OUGHT from IS is Possible

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Skepdick
Posts: 1377
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Skepdick » Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:38 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:24 am
How could you put words into Kant's mouth and insist Kant's Moral and Ethics system is not heuristics when Kant presented his approach on Moral and Ethics is based on the System Approach and heuristics.
Systemic approaches have feedback loops. Feedback loops require consequences.

No consequence - no feedback. No feedback - no system.

Kant is not a consequentialist, therefore Kant cannot be systematic.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:49 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:24 am
How could you put words into Kant's mouth
Kant's words. His mouth is the place they came from. Note the quotation marks.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:03 am

Here is a clue to Kant's Moral and Ethical System which is heuristic and driven by continuous improvement from;
Critique of Practical Reasons: Book I - Chapter I- Section VI Remark II - para 84
[mine]
  • This Holiness of Will is, however, a Practical Idea, which must necessarily serve as a Type to which finite Rational Beings can only approximate indefinitely,
    and which the Pure Moral Law, which is itself on this account called Holy, constantly and rightly holds before their eyes.

    The utmost that finite Practical Reason [Morality] can effect [put into action] is to be certain of this indefinite progress of one's Maxims and of their steady disposition to advance.
    This is Virtue, and Virtue, at least as a naturally acquired Faculty, can never be perfect, because assurance in such a case never becomes Apodeictic Certainty and, when it only amounts to persuasion, is very dangerous.
The above implies the following;
  • 1. Morality establishes Absolute Moral Rules [Practical Idea] - as a guide only,
    2. The above Moral guides are translated to Maxims as in Ethics for practical use,
    3. Practical ethical virtues are compared against the Maxim by rational beings,
    4. Rational beings to strive to meet the impossible ideals of the Maxims,
    5. The striving in 4 generate a trend continuous improvements.
The purpose of the above is for rational beings to strive for an increasing trend of continuous improvement without any hope [impossible for humans any way] of achieving certainty or perfection of the absolute moral ideals.

At the Ethics level, consequentialism has to come into play otherwise the feedback control mechanism of the moral system will not work.

I believe Kant made this similar point elsewhere, but Kant's work is such a 'haystack' thus not easy to find.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by bahman » Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:58 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
Hume argued it is not possible for an 'Ought' to be derived from "Is".
As such, humanity cannot establish absolute moral rules, laws or principles.
On the contrary, I believe it is logical and possible to establish absolute moral rules.

Note absolute in this case is not absolutely-absolute from a God [a mental illusion] but absolute in the scientific basis, e.g. absolute temperature.

Here is my argument it is possible;
  • 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
    2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed.
    3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
    4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"
It is possible to test Premise 2, i.e. answer 'yes' or 'no' on the following;
  • In the ordinary every day circumstances,
    1. Do you want to be killed?
    2. Do your parents want to be killed?
    3. Do your siblings want to be killed?
    4. Do your relatives want to be killed?
    5. Do your closest friend want to be killed?
    6. Do your other friends want to be killed?
    7. Do all American want to be killed
    8. Does anyone of the 7+ billion humans on earth want to be killed.
What is your answer, 'Yes' or 'No' to the above question, i.e. premise 2?
Surely not 'Yes'??
I am sure it will be 'No' thus your personal conviction on this moral proposal.

You can do your own survey from people in 2, 3, 4 or 5.
Even if you don't, I would like to know what you think will be their likely answer to the question and this will include 6, 7 and 8.

In the future when more people have access to smartphone, internet and the necessary technology, we should be able to get responses from all able persons, if not all, at least sufficient to justify our hypothesis as an reliable inferential conclusion.

If any of the above answer yes, I am sure they [from 0.0001% of 7B] will be certified to be mentally ill by psychiatrists in that specific field or in terminal conditions certified by doctors, or in the most extreme conditions.

The above testing and potential findings is very scientifically based,

From our reasoning and potential empirical findings anyone would be personally confident we can reason out an absolute moral rule [theory] to act as a guide for ethical considerations [applied].

Therefore is it possible to abstract 'ought' from 'is.'
["is" refers to the the empirical minds of all human beings].



Views?
The majority follow their nature and they rule due to that. They define the code of laws. They have power so they are able to proceed accordingly. In this sense, the majority is, therefore, the majority might. But the truth is that they just follow their nature so I don't see how one can get to ought.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:34 am

bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:58 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
Hume argued it is not possible for an 'Ought' to be derived from "Is".
As such, humanity cannot establish absolute moral rules, laws or principles.
On the contrary, I believe it is logical and possible to establish absolute moral rules.

Note absolute in this case is not absolutely-absolute from a God [a mental illusion] but absolute in the scientific basis, e.g. absolute temperature.

Here is my argument it is possible;
  • 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
    2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed.
    3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
    4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"
It is possible to test Premise 2, i.e. answer 'yes' or 'no' on the following;
  • In the ordinary every day circumstances,
    1. Do you want to be killed?
    2. Do your parents want to be killed?
    3. Do your siblings want to be killed?
    4. Do your relatives want to be killed?
    5. Do your closest friend want to be killed?
    6. Do your other friends want to be killed?
    7. Do all American want to be killed
    8. Does anyone of the 7+ billion humans on earth want to be killed.
What is your answer, 'Yes' or 'No' to the above question, i.e. premise 2?
Surely not 'Yes'??
I am sure it will be 'No' thus your personal conviction on this moral proposal.

You can do your own survey from people in 2, 3, 4 or 5.
Even if you don't, I would like to know what you think will be their likely answer to the question and this will include 6, 7 and 8.

In the future when more people have access to smartphone, internet and the necessary technology, we should be able to get responses from all able persons, if not all, at least sufficient to justify our hypothesis as an reliable inferential conclusion.

If any of the above answer yes, I am sure they [from 0.0001% of 7B] will be certified to be mentally ill by psychiatrists in that specific field or in terminal conditions certified by doctors, or in the most extreme conditions.

The above testing and potential findings is very scientifically based,

From our reasoning and potential empirical findings anyone would be personally confident we can reason out an absolute moral rule [theory] to act as a guide for ethical considerations [applied].

Therefore is it possible to abstract 'ought' from 'is.'
["is" refers to the the empirical minds of all human beings].

Views?
The majority follow their nature and they rule due to that. They define the code of laws. They have power so they are able to proceed accordingly. In this sense, the majority is, therefore, the majority might. But the truth is that they just follow their nature so I don't see how one can get to ought.
You are mixing and conflating to many concepts and perspectives in the above.

First you are straight-jacketed by crude duality, i.e.
  • East is East and West is West and never shall the twain meet.
    Black is black, White is White and Black will never be White.
    Hard is hard and Soft is soft, and hard will never be soft.
    p is p and not-p is not-p, p will never be not-p
So I agree along the above principles [crudely] "is" is not 'ought'.
But we should not be stuck with the above in merely one dimension and perspective.

Note the example.
"Hard is hard and Soft is soft, and hard will never be soft."
Water [cluster of H20 molecules] is generally soft, especially as mist, cloud or steam, but this same cluster of molecules can be hard when turned into ice.
At present water can be hard enough to be used to cut the hardest type of steel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPYwrFwQrN4
Therefore water [a cluster of h20] can be soft and hard at the same time but not in the same sense rather it depends on the different perspective applied.

Therefore an 'ought' can be abstracted from 'is' based on the following perspectives;
  • 1. The crude concept of duality is ignored
    2. The type of 'ought' is very specific, i.e. confined to 'killing another human being'.
    3. The 'ought' is abstracted from the empirical evidence above.
    4. The 'ought' is NOT to be imposed by might or via any legislature.
    5. The 'ought' is only to be used as a guide within a Moral and Ethics framework.
Thus based on the above specific conditions, we can abstract an 'ought' from 'is'.
Can you counter this?

It is the same with how Science works.
Scientists made observations of what go on in nature and derived 'oughts' as scientific theories from persistent patterns. Such theories when justified scientifically are recognized as scientific knowledge.
These scientific knowledge whilst are not absolute have proven to be very useful to humankind.

One good example is that of the Laws of Universal Gravitation discovered by Newton.
Generally, 'what goes up ought to come down' [with exceptions].
While this law is not absolute and more refined principles of gravity are discovered, it is still very useful to humankind.
It was Hume who argued there is no absolute 'ought' is science but regardless they have utility for humankind. However Kant disputed Hume in arguing Hume is only viewing this argument from one dimension.

As with Science we can rely on "ought" abstracted from empirical "is" in this case 'no human shall be killed' abstracted from 'no human want to be killed' specifically under conditions 1 to 5 above within a Moral and Ethics Framework and System.
The question is whether such a system will produce net-positive moral and ethical results. I am optimistic it will, provided all the necessary conditions are complied with.

One critical conditions the the Moral Quotient of the average individual must be increased to 10,000 if the current is 100. Again this is a possibility but it will take time, i.e. possibly within the next 50-100 or 200 years if we start constructing the system from now. The progress of such a moral and ethical system will be based on the principles of continuous improvements.

One critical point is;
do not think of enforcing and imposing the 'ought' in this case, with might or legal laws.
This is the usual wrong perspectives that most are caught with when countering my hypothesis.
The absolute secular ought 'no human shall kill another human' is merely a guide and not to be imposed by might and laws of majority.

This is merely a guide to develop the moral and ethical skills, conscience and compass of the individual[s] to the highest possible level where they will act morally & ethically spontaneously without the need for any enforcement.
Enforceable laws are only needed for the rare exceptional individuals who are mentally incapacitated and thus do not have any potential to develop their moral competence.

Age
Posts: 2774
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age » Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
Hume argued it is not possible for an 'Ought' to be derived from "Is".
As such, humanity cannot establish absolute moral rules, laws or principles.
On the contrary, I believe it is logical and possible to establish absolute moral rules.

Note absolute in this case is not absolutely-absolute from a God [a mental illusion] but absolute in the scientific basis, e.g. absolute temperature.

Here is my argument it is possible;
  • 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
    2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed.
    3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
    4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"
It is possible to test Premise 2, i.e. answer 'yes' or 'no' on the following;
  • In the ordinary every day circumstances,
    1. Do you want to be killed?
    2. Do your parents want to be killed?
    3. Do your siblings want to be killed?
    4. Do your relatives want to be killed?
    5. Do your closest friend want to be killed?
    6. Do your other friends want to be killed?
    7. Do all American want to be killed
    8. Does anyone of the 7+ billion humans on earth want to be killed.
What is your answer, 'Yes' or 'No' to the above question, i.e. premise 2?
Surely not 'Yes'??
My answer is Yes. Under certain conditions ALL of those human beings want to be, what you call, "killed".

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
I am sure it will be 'No' thus your personal conviction on this moral proposal.
Thus, your sureness is totally WRONG with me. When you propose to do things scientifically, I found it is ALWAYS better to ALWAYS remain completely ALWAYS OPEN.

I found that when you are CLOSED like 'you' are, then the actual and real Truth does NOT come to light. This, being kept in the dark, is created by LOOKING FROM your 'already held beliefs', like you do.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
You can do your own survey from people in 2, 3, 4 or 5.
Even if you don't, I would like to know what you think will be their likely answer to the question and this will include 6, 7 and 8.
The answers I gathered are;
Yes,
Yes,
Yes,
Yes,
Yes,
Yes, and,
Yes.

I did my own survey and it was a resounding Yes. Of course Yes to number 8 speaks for itself IF any one of the other 7 said Yes.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
In the future when more people have access to smartphone, internet and the necessary technology, we should be able to get responses from all able persons, if not all, at least sufficient to justify our hypothesis as an reliable inferential conclusion.
But YOUR conclusion is WRONG now, already.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
If any of the above answer yes, I am sure they [from 0.0001% of 7B] will be certified to be mentally ill by psychiatrists in that specific field or in terminal conditions certified by doctors, or in the most extreme conditions.
Okay. But you are WRONG again.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
The above testing and potential findings is very scientifically based,
If you say so. But that would infer that my findings are accurate, which totally goes what you assumed the findings would be.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
From our reasoning and potential empirical findings anyone would be personally confident we can reason out an absolute moral rule [theory] to act as a guide for ethical considerations [applied].
Already done.

One moral "rule" or 'lore' ALREADY exists for ALL.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:34 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:58 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
Therefore is it possible to abstract 'ought' from 'is.'
["is" refers to the the empirical minds of all human beings].

Views?
The majority follow their nature and they rule due to that. They define the code of laws. They have power so they are able to proceed accordingly. In this sense, the majority is, therefore, the majority might. But the truth is that they just follow their nature so I don't see how one can get to ought.
You are mixing and conflating to many concepts and perspectives in the above.

First you are straight-jacketed by crude duality, i.e.
  • East is East and West is West and never shall the twain meet.
    Black is black, White is White and Black will never be White.
    Hard is hard and Soft is soft, and hard will never be soft.
    p is p and not-p is not-p, p will never be not-p
So I agree along the above principles [crudely] "is" is not 'ought'.
But we should not be stuck with the above in merely one dimension and perspective.

Note the example.
"Hard is hard and Soft is soft, and hard will never be soft."
Water [cluster of H20 molecules] is generally soft, especially as mist, cloud or steam, but this same cluster of molecules can be hard when turned into ice.
At present water can be hard enough to be used to cut the hardest type of steel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPYwrFwQrN4
Therefore water [a cluster of h20] can be soft and hard at the same time but not in the same sense rather it depends on the different perspective applied.

Therefore an 'ought' can be abstracted from 'is' based on the following perspectives;
  • 1. The crude concept of duality is ignored
    2. The type of 'ought' is very specific, i.e. confined to 'killing another human being'.
    3. The 'ought' is abstracted from the empirical evidence above.
    4. The 'ought' is NOT to be imposed by might or via any legislature.
    5. The 'ought' is only to be used as a guide within a Moral and Ethics framework.
Thus based on the above specific conditions, we can abstract an 'ought' from 'is'.
Can you counter this?
Yes. Very simply, very basically, and very easy. What 'you' 'ought' to do 'is' just not abuse any thing. Finished.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
It is the same with how Science works.
Scientists made observations of what go on in nature and derived 'oughts' as scientific theories from persistent patterns. Such theories when justified scientifically are recognized as scientific knowledge.
These scientific knowledge whilst are not absolute have proven to be very useful to humankind.

One good example is that of the Laws of Universal Gravitation discovered by Newton.
Generally, 'what goes up ought to come down' [with exceptions].
While this law is not absolute and more refined principles of gravity are discovered, it is still very useful to humankind.
It was Hume who argued there is no absolute 'ought' is science but regardless they have utility for humankind. However Kant disputed Hume in arguing Hume is only viewing this argument from one dimension.

As with Science we can rely on "ought" abstracted from empirical "is" in this case 'no human shall be killed' abstracted from 'no human want to be killed' specifically under conditions 1 to 5 above within a Moral and Ethics Framework and System.
The question is whether such a system will produce net-positive moral and ethical results. I am optimistic it will, provided all the necessary conditions are complied with.

One critical conditions the the Moral Quotient of the average individual must be increased to 10,000 if the current is 100. Again this is a possibility but it will take time, i.e. possibly within the next 50-100 or 200 years if we start constructing the system from now. The progress of such a moral and ethical system will be based on the principles of continuous improvements.

One critical point is;
do not think of enforcing and imposing the 'ought' in this case, with might or legal laws.
This is the usual wrong perspectives that most are caught with when countering my hypothesis.
The absolute secular ought 'no human shall kill another human' is merely a guide and not to be imposed by might and laws of majority.

But what do we do with the "muslims" who want to follow an "ideology of islam" and so want to kill "others"?

This is merely a guide to develop the moral and ethical skills, conscience and compass of the individual[s] to the highest possible level where they will act morally & ethically spontaneously without the need for any enforcement.
Enforceable laws are only needed for the rare exceptional individuals who are mentally incapacitated and thus do not have any potential to develop their moral competence.
Now how do 'we' decide who 'they' are?

And how do 'we' KNOW 'we' have it RIGHT?

For example, do 'you' have the potential to develop your 'moral competence'? Who decided 'your' answer? 'We' certainly have NOT.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:24 am

Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
Hume argued it is not possible for an 'Ought' to be derived from "Is".
As such, humanity cannot establish absolute moral rules, laws or principles.
On the contrary, I believe it is logical and possible to establish absolute moral rules.

Note absolute in this case is not absolutely-absolute from a God [a mental illusion] but absolute in the scientific basis, e.g. absolute temperature.

Here is my argument it is possible;
  • 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
    2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed.
    3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
    4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"
It is possible to test Premise 2, i.e. answer 'yes' or 'no' on the following;
  • In the ordinary every day circumstances,
    1. Do you want to be killed?
    2. Do your parents want to be killed?
    3. Do your siblings want to be killed?
    4. Do your relatives want to be killed?
    5. Do your closest friend want to be killed?
    6. Do your other friends want to be killed?
    7. Do all American want to be killed
    8. Does anyone of the 7+ billion humans on earth want to be killed.
What is your answer, 'Yes' or 'No' to the above question, i.e. premise 2?
Surely not 'Yes'??
My answer is Yes. Under certain conditions ALL of those human beings want to be, what you call, "killed".
Straw man again.
I stated "In the ordinary every day circumstances,"
you changed it to "Under certain conditions ".
That is certainly intellectually dishonest.

Thus the rest of your argument based on the deliberate deflection is invalid.

And you are a coward to hide what are your 'certain conditions'.
Whatever they are, they would be off topic when you changed my original conditions.

I suggest you reveal your "certain conditions" and justify them in a new thread.
It is likely to be based on some sort of illusion and delusion of the self.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:52 am

Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:54 am

Now how do 'we' decide who 'they' are?

And how do 'we' KNOW 'we' have it RIGHT?

For example, do 'you' have the potential to develop your 'moral competence'? Who decided 'your' answer? 'We' certainly have NOT.
From the empirical evidence we establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics model and incorporating the absolute secular ought;
"no human shall kill another human"
To be effective we have to implement the right strategies with the model.

"And how do 'we' KNOW 'we' have it RIGHT?"
When we establish the ought;
"no human shall kill another human"
out target theoretically would be'
There will be ZERO human killed by another human.

If we start off with a fact of 100,000 humans killed by another human in 2019,
then after the learning curve we should expect to see a decreasing trend of humans killed by another or other humans.
We could be expecting results like,


Number of humans killed [premeditated, wars, etc.] by another human to be;
  • 2020 - 110,000 given initial hitches
    2021 - 98,000
    2022 - 95,000
    2030 - 80,000
    2040 - 70,000
    2050 - 60,000
    2070 - 30,000
    2100 - 10,000
    2150 - 10,00
Obviously we cannot expect the number to be reduced to ZERO.
The ought is of ZERO is thus a guide to bring down the numbers gradually via the proper strategies and continuous improvement.

The decreasing trend is indicative we are on the right path.

Age
Posts: 2774
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age » Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:24 am
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
Hume argued it is not possible for an 'Ought' to be derived from "Is".
As such, humanity cannot establish absolute moral rules, laws or principles.
On the contrary, I believe it is logical and possible to establish absolute moral rules.

Note absolute in this case is not absolutely-absolute from a God [a mental illusion] but absolute in the scientific basis, e.g. absolute temperature.

Here is my argument it is possible;
  • 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
    2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed.
    3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
    4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"
It is possible to test Premise 2, i.e. answer 'yes' or 'no' on the following;
  • In the ordinary every day circumstances,
    1. Do you want to be killed?
    2. Do your parents want to be killed?
    3. Do your siblings want to be killed?
    4. Do your relatives want to be killed?
    5. Do your closest friend want to be killed?
    6. Do your other friends want to be killed?
    7. Do all American want to be killed
    8. Does anyone of the 7+ billion humans on earth want to be killed.
What is your answer, 'Yes' or 'No' to the above question, i.e. premise 2?
Surely not 'Yes'??
My answer is Yes. Under certain conditions ALL of those human beings want to be, what you call, "killed".
Straw man again.
I stated "In the ordinary every day circumstances,"
you changed it to "Under certain conditions ".
That is certainly intellectually dishonest.
Okay granted, and THANK YOU for pointing out and SHOWING my mistake.

Now let us change it back to where you want it to be.

The answers I get ARE the EXACT SAME.

Now that that HAS BEEN RESOLVED, let us move on.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:24 am
Thus the rest of your argument based on the deliberate deflection is invalid.

And you are a coward to hide what are your 'certain conditions'.
Whatever they are, they would be off topic when you changed my original conditions.
WRONG assumption.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:24 am
I suggest you reveal your "certain conditions" and justify them in a new thread.
It is likely to be based on some sort of illusion and delusion of the self.
Making ASSUMPTIONS and JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, will NEVER help you to finding thee Truth of things.

Age
Posts: 2774
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:52 am
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:54 am

Now how do 'we' decide who 'they' are?

And how do 'we' KNOW 'we' have it RIGHT?

For example, do 'you' have the potential to develop your 'moral competence'? Who decided 'your' answer? 'We' certainly have NOT.
From the empirical evidence we establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics model and incorporating the absolute secular ought;
"no human shall kill another human"
To be effective we have to implement the right strategies with the model.

"And how do 'we' KNOW 'we' have it RIGHT?"
When we establish the ought;
"no human shall kill another human"
out target theoretically would be'
There will be ZERO human killed by another human.

If we start off with a fact of 100,000 humans killed by another human in 2019,
then after the learning curve we should expect to see a decreasing trend of humans killed by another or other humans.
We could be expecting results like,


Number of humans killed [premeditated, wars, etc.] by another human to be;
  • 2020 - 110,000 given initial hitches
    2021 - 98,000
    2022 - 95,000
    2030 - 80,000
    2040 - 70,000
    2050 - 60,000
    2070 - 30,000
    2100 - 10,000
    2150 - 10,00
Obviously we cannot expect the number to be reduced to ZERO.
The ought is of ZERO is thus a guide to bring down the numbers gradually via the proper strategies and continuous improvement.

The decreasing trend is indicative we are on the right path.
You really BELIEVE that by just adding numbers then that makes your BELIEFS more accurate and true, correct?

You are OBVIOUSLY not at all open to any thing other than what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

You even start this post with; "From the empirical evidence ...", and, " 'we' establish ...". It is like, within your own head, you have ALREADY concluded EVERY thing, for EVERY one, and if any one disagrees or says any thing opposing what you BELIEVE to true, then you will proceed with some thing like; "You are ignorant of or to such and such".

Just for your information, just because some one does not agree with you, then that does NOT make them ignorant, delusional, schizo, nor have a mental illness. They MAY have or be any or all of these, but NOT necessarily so. Just maybe they are RIGHT and you are WRONG. Have you EVER considered that FACT?

By the way if you really want to decrease the number of killings of 'you', human beings, then just STOP judging and ridiculing "others", then they will want to STOP wanting to kill people, just like 'you'. That is one sure fire way to reduce the number of wanted killings anyway.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:07 am

Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:01 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:52 am
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:54 am

Now how do 'we' decide who 'they' are?

And how do 'we' KNOW 'we' have it RIGHT?

For example, do 'you' have the potential to develop your 'moral competence'? Who decided 'your' answer? 'We' certainly have NOT.
From the empirical evidence we establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics model and incorporating the absolute secular ought;
"no human shall kill another human"
To be effective we have to implement the right strategies with the model.

"And how do 'we' KNOW 'we' have it RIGHT?"
When we establish the ought;
"no human shall kill another human"
out target theoretically would be'
There will be ZERO human killed by another human.

If we start off with a fact of 100,000 humans killed by another human in 2019,
then after the learning curve we should expect to see a decreasing trend of humans killed by another or other humans.
We could be expecting results like,


Number of humans killed [premeditated, wars, etc.] by another human to be;
  • 2020 - 110,000 given initial hitches
    2021 - 98,000
    2022 - 95,000
    2030 - 80,000
    2040 - 70,000
    2050 - 60,000
    2070 - 30,000
    2100 - 10,000
    2150 - 10,00
Obviously we cannot expect the number to be reduced to ZERO.
The ought is of ZERO is thus a guide to bring down the numbers gradually via the proper strategies and continuous improvement.

The decreasing trend is indicative we are on the right path.
You really BELIEVE that by just adding numbers then that makes your BELIEFS more accurate and true, correct?

You are OBVIOUSLY not at all open to any thing other than what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

You even start this post with; "From the empirical evidence ...", and, " 'we' establish ...". It is like, within your own head, you have ALREADY concluded EVERY thing, for EVERY one, and if any one disagrees or says any thing opposing what you BELIEVE to true, then you will proceed with some thing like; "You are ignorant of or to such and such".

Just for your information, just because some one does not agree with you, then that does NOT make them ignorant, delusional, schizo, nor have a mental illness. They MAY have or be any or all of these, but NOT necessarily so. Just maybe they are RIGHT and you are WRONG. Have you EVER considered that FACT?

By the way if you really want to decrease the number of killings of 'you', human beings, then just STOP judging and ridiculing "others", then they will want to STOP wanting to kill people, just like 'you'. That is one sure fire way to reduce the number of wanted killings anyway.
You obviously lack knowledge in effective Problem Solving Techniques.

What I have presented is a model as a plan and the projections.

In such a forum post I cannot present all the complex set of details of strategies and process to get to the results.

I did mention MANY TIMES, what is critical is there must be change and increase in the Moral Quotient of the majority of humans to 10,000 if the current is 100. This is very complex and I would have write a book on how to it will be done.

I mentioned in the other posts, there is already an evident increasing trend of morality, the task is to identify the mechanisms involve and expedite it systematically and efficiently.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:20 am

Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:01 am
You even start this post with; "From the empirical evidence ...", and, " 'we' establish ...". It is like, within your own head, you have ALREADY concluded EVERY thing, for EVERY one, and if any one disagrees or says any thing opposing what you BELIEVE to true, then you will proceed with some thing like; "You are ignorant of or to such and such".

Just for your information, just because some one does not agree with you, then that does NOT make them ignorant, delusional, schizo, nor have a mental illness. They MAY have or be any or all of these, but NOT necessarily so. Just maybe they are RIGHT and you are WRONG. Have you EVER considered that FACT?
I have already demonstrated the basis of relying on empirical evidence to derive a specific ought from is, i.e. No Human Shall Kill Another Human.
Where is your justified counter to this?
What you tried is merely a deflection.

When I remark ignorant, delusional, schizo, nor have a mental illness that is supported by explanation.
A delusion is a persistent belief something is true despite having no justified evidence.
This is true of theists who had never provided any proofs nor justified reason 'God exists'. Beside it is well accepted the belief in a God is fundamentally based on faith [beliefs without proofs].

Note I have done extensive research on those who claimed to have had altered state experiences of God due to mental illness, taking hallucinogens, from brain damage, etc. Those with mental illness and experience God were cured after given the correct medications. Those who take hallucinogens only experience God when they are on a trip.

I am a veteran in countering theism and the no-self and 'no I' extremists and have taken much trouble to cover whatever holes I have encountered from other theists to make sure I am well covered.

Tell me what do you think I am ignorant of in this issue. If you can point out any, I will thank you and if valid I will update and cover it as fast as I can.

Age
Posts: 2774
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age » Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:45 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:07 am
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:01 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:52 am

From the empirical evidence we establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics model and incorporating the absolute secular ought;
"no human shall kill another human"
To be effective we have to implement the right strategies with the model.

"And how do 'we' KNOW 'we' have it RIGHT?"
When we establish the ought;
"no human shall kill another human"
out target theoretically would be'
There will be ZERO human killed by another human.

If we start off with a fact of 100,000 humans killed by another human in 2019,
then after the learning curve we should expect to see a decreasing trend of humans killed by another or other humans.
We could be expecting results like,


Number of humans killed [premeditated, wars, etc.] by another human to be;
  • 2020 - 110,000 given initial hitches
    2021 - 98,000
    2022 - 95,000
    2030 - 80,000
    2040 - 70,000
    2050 - 60,000
    2070 - 30,000
    2100 - 10,000
    2150 - 10,00
Obviously we cannot expect the number to be reduced to ZERO.
The ought is of ZERO is thus a guide to bring down the numbers gradually via the proper strategies and continuous improvement.

The decreasing trend is indicative we are on the right path.
You really BELIEVE that by just adding numbers then that makes your BELIEFS more accurate and true, correct?

You are OBVIOUSLY not at all open to any thing other than what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

You even start this post with; "From the empirical evidence ...", and, " 'we' establish ...". It is like, within your own head, you have ALREADY concluded EVERY thing, for EVERY one, and if any one disagrees or says any thing opposing what you BELIEVE to true, then you will proceed with some thing like; "You are ignorant of or to such and such".

Just for your information, just because some one does not agree with you, then that does NOT make them ignorant, delusional, schizo, nor have a mental illness. They MAY have or be any or all of these, but NOT necessarily so. Just maybe they are RIGHT and you are WRONG. Have you EVER considered that FACT?

By the way if you really want to decrease the number of killings of 'you', human beings, then just STOP judging and ridiculing "others", then they will want to STOP wanting to kill people, just like 'you'. That is one sure fire way to reduce the number of wanted killings anyway.
You obviously lack knowledge in effective Problem Solving Techniques.
So, if some one disagrees with you, then either 'they' are ignorant OR 'they' lack knowledge, correct?

Are you at all amazed how no matter what any one says, which is NOT 100% in line with 'you', then it is ALL because of their deficiency of some thing but NEVER because that what they say could be accurate?

Also, are you even slightly aware that I have ALREADY said; I have NO "problems" AT ALL, which infers that I ALREADY have worked out a Truly ALL "problem" solving technique?

SEE, what will happen now is 'you' will NOT even see nor hear this, and just continue carrying on the way you have been so far.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:07 am
What I have presented is a model as a plan and the projections.

In such a forum post I cannot present all the complex set of details of strategies and process to get to the results.
But to get REAL results it is a very simple and very easy thing to do, and can be done very quickly. If what you are presenting is such a complex thing, then just maybe there is some thing else, which is much better. Have you ever considered that FACT?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:07 am
I did mention MANY TIMES, what is critical is there must be change and increase in the Moral Quotient of the majority of humans to 10,000 if the current is 100. This is very complex and I would have write a book on how to it will be done.
So, IF you BELIEVE in it so much, then WHY do you NOT write a book?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:07 am
I mentioned in the other posts, there is already an evident increasing trend of morality, the task is to identify the mechanisms involve and expedite it systematically and efficiently.
Yes you did mention that in other posts.

Age
Posts: 2774
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age » Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:21 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:20 am
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:01 am
You even start this post with; "From the empirical evidence ...", and, " 'we' establish ...". It is like, within your own head, you have ALREADY concluded EVERY thing, for EVERY one, and if any one disagrees or says any thing opposing what you BELIEVE to true, then you will proceed with some thing like; "You are ignorant of or to such and such".

Just for your information, just because some one does not agree with you, then that does NOT make them ignorant, delusional, schizo, nor have a mental illness. They MAY have or be any or all of these, but NOT necessarily so. Just maybe they are RIGHT and you are WRONG. Have you EVER considered that FACT?
I have already demonstrated the basis of relying on empirical evidence to derive a specific ought from is, i.e. No Human Shall Kill Another Human.
Where is your justified counter to this?
What you tried is merely a deflection.
If that is what you BELIEVE, then that MUST BE true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:20 am
When I remark ignorant, delusional, schizo, nor have a mental illness that is supported by explanation.
A delusion is a persistent belief something is true despite having no justified evidence.
An exceptional example of a 'persistent belief of some thing being true despite have ABSOLUTELY NO justified evidence' IS 'God is an impossibility to be real'.

I say, 'you', veritas aequitas, are delusional, and this is because 'you' are a mental illness. This is based on facts. Therefore, I MUST BE Correct because I based this on empirical evidence and supported this on logical valid, sound arguments. Now, based on your logic either I MUST BE correct because I followed "your logic" exactly as you do, OR, I could be wrong, which MEANS that you could be wrong also.

Now, you pick which one is CORRECT.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:20 am
This is true of theists who had never provided any proofs nor justified reason 'God exists'.
Are you completely and utterly STUPID? I have told you enough times ALREADY that from the definition that you have provided I can SHOW how and why that God could be or is actually True, Right, and Justified.

You, however, have NOT even been able to see, hear, or recognize this statement, let alone be consciously aware of it.

I will TRY again. I am NOT a "theist" in any way, shape, nor from BUT I can provide proof AND justified reasons that 'God exists' and WHEN you decide WHAT definition for 'God' that you want to USE, THEN I can do what I say here. Just inform me when you HAVE a definition and are ready.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:20 am
Beside it is well accepted the belief in a God is fundamentally based on faith [beliefs without proofs].
Just like the belief in a God is impossible to be real is fundamentally based on faith [beliefs without proofs]. So, if as you claim "others" are delusional and have a mental illness, then because you have the EXACT SAME disorder, then 'you' are one of 'them'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:20 am
Note I have done extensive research on those who claimed to have had altered state experiences of God due to mental illness, taking hallucinogens, from brain damage, etc.
I note all you have done is so called "research" from a 'confirmation bias' perspective, which is about as useful as doing NO research at all.

I also note that you come across as more delusional than the ones that you claim who are delusional.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:20 am
Those with mental illness and experience God were cured after given the correct medications. Those who take hallucinogens only experience God when they are on a trip.
If I did not know that you really believe that you being serious I would have considered these statements were made for humorous purposes only.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:20 am
I am a veteran in countering theism and the no-self and 'no I' extremists and have taken much trouble to cover whatever holes I have encountered from other theists to make sure I am well covered.
You may be older than most, but you certainly are NOT able to 'cover whatever perceived "holes" you have encountered'. You first would have to prove there is a hole, BEFORE you even begin to cover it. Unless, of course, you are ONLY talking about 'you' ONLY, and then I agree that you have done whatever you say you have. That is; because whatever you BELIEVE you have done MUST BE TRUE, to you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:20 am
Tell me what do you think I am ignorant of in this issue. If you can point out any, I will thank you and if valid I will update and cover it as fast as I can.
You are ignorant on ALL issue where you HOLD a BELIEF because you BELIEVE things are ALREADY true, YET they have NOT YET even been proven true.

You are ignorant because you are NOT open. You are NOT open because you BELIEVE and ASSUME things are true, when they are obviously NOT even true.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by bahman » Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:16 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:34 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:58 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
Hume argued it is not possible for an 'Ought' to be derived from "Is".
As such, humanity cannot establish absolute moral rules, laws or principles.
On the contrary, I believe it is logical and possible to establish absolute moral rules.

Note absolute in this case is not absolutely-absolute from a God [a mental illusion] but absolute in the scientific basis, e.g. absolute temperature.

Here is my argument it is possible;
  • 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
    2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed.
    3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
    4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"
It is possible to test Premise 2, i.e. answer 'yes' or 'no' on the following;
  • In the ordinary every day circumstances,
    1. Do you want to be killed?
    2. Do your parents want to be killed?
    3. Do your siblings want to be killed?
    4. Do your relatives want to be killed?
    5. Do your closest friend want to be killed?
    6. Do your other friends want to be killed?
    7. Do all American want to be killed
    8. Does anyone of the 7+ billion humans on earth want to be killed.
What is your answer, 'Yes' or 'No' to the above question, i.e. premise 2?
Surely not 'Yes'??
I am sure it will be 'No' thus your personal conviction on this moral proposal.

You can do your own survey from people in 2, 3, 4 or 5.
Even if you don't, I would like to know what you think will be their likely answer to the question and this will include 6, 7 and 8.

In the future when more people have access to smartphone, internet and the necessary technology, we should be able to get responses from all able persons, if not all, at least sufficient to justify our hypothesis as an reliable inferential conclusion.

If any of the above answer yes, I am sure they [from 0.0001% of 7B] will be certified to be mentally ill by psychiatrists in that specific field or in terminal conditions certified by doctors, or in the most extreme conditions.

The above testing and potential findings is very scientifically based,

From our reasoning and potential empirical findings anyone would be personally confident we can reason out an absolute moral rule [theory] to act as a guide for ethical considerations [applied].

Therefore is it possible to abstract 'ought' from 'is.'
["is" refers to the the empirical minds of all human beings].

Views?
The majority follow their nature and they rule due to that. They define the code of laws. They have power so they are able to proceed accordingly. In this sense, the majority is, therefore, the majority might. But the truth is that they just follow their nature so I don't see how one can get to ought.
You are mixing and conflating to many concepts and perspectives in the above.

First you are straight-jacketed by crude duality, i.e.
  • East is East and West is West and never shall the twain meet.
    Black is black, White is White and Black will never be White.
    Hard is hard and Soft is soft, and hard will never be soft.
    p is p and not-p is not-p, p will never be not-p
So I agree along the above principles [crudely] "is" is not 'ought'.
But we should not be stuck with the above in merely one dimension and perspective.

Note the example.
"Hard is hard and Soft is soft, and hard will never be soft."
Water [cluster of H20 molecules] is generally soft, especially as mist, cloud or steam, but this same cluster of molecules can be hard when turned into ice.
At present water can be hard enough to be used to cut the hardest type of steel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPYwrFwQrN4
Therefore water [a cluster of h20] can be soft and hard at the same time but not in the same sense rather it depends on the different perspective applied.

Therefore an 'ought' can be abstracted from 'is' based on the following perspectives;
  • 1. The crude concept of duality is ignored
    2. The type of 'ought' is very specific, i.e. confined to 'killing another human being'.
    3. The 'ought' is abstracted from the empirical evidence above.
    4. The 'ought' is NOT to be imposed by might or via any legislature.
    5. The 'ought' is only to be used as a guide within a Moral and Ethics framework.
Thus based on the above specific conditions, we can abstract an 'ought' from 'is'.
Can you counter this?

It is the same with how Science works.
Scientists made observations of what go on in nature and derived 'oughts' as scientific theories from persistent patterns. Such theories when justified scientifically are recognized as scientific knowledge.
These scientific knowledge whilst are not absolute have proven to be very useful to humankind.

One good example is that of the Laws of Universal Gravitation discovered by Newton.
Generally, 'what goes up ought to come down' [with exceptions].
While this law is not absolute and more refined principles of gravity are discovered, it is still very useful to humankind.
It was Hume who argued there is no absolute 'ought' is science but regardless they have utility for humankind. However Kant disputed Hume in arguing Hume is only viewing this argument from one dimension.

As with Science we can rely on "ought" abstracted from empirical "is" in this case 'no human shall be killed' abstracted from 'no human want to be killed' specifically under conditions 1 to 5 above within a Moral and Ethics Framework and System.
The question is whether such a system will produce net-positive moral and ethical results. I am optimistic it will, provided all the necessary conditions are complied with.

One critical conditions the the Moral Quotient of the average individual must be increased to 10,000 if the current is 100. Again this is a possibility but it will take time, i.e. possibly within the next 50-100 or 200 years if we start constructing the system from now. The progress of such a moral and ethical system will be based on the principles of continuous improvements.

One critical point is;
do not think of enforcing and imposing the 'ought' in this case, with might or legal laws.
This is the usual wrong perspectives that most are caught with when countering my hypothesis.
The absolute secular ought 'no human shall kill another human' is merely a guide and not to be imposed by might and laws of majority.

This is merely a guide to develop the moral and ethical skills, conscience and compass of the individual[s] to the highest possible level where they will act morally & ethically spontaneously without the need for any enforcement.
Enforceable laws are only needed for the rare exceptional individuals who are mentally incapacitated and thus do not have any potential to develop their moral competence.
There are people who want to be killed, individuals in locked-in syndrome. There are individuals who like to kill. Why not make the code of laws in terms of what these people want?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Age and 1 guest