"Oughtness to Breathe" a Fundamental to Morality is Objective

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well now you can't have 8. Therefore morality is objective [6, 7] because that would make your argument circular.

As stated, the above argument need some more details and explanation;

Rearranging the order;

• 7. Whatever is conditioned within an embodied human-based FSRK is objective.
  6. This "oughtnotness-to-kill humans" is a moral element within the morality-proper FSRK.
  8. Therefore, morality is objective [7, 6]

How it is circular?

My argument why the FSRC-ed objectivity is most realistic;

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Your opening to the arg supposedly doesn't assume the imperative to survive is a universal good, that seemingly comes from a KFC.
The conclusion of that KFC must be both moral and objective for your opening in this arg -- which is not assumed after all -- to be true ... that truth is necessary for the whole argument to be sound. Without it, the whole arg is disposable and pointless.
The conclusion of this argument is "Therefore, morality is objective" and now we must consider what the word therefore does in a philosophical argument.
So this argument has the purpose of demonstrating that morality is objective, but it has a claimed objective moral fact as in input to that.


So yeah, you were better off with the opener being a smuggled assumption, because tightening it up definitely makes the whole piece circular. Now you have to drop the conlcusion, but that makes the whole argument just nothing.

But also remember, this was explained to you several years ago. The reason it came back is because you have been oblivious to the problems with your basic argument structures for all those years. Your other arguments that you have relied on all this time, and that you keep linking back to as proof your work is good are all similarly broken.

I am serious to get to the bottom of the above?
Can you be more precise by referring the specific premise number?

As I had stated, each premise need more details.
If you judge without the details, it is likely you think there is something wrong.

[FlashDangerpants]

As stated, the above argument need some more details and explanation;

Rearranging the order;

• 7. Whatever is conditioned within an embodied human-based FSRK is objective.
  6. This "oughtnotness-to-kill humans" is a moral element within the morality-proper FSRK.
  8. Therefore, morality is objective [7, 6]

How it is circular?

My argument why the FSRC-ed objectivity is most realistic;

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Your opening to the arg supposedly doesn't assume the imperative to survive is a universal good, that seemingly comes from a KFC.
The conclusion of that KFC must be both moral and objective for your opening in this arg -- which is not assumed after all -- to be true ... that truth is necessary for the whole argument to be sound. Without it, the whole arg is disposable and pointless.
The conclusion of this argument is "Therefore, morality is objective" and now we must consider what the word therefore does in a philosophical argument.
So this argument has the purpose of demonstrating that morality is objective, but it has a claimed objective moral fact as in input to that.


So yeah, you were better off with the opener being a smuggled assumption, because tightening it up definitely makes the whole piece circular. Now you have to drop the conlcusion, but that makes the whole argument just nothing.

But also remember, this was explained to you several years ago. The reason it came back is because you have been oblivious to the problems with your basic argument structures for all those years. Your other arguments that you have relied on all this time, and that you keep linking back to as proof your work is good are all similarly broken.

I am serious to get to the bottom of the above?
Can you be more precise by referring the specific premise number?

1 and 2 either singly or in combination, and either by design or through laziness, just assume represent a hypothetical imperative that survival is a morally desirable outcome. It doesn't come from anywhere, some assumption from biology that 'all life strives' or whatever is not the source of 'survival is good'.

By premise 3 you have incorporated this assumption about a moral truth of the matter and are no longer treating it as hypothecated.

I can't give you more precision than that because your premises are clumsy and that is not my fault.

As I had stated, each premise need more details.
If you judge without the details, it is likely you think there is something wrong.

I've seen your extra details, they don't address the problem. The problem is that you are moving from all life strives to the thing that all life strives for is good, and you have no basis for that. Extra details is just your way of not noticing the big blatant problem.

Argument structure is your problem. You cannot do it. You taught yourself philosophy the wrong way. Spending 3 years doing nothing but read Kant was a mistake. You need to learn basic logic, it should have been the starting point.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your opening to the arg supposedly doesn't assume the imperative to survive is a universal good, that seemingly comes from a KFC.
The conclusion of that KFC must be both moral and objective for your opening in this arg -- which is not assumed after all -- to be true ... that truth is necessary for the whole argument to be sound. Without it, the whole arg is disposable and pointless.
The conclusion of this argument is "Therefore, morality is objective" and now we must consider what the word therefore does in a philosophical argument.
So this argument has the purpose of demonstrating that morality is objective, but it has a claimed objective moral fact as in input to that.


So yeah, you were better off with the opener being a smuggled assumption, because tightening it up definitely makes the whole piece circular. Now you have to drop the conlcusion, but that makes the whole argument just nothing.

But also remember, this was explained to you several years ago. The reason it came back is because you have been oblivious to the problems with your basic argument structures for all those years. Your other arguments that you have relied on all this time, and that you keep linking back to as proof your work is good are all similarly broken.

I am serious to get to the bottom of the above?
Can you be more precise by referring the specific premise number?

1 and 2 either singly or in combination, and either by design or through laziness, just assume represent a hypothetical imperative that survival is a morally desirable outcome. It doesn't come from anywhere, some assumption from biology that 'all life strives' or whatever is not the source of 'survival is good'.

By premise 3 you have incorporated this assumption about a moral truth of the matter and are no longer treating it as hypothecated.

I can't give you more precision than that because your premises are clumsy and that is not my fault.

As I had stated, each premise need more details.
If you judge without the details, it is likely you think there is something wrong.

I've seen your extra details, they don't address the problem. The problem is that you are moving from all life strives to the thing that all life strives for is good, and you have no basis for that. Extra details is just your way of not noticing the big blatant problem.

Argument structure is your problem. You cannot do it. You taught yourself philosophy the wrong way. Spending 3 years doing nothing but read Kant was a mistake. You need to learn basic logic, it should have been the starting point.

It is your personal opinion that 1 and 2 don't sense but I will argue they do.
I believe it is because your knowledge-database is too narrow to grasp it there and then. I agree I will have to educate to convince you why my 1 and 2 are reasonable.
I will get back to you on this.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I've seen your extra details, they don't address the problem. The problem is that you are moving from all life strives to the thing that all life strives for is good, and you have no basis for that. Extra details is just your way of not noticing the big blatant problem.

Argument structure is your problem. You cannot do it. You taught yourself philosophy the wrong way. Spending 3 years doing nothing but read Kant was a mistake. You need to learn basic logic, it should have been the starting point.

Thanks for your continual critiques.
I don't have any problem with the deductive and validity of basic logic, it is just you cannot accept the premises.

I went many rounds of discussions with AI to improve my argument with changes in some terms and AI had generated a valid and sound argument with the conclusion;
8. 'Morality is Objective' as qualified to 1 and 2.

It looks very precious, I won't post it here to avoid plagiarism. You can say what you like.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is your personal opinion that 1 and 2 don't sense but I will argue they do.
I believe it is because your knowledge-database is too narrow to grasp it there and then. I agree I will have to educate to convince you why my 1 and 2 are reasonable.
I will get back to you on this.

They depend for their truth on morality being objective, for that obvious reason they are incompatible with any argument that concludes that THEREFORE morality is objective.

This is a very basic intellgence test now and you are failing it.

[FlashDangerpants]

I went many rounds of discussions with AI to improve my argument with changes in some terms and AI had generated a valid and sound argument with the conclusion;
8. 'Morality is Objective' as qualified to 1 and 2.

It looks very precious, I won't post it here to avoid plagiarism. You can say what you like.

The purpose of that AI is to predict what text you want to get out of it and then give you that product. Again, you should now understand the problem with using it the way you do, if not, maybe there isn't much hope for you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I went many rounds of discussions with AI to improve my argument with changes in some terms and AI had generated a valid and sound argument with the conclusion;
8. 'Morality is Objective' as qualified to 1 and 2.

It looks very precious, I won't post it here to avoid plagiarism. You can say what you like.

The purpose of that AI is to predict what text you want to get out of it and then give you that product. Again, you should now understand the problem with using it the way you do, if not, maybe there isn't much hope for you.

There are loads of pros and cons, plus limitations in using AI.
It needs intelligence to ensure how we use the right side of the blade to cut effectively.

I give you a clue to what I got among the many examples;

[AI]"Similarly, when discussing cases where individuals are killed by asphyxiation through homicide or other violent means, there are clear moral implications.
In these cases, the "ought to breathe" can indeed be linked with the moral imperative of preventing harm to others and upholding the sanctity of life."

[FlashDangerpants]

I went many rounds of discussions with AI to improve my argument with changes in some terms and AI had generated a valid and sound argument with the conclusion;
8. 'Morality is Objective' as qualified to 1 and 2.

It looks very precious, I won't post it here to avoid plagiarism. You can say what you like.

The purpose of that AI is to predict what text you want to get out of it and then give you that product. Again, you should now understand the problem with using it the way you do, if not, maybe there isn't much hope for you.

There are loads of pros and cons, plus limitations in using AI.
It needs intelligence to ensure how we use the right side of the blade to cut effectively.

I give you a clue to what I got among the many examples;

[AI]"Similarly, when discussing cases where individuals are killed by asphyxiation through homicide or other violent means, there are clear moral implications.
In these cases, the "ought to breathe" can indeed be linked with the moral imperative of preventing harm to others and upholding the sanctity of life."

It is a prediction engine for predicting what you want to be told that will tell you what it thinks you want to be told. You want to be told you are a clever boy, and that is what it tells you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The purpose of that AI is to predict what text you want to get out of it and then give you that product. Again, you should now understand the problem with using it the way you do, if not, maybe there isn't much hope for you.

There are loads of pros and cons, plus limitations in using AI.
It needs intelligence to ensure how we use the right side of the blade to cut effectively.

I give you a clue to what I got among the many examples;

[AI]"Similarly, when discussing cases where individuals are killed by asphyxiation through homicide or other violent means, there are clear moral implications.
In these cases, the "ought to breathe" can indeed be linked with the moral imperative of preventing harm to others and upholding the sanctity of life."

It is a prediction engine for predicting what you want to be told that will tell you what it thinks you want to be told. You want to be told you are a clever boy, and that is what it tells you.

Nope that was going through many rounds where AI implied very politely I was ignorant, and relative to AI was thinking too narrowly and shallowly which I agree.

The above point is very rational.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you are able to use AI to tell you that the argument shown in htis thread isn't circular, you have failed to do your due diligence and you have misused the AI. That is the end of the matter.

[Skepdick]

If you are able to use AI to tell you that the argument shown in htis thread isn't circular, you have failed to do your due diligence and you have misused the AI. That is the end of the matter.

As per the Münchhausen trilemma ALL arguments are fallacious and fall into one of three categories:
* Circular
* Infinitely regressive
* Dogmatic

Since his Philosophical Lordhip frowns upon fallacious arguments, could his Philosophical lordship kindly advise on the way forward and propose an alternative?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you are able to use AI to tell you that the argument shown in this thread isn't circular, you have failed to do your due diligence and you have misused the AI. That is the end of the matter.

Yes, AI did point 1 and 3 is circular.
I admit it was a clumsy arrangement, I did it off the cuff without rigor.
However, to get to the argument proper is merely to rearrange the premises to avoid circularity [ensure validity] and define the terms used more precisely.

While ensuring validity, I will also have to ensure soundness.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you are able to use AI to tell you that the argument shown in this thread isn't circular, you have failed to do your due diligence and you have misused the AI. That is the end of the matter.

Yes, AI did point 1 and 3 is circular.
I admit it was a clumsy arrangement, I did it off the cuff without rigor.
However, to get to the argument proper is merely to rearrange the premises to avoid circularity [ensure validity] and define the terms used more precisely.

While ensuring validity, I will also have to ensure soundness.

1. This is one of your "million times" arguments that you have been writing out for years. It was mentioned because we all saw those mistakes years ago and you swore up and down it was watertight and we were all ignorant. So now that you need time to fix it, you ought to think about that point in particular. Perhaps you owe Pete an apology.

2. You got into the circularity problem by being exceptionally clumsy. The circular part is exactly what I said, you are using the therefore part (aka the conclusion) within the argument that is establishing the therefore part. This is not rocket science my man. If an AI told you that 1 and 3 are circular, it is not because of the arrangement, putting 3 before 1 doesn't help you. 1 is circular because it assumes objective morality - which is asserted by the conclusion. 3 is circular because it assumes objective morality - which is asserted by the conclusion. You have to get rid of both premises if you want that conclusion from this argument.

3. You will never fix it if you are relying on objective morality in the premises when objective morality is what the conclusion justifies.
No arrangement of curtains can repair a house with weak foundations. You cannot rearrange premises to fix a problem that is caused by the premises using the conclusion to support the same conclusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you are able to use AI to tell you that the argument shown in this thread isn't circular, you have failed to do your due diligence and you have misused the AI. That is the end of the matter.

Yes, AI did point 1 and 3 is circular.
I admit it was a clumsy arrangement, I did it off the cuff without rigor.
However, to get to the argument proper is merely to rearrange the premises to avoid circularity [ensure validity] and define the terms used more precisely.

While ensuring validity, I will also have to ensure soundness.

1. This is one of your "million times" arguments that you have been writing out for years. It was mentioned because we all saw those mistakes years ago and you swore up and down it was watertight and we were all ignorant. So now that you need time to fix it, you ought to think about that point in particular. Perhaps you owe Pete an apology.

I have to refer to my previous argument. It was you who raised the issue, not Peter. I believe I explained and did not concede to what I intended.
There is no problem with my intended thesis in this current argument.
The only problem is the premises are haphazard.

2. You got into the circularity problem by being exceptionally clumsy. The circular part is exactly what I said, you are using the therefore part (aka the conclusion) within the argument that is establishing the therefore part. This is not rocket science my man. If an AI told you that 1 and 3 are circular, it is not because of the arrangement, putting 3 before 1 doesn't help you. 1 is circular because it assumes objective morality - which is asserted by the conclusion. 3 is circular because it assumes objective morality - which is asserted by the conclusion. You have to get rid of both premises if you want that conclusion from this argument.

• 1. It is undeniable there is an "oughtness-to-breathe" within the science-biology FSRK [thus objective].
  2. This is critical to ensure survival till the inevitable.
  3. To ensure no harm to ensure survival is a moral issue within the morality-proper FSRK.

All I need is to revise it as follows;

• 1. It is undeniable there is an "oughtness-to-breathe" within the science-biology FSRK.
  2. This "oughtness-to-breathe" is critical to ensure survival till the inevitable.
  3. To ensure no harm so as to ensure survival is a moral issue within the morality-proper FSRK.

What I need is to argue FSRK is objective in a separate syllogism and bring it in later.

As such there is no circularity to the above 1, 2, 3 and the later conclusion.

3. You will never fix it if you are relying on objective morality in the premises when objective morality is what the conclusion justifies.
No arrangement of curtains can repair a house with weak foundations. You cannot rearrange premises to fix a problem that is caused by the premises using the conclusion to support the same conclusion.

Even in the original argument, I did not include objectivity morality in the premises but merely mentioned 'thus objective' in [..].
I have argued why an FSRK is objective elsewhere.

Point is my main thesis remains the same and AI helped me to present a more polished valid argument by rearranging the premises but changes in the terms and contexts.

[Iwannaplato]

• 1. It is undeniable there is an "oughtness-to-breathe" within the science-biology FSRK [thus objective].

Could you show us somewhere, from within the science-biology FSK where breathing is referred to in moral terms?