I have argued;FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 9:38 am Today we learned that there is an inherent oughtness in rocks to do what nature tells them to do, which is sit around just existing. This oughtness to exist is an inherent moral fact apparently.
There is an inherent "oughtness to breathe" within all humans;
(Details of my argument is all over in this section of the forum)
i.e. this oughtness is driven by a neural algorithm which is supported by physical neurons and neural network, thus biological.
In parallel to the above, there are also moral oughtness inherent in all humans which are fundamentally biology and are objective moral facts when emerged from a moral framework and system.
In general, all humans emerged within reality via evolution, has inherent obligations, i.e. biological, moral related to human nature.
Obligations are only relevant to humans not non-humans.
Rocks, stones, cats and dogs are outside the scope of human nature.
As such, it is very silly in this particular case to conflate human-nature with non-human nature to counter the related argument re human-natured moral obligations.
The above is very typical of the ignorant to counter my arguments.
It is the same with those who rely on their illusory 'what is fact' to counter my realistic 'what is fact' [FSERC].
Discuss??
Views??