That ALL humans are "programmed" to live till the inevitable is so glaringly obvious.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:53 amOh, ffs.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:15 amSo you ought not to breathe, eat, and drink water?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:59 am
And the answer is 'no'. If there are physical mechanisms in the brain that make us behave in certain ways, that fact has no moral implication. It doesn't mean we ought to behave in those ways - as I have demonstrated a thousand times.
I have told you a 'million' times, what is a moral fact is specific to a moral FSK.
Fact: if humans don't breathe, eat and drink water, they die.
Conclusion: therefore, humans ought to breathe, eat and drink water.
But why ought humans to breathe, eat and drink water? Why should humans - or any living things - live? Why is it right for them to do so, and wrong for them not to do so? Where is the oughtness here?
Try this: things exist; therefore things ought to exist - it's right for them to exist and wrong for them not to exist.
Does that strike you as a sound argument?
Where is your evidence that babies want to die in the womb or the day they are born.
Where is your evident that ALL 'normal' human want to die prematurely?
You can make decisions whether to breathe, eat or drink, that has nothing to do nor extirpate the related physical mechanisms that is inherent in human nature within all humans.
This inherent program is a human fact and its existence can be verified, tested and justified, i.e. any human who do not breathe will die in time.
Note the typical meaning of ought as obligation, correct, proper and
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought
- as a logical consequence.
You are so ignorant to understand within whatever is "programmed" the list of actions necessary ought-to or must follow in sequential order.
As such, as long as there is a program there is an implied "oughtness' within.
The above applies similarly to moral elements inherent within all human beings, i.e. within a biological "program".
This is stupid because not all things [e.g. rock, water, etc.] are human beings.Try this: things exist; therefore things ought to exist - it's right for them to exist and wrong for them not to exist.
Does that strike you as a sound argument?
Morality-proper is only related primarily to the human species [with exception to other living things where humans has a vested interest].