Kant: No Ought From Is

[Skepdick]

or decision-making.

Not sure what difference that makes. It's our decision-making that (ultimately) produces moral; or immoral outcomes.

In your words or images or whatever, demonstrate that the survival of humans is objectively good.

I don't believe you are committed to this question and I believe you are only asking it for contrarian purposes.

Convince me you are committed and die immediatelly.

Oh, I am quite sure some have, just as moral realists have.

Which is precisely why there's no difference between "moral realists" and "moral anti-realists".

None of you are willing to take me up on my "die immediatelly" challenge. Given the choice of death OR argument; you always choose to argue instead of just shutting up and dying immediatelly. You say different things, but make the exact same choices.

That's a revealed preference

Are you saying that moral antirealists wouldn't volunteer to fight in war, run into a burning building to save someone, etc. Can you demonstrate this is the case?

No. I am saying that both moral realists and moral anti-realists (and even nihilists and amoralists) prefer arguing and philosophising over morality over dying.

And I believe you are busy demonstrating that right now.

Have I asserted that it changes my choices or their effects?

If it doesn't change your choices - why change your philosophical designation?

I have a theory... you prefer philosophising over dying.

The argument is missing steps. If I don't believe in objective morals, I won't care if I survive or love people or have preferences? demonstrate this?

It's not an argument - it's a challenge. Stop arguing and just die.

Unless, of course you prefer arguing over death.

Which is objectively better tasting: vanilla or chocolate ice cream?

For which tasting object? Me; or you?

On what issue? What are you talking about here.

On whatever issue you think you are disagreeing with me about.

Are you saying I can passionately, radically, extremely prefer something or hate something without thinking it is objective horrible?

Are you saying that you don't understand what I am saying? Because I have said nothing like that.

It's of extreme concern to me. I just don't believe in objective morals.

Then why won't you stop arguing and die? It's not like it's objectively wrong if you died right now.

If you think that's just stupid language games, notice that you are playing one.

It is a stupid language game. I am playing it, but I am most definitely not playing it like you.

I am playing to end the game ASAP. You are playing to keep it going ad infinitum.

Since you want me to use objective for some reason

That's a lie. What I want you to do is to stop drawing the distinction, because for as long as you keep doing it you will continue tripping up over
the connotation that objective morals are somehow better than subjective ones.

Morals are morals! The subjective ones are as good as the objective ones.

Human extinction doesn't become less; or mora palatable across subjective or objective moral views.

when for all you know I care even more than you do about the extinction of humans.

How would that even be possible since you don't even think that human extinction is objectively moral.

So, see if you can stop attributing positions and feelings to me: strawmanning.

You are way more guilty of that than me... you keep attributing to me things I haven't said or implied.

[Iwannaplato]

Not sure what difference that makes. It's our decision-making that (ultimately) produces moral; or immoral outcomes.

Or just 'outcomes'. Some outcomes I hate, some I merely prefer, some I love and so on.

In your words or images or whatever, demonstrate that the survival of humans is objectively good.

I don't believe you are committed to this question and I believe you are only asking it for contrarian purposes.

You're incorrect. Could you please demonstrate that the survival of humans is objectively good.

Convince me you are committed and die immediatelly.

I like life, no thanks.

Oh, I am quite sure some have, just as moral realists have.

Which is precisely why there's no difference between "moral realists" and "moral anti-realists".

So, if two groups have members that do the same things, there is no difference between them?

None of you are willing to take me up on my "die immediatelly" challenge.

Explain how this contradicts our beliefs. Are you saying moral ideas are the only motivators? Lay out the argument.

Given the choice of death OR argument; you always choose to argue instead of just shutting up and dying immediatelly. You say different things, but make the exact same choices.

Well, no. We obviously make different choices or you wouldn't be arguing with us. And further there would be difference in how I would talk to someone about behavior I didn't like, for example. This would likely change outcomes in many instances. So, you are incorrect.

Are you saying that moral antirealists wouldn't volunteer to fight in war, run into a burning building to save someone, etc. Can you demonstrate this is the case?

No. I am saying that both moral realists and moral anti-realists (and even nihilists and amoralists) prefer arguing and philosophising over morality over dying.

I would guess that nihilists are more likely to kill themselves. But your argument seems to be if I like living then I am wrong about moral realism. If you're going to convince me that follows, you'll need to make an argument (or link me to where you made it) that demonstrates that.

And I believe you are busy demonstrating that right now.

I do prefer it, yes. That doesn't mean moral realism is correct.

Have I asserted that it changes my choices or their effects?

If it doesn't change your choices - why change your philosophical designation?

And now I have asserted that it does. Why does it change my philosophical designation? Because I don't have the same belief the moral realists do.

Which is objectively better tasting: vanilla or chocolate ice cream?

For which tasting object? Me; or you?

OK, so what you mean by objectivity is what suits a specific individual in this case.

So if we were dealing with the abortion issue, if I say that I prefer to have the option of safe abortions, this is an objectively moral position. And someone who does not want me to have that option is objective correct also,
then we are, yes, just quibbling over words. I think you are using the word objectively oddly, implicitly, not in your example.

On what issue? What are you talking about here.

On whatever issue you think you are disagreeing with me about.

Oh, good, you think we don't disagree.

Are you saying I can passionately, radically, extremely prefer something or hate something without thinking it is objective horrible?

Are you saying that you don't understand what I am saying? Because I have said nothing like that.

Can I take that as a 'no' then?

If you think that's just stupid language games, notice that you are playing one.

It is a stupid language game. I am playing it, but I am most definitely not playing it like you.

I am playing to end the game ASAP. You are playing to keep it going ad infinitum.

So, you're a mind reader?

Since you want me to use objective for some reason

That's a lie. What I want you to do is to stop drawing the distinction, because for as long as you keep doing it you will continue tripping up over
the connotation that objective morals are somehow better than subjective ones.

Better? This seems like more mindreading. I don't think objective morals are better, whatever that would even mean.

Morals are morals! The subjective ones are as good as the objective ones.

Human extinction doesn't become less; or mora palatable across subjective or objective moral views.

when for all you know I care even more than you do about the extinction of humans.

How would that even be possible since you don't even think that human extinction is objectively moral.

It seems to be you who thinks objective morals are better.

So, see if you can stop attributing positions and feelings to me: strawmanning.

You are way more guilty of that than me... you keep attributing to me things I haven't said or implied.

Such as? I do appreciate your accepting some measure of guilt for doing this.

[Skepdick]

Not sure what difference that makes. It's our decision-making that (ultimately) produces moral; or immoral outcomes.

Or just 'outcomes'. Some outcomes I hate, some I merely prefer, some I love and so on.

And some of those outcomes you consider moral and immoral, no?

Because you claim to consider the category called "morality" to be non-empty.

You're incorrect.

The only evidence I would accept as evidence for my incorrectness is you commintting to your position with actions.

Kill yourself.

Could you please demonstrate that the survival of humans is objectively good.

That's literally what I am doing right now.

I have tasked you with demonstrating that you actually believe what you say (I don't think you do, but I am being charitable).
If you believe that your continued survival is not objectively good then you would've killed yourself by now.

Why are you still taking to me instead of demonstrating that you truly believe what you say you believe?

I like life, no thanks.

Oh, so you objectively prefer NOT dying to dying? No surprise there.

So, if two groups have members that do the same things, there is no difference between them?

In so far as the pragmatists are concerned - a difference in language is no difference at all.

Is it really such a long stretch? Re-describing yourself as a "moral realist"; or a "moral anti-realist" doesn't change your likes and preferences - only your narrative about yourself.

It's identity politics 101 stuff. You are just trying to be different from the rest without doing anything different from the rest.

Explain how this contradicts our beliefs. Are you saying moral ideas are the only motivators? Lay out the argument.

"Contradictions", "arguments" - so much baggage and connotation. I don't engage in that mess.

I am pointing out the fact that re-describing yourself philosophically doesn't change your actual preferences about living and dying, health and sickness, poverty and wealth, education and ignorance, democracy vs tyranny, slavery vs freedom etc. etc. ect.

When faced with those choices - you will choose what's best for you. And what's best for you isn't being dead, poor, sick, oppressed and ignorant.

Irrespective of your philosophical identity.

Well, no. We obviously make different choices or you wouldn't be arguing with us.

And I am not arguing... because the game is rigged and carries connotation/baggage. And also because I only play by my rules.

And further there would be difference in how I would talk to someone about behavior I didn't like, for example. This would likely change outcomes in many instances. So, you are incorrect.

Uhuh. So you would correct somebody wronging you. But you don't call that "moral behaviour".

I would guess that nihilists are more likely to kill themselves.

No, they would much rather tell you that they are nihilists (and present lengthy arguments/reasons for why) than actually die.

They just want to be heard/understood and appreciated, you see. Like most humans.

But your argument seems to be if I like living then I am wrong about moral realism.

What you are wrong about is the realism/anti-realism distinction. Both moral realists and moral anti-realists are still moralists.

And given the moral choice of living; or dying - they both make the exact same one. Their values are the same, despite their differences in meta-narratives.

you're going to convince me that follows, you'll need to make an argument (or link me to where you made it) that demonstrates that.

There's no link or argument required - observe yourself making the choices that you are making.

Then tell us how a moral realist would've made different moral choices to you. If you can't do that - chahces are you have a shared value-system, despite your differences in meta-narrative.

I do prefer it, yes. That doesn't mean moral realism is correct.

I have no idea what you mean as "correct". What yardstick for correctness are you using? Accurate description of reality?

That's a bunk game! All coherent descriptions are accurate in so far as they cohere; but there is no way to test if they correspond.

And now I have asserted that it does. Why does it change my philosophical designation? Because I don't have the same belief the moral realists do.

Abstract beliefs result in concrete actions.

If "different" abstract beliefs produce the same moral choices - how different is that belief really?

2+2 is different to 9-5 but they are both 4.

In logic it's called confluence.

OK, so what you mean by objectivity is what suits a specific individual in this case.

What I mean by "objective" and "objectivity" is any property which belongs to the object under consideration.

There are two objects under consideration. Both have a property called mass. Two objects need not have the same mass, but their mass is objective.
There are two objects under consideration. Both have a property called "icecream flavour preference". Two objects need not have the same preference; but their preference is objective.

So if we were dealing with the abortion issue, if I say that I prefer to have the option of safe abortions, this is an objectively moral position. And someone who does not want me to have that option is objective correct also,
then we are, yes, just quibbling over words. I think you are using the word objectively oddly, implicitly, not in your example.

I am using the word "objectively" precisely as I am using it - to report on objective properties of objects.

Two objects have an objective property called "stance on abortion". When those stances differ - we have a bunch of mechanisms for conflict resolution.
And then this whole "natural selection" (of ideas) things happens... Arguing, democratising, war.

Oh, good, you think we don't disagree.

I prefer to think of what's going on here as a continual transformation from an unknown state to mutual agreement. Irrespective of what you want; and especially if you insist on disagreement for its own sake.

Can I take that as a 'no' then?

Maybe.

So, you're a mind reader?

Nothing like that. It's just a prediction based on my understanding of game theory.

Philosophers keep the debate open for 2500 years. It's called demonic non-determinism.
Pragmatists tend to strive for more rapid conclusions. It's called angelic non-determinism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_non-determinism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelic_non-determinism

And over time you tend to develop a (rather accurate) intuition for who's playing which game...

My heuristic tends to go something like this: it's much easier to argue ad infinitum over meta-bullshit such as the semantics of the subjectivity/objectivity of morality than it is to disagree (in practice) with the wrongness of being murdered.

Better? This seems like more mindreading. I don't think objective morals are better, whatever that would even mean.

Then it shouldn't matter whether they are objective; or subjective - no? Otherwise it sure begs the question - why choose that particular qualifier; and how?

It seems to be you who thinks objective morals are better.

I don't think that, but I do think that you think that.

I think that the adjective which we use to characterise morality is immaterial.

Such as?

Oh... you don't even know that you are doing it? So you aren't very intentional with your words...

[DPMartin]

na, What ought to be would be classified as an “idea” of which personal desires, social priorities, and most personal acts, are, ideas. Morals are derived from, what ought to be, or the idea of what ought to be, whereas nature is merely experienced, and not moral. Morals or moral content require an agreement between two or more that can agree, otherwise its just experiences.

That you [hopefully my assessment is right] don't go about killing, raping, kidnap and enslave and being violent-to the nearest human[s] you see does not need an agreement between you and them.

The acts of evil are moral elements and that you spontaneously do not act upon them imply you are a moral person with a certain degree of moral competence.

Why you spontaneously do not act out those evil deed is because there is some kind of inherent of moral-ought-not_ness that inhibit you from committing those evil deeds naturally.

You just cannot go about making agreement with every 8 billion on Earth in not to commit moral evil upon them.

The truth is there are already moral facts of moral ought-not-ness inherent in you that you don't go about committing evil on any other human. You can call these moral 'brakes' within your brain.

The moral brakes are facts in the brain and human self.
Those who commit immoral evil deeds is because their moral brakes are not working effectively but there is no denial these moral brakes exist in them as a matter of fact.

See, you’re trying to tell me that human nature is inherently moral and again it is not. Mankind maybe inherently social but that need if you will, is satisfied in agreed coexistence, as in we can rape and pillage the tribe over there but we don’t rape and pillage people in our own tribe. Hence now you have a moral code to coexist by while still executing the human nature which if you notice must have rule against and be enforced to coexist peacefully

[Veritas Aequitas]

na, What ought to be would be classified as an “idea” of which personal desires, social priorities, and most personal acts, are, ideas. Morals are derived from, what ought to be, or the idea of what ought to be, whereas nature is merely experienced, and not moral. Morals or moral content require an agreement between two or more that can agree, otherwise its just experiences.

That you [hopefully my assessment is right] don't go about killing, raping, kidnap and enslave and being violent-to the nearest human[s] you see does not need an agreement between you and them.

The acts of evil are moral elements and that you spontaneously do not act upon them imply you are a moral person with a certain degree of moral competence.

Why you spontaneously do not act out those evil deed is because there is some kind of inherent of moral-ought-not_ness that inhibit you from committing those evil deeds naturally.

You just cannot go about making agreement with every 8 billion on Earth in not to commit moral evil upon them.

The truth is there are already moral facts of moral ought-not-ness inherent in you that you don't go about committing evil on any other human. You can call these moral 'brakes' within your brain.

The moral brakes are facts in the brain and human self.
Those who commit immoral evil deeds is because their moral brakes are not working effectively but there is no denial these moral brakes exist in them as a matter of fact.

See, you’re trying to tell me that human nature is inherently moral and again it is not. Mankind maybe inherently social but that need if you will, is satisfied in agreed coexistence, as in we can rape and pillage the tribe over there but we don’t rape and pillage people in our own tribe. Hence now you have a moral code to coexist by while still executing the human nature which if you notice must have rule against and be enforced to coexist peacefully

See WHAT??

I obviously had underestimated your moral competence. It would appear your inherent moral potential is very under-developed.
It seems you will readily kill and rape those who are not of your tribe, which in modern sense are not of your type, in terms of race, religion, ideology, different interests, opposition in sports, and the likes.

For the majority whose moral potential is unfolding albeit slowly, they would not arbitrary kill, rape, enslave, any human regardless of their race, sex, and other differences.

The agreement you allude to has nothing to do with any inherent moral competence.
What you have inferred is the social contract which is Politics and controlled by Laws and rules and if any one fall short of the implied social agreement they will be punished according to the Law.

Any person who is well developed with his inherent moral competence will naturally not commit anything immoral. There is no need for any deterrence of threat of punishment from the Law to deter such a person to commit evil acts.

The analogy with the moral competence is like intelligence.
There is no need for rules and laws to force one to be intelligent.
The capacity for intelligence and cognition for knowledge is inherent in all humans whereby there are degrees of development and under-development.
Currently there are methods to develop the inherent intelligence and expedite one's cognition for knowledge because we have understood more or less how the mechanisms work.

Moral intelligence and competence is more subtle and not so well recognized at present.
This is why at present we need to research to understand the mechanisms of how the inherent moral intelligence works to expedite its development in the majority.

When the majority of human individuals has a reasonably developed inherent moral intelligence or competence, there will be less reliance on laws and rules to enforce good conduct within the population. Then they will inherently and naturally be good moral citizens based on their developed moral competence.

[Skepdick]

See, you’re trying to tell me that human nature is inherently moral and again it is not. Mankind maybe inherently social but that need if you will, is satisfied in agreed coexistence, as in we can rape and pillage the tribe over there but we don’t rape and pillage people in our own tribe. Hence now you have a moral code to coexist by while still executing the human nature which if you notice must have rule against and be enforced to coexist peacefully

So you are trying to tell us that the inherently immoral humans are trying to reduce rape, murder, tribalism and pilaging; and towards this goal the inherently immoral humans created rules/laws, complex legal systems, societies, ethical frameworks and all sorts of social structures just for peaceful coexistence?!?

How is it that the inherently immoral humans are even succeeding?

Why should the inherently immoral humans even bother following their own, made up laws?

[Iwannaplato]

.....

I took a number of people off ignore recently, including you. Just seeing what would happen. Immediately I noticed your introduction of ad hom jabs here, you labeling my position stupidity, your many, poor mind reading attempts, you not supporting statements when asked (a few times), your conflating asking questions with assuming things and so on. So, I looked back. Why did I put you on ignore before? Well, same kinda time wasting stuff. I don't know your motivations for this. Whatever they are I'd rather have a discussion of points made and interact with people who are interested in supporting their positions. Back on ignore.

[Sculptor]

The majority commonly identify [blindly and ignorantly] Kant's morality as deontological, i.e. about imposing rigid rules and laws.

To the contrary, here is Kant's words on No Ought From Is [NOFI],

• Nothing is more reprehensible than to derive the Laws prescribing what-ought-to-be-done from what-is-done, or to impose upon them the Limits by which the latter [what-is-done] is circumscribed. CPR: A318 B375

What Kant had set out to do was the establishment of Morality-Proper which the majority [even expert philosophers] has unfortunately failed to grasp thoroughly.

In rejection of NOFI, Kant's model of Morality is based on reason and rationality but with current knowledge can be traced to Objective Moral Facts, i.e. a matter of fact.
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002

If there were objective moral rules then you can make as many oughts from is as you like. However As Kant and Hume demonstrate the link from IS to OUGHT is arbitrary and therefore moral laws are build on subjectivity.

[Skepdick]

I took a number of people off ignore recently, including you. Just seeing what would happen. Immediately I noticed your introduction of ad hom jabs here, you labeling my position stupidity, your many, poor mind reading attempts, you not supporting statements when asked (a few times), your conflating asking questions with assuming things and so on. So, I looked back. Why did I put you on ignore before? Well, same kinda time wasting stuff. I don't know your motivations for this. Whatever they are I'd rather have a discussion of points made and interact with people who are interested in supporting their positions. Back on ignore.

Literally everything I've said is empirical.

It's so peculiar you had to write this essay.

[Iwannaplato]

Any person who is well developed with his inherent moral competence will naturally not commit anything immoral. There is no need for any deterrence of threat of punishment from the Law to deter such a person to commit evil acts.

When he talks about morality he makes it clear that he is not talking about a top down set of rules for behavior about what we should do. He says this in reponse to FlashDangerpants and PH when they raise epistemological or ontological issues. IOW those criticisms don't matter because when VA talks about morality he's not talking about acts/behaviors, he is focused on character and feelings like empathy.

But here is clearly thinks he can know what an immoral act is. He knows that people with moral character won't commit immoral acts. So, he clearly thinks he knows what immoral acts are and their criticisms then apply.