Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 5:48 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 4:56 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 4:45 am
If the author is realistic, he would have critiqued that God is not real, i.e. impossible to exists as real.
Why? Because you keep saying it? That's not a good reason to believe it.
Give your evidence that there's no God. Let's see what you've got.
I have provided the link above.
No, let's have it here and now.
But let's look even beyond that, too. If there's no God, it wouldn't imply that there ARE "oughts." There still wouldn't be any "oughts." Getting rid of God wouldn't give you any justification for a single moral precept: in fact, it would mean you have none at all, and no hope of any.
Do you understand the general meaning of the term 'morality'
Much better than you do, I guarantee. I can tell that from your attempted arguments.
I defined morality as the management of evil [as defined] to enable its related good to manifest.
See, you don't even realized that this totally begs the key question: you can't say anything is "evil" unless you are already using a moral standard. So you can't use reference to "evil" to explain your definition of morality. You need to have explained what makes things "good" or "evil" in the first place. And you haven't. So again, you've got nothing there.
Empirically the subject, feature and activities related to morality are ubiquitous to humans activities thus arising from human nature.
That wouldn't make them right, and it wouldn't mean we "ought" to do them. It would plausibly be like many other things human beings have done ubiquitously...slavery, rape, war, prostitution, genocide...just things we do, but we have no "ought" to do.
Just like elsewhere, "Oughts" and "ought-not-ness" are features of a moral system and the subject of morality.
So there is the oughtnot-ness to enslave, to rape, to kill another person.
No, all you are saying is that there is BOTH "oughtness and ought-notness," and you have no way of being sure what applies to any of these cases. Maybe, we "ought" to enslave people, because it gives us free labour. Maybe we "ought" to rape, because it's the quickest route to gratification. Maybe we "ought" to murder people, because they're in our way. Your explanation gives us no reasons to believe it's "ought-notness" that attaches to these things at all.
But again, you don't even understand the problem; so that's why you can't deal with it.
It is not mere necessary, it is an imperative thus more appropriate an 'oughtness to breathe'.
It's not an imperative at all. It's merely useful to the continuation of life. But we don't know if we "ought" to continue to live, either.
First you have missed out on what is morality-proper.
Ironic. You don't have any explanation of what makes something moral at all.
Again you missed my critical points.
They weren't critical. They weren't even coherent or relevant. They deserved to be ignored, because they had no rational value to the discussion.
But I didn't ignore them: I pointed out that people do, in fact, love to kill. They do it tons.
The presence of the moral fact is evident from the following;
1. that you and the majority do not seeming go about killing humans either naturally, or due to some internal restraining forces.
2. the killing of humans by humans is a serious crime in all countries.
3. all religions generally condemn the killing of humans
So this is just rubbish. First of all, #1 just says that some people don't feel they like to do it, and some do. The second is irrelevant, because some laws are good and some are evil, and we can't yet tell why we would assume killing was evil. The third one is manifestly untrue, in cases like Islam or Marxism.
You've got nothing again. But I'll give you one more chance to figure it out, and then I'm moving on: because it's clear to me that so far, you don't even understand the Is-Ought problem, let alone have any relevant answer to it. And my time's too short to waste on going around in empty circles like you do.
