OUGHT from IS is Possible

[Skepdick]

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.

Well, if I am so ignorant then how come you are agreeing with me?

You are openly stating that the IS->OUGHT gap is wrong precisely because in practice it's the OUGHT-> IS gap. It's the gap of HOW.

We ought to stop slavery. HOW?
We ought to stop racism. HOW?
We ought to stop human rights violations. HOW?

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

You are trying to formalize the PRACTICE of morality/ethics? You are trying to define what moralists already do?

How do you intend to do that when you have never actually PRACTICED morality/ethics at social scale? You only philosophize about it.
The framework is going to be written by the practitioners of morality/ethics. Those who have the power to actually change/implement the structures of society. Those who have the power and know-HOW to turn an OUGHT into an IS.

The moral philosophers are the running commentary, the peanut gallery (as always).

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Well, if I am so ignorant then how come you are agreeing with me?

You are openly stating that the IS->OUGHT gap is made up, because in practice it's the OUGHT-> IS gap.

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

You are trying to formalize the PRACTICE of morality/ethics?

How do you intend to do that when you have never actually PRACTICED morality/ethics? You only philosophize about it.
The book is going to be written by the practitioners of morality/ethics.

The philosophers are the running commentary (as always).

Are you familiar with the Philosophy of Science.

Scientists at present do not practice Science based on their whims and fancies but rather has to conform to the Scientific Framework and System (the scientific method, etc.). This Scientific Framework and System has evolved over time and is self-regulated by a community of scientists in consensus.
What the Philosophy Science has done is to explain this framework and system of Science.

The framework of morality and ethics is definitely newer than Science but the process has already been initiated and progressing.
Thus the task is for Philosophy of Morality and Ethics to discuss and abstract the framework and systems so that it can be improved upon.
This is what I have been proposing.
The consequentialism, the utilitarianism, the deontological methods proposed so far has not been effective, thus my proposals for a system-based [system theory] approached to morality and ethics.

Note you provided no justified counters to my proposals.

[Skepdick]

Are you familiar with the Philosophy of Science.

Scientists at present do not practice Science based on their whims and fancies but rather has to conform to the Scientific Framework and System (the scientific method, etc.).

This Scientific Framework and System has evolved over time and is self-regulated by a community of scientists in consensus.
What the Philosophy Science has done is to explain this framework and system of Science.

You are making my point for me.

I am familiar with the PRACTICE of science, which is why the PHILOSOPHY of science you are purporting is horseshit

Any scientist would tell you that the above is just some idealised bullshit and has absolutely no resemblance of HOW science is actually done in practice. I am a scientist - I am telling you that.

Paul Feyerabend says the same thing.

[Skepdick]

Are you familiar with the Philosophy of Science.

Scientists at present do not practice Science based on their whims and fancies but rather has to conform to the Scientific Framework and System (the scientific method, etc.). This Scientific Framework and System has evolved over time and is self-regulated by a community of scientists in consensus.
What the Philosophy Science has done is to explain this framework and system of Science.

Here is a mental model to snap you out of your delusion.

https://humanisticsystems.com/2016/12/0 ... uman-work/

There are four categories of work:
* Work as imagined
* Work as prescribed
* Work as disclosed
* Work as done

Philosophy of Science is at Work as imagined
Published scientific research is at Work as disclosed
Actual scientific research is at Work as done

Maybe you are trying to sell books, I dunno. But please don't pretend you are contributing to moral/ethical progress.

What you fail to grasp is that all explanations of ANY system are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Philosophy of Science can only ever be an IS, not an OUGHT.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you familiar with the Philosophy of Science.

Scientists at present do not practice Science based on their whims and fancies but rather has to conform to the Scientific Framework and System (the scientific method, etc.). This Scientific Framework and System has evolved over time and is self-regulated by a community of scientists in consensus.
What the Philosophy Science has done is to explain this framework and system of Science.

Here is a mental model to snap you out of your delusion.

https://humanisticsystems.com/2016/12/0 ... uman-work/

There are four categories of work:
* Work as imagined
* Work as prescribed
* Work as disclosed
* Work as done

Philosophy of Science is at Work as imagined
Published scientific research is at Work as disclosed
Actual scientific research is at Work as done

Maybe you are trying to sell books, I dunno. But please don't pretend you are contributing to moral/ethical progress.

What you fail to grasp is that all explanations of ANY system are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Philosophy of Science can only ever be an IS, not an OUGHT.

I know you, you are merely a lab assistant as best.

Where did I state the Philosophy of Science deal with OUGHTs.
I merely state it is a system-based approach i.e. to knowledge which has nothing to do with ought at all.

Morality and Ethics on the other hand deal with ought and is which can be dealt via a system based approach.

[Skepdick]

I know you, you are merely a lab assistant as best.

What? Like with a white coat? And a microscope? And some test tubes?

Is that what you IMAGINE science is like?

Where did I state the Philosophy of Science is an OUGHT.
I merely state it is a system-based approach i.e. to knowledge which do not do with ought at all.

You are such an idiot you can't even remember what you said one paragraph ago?

Scientists .... has to conform to the Scientific Framework and System (the scientific method, etc.).

"HAS TO CONFORM" is a normative statement. ALL normative statements are oughts.

Combined with the phrases "THE Scientific Framework" and "THE scientific method" it only reveals how shallow your thinking actually is in imagining that there is one framework and one method, and that it is somehow taught, prescribed and adhered to by all scientists.

That is at best Work as disclosed, but it is most definitely NOT Work as done. We lie to you about the nature science, because the details are tedious. If you had ever DONE any science in your life, you would know why your philosophy is bullshit

Morality and Ethics on the other hand deal with ought and is which can be dealt via a system based approach.

So both morality and science are system-based approaches, but they are different? OK Idiot

[odysseus]

Veritas Aequitas
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.

But if you haven't read them, how do you know? Kant didn't understand the essence of ethics at all. Read what he says about a good will: completely free of motivation to act at all. It is an absurd idea that puts absolute distance between the rational agency, the soul, and the world. It is a rational metaphysics devoid of actuality.
Not Husserl. Read Wittgenstein's Tractatus. Then read Kierkegaard's Concept of Anxiety. then read, if you are still standing on two feet, Emanuel Levinas' Totality and Infinity.
Kant will not resolve the issue of the nature of ethics for you, unless you think the self is really just a disembodied rational ego. This ignores altogether the foundation of ethics, which is value in the world.
BTW, you draw a lot of fire for anti Muslim you apparently made. What has THIS to do with anything? One way to debase a discussion is to get lost in arbitrary ideas.

[FlashDangerpants]

If somebody trying to take down a chess grandmaster stops to ask how the horsey thing moves, they have some basic learning to do before they should be invited to return. Same goes for anyone who tries to construct a scientific escape from the is/ought problem without a scientific grounding for essential moral vocabulary such as right and wrong which have no place in any scientific language. If they aren't up to that, then there is little purpose in diverting them towards a philosophical reference library that is going straight woosh over their head, like the horsey thing might as well be doing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas
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.

But if you haven't read them, how do you know? Kant didn't understand the essence of ethics at all. Read what he says about a good will: completely free of motivation to act at all. It is an absurd idea that puts absolute distance between the rational agency, the soul, and the world. It is a rational metaphysics devoid of actuality.
Not Husserl. Read Wittgenstein's Tractatus. Then read Kierkegaard's Concept of Anxiety. then read, if you are still standing on two feet, Emanuel Levinas' Totality and Infinity.
Kant will not resolve the issue of the nature of ethics for you, unless you think the self is really just a disembodied rational ego. This ignores altogether the foundation of ethics, which is value in the world.
BTW, you draw a lot of fire for anti Muslim you apparently made. What has THIS to do with anything? One way to debase a discussion is to get lost in arbitrary ideas.

I spent 3 years full time reading and analyzing Kant.
I have read the major and later works of all the 'popular' philosophers, Kierkegaard, Levinas, Heidegger, Wittgenstein [not Tractatus {analytical not my taste} but later work -On Certainty'] and many more.
I often receive accusations "you have not read this and that philosopher", so I make it a point to read and understand whatever I am accused of not having read of the popular philosophers. I admit I don't have them all on my finger tips at present but I can easily refresh when needed to.

Kant didn't understand 'ethics'??
I am certain you are speaking without reading all of Kant's book on the subject.
In the above you are still insisting Kant is a rationalist when I have explained Kant after reading Hume abandoned pure rationalism and became a blended rationalist-empiricist.

It is often claimed by 'expert' on Kant, one need 3 years full time or 5 years part-time to fully understand Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Thus more time to read the full range of all of Kant's books on philosophy.
Even if you have read them, I am aware 80% of those who read Kant seriously do not understand Kant fully. My background is Eastern Philosophy which tie in nicely with Kantian Philosophy.

Note I am not anti-Muslim but anti-Islam, the ideology.
There is nothing wrong with being anti- to any ideology as long as the critique of the ideology is based on justified arguments with evidences and relevant references.

[Age]

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.

But why complicate and make hard 'that' what is essentially simple and easy?

One 'ought' to keep what IS Really just simple and easy, simple and easy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But why complicate and make hard 'that' what is essentially simple and easy?

One 'ought' to keep what IS Really just simple and easy, simple and easy.

The above is not philosophy-proper which requires sound justifications for whatever one proposes.

Why? Why? Why? Why? and WHY?
It we cannot get to the ultimate 5th WHY but at least there should be an attempt to get as close as possible to as many Whys as possible. [no illusory God btw].

[Age]

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

Do not abuse any thing.

Because, like Life Itself, ALL things are simple and easy.

And also how exactly did you come to know about this one rule

By admitting some of the wrong I did and accepting full responsibility for that, and by taking full responsibility for that by seeking to change, for the better, and by being Truly Honest I became fully OPEN. Becoming fully OPEN allows thee Truth of things to be revealed.

Assuming and believing things, based solely upon past experiences does not allow one to be Truly or fully OPEN.

[Age]

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

What can bad arguments educate exactly?

All arguments will educate in some way and so maybe they are all worth repeating not just some of them

What way do bad arguments educate?

[Age]

But why complicate and make hard 'that' what is essentially simple and easy?

One 'ought' to keep what IS Really just simple and easy, simple and easy.

The above is not philosophy-proper which requires sound justifications for whatever one proposes.

Who cares?

The above is a clarifying question.

What do you want 'sound justifications' for exactly?

Your answers given, or not given, reveals enough for what the question, itself, is proposing.

Why? Why? Why? Why? and WHY?
It we cannot get to the ultimate 5th WHY but at least there should be an attempt to get as close as possible to as many Whys as possible. [no illusory God btw].

But ALL meaningful why's can and have already been answered.

Answering ALL of them is how I KNOW that Life Really IS just, simple and easy.

And that is WHY I am questioning you WHY "try to" make complex and hard what IS actually just simple and easy?

[odysseus]

Veritas Aequitas
I spent 3 years full time reading and analyzing Kant.
I have read the major and later works of all the 'popular' philosophers, Kierkegaard, Levinas, Heidegger, Wittgenstein [not Tractatus {analytical not my taste} but later work -On Certainty'] and many more.
I often receive accusations "you have not read this and that philosopher", so I make it a point to read and understand whatever I am accused of not having read of the popular philosophers. I admit I don't have them all on my finger tips at present but I can easily refresh when needed to.

Kant didn't understand 'ethics'??
I am certain you are speaking without reading all of Kant's book on the subject.
In the above you are still insisting Kant is a rationalist when I have explained Kant after reading Hume abandoned pure rationalism and became a blended rationalist-empiricist.

It is often claimed by 'expert' on Kant, one need 3 years full time or 5 years part-time to fully understand Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Thus more time to read the full range of all of Kant's books on philosophy.
Even if you have read them, I am aware 80% of those who read Kant seriously do not understand Kant fully. My background is Eastern Philosophy which tie in nicely with Kantian Philosophy.

All of this is ad hominem.

If you think Kant has the key to the nature of ethics, then defend this against my claim that Kant defends an empty rationalism that has no account of human motivation. Keep in mind that my argument, which I will gladly share with you if you decide proceed properly, is that reason conceived apart from the world of actual value, where the suffering and the joys are living actualities, cannot present the nature of ethics. Kant may have a fair point about how we reason morally regarding actual problems and I certainly agree with his kingdom of ends, the treating others as ends and never a means (though we do this all the time. See Buber's I and Thou; see Levinas for insights on this), but none of this amounts to a theory that puts its finger on the essence of ethics, which is value. Kant is just wrong to say that an ethical act is never grounded in desire and is always about duty. This begs the question, in fact, all of it does: why should one ever want at all to do the right thing? How can duty be the singular priority if duty's motivation is altogether absent?

Spare me your resume. Help me understand why Kant is right, and please do not tell me about the wisdom of the golden rule. Tell why he is right vis a vis my specific objection above. (Always a ground for suspicion when an interlocutor changes the subject to something she CAN handle as opposed to attending to the argument at hand.)