Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 12:54 pm
No, let's have it here and now.
That would be going off topic.
See:
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
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.
Your thinking is outdated. I have researched on the subject of 'what is evil' extensively
see:
The Concept of Evil
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/
There must be a definition of 'what is evil' related to Morality and that should be represented by
an exhaustive list of human acts that fit the definition of 'what is evil' and applicable to morality.
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.
You are too hasty on this with your narrow thinking.
Point is whatever and every of the oughtness or oughtnot-ness
must be verified and justified objectively by science via the scientific framework and system [FSERC] and subsequently by the human-based morality FSERC.
I have already given you some leads related to the the biological oughtness of breathe and transmuting it to a moral fact.
Here is clue on the significance of FSERC reality, truths and objectivity:
viewtopic.php?p=719258#p719258
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.
I say again, this biological 'oughtness to breathe' is represented by a physical mechanisms operated by physical neurons in process and actions.
There is no question that it is imperative rather than necessary [too general].
First you have missed out on what is morality-proper.
Ironic. You don't have any explanation of what makes something moral at all.
This is easy with a generally acceptable definition of 'what is morality'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Your basis of what is morality is grounded on theism which is delusional.
Theistic morality is useful in a way but it is not objective.
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.
"
#1 just says that some people don't feel they like to do it, and some do."
This is ridiculous.
Note the contrast to the trigger of the sexual desire in the majority, then they have to resist it or don't feel like doing it due to various reasons.
For the majority, the thought of wanting to kill humans do not spring to mind at all for consideration that they do not feel they like to do it.
This is because the 'oughtnotness to kill humans' mechanism is much stronger than the sexual triggers.
The establishment of laws to prevent killing of humans with very high consequences is due to the manifestation of 'oughtnotness to kill humans' mechanism. If this is not dominant, it would not be serious crime.
Marxism is not a religion, all religions condemn killing of humans in general and some allowance for exceptions.
Again, this is because the 'oughtnot-ness to kill humans' is dominant and serious threat to humanity.
You will move on [running away and you have to] because your refutations are all grounded on the delusional idea [albeit useful] of an impossible-to-be-real God.
