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

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by FlashDangerpants » Fri Aug 30, 2019 11:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 am
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.
That's just a more precise opinion poll. It makes no difference whatsoever to the problem.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 am
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.
It's not that unique at all, you just didn't bother putting any thought into it.
Do you want to be punished for your mistakes?
Do you want to be punished for your crimes?
Do you want to be prevented from doing things you want to do?

If you subject your own theory to asic scepticism, you will easily see that it becomes a disaster the second you find a universal immoral thing that everybody wants. People can, and always do want contradictory things. That's why nobody posessing basic sanity would try to form a universal ethic on the basis of stuff people just want. Morality is mostly aout shit you aren't allowed to have that you want.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 am
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?
I love how you think that is your winning question. No I don't want to be killed, so what? There are plenty of circumstances where my not wanting to be killed has no bearing on whether or not I ought to be. I could be a serial killer, a kidnapper, a suicide bomber...
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 am
[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'.
We routinely do authorise some humans to kill other humans. There are circumstances where it is right and proper to do so.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 am
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.
If an apple falls from a tree and lands on the ground, there are facts about that apple that have nothng to do with people. It doesn't make any difference whether somebody knows the apple fell off the tree at all, there was some stuff going on with gravity and whatnot about which facts exist. Science has gone through multiple ways of explaining what happened to that apple, and will no doubt go through some more. Science investigates facts such as these. Natural facts.

It is highly questionable whether there are any such facts about morality. I am not appealing to God any more than I am appealing to science, or Kant in this matter. If there is such a thing as a moral fact that lies outside mere human interpretation, it is not something that can be discovered through scientific method though. Just using some sciency sounding language to describe your moral opinions isn't actual science.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 am
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.
And what could 'objetive' actually mean in this context?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6008
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:55 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:08 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:15 pm


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.


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.'
You didn't state it, you assumed it. You can't have done otherwise, or your premises simply don't connect rationally at all. So you must have something in mind.
The bridge is justified by the test to be done.
The "test" only shows, if it can, that people "want" not to be killed. But it does nothing to show they "must" not be, or "ought" not to be.
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.
It's exactly the same thinking. If want = ought, then whatever I want is what I ought to get.

Send me your car, if you believe that.
As I had claimed the approach above is very scientific,

:D

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2465
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Aug 31, 2019 2:57 am

double -posting
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2465
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:10 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 11:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 am
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.
That's just a more precise opinion poll. It makes no difference whatsoever to the problem.
You got is wrong.
It is not an 'opinion' poll but rather a poll based on facts, i.e. empirical facts.

Note:
  • opinion = a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
To be more realistic, one can test a person's reaction in actual conditions of a threat of likelihood to be killed. The response would show they do not want to be killed. Note rare exceptions.

This is why I asserted the approach is scientific.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 am
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.
It's not that unique at all, you just didn't bother putting any thought into it.
Do you want to be punished for your mistakes?
Do you want to be punished for your crimes?
Do you want to be prevented from doing things you want to do?

If you subject your own theory to asic scepticism, you will easily see that it becomes a disaster the second you find a universal immoral thing that everybody wants. People can, and always do want contradictory things. That's why nobody posessing basic sanity would try to form a universal ethic on the basis of stuff people just want. Morality is mostly aout shit you aren't allowed to have that you want.
'Not wanting to be killed' is the most unique natural impulse.

You are deflecting, instead of asking,
Do you want to be punished for your mistakes?
on topic, you should ask,
Do you want to be killed for your mistakes, crimes, etc.

You are conflating morality [pure] with ethics [applied].
Example, you cannot conflate Pure Geometry with Applied Geometry but merely compliment them.
The Pure aspects of Mathematics or Science establishes the principles to guide the Applied-practical.

As such in Morality [Pure] we are establishing absolute moral principles via empirical facts and reasoning [inferences] to guide Ethics [Applied].

Yes, humans will do contradictory things, this is why we need absolute principles which are 'fixed goal posts', i.e. secular absolute moral principles as 'lighthouses' to guide and steer humans towards optimal actions in alignment with the net-positive progress of humanity.

I have demonstrated we can use the scientific method to establish secular absolute moral principles, rules or maxims to be used as guides only.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 am
This is irrelevant.
What matters is the arguments you provide.
Btw, did both of you, agreed you want to be killed?
I love how you think that is your winning question. No I don't want to be killed, so what? There are plenty of circumstances where my not wanting to be killed has no bearing on whether or not I ought to be. I could be a serial killer, a kidnapper, a suicide bomber...
Again, as explained above, you are conflating the Pure Morality with the Applied Ethics.

You agree you don't want to be killed.
We can confirm [upon testing] all humans [nb: exceptions] do not want to be killed.
I have argued on the basis of morality that is equivalent to
'No human shall kill another human'.

So by empirical facts and reasoning you personally will adopt the absolute moral rule;
'No human shall kill another human' or personally,
'I cannot and will not kill another human being.'
Note this is only a moral mission [resolution] of yours based on empirical facts and reasoning.

We understand as matter of fact reason [in the neocortex] has no absolute control over instincts [lower brain].
Note Morality is mainly a personal matter and responsibility with assistance from society.
Thus if you had committed serial killing and if still have any capacity for moral reasoning you would have realized there is a moral gap between the moral absolute [resolution] you have adopted [as a mission] and what you have actually done.
If you are still morally sound, you would then take corrective steps to narrow the moral gap.

On the masses level, morality play a lesser role, the role of dealing with crimes is politics and its legislature, not morality and ethics.
Society on the other can play a secondary role in monitoring say if the number of serial killing is high, then society [based on prevention better than cure] will have to facilitate in increasing the moral and ethics quotient within the individual[s] via their brain.

You accuse me of not putting thoughts into my views.
Note the depth and width I have put into the above views as compared to your narrower and shallow thoughts.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 am
[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'.
We routinely do authorise some humans to kill other humans. There are circumstances where it is right and proper to do so.
Note you missed my whole point.
Morality and ethics is a personal responsibility.
Therefore it is up to the individual to manage is own morality and ethics efficiently.

Yes are present, it is politics [which is not morality and ethics] which authorize and legalize killing under various justifications depending on the type of government. Note even religion, like Islam, exhorts and permit killing of non-Muslims under conditions of loosely defined threats [fasadin].

But in the absence of secular absolute moral principles, rules and maxims, there is no guide and ways from any improvements. Many individual[s] and groups will then accept legalized killing as a norm and not driven to find solutions to eliminate and reduce killing of human beings.

But despite actually killings [authorized and unauthorized] going on, when we maintain the maxim,
'no human shall kill another human'
that maxim will be like a permanent reminder for individual[s] and humanity to find more sophisticate solutions to end all killings. I am optimistic of improvement via the increasing trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology especially in the field of neuroscience.
Note http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

Note a good example of how an absolute secular maxim is working is the case of the maxim; No Chatter Slavery is permitted;
The UN Slavery Convention, signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926
It is with this fixed and permanent secular absolute maxim on slavery introduced in 1926 [93 years ago] that all Nations were slowly nudged to adopt it into their laws.
This is not exactly morality and ethics, but rather politics.
For morality and ethics to work we will have to program that into the minds of all the individual humans and I believe this can be done in the future following the success on the political perspective.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 am
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.
If an apple falls from a tree and lands on the ground, there are facts about that apple that have nothing to do with people. It doesn't make any difference whether somebody knows the apple fell off the tree at all, there was some stuff going on with gravity and whatnot about which facts exist. Science has gone through multiple ways of explaining what happened to that apple, and will no doubt go through some more. Science investigates facts such as these. Natural facts.

It is highly questionable whether there are any such facts about morality. I am not appealing to God any more than I am appealing to science, or Kant in this matter. If there is such a thing as a moral fact that lies outside mere human interpretation, it is not something that can be discovered through scientific method though. Just using some sciency sounding language to describe your moral opinions isn't actual science.
You don't seem to be aware of the great chasm between Philosophical Realism and Philosophical Anti-Realism?
I am with the Philosophical Anti-Realists which disagrees with your views.
Philosophical Anti-Realists maintain facts cannot be absolutely independent of human interactions.

Note I am not establish a moral fact but rather a moral maxim via empirical facts.
A perfect circle is never a fact but merely a maxim.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 am
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.
And what could 'objective' actually mean in this context?
Objective in this case means any one can test premise 2 and they will get the same results by inference and philosophical reasoning [of the highest degree].

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2465
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:31 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:55 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:08 am

When did I state automatic bridge from 'want X' to 'ought X.'
You didn't state it, you assumed it. You can't have done otherwise, or your premises simply don't connect rationally at all. So you must have something in mind.
I stated it is not an assumption.
I have proven the bridge from premise 2 to 3 to conclusion 4.
The bridge is justified by the test to be done.
The "test" only shows, if it can, that people "want" not to be killed. But it does nothing to show they "must" not be, or "ought" not to be.
The test show 'no human want to be killed' in this case by another human.

You need further reasoning from the above.
1. If an individual human do not want to be killed by another human, then, naturally the individual will want assurance on this expectation, i.e.
2. 'No human can kill another human being'.
Since ALL humans [nb: exceptions] agree with 1, ALL humans by reasoning wil accept 2, i.e.
'No human can kill another human being'
to feel more assured and secure as a universal rule.

Thus by reasoning [of the highest degree] we can establish the secular moral absolute,
'No human can kill another human being'
as a guide for the moral and ethics system.

Thus we have established an "ought" from "is" empirical facts as a tool of morality and ethics [not politics and legislature].
As I had claimed the approach above is very scientific,

:D
It is objective which anyone can test independently and the results will be the same.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6008
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:17 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:31 am
I have proven the bridge from premise 2 to 3 to conclusion 4.
I'm going to let some famous philosophers break down for you why you're wrong...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef9QnZVpVd8

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sat Aug 31, 2019 4:45 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:10 am
You accuse me of not putting thoughts into my views.
Note the depth and width I have put into the above views as compared to your narrower and shallow thoughts.
Lol.

odysseus
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:30 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by odysseus » Sun Sep 01, 2019 1:29 am

Veritas Aequitas

Thus we have established an "ought" from "is" empirical facts as a tool of morality and ethics [not politics and legislature].
Sorry Veritas, but Immanuel Can had you early on. Yours is an empirical argument, not an ethical one. If you go into a community where nearly all want to be movie stars, does this establish that everyone should want to be a movie star? If you think there is a difference between wanting to be a movie star and wanting not to be killed, you're right, but that is not your argument. You argue that because they say yes to something, it makes that thing an ethical should.
Besides, you really aren't even trying here: The real issue lies with the failure for the ground of ethical obligation to even show up when we look for it. It is, if you will, invisible. Read on this in an account of G E Moore's non natural quality; then read Wittgenstein's Tractatus and his brief Lecture on Ethics. The trouble with ethics and the is/ought is the the IS if things is established through the logical and empirical "facts", and ethical oughts are not among the facts of the world, for ethics is about value, and value is never observed and to confirm ethical right and wrongs lies outside meaningful discussion, if you ask Wittgenstein (he would never even mention the issue, for he knew such things were transcendental). The pain of that spear in my side is observed, but the ethical "wrongness" of it is not witnessed.
Of course, to say that pain is intrinsically ethically bad is my position on this. I think Wittgenstein is wrong and Moore is right, though his being right is not at all helpful in understanding human meta ethics, which is what this issue is really about.
Again, yours is not an ought from an is; it's an is from an is. Read Emanual Can again.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2465
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Sep 01, 2019 3:10 am

odysseus wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 1:29 am
Veritas Aequitas

Thus we have established an "ought" from "is" empirical facts as a tool of morality and ethics [not politics and legislature].
Sorry Veritas, but Immanuel Can had you early on. Yours is an empirical argument, not an ethical one. If you go into a community where nearly all want to be movie stars, does this establish that everyone should want to be a movie star? If you think there is a difference between wanting to be a movie star and wanting not to be killed, you're right, but that is not your argument. You argue that because they say yes to something, it makes that thing an ethical should.
Besides, you really aren't even trying here: The real issue lies with the failure for the ground of ethical obligation to even show up when we look for it. It is, if you will, invisible. Read on this in an account of G E Moore's non natural quality; then read Wittgenstein's Tractatus and his brief Lecture on Ethics. The trouble with ethics and the is/ought is the the IS if things is established through the logical and empirical "facts", and ethical oughts are not among the facts of the world, for ethics is about value, and value is never observed and to confirm ethical right and wrongs lies outside meaningful discussion, if you ask Wittgenstein (he would never even mention the issue, for he knew such things were transcendental). The pain of that spear in my side is observed, but the ethical "wrongness" of it is not witnessed.
Of course, to say that pain is intrinsically ethically bad is my position on this. I think Wittgenstein is wrong and Moore is right, though his being right is not at all helpful in understanding human meta ethics, which is what this issue is really about.
Again, yours is not an ought from an is; it's an is from an is. Read Emanual Can again.
Nah, Immanuel CAN will do anything to condemn any [a]theist and place [a]theists into a satanic pigeon-hole as immoral beings for to secure is own selfish and desperate salvation.

It is very obvious [per Hume], but that is only basic logic that we cannot derived an 'ought' from "is."

Note typically, Yin is Yin and Yang is Yang, never the twain shall meet.
But, there is a more refine philosophy in how to compliment the two opposites in the Philosophy of the Yin-Yang model.

It is possible to complement the two opposites within the Yin-Yang inter-dynamic model [see symbol below] which has been translated into practical uses.
Bohr relied upon the Yin-Yang model as one fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics, i.e. complementarity, to resolve the problem of the opposites. It is so meaningful to him that Bohr incorporated the Yin-Yang model in the center of his Coat of Arms. see: http://www.numericana.com/arms/bohr.htm

I am proposing the contrasting 'is" and 'ought' can be complimented and applied to morality and ethics. We can do this by going beyond Hume to Kant's model of morality and ethics.

Image

odysseus
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:30 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by odysseus » Sun Sep 01, 2019 6:08 am

Veritas Aequitas
Nah, Immanuel CAN will do anything to condemn any [a]theist and place [a]theists into a satanic pigeon-hole as immoral beings for to secure is own selfish and desperate salvation.

It is very obvious [per Hume], but that is only basic logic that we cannot derived an 'ought' from "is."

Note typically, Yin is Yin and Yang is Yang, never the twain shall meet.
But, there is a more refine philosophy in how to compliment the two opposites in the Philosophy of the Yin-Yang model.

It is possible to complement the two opposites within the Yin-Yang inter-dynamic model [see symbol below] which has been translated into practical uses.
Bohr relied upon the Yin-Yang model as one fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics, i.e. complementarity, to resolve the problem of the opposites. It is so meaningful to him that Bohr incorporated the Yin-Yang model in the center of his Coat of Arms. see: http://www.numericana.com/arms/bohr.htm

I am proposing the contrasting 'is" and 'ought' can be complimented and applied to morality and ethics. We can do this by going beyond Hume to Kant's model of morality and ethics.
All that about the yin and yang has nothing to do with it. That is, unless you can explain how it does. Quantum physics? I will assume you're kidding unless you can explain the connection to the is ought problem.

Kant was a rationalist, and I am not a fan at all of his ethics. His ethical ought issues not from what people want, but from what a rational will would make into a universal law. If you ask me, Kant does reduce to utilitarian thinking, since the determinant as to what should be universalized depends on the utility of what doing so would produce.

At any rate, you're not addressing the real problem with oughts. How are they different from is'es? It is their grounding in value: no value, no ethics for no one would "care". The miracle (or the transcendence) of ethics lies in the caring, which is a mysterious presence in the world, for it appears to be an intuited "given" that is part of the originary (a Husserlian term) world that is not reducible to anything else. A given in, if you will, part and parcel of the world. I would call it an absolute but such a term is merely interpretative. When Wittgenstein talks about the transcendent nature of ethics, he simply means it is at once there, but yet, not "in" the world of facts, facts like the earth revolving around the sun. value is qualitatively different from this kind of thing. It is nonsense to speak it, says W, for what is given cannot be spoken, only facts can be spoken. All "knowledge" is cursory, not simply "given". No knowledge is this, because to know is to know propositionally, and what cannot be spoken cannot be put into a proposition.

Read is Lecture on Ethics. It's online and quite accessible.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2465
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Sep 01, 2019 6:53 am

odysseus wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 6:08 am
Veritas Aequitas
Nah, Immanuel CAN will do anything to condemn any [a]theist and place [a]theists into a satanic pigeon-hole as immoral beings for to secure is own selfish and desperate salvation.

It is very obvious [per Hume], but that is only basic logic that we cannot derived an 'ought' from "is."

Note typically, Yin is Yin and Yang is Yang, never the twain shall meet.
But, there is a more refine philosophy in how to compliment the two opposites in the Philosophy of the Yin-Yang model.

It is possible to complement the two opposites within the Yin-Yang inter-dynamic model [see symbol below] which has been translated into practical uses.
Bohr relied upon the Yin-Yang model as one fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics, i.e. complementarity, to resolve the problem of the opposites. It is so meaningful to him that Bohr incorporated the Yin-Yang model in the center of his Coat of Arms. see: http://www.numericana.com/arms/bohr.htm

I am proposing the contrasting 'is" and 'ought' can be complimented and applied to morality and ethics. We can do this by going beyond Hume to Kant's model of morality and ethics.
All that about the yin and yang has nothing to do with it. That is, unless you can explain how it does. Quantum physics? I will assume you're kidding unless you can explain the connection to the is ought problem.
Ought [reason] is at the other extreme of "is" the empirical.
In Quantum Physics we have the dilemma of the the wave-particle duality.
In Yin-Yang, black is definitely not-white.
In these cases we are dealing with the case of duality where 'never the twain shall meet'.

But I have stated the dilemma of the wave-particle duality and the Yin-Yang dilemma is resolved via the complementarity principles.

I am applying the complementarity principle resolve the is-ought dilemma raised by Hume.
Kant was a rationalist, and I am not a fan at all of his ethics. His ethical ought issues not from what people want, but from what a rational will would make into a universal law. If you ask me, Kant does reduce to utilitarian thinking, since the determinant as to what should be universalized depends on the utility of what doing so would produce.
Yes, Kant WAS a hardcore rationalist until he was woken up from his dogmatic rationalist slumber by Hume.
Thereafter Kant went on to bridge the is-ought divide using his system-based morality and ethics.

Kant started his morality based on rationalism, i.e. the strongest possible reasoning but reconcile that with empirical elements.
At any rate, you're not addressing the real problem with oughts. How are they different from is'es?
It is their grounding in value: no value, no ethics for no one would "care". The miracle (or the transcendence) of ethics lies in the caring, which is a mysterious presence in the world, for it appears to be an intuited "given" that is part of the originary (a Husserlian term) world that is not reducible to anything else. A given in, if you will, part and parcel of the world. I would call it an absolute but such a term is merely interpretative. When Wittgenstein talks about the transcendent nature of ethics, he simply means it is at once there, but yet, not "in" the world of facts, facts like the earth revolving around the sun. value is qualitatively different from this kind of thing. It is nonsense to speak it, says W, for what is given cannot be spoken, only facts can be spoken. All "knowledge" is cursory, not simply "given". No knowledge is this, because to know is to know propositionally, and what cannot be spoken cannot be put into a proposition.

Read is Lecture on Ethics. It's online and quite accessible.
I stated I understand Hume's argument why an "ought" cannot be derived from "is".
But Hume's argument on the above is shallower than that of Kant.

Note Hume argument is 'whatever is is' that is reducible to biology and psychology, i.e. customs, habits based on constant conjunctions.
But is also argued, reason [highest] is also reducible to biology, psychological and confined within the body, brain and mind of the thinker.
Note:
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology
It is on the common ground of biology, psychological where we can reconcile 'ought' with 'is'.

I don't see how Wittgenstein, Husserl, or Heidegger or anyone else can better Kant's theory [with an Eastern Philosophical bent] on morality and ethics.

Skepdick
Posts: 1493
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Skepdick » Sun Sep 01, 2019 8:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:10 am
Note the depth and width I have put into the above views as compared to your narrower and shallow thoughts.
Thought is about quality, not quantity.

Both by volume and by smell, yours are worth less than a truck of bullshit. At least I can use bullshit for compost.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2465
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Sep 01, 2019 9:09 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 8:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:10 am
Note the depth and width I have put into the above views as compared to your narrower and shallow thoughts.
Thought is about quality, not quantity.

Both by volume and by smell, yours are worth less than a truck of bullshit. At least I can use bullshit for compost.
It is so easy for you to spray human 'sh1t' against a strong fan.

This is a philosophical forum it would be more philosophical for you to post arguments and justifications so we can debate on it.
One point is when we dig deep into Kant [one of the greatest philosopher of all time] it is so obvious, Kant's philosophy is much deeper than Hume's on the issue of is-ought.

Skepdick
Posts: 1493
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Skepdick » Sun Sep 01, 2019 9:45 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 9:09 am
This is a philosophical forum it would be more philosophical for you to post arguments and justifications so we can debate on it.
Why would any sane human being waste their time on such a pointless activity?
Have you not yet observed that an argument and justification for ANY position can and will be made?

Since that is factually true, and since a practically infinite number of philosophical positions, counter-positions, counter-counter positions and non-positions exist, can we all not just be honest with each other and admit that we have no solution to the problem of epistemic criterion and therefore we have no good way to determine whose positions are actually correct/incorrect, True/false, valid/invalid, sufficient/insufficient and any of the other useless distinctions that Philosophy has made up.

All of your arguments (for their equivalent breadth and depth as that of the vagina of a 60 year old prostitute) boils down to one thing.

You don't like Islam. The rest is just an elaborate justification under the guise of philosophy.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 9:09 am
One point is when we dig deep into Kant [one of the greatest philosopher of all time] it is so obvious, Kant's philosophy is much deeper than Hume's on the issue of is-ought.
Q.E.D For all their depth (or lack thereof) neither Kant nor Hume solved the is-ought problem, so their philosophies are equally worthless.
To claim that one is somehow better than the other is to bestow praise to failure. Have you such mediocre standards?

Not only that, they leave us with a false dichotomy. Who says we have to start with an is and end with an ought? Why can't we do it backwards?
Why can't we start with an "ought" then turn it into an "is"? That's precisely what you are trying to do anyway. When it comes to the evils of Islam it is obvious that your conviction came before your argument.

So you should probably start your arguments like this.

"Hi. My name is Veritas Aequitas. I dislike Islam very very much, and I have constructed an argument with a carefully selected set of reasons to justify my islamophobia. Because I don't like Islam, we ought to eradicate it". Boom! Kant and Hume didn't see that coming, did they?

If you actually had the guts to be honest with yourself (and with us) then I wouldn't think you are a total idiot.
But you don't have the guts. And you are an idiot.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Sep 01, 2019 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2465
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Sep 01, 2019 10:02 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 9:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 9:09 am
This is a philosophical forum it would be more philosophical for you to post arguments and justifications so we can debate on it.
Why would any sane human being waste their time on such a pointless activity?
Have you not yet observed that an argument and justification for ANY position can and will be made?

Since that is factually true, and since a practically infinite number of philosophical positions, counter-positions, counter-counter positions and non-positions exist, can we all not just be honest with each other and admit that we have no solution to the problem of epistemic criterion and therefore we have no good way to determine whose positions are actually "correct" and "incorrect"?

All of your arguments (for their equivalent breadth and depth as that of the vagina of a 60 year old prostitute) boils down to one thing.

You don't like Islam. The rest is just an elaborate justification under the guise of philosophy/argumentation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 9:09 am
One point is when we dig deep into Kant [one of the greatest philosopher of all time] it is so obvious, Kant's philosophy is much deeper than Hume's on the issue of is-ought.
Q.E.D Neither Kant nor Hume solved the is-ought problem, so their philosophies are equally worthless.

Not only that, they leave us with a false dichotomy. Who says we have to start with an is and end with an ought? I say - lets start with an ought and arrive an an is.

So you should probably start your arguments like this.

"Hi. My name is Veritas Aequitas. I dislike Islam very very much. Because I don't like Islam, we ought to eradicate it". Boom! Ought gap solved.

If you actually had the guts to be honest with yourself (and with us) then I wouldn't think you are a total idiot.
But you don't have the guts. And you are an idiot.
You are so ignorant of what is going on in reality with morality and ethics.

Note what I had proposed with the use of 'ought' is already being practiced by humanity at present via the UN.
The UN has already signed various 'oughts' re slavery, racism and other human rights issue as a guide for individual nations to follow up.

What we are discussing is to establish a formal framework and improve on the current reality and practices of morality and ethics.

Islam is off topic.
Whatever I had posted on Islam is supported by justifications, arguments and justifications.
Why you are so sensitive with Islam is because you have been cowered by the Islamic strategic to spreading terror to keep you in fear subliminally. That is why whenever you see someone critique Islam the terror in you is trigger thus your attempt to shut them up to stop the triggering of fears within you.

One of the strategy of Islam is to keep non-Muslims like you subdued and fearful using terror, e.g. Allah commanded;
  • 3:151. We [Allah] shall cast terror [R3B: l-ruʿ'ba] into the hearts of those [infidels] who disbelieve [KFR: kafaru]
    because they [infidels] ascribe unto Allah partners [ShRK: ashrakū idols and deities], for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their [infidels] habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong doers [l-ẓālimīna] [infidels].
To keep non-Muslims in fear and subdued it is even recommended Muslims should spread significant terror at least twice a year, they actually have more than that.
  • 9:126. See they [infidels] not [Do the infidels ever realized] that they [infidels] are tested [FTN: yuftanu, tried] once or twice in every year?
It is pitiful that you are cowered by Islamism, you are so ignorant of it and it triggered with fears whenever someone critique Islam.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest