an evil act?
Once we recognized genocide is evil we can use it as a standard to measure the degrees of evil_ness for other similar evil acts.

There is nothing much we can do with those who are potentially evil prone AT PRESENT [& the next generation or 2] except to deter them from committing evil with the threat of criminal laws and its related punishments. Some rehabilitation programs can help but not much. As you can see even the threat of capital punishment and life imprisonment are no deterrence for the hardcore evil prone.

What humanity need to strive at for the future generations [say the next 3rd] is to ensure there are no persons with any potential evil tendencies.
This is why we need to get serious with morality & ethics and dig deep into understanding the neural mechanisms of evil so that effective preventive steps [FOOLPROOF] can be taken to inhibit any potential for evil totally so that no person will commit any evil acts at all in the future [not now].

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:56 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:32 am The above paradox is merely a side logical 'deviant' which does not warrant the total rejection of the 'if X, then Y' model which is used commonly with convincing results, e.g. IT, etc.

The resultant of 'if X then Y' must be justified and validated empirically and philosophically.

Thus the usual theists' claim 'if X, then God exists' will not pass as real until they can justified God exists as real empirically and philosophically.

You are still appealing to justification. If X then Y is the same as saying "X entails/validates/justifies Y".

Pick your poison; or embrace the suck

One cannot simply get away to claim truth with merely using the term 'justified'.

I am referring to justification of moral facts as in Science in generating scientific knowledge from within the Scientific Framework.

As such moral facts are justified within a Moral & Ethical Framework with its features which are similar [not exactly] to that of the Scientific Framework.

The justification process of moral facts will comprised on the following features;

• 1. Induction
  2. Verification
  2i Systematic
  3. Testability
  4. Repeatability
  5. Peer Reviews
  6. Objectivity
  7. Truth-apt
  8. Reliability
  9. Predictability
  10. Reducible to nonmoral properties

As with scientific knowledge, what counts ultimately is whether moral facts as knowledge will contribute to the well being of the individuals and humanity.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 4:21 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:56 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:32 am The above paradox is merely a side logical 'deviant' which does not warrant the total rejection of the 'if X, then Y' model which is used commonly with convincing results, e.g. IT, etc.

The resultant of 'if X then Y' must be justified and validated empirically and philosophically.

Thus the usual theists' claim 'if X, then God exists' will not pass as real until they can justified God exists as real empirically and philosophically.

You are still appealing to justification. If X then Y is the same as saying "X entails/validates/justifies Y".

Pick your poison; or embrace the suck

One cannot simply get away to claim truth with merely using the term 'justified'.

I am referring to justification of moral facts as in Science in generating scientific knowledge from within the Scientific Framework.

As such moral facts are justified within a Moral & Ethical Framework with its features which are similar [not exactly] to that of the Scientific Framework.

The justification process of moral facts will comprised on the following features;

• 1. Induction
  2. Verification
  2i Systematic
  3. Testability
  4. Repeatability
  5. Peer Reviews
  6. Objectivity
  7. Truth-apt
  8. Reliability
  9. Predictability
  10. Reducible to nonmoral properties

As with scientific knowledge, what counts ultimately is whether moral facts as knowledge will contribute to the well being of the individuals and humanity.

The scientific framework still requires social consensus on the measurement units, and a consensus on the reference frame in order to get off the ground. That's what the SI units are for (measurement) and what the various theories are for (reference frames).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... m_of_Units
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference

So what basic units of measurement and what reference frame do you propose for your moral framework?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 4:06 amWhat humanity need to strive at for the future generations [say the next 3rd] is to ensure there are no persons with any potential evil tendencies.

What do you propose future generations do when they discover some individual with potential evil tendencies?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 12:06 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 4:21 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:56 pm
You are still appealing to justification. If X then Y is the same as saying "X entails/validates/justifies Y".

Pick your poison; or embrace the suck

One cannot simply get away to claim truth with merely using the term 'justified'.

I am referring to justification of moral facts as in Science in generating scientific knowledge from within the Scientific Framework.

As such moral facts are justified within a Moral & Ethical Framework with its features which are similar [not exactly] to that of the Scientific Framework.

The justification process of moral facts will comprised on the following features;

• 1. Induction
  2. Verification
  2i Systematic
  3. Testability
  4. Repeatability
  5. Peer Reviews
  6. Objectivity
  7. Truth-apt
  8. Reliability
  9. Predictability
  10. Reducible to nonmoral properties

As with scientific knowledge, what counts ultimately is whether moral facts as knowledge will contribute to the well being of the individuals and humanity.

The scientific framework still requires social consensus on the measurement units, and a consensus on the reference frame in order to get off the ground. That's what the SI units are for (measurement) and what the various theories are for (reference frames).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... m_of_Units
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference

So what basic units of measurement and what reference frame do you propose for your moral framework?

Btw, I am not claiming the moral frameworks and system [FSK] is exactly or precisely the same as the Scientific FSK.
In any case, the moral framework is more towards the Social Sciences [Psychology and the likes] rather than Physical Sciences.

A FSK will rely on qualitative and quantitative variables.
The moral FSK rely more on qualitative than quantitative.

Where the FSK resort to quantitative variables, then it would rely on Axiology,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiology
which will involve SI units where applicable.

This Physical Framework, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
is not relevant to the Moral Framework and System.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 1:57 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 4:06 amWhat humanity need to strive at for the future generations [say the next 3rd] is to ensure there are no persons with any potential evil tendencies.

What do you propose future generations do when they discover some individual with potential evil tendencies?

There is no perfection in practice & nature and no one would expect perfection to be achieved.
As such there will always be deviations from norm but they are expected to be the acceptable exceptions.

By then, if there are such individuals, they would be a rare exception rather than the norm like what we have at present.
Nonetheless, investigations will be done to find out the causes.
If the causes are preventable, then preventive actions will be taken, if not, then, they will be accepted as an acceptable deviation from norm.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:34 am Btw, I am not claiming the moral frameworks and system [FSK] is exactly or precisely the same as the Scientific FSK.

Great! Ceteris paribus, how are they different?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:34 am The moral FSK rely more on qualitative than quantitative.

So, qualitatively speaking - what is morality?

Qualitatively speaking how would you determine if X is more moral than Y?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:34 am This Physical Framework, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
is not relevant to the Moral Framework and System.

A reference frame is relevant to ANY system of thought.

Without a shared reference frame you are stuck with perspectivism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:41 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 1:57 pmWhat do you propose future generations do when they discover some individual with potential evil tendencies?

If the causes are preventable, then preventive actions will be taken...

Like what? Do you mean eugenics?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:19 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:34 am The moral FSK rely more on qualitative than quantitative.

So, qualitatively speaking - what is morality?

Qualitatively speaking how would you determine if X is more moral than Y?

I stated the following in the above post;

• Where the [Moral] FSK resort to quantitative variables, then it would rely on Axiology,
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiology
  which will involve SI units where applicable.

Just in case you do prefer to click the link;

Axiology (from Greek ἀξία, axia, "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia) is the philosophical study of value. It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics,[1] philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of worth, or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics. The term was first used by Paul Lapie, in 1902,[2][3] and Eduard von Hartmann, in 1908.[4][5]

Axiology studies mainly two kinds of values: ethics and aesthetics. Ethics investigates the concepts of "right" and "good" in individual and social conduct. Aesthetics studies the concepts of "beauty" and "harmony." Formal axiology, the attempt to lay out principles regarding value with mathematical rigor, is exemplified by Robert S. Hartman's science of value.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:38 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:41 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 1:57 pmWhat do you propose future generations do when they discover some individual with potential evil tendencies?

If the causes are preventable, then preventive actions will be taken...

Like what? Do you mean eugenics?

Nope. Even if one resort to such method as eugenics there is no guarantee of improvements in morality in future generations.

I stated the methods to be adopted must be FOOLPROOF from whatever is negative, evil and immoral.

I stated elsewhere, i.e. from the potentials of the knowledge from the Human Genomic Project and Human Connectome Project [neurosciences], humans will be more efficient in targeting specific areas of the brain related to moral improvements rather than based on hit and miss methods or no methods at all as done at present.

The methods adopted are via voluntary personal self-development programs, not using chemicals, drugs, brain-washing, eugenics and other net-negative methods.

Whatever the moral improvements within the individuals will be passed on to their future generations en masse not via selective breeding.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:35 amI stated the methods to be adopted must be FOOLPROOF from whatever is negative, evil and immoral.

FOOLPROOF eh?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:35 amThe methods adopted are via voluntary personal self-development programs, not using chemicals, drugs, brain-washing, eugenics and other net-negative methods.

I admire your optimism if you believe that voluntary submission to "personal self-development programs" will ever be foolproof.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:35 amWhatever the moral improvements within the individuals will be passed on to their future generations en masse not via selective breeding.

So the results of future personal self-development programs will be genetically heritable? That's quite a prediction.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:46 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:35 amI stated the methods to be adopted must be FOOLPROOF from whatever is negative, evil and immoral.

FOOLPROOF eh?

Humans are not infallible nor perfect thus there will be 'holes' in any endeavor/methodology but the concept of fool-proofing [idiot-proofing, mistake] will be implanted is all self-improvement programs.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:35 amThe methods adopted are via voluntary personal self-development programs, not using chemicals, drugs, brain-washing, eugenics and other net-negative methods.

I admire your optimism if you believe that voluntary submission to "personal self-development programs" will ever be foolproof.

Why not?

Note the following fool-proofing method had been widely implemented all over the world is all sorts of systems and processes including self-development programs.

Poka-yoke (ポカヨケ, [poka joke]) is a Japanese term that means "mistake-proofing" or "inadvertent error prevention".
A poka-yoke is any mechanism in any process that helps an equipment operator avoid (yokeru) mistakes (poka).
Its purpose is to eliminate product defects by preventing, correcting, or drawing attention to human errors as they occur.

I am very optimistic since almost everyone around the world now have access to the internet and a smart-phone [Google, Youtube, etc.] which is getting cheaper and cheaper.

300 years ago [1700s], if slave S had been optimistic and predicted 'chattel' slavery will be banned by all nations in the world by year 2000, he would be a laughing stock. But S is right on target with its reality at present.
It is the same with anyone predicting the existing state of the internet, brain science, genomics, and the likes 150 years ago; s/he would be a laughing stock of the world for such optimism 150 years ago.

So don't be skeptical of my optimism which is extrapolated from existing empirical evidences.
You are skeptical is because you do not dig deep and wide for all knowledge that are relevant for the points raised above. In this case your inherent natural resistance-to-change will be triggered whenever something new with justified optimism is suggested.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:35 amWhatever the moral improvements within the individuals will be passed on to their future generations en masse not via selective breeding.

So the results of future personal self-development programs will be genetically heritable? That's quite a prediction.

Some [not all] of the adopted elements and processes that change the neural settings will be inheritable.
The self-development programs in the future will be adopted voluntarily by all due to their immediate self-fulfillment and evident potentials.
The self-development programs will have efficient systems with effective controlling features which are self-correcting and drive improvements on a spiral basis.