Philosophy Now Forum

Here is my argument why humanity need objective Moral Ought.
I have argued moral 'ought' can be justified from "is"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

The argument:

• 1. Surely you are aware humanity is facing a whole range of problems and sufferings with possibility of the human species being exterminated.
  
  2. All human problems re bad and evil are reducible to the question of Morality and Ethics.
  
  3. In this case we need problem solving techniques to resolve, prevent and mitigate those morally related problems.
  
  4. For a problem solving technique to be effective, it need to be embedded with a control - feedback system.
  
  5. To be effective, a control-feedback system must have an objective standard to compare results and so that variances can be feedback for control and improvement. [hope you are not ignorant of this?]
  
  6. Since this is a question of morality, we need the absolute GOOD as an objective standard to be embedded within the moral control-feedback system to facilitate continuous improvements.
  
  7. The absolute Good, i.e. the moral ought as GUIDE or standard only can be justified from empirical evidences. [I have demonstrated 'is' from 'ought' is possible]

Therefore if you are a normal human being you will agree with point 1 which follows through to the need for a secular objective absolute moral ought as a GUIDE only for the moral control-feedback system.
The GUIDE is never binding but merely to guide continual improvement towards the impossible ideal.

It is not a claim of a binding-ought but for humanity sake and its future, we need the justifiable moral ought as a necessity [imperative] for guidance.

IF you do not agree to point 1 and all the premises that follow then, you are an ignorant, selfish and an immoral human being toward the future generations of human beings.

Generally it is true of theists, they are very selfish and are desperately clinging to their own selfish salvation [as with other selfish theists] as driven by an inherent psychological desperation to soothe the pains from an inherent existential crisis.
Certain theists [large quantum of Muslims] will kill those who question their beliefs.

Views

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 19, 2020 5:35 am ...

Certain theists [large quantum of Muslims] will kill those who question their beliefs.

Views

thus spake the crusader

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:31 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 19, 2020 5:35 am ...

Certain theists [large quantum of Muslims] will kill those who question their beliefs.

Views

thus spake the crusader
-Imp

There you go again due to ignorance.
I qualified 'Muslims' because it is their God [Allah] in the Holy text commands believers to kill non-believers upon vague definition of threats to the religion.

The Crusaders may have killed non-believers, but it has nothing to do with their religion, Christianity, Jesus and the NT-God which commanded them to 'love their enemies' thus not to kill them.

What the Crusaders did was on their own personal discretion at their own risks for the greater good and against their God's and Jesus' commands.

Any psychopathic who joined the Crusades then to taste and satisfy his selfish pleasure in killing humans would have the omniscient God "twisted his ear" and sent to hell.

The rest who volunteered for the greater good at their own risks would have been forgiven for their sins by the wise and compassionate God in this specific case.

thank you for the insult...

justify murder all you like, it is your manifest destiny after all...

-Imp

Only one man was capable of defining the moral ought and with the intelligence to admit it.

"I wish nothing but good, therefore every man who does not agree with me is a traitor and a scoundrel." ~ King George 111