FDP: "Rocks has Oughtness"

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is one of the silliest conflation of terms and equivocation I have come across

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.

I have argued;
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??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[FlashDangerpants]

If you think that's stupid, you should check out the idiot who wrote this shit...

My argument [non-syllogistic] is this;

• 1. What is objective is a resultant from a human-based FSERC [grounded on a collective of humans]. [argued elsewhere]
  
  2. X is a confirmed scientific fact via the scientific FSERC, thus objective. [biology, neuroscience, psychology]
  
  3. When X [scientific fact] is inputted into a moral FSERC [1] it follows as an objective moral fact.
  
  4. Therefore X [originally a scientific fact] is an objective moral fact [i.e. a moral issue].

In the above 4 follows from 3, 2 and I i.e. deductive.

[FlashDangerpants]

I have argued;
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.

And I have mocked that 'argument' because it is a total meaningless mess.

[Harbal]

I have argued;
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.

And I have mocked that 'argument' because it is a total meaningless mess.

When I mocked him he put me straight on ignore, and he won't even acknowledge my existence any more. I can still mock him, of course, but it's just not as much fun without his angry response.

I wonder why he hasn't done the same to you.

[FlashDangerpants]

When I mocked him he put me straight on ignore, and he won't even acknowledge my existence any more. I can still mock him, of course, but it's just not as much fun without his angry response.

I wonder why he hasn't done the same to you.

He's called me evil and put me on his ultra-triple ignore platinum subscription several times. But IWP and I are the only people who treat what he writes as any sort of attempt at an actual philosophical argument. He wants to be taken seriously, and sadly for him, me and Iwannaplato are the best he can get so he can't keep us on ignore without incurring personal losses. His life really sucks.

[Walker]

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.

Discuss??
Views??

- Cats, dogs and humans share a lizard brain.
- Humans have the capacity to offer moral justification for actions prompted by the lizard brain, without admitting to being controlled by the lizard brain at the moment of truth (action) in order to sweeten-up their self-concept.
- Cats and dogs don’t have that human capacity to care about self-concept, which is why they have no shame, no need for self-justification.

- Because they don’t move of their own volition, rocks are like political puppets, e.g., Biden.
- Unlike rocks, political puppets such as Biden are filled with self-justification for a self-concept that is actually, primarily tuned into lizard-brain survival (personal and political survival) that gets masked by any moral justification that the puppeteer, often guided by polling, determines best fits the circumstance.

- In contrast, Trump has sacrificed much in terms of personal survival for the concept of serving his country according to his formidable capacity as an executive mind.

- Sometimes, no justification is required for lizard-brain political survival. For example, Biden’s lizard-brain inspired act of emptying the strategic oil reserves to drop consumer fuel prices before the mid-term election was raw, immoral politicking solely for political survival that weakened the emergency-response capacity of the country, including war as an emergency.