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

OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » 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?

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1719
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by FlashDangerpants » Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:00 am

Are you under the misaprehension that the golden rule is not an ought statement or something?

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

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:13 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:00 am
Are you under the misaprehension that the golden rule is not an ought statement or something?
Note I stated it is very feasible for premise 2 to be tested on a scientific basis.

The test on a total basis has not done, but I am optimistic the results will justify premise 3 and thus premise 4.

Obvious an 'is' is not an 'ought' just as 'black' is not 'white'.
However there is the principle of unity within duality or diversity when viewed from various and shifting perspectives.

In the case of the above, the perspective I applied is the mental conditions and psychology of human beings and on that basis we can reconcile 'ought' to 'is'.

Hume argued there can be no 'ought' from 'is' on the basis of epistemology, i.e. only one perspective. However re cause and effect, Hume alluded psychology is involved i.e. due to customs, habit and constant conjunctions.

In the OP I am applying Epistemology, Psychology and Science to arrive at an is-ought relationship that would be very useful for the purpose of morality where the bottom line is also psychology.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1719
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by FlashDangerpants » Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:41 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:13 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:00 am
Are you under the misaprehension that the golden rule is not an ought statement or something?
Note I stated it is very feasible for premise 2 to be tested on a scientific basis.

The test on a total basis has not done, but I am optimistic the results will justify premise 3 and thus premise 4.

Obvious an 'is' is not an 'ought' just as 'black' is not 'white'.
However there is the principle of unity within duality or diversity when viewed from various and shifting perspectives.

In the case of the above, the perspective I applied is the mental conditions and psychology of human beings and on that basis we can reconcile 'ought' to 'is'.

Hume argued there can be no 'ought' from 'is' on the basis of epistemology, i.e. only one perspective. However re cause and effect, Hume alluded psychology is involved i.e. due to customs, habit and constant conjunctions.

In the OP I am applying Epistemology, Psychology and Science to arrive at an is-ought relationship that would be very useful for the purpose of morality where the bottom line is also psychology.
Are you and Hedgehog7 the same person?

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

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:56 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
  • 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality. This is an "is."

    2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed. If true, it is an "is," though it's not always true, as you yourself note. And if it were always true, it would remain an "is."

    3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you. This is an "ought," and one that comes from Christianity: you're paraphrasing Luke 6:31. This rule does not exist in all traditions. In some it is only negative, as in "do NOT do." In others, it is the opposite that is claimed, as in Nietzsche and Rand, for whom the Golden Rule is considered a bad idea. But even if it did exist universally, it would not be reasonable to suppose that that fact compelled us to obey it. It might be the case, as it has been in some past cases, that all humans are simply wrong about what they think.

    4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"
Since there is no logical connection between your two "is" claims and this final "ought" claim, the argument rationally fails on both formal and informal grounds.

Views?
This is not even close to a bridge for the "is-ought" gap. In truth, it doesn't even try to invent some way of doing that. It simply jumps from two "is" claims straight into an unrelated pair of "ought" claims.

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

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:55 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:41 pm
Are you and Hedgehog7 the same person?
No idea who is Hedgehog7.
Note I joined in 2012.

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

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:22 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
  • 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality. This is an "is."

    2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed. If true, it is an "is," though it's not always true, as you yourself note. And if it were always true, it would remain an "is."

    3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you. This is an "ought," and one that comes from Christianity: you're paraphrasing Luke 6:31. This rule does not exist in all traditions. In some it is only negative, as in "do NOT do." In others, it is the opposite that is claimed, as in Nietzsche and Rand, for whom the Golden Rule is considered a bad idea. But even if it did exist universally, it would not be reasonable to suppose that that fact compelled us to obey it. It might be the case, as it has been in some past cases, that all humans are simply wrong about what they think.

    4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"
Since there is no logical connection between your two "is" claims and this final "ought" claim, the argument rationally fails on both formal and informal grounds.

Views?
This is not even close to a bridge for the "is-ought" gap. In truth, it doesn't even try to invent some way of doing that. It simply jumps from two "is" claims straight into an unrelated pair of "ought" claims.
I argued we can bridge premise 2 with premise 3 [common ground of the empirical and reason within the minds of humans] with the following testing for all humans to do;
  • 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.
First what is your personal answer to the above question?
Then what do you think will be the answers to the next 2-8 question.

Do not evade, give an answer to the above.
Then you will be able to feel what is like to be a real human being, if not, then you are a psychiatric case.

The above will also justify the universal Golden Rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Global_ethic

"you're paraphrasing Luke 6:31"
How ignorant and arrogant of you.
Read these;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule and this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Global_ethic
The GR is traceable as back as 2000 BC [Before Christ] and Confucius during 500 BC.

It does not matter the GR is in the positive or negative, the fundamental is the same.


The Golden Rule and Empathy;
  • Trying to live according to the Golden Rule means trying to empathise with other people, including those who may be very different from us. Empathy is at the root of kindness, compassion, understanding and respect – qualities that we all appreciate being shown, whoever we are, whatever we think and wherever we come from.
    Maria MacLachlan - wiki


The above is justified and supported with the discovery of mirror neurons in humans and primates.
  • In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy. -wiki
This is a new finding, but with the exponential expansion of knowledge of the neurosciences, humans will be above to trace to the basis of empathy and compassion for other humans.

While my proposals are very optimistic to improvements, what can your alternative of theological laws [expiry date -soon] do to make the future better in ethics?
Your theological laws are based on threats and terrible fears of hell and that should not qualify as morality and ethics. Worst, the theology of Islam do not have a Golden Rule at its fundamental level.

Reminder:
Do not evade, give an answer to the above questions 1-8.

Age
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age » Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:46 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".
But was it a completely sound, vaild argument, and thus irrefutable?

If no, then who really cares what a "hume" said?

There are lots of people who form and say lots of so called "arguments". But, there are only a miniscule fraction of the that are ever worth repeating.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
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?
If you are just trying to discover the so called "absolute moral rules", then all you have to do is just work out what is needed and what is agreed by all, which by the way is a very easy and simple thing to do. That is; once you know how to do it properly.

By the way there is only ONE so called "absolute moral rule".

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

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:43 am

Age wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:46 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".
But was it a completely sound, vaild argument, and thus irrefutable?

If no, then who really cares what a "hume" said?

There are lots of people who form and say lots of so called "arguments". But, there are only a miniscule fraction of the that are ever worth repeating.
Hume basis is one cannot derive an 'ought' from 'is' and enforced that as a moral law.
I agree with that.

What I proposed is we do not enforce an 'ought' from 'is' but rather use such a ought as merely an ideal and a guide within a framework and system of morality and ethics.

It is a question of complementing the pure with the applied to produce results that are positive to humanity.

Note as in geometry as other fields of knowledge where maxims and absolutes are used, e.g. a perfect circle has certain measurements, but there will never be a perfect circle in reality. But what is a perfect circle [measurements and attributes] is used as a guide to construct what is a circle for practical purposes that are useful to humanity.

It is the same with morality and ethics where the absolute moral maxims are merely guides to facilitate practical ethics.
If you are just trying to discover the so called "absolute moral rules", then all you have to do is just work out what is needed and what is agreed by all, which by the way is a very easy and simple thing to do. That is; once you know how to do it properly.

By the way there is only ONE so called "absolute moral rule".
That is what I am doing and had proposed the necessary testings.
So it is a matter of doing the test to confirm the hypothesis.

To ensure usefulness we need a set of absolute moral maxims plus subsets but they all can be reduced to one.

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

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:15 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:22 am
  • 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?
You're assuming an automatic bridge from "people want X," to "people ought to have X" / "people owe each other X". In other words, you're saying "want" and "oughts" are the same concept.

They're just not. So this "test" is worthless without some proof for that link. Even if someone answered all 8 questions "yes," you would not prove we owed anybody not to kill them.

Again, think of it this way: I want your car. Do you now owe it to me? Of course not. My "wanting" is irrelevant to the question of your duty to me.
It does not matter the GR is in the positive or negative, the fundamental is the same.
Hmm...I'm afraid it's you who's wrong. See PN: "The Golden Rule" Not So Golden Anymore." I forget which issue it is, but you can find it.

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

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:08 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:15 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:22 am
  • 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?
You're assuming an automatic bridge from "people want X," to "people ought to have X" / "people owe each other X". In other words, you're saying "want" and "oughts" are the same concept.

They're just not. So this "test" is worthless without some proof for that link. Even if someone answered all 8 questions "yes," you would not prove we owed anybody not to kill them.

Again, think of it this way: I want your car. Do you now owe it to me? Of course not. My "wanting" is irrelevant to the question of your duty to me.
It does not matter the GR is in the positive or negative, the fundamental is the same.
Hmm...I'm afraid it's you who's wrong. See PN: "The Golden Rule" Not So Golden Anymore." I forget which issue it is, but you can find it.
When did I state automatic bridge from 'want X' to 'ought X.'
The bridge is justified by the test to be done.
Again, think of it this way: I want your car. Do you now owe it to me? Of course not. My "wanting" is irrelevant to the question of your duty to me.
This is totally off target.

"I want your car." [involved third party]
if totally different from,
Do you want to be killed? [single party only]

In term of moral degrees, "wanting the car" of another is way off from 'wanting oneself to be killed."

Re asking the question 'Do you want to be killed' to all humans [7b+ at present with rare exception] we get the following from ordinary humans'

7b+ of humans will say 'I don't want to be killed'
which naturally implied
none of these 7b+ do not expect anyone to kill them,
therefore all the 7b+ [with exceptions] will naturally accept and establish the absolute maxim,
'no human shall kill another human'
which is very logical and rational to reinforce their "I do not want to be killed' and at the same time ensuring by theory and reason, they will not be intentionally killed by another human being.
This is the starting premise and ground for secular morality and the establishment of absolute moral grounds.

Note morality is the pure [theoretical] aspects while ethics will deal with how the "pure" will compliment with the applied, i.e. ethics.

As I had claimed the approach above is very scientific, i.e. starting with a hypothesis, feasible to be tested, and the conclusion highly probable.
We can then use this scientifically tested conclusion and impute it [as a guiding ideal objective] into a moral and ethic SYSTEM* which it self-controlled for continual improvement.
* wonder you understand the principles, mechanics, process and efficiency of a system and system theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

So [a]theist themselves can establish an efficient moral and ethics framework & system without relying on some immutable absolute rules from a God driven by fears and threat of hellfire.
The approach is complementing the impossible 'ought' with the practical "is" to produce an effective moral and ethics system.

Btw, this is already ongoing at present except it is not organized scientifically and formalized which I am proposing to do in the future.
The UN are already adopting maxims on racism,slavery, human rights and others as secular absolute guides [not enforceable laws] for member nations to practice at the national levels. What is needed here is more polishing and knowledge to ground the process.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3294
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:05 am

Age wrote:
By the way there is only ONE so called absolute moral rule
What is that rule and is there any reason why there is only one
And also how exactly did you come to know about this one rule

surreptitious57
Posts: 3294
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:19 am

Age wrote:
There are lots of people who form and say lots of so called arguments
But there are only a miniscule fraction of them that are ever worth repeating though
Bad arguments can educate as much as good arguments can so maybe more than just a miniscule fraction
All arguments will educate in some way and so maybe they are all worth repeating not just some of them

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1719
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by FlashDangerpants » Fri Aug 30, 2019 9:14 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:08 am
7b+ of humans will say 'I don't want to be killed'
which naturally implied
none of these 7b+ do not expect anyone to kill them,
therefore all the 7b+ [with exceptions] will naturally accept and establish the absolute maxim,
'no human shall kill another human'
which is very logical and rational to reinforce their "I do not want to be killed' and at the same time ensuring by theory and reason, they will not be intentionally killed by another human being.
This is the starting premise and ground for secular morality and the establishment of absolute moral grounds.
You have horribly missed the point. All you could possibly have as a result of that "experiment" is the current number of people in the world who will answer a question in a given way. That's an opinion survey. If 56% of Americans currently believe the president is bad at his job, that is merely the finding of a survey, if you extrapolate from this is that the president is scientifically 56% bad at his job, that is not science just because somebody casually threw the s word into the conversation.

You could enhance your theory with additional background science, and it would make no difference. If you replaced the question and answer format with disection of the subject's brains you can apply neuroscience if you like to find the array of neutrons that disapprove of something. Or you can locate a moral gene that sets everybody's expectation on some moral matter. It still won't make a normative judgment magically become a matter of natural fact.

Science does not determine what is bad or good, only what is and is not. There will never be a science that answers ethical questions, that is not what science is for. What you are attempting here is instrumentally irrational. It's much like trying to use chemistry to decide what flower is prettiest.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:08 am
So [a]theist themselves can establish an efficient moral and ethics framework & system without relying on some immutable absolute rules from a God driven by fears and threat of hellfire.
The approach is complementing the impossible 'ought' with the practical "is" to produce an effective moral and ethics system.
I am an easy going moderate atheist or agnostic or whatever. Can is the most annoying anally retentive theistic fanatic in the universe. We disagree at every opportunity. But we both pointed to the same obvious deficiency in your argument.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:08 am
Btw, this is already ongoing at present except it is not organized scientifically and formalized which I am proposing to do in the future.
The UN are already adopting maxims on racism,slavery, human rights and others as secular absolute guides [not enforceable laws] for member nations to practice at the national levels. What is needed here is more polishing and knowledge to ground the process.
It is a natural fact that most people agree slavery is wrong, and it is a cultural fact that our society considers those who don't recognise the former statement as true are deemed to be morally broken, and actions based on that opinion are often criminal. None of that makes it a natural fact that slavery is actually wrong, there are no natural facts in such matters. Your project is designed to obscure the differences between something which is proven true by observation (science stuff) and something that becomes true through persuasion.

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

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 9:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:08 am
7b+ of humans will say 'I don't want to be killed'
which naturally implied
none of these 7b+ do not expect anyone to kill them,
therefore all the 7b+ [with exceptions] will naturally accept and establish the absolute maxim,
'no human shall kill another human'
which is very logical and rational to reinforce their "I do not want to be killed' and at the same time ensuring by theory and reason, they will not be intentionally killed by another human being.
This is the starting premise and ground for secular morality and the establishment of absolute moral grounds.
You have horribly missed the point. All you could possibly have as a result of that "experiment" is the current number of people in the world who will answer a question in a given way. That's an opinion survey. If 56% of Americans currently believe the president is bad at his job, that is merely the finding of a survey, if you extrapolate from this is that the president is scientifically 56% bad at his job, that is not science just because somebody casually threw the s word into the conversation.

You could enhance your theory with additional background science, and it would make no difference. If you replaced the question and answer format with disection of the subject's brains you can apply neuroscience if you like to find the array of neutrons that disapprove of something. Or you can locate a moral gene that sets everybody's expectation on some moral matter. It still won't make a normative judgment magically become a matter of natural fact.

Science does not determine what is bad or good, only what is and is not. There will never be a science that answers ethical questions, that is not what science is for. What you are attempting here is instrumentally irrational. It's much like trying to use chemistry to decide what flower is prettiest.
I stated somewhere we will have to strive to get 100% of the 7b+* to answer the question. I believe it is possible given the current and potential information technology we have.
* excluding young children and those who are not able to communicate or understand the question.

This exercise will not be one off but done continuously. It will not be an opinion poll but one that will attempt to get every able person to give an answer will a reasonable understanding of the circumstances.
If it is necessary to ask the same question 10 or 100 times during a person's lifetime we will do it.
In addition, we must ensure those who answer are not subjected to any brainwashing as a zombie.

You can not compare the question 'Do you want to be killed?' with any other questions about 'whether the current president is doing a good job or not' and any other question because 'Do you want to be killed?' is extremely unique.

Do you personally think 56%, 75% or 90% will answer 'no' and the rest 25% or 10% will agree they want to be killed?
Need an answer from you on this.
As I had stated, if any one agreed 'they want to be killed' in the ordinary sense, they are likely to be confirmed to be a mental case by a qualified psychiatrist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:08 am
So [a]theist themselves can establish an efficient moral and ethics framework & system without relying on some immutable absolute rules from a God driven by fears and threat of hellfire.
The approach is complementing the impossible 'ought' with the practical "is" to produce an effective moral and ethics system.
I am an easy going moderate atheist or agnostic or whatever. Can is the most annoying anally retentive theistic fanatic in the universe. We disagree at every opportunity. But we both pointed to the same obvious deficiency in your argument.
This is irrelevant.
What matters is the arguments you provide.

Btw, did both of you, agreed you want to be killed?

[A] If you do not want to be killed in the ordinary sense, surely you would expect the maxim 'no human is allowed to kill another human' to be agreed by everyone [which is a natural fact] to secure your initial 'no' answer.

If you apply [A] that to all individual humans then it is very logical and rational to establish the moral absolute 'no human can kill another human'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:08 am
Btw, this is already ongoing at present except it is not organized scientifically and formalized which I am proposing to do in the future.
The UN are already adopting maxims on racism,slavery, human rights and others as secular absolute guides [not enforceable laws] for member nations to practice at the national levels. What is needed here is more polishing and knowledge to ground the process.
It is a natural fact that most people agree slavery is wrong, and it is a cultural fact that our society considers those who don't recognise the former statement as true are deemed to be morally broken, and actions based on that opinion are often criminal.
None of that makes it a natural fact that slavery is actually wrong, there are no natural facts in such matters.
Your project is designed to obscure the differences between something which is proven true by observation (science stuff) and something that becomes true through persuasion.
Btw, who decides what is a natural fact?
The bottom line is 'what is a natural fact' is based on justifiable intersubjective consensus, if not how else? Surely not from a God of a religion.
Kant had argued for this point extensively and deeply.

My moral project is aimed at how to improve humanity moral's state, grounded on empirical facts.

I am not trying to persuade based on empirical facts.
Whatever is presented should be self-explanatory, objective, justifiable, testable and rational.
What I proposed is to use the empirical fact to derive a moral absolute, i.e. an ideal as a guide for continuous improvement.

The aversion of slavery or of being enslaved is inherent in all human beings.
It is the same for 'not wanting to be killed in any ordinary sense'.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest