OUGHT from IS is Possible

[Sculptor]

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.

What about dead ones?

2. ALL living

better

human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed.

But ANY exception undermines your attempt an "absolute"

3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.

That is an ought, NOT an "IS"

4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"[/list]

Wrong. You logic is faulty already. Even if we reject the "exceptions", your conclusion is not made at all, since there are OTHER "IS"s you have ignored.
Here are two truths you have chosen to ignore.
1) Many humans LIKE to kill other humans
2) Many humans think there are good reasons to kill other humans

Therefore what you write below is false.

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?

WRONG

[surreptitious57]

WHY have you made the ASSUMPTION and jumped to some sort of conclusion that because I use the invisible
word that that then automatically defers to the non physical which then also means that it could NOT exist ?

To me something which is invisible is non physical so that is how I have used the word here . And for things which exist but cannot be seen I
would define them as non visible rather than invisible . Because something which is non visible is still physical even if it cannot be detected

[surreptitious57]

Do you really think that if some thing is NOT physical then it could NOT exist ?

To you is it only the physical that CAN exist ?

Yes I really do think that something which is NOT physical could NOT exist because physicality is a condition of existence
That is how I define physical so therefore everything that has ever existed or will ever exist by default has to be physical

Even absolute nothing at the quantum level occupies physical space even if there is nothing within that space
Anything that exists is physical and that is how I define it even if this is not the standard definition of physical

[surreptitious57]

I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding from you about what it is that I am actually saying here
Or maybe you do not really want to understand what I am really saying and just want to share what you always see and how you class those things

To avoid any misunderstanding you should try to be as clear as possible so that I can understand exactly what you are saying here
Because I do want to understand you or else there is absolutely no point in having a conversation with you about anything is there

[Age]

This is blind and stupid arrogance of elitism, worst without arguments and justifications.
Are you from another planet?

I will say this again;
I write in a particular way to MAKE you ASSUME things. I do this to SHOW just how easily it is for you to get things SO WRONG when you make assumptions BEFORE asking clarifying questions.

I like to SHOW this, so then 'you', human beings, may wake up to yourselves one day and start asking for clarification BEFORE you start making the insanely WRONG assumptions that you continually do.

Sense of grandeur, eh!

That is YOUR assumption only.

Maybe you KNOW this grandeur sense, from you having BELIEVED that you have ALREADY proved some things, like, 'God is an absolute impossibility to be real' and from you saying that you KNOW the reasons why "others" have false delusions, which you BELIEVE you CERTAINLY do not have.

That is no different from a schizo who think others are insane except himself.

If you say so.

[Age]

WHY have you made the ASSUMPTION and jumped to some sort of conclusion that because I use the invisible
word that that then automatically defers to the non physical which then also means that it could NOT exist ?

To me something which is invisible is non physical so that is how I have used the word here . And for things which exist but cannot be seen I
would define them as non visible rather than invisible .

But WHY do this?

And can you tell the non visible from the invisible apart?

If yes, then how?

Because something which is non visible is still physical even if it cannot be detected

But, if some thing can not be detected, then how would you KNOW if it exists or not, and then therefore KNOW IF it is, to you, invisible or non visible?

If I am honest, to me, it appears as though you are 'trying to' fit things together, on what you ALREADY assume is true.

For example, to you, is the Mind invisible or non visible?

If it is non visible, then;

How do you detect it?

How is it physical?

And where exactly is it?

If you are unsure of these things, then just maybe It is actually invisible, not physical, and really non existent?

Or maybe, there might be some thing that does exist but which is really non physical, and thus also be non visible or invisible, I think the last issue of being invisible or non visible does not really matter, but it may come in very handy as a great distinction.

[Age]

Do you really think that if some thing is NOT physical then it could NOT exist ?

To you is it only the physical that CAN exist ?

Yes I really do think that something which is NOT physical could NOT exist because physicality is a condition of existence

Why would physicality HAVE TO BE a condition of existence?

Is is not a possibility that existence could exist without some non physicals things?

If this, to you, it is impossible, or not possible, for existence to exist without the physical, then WHY?

Also, do the words 'impossible' and 'not possible' have a clear distinction like the words 'invisible' and 'non visible' do, to you'.

That is how I define physical so therefore everything that has ever existed or will ever exist by default has to be physical

So, to you, the Universe is an 'infinite compression of the physical matter', correct?

Even absolute nothing at the quantum level occupies physical space even if there is nothing within that space

To you, is 'physical space' made of 'physical matter'?

Also remember that just adding the word 'physical' in front of a word like 'space' does NOT necessarily make the latter word physical.

Anything that exists is physical and that is how I define it even if this is not the standard definition of physical

Okay. But are you open to other possibilities?

[Age]

I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding from you about what it is that I am actually saying here
Or maybe you do not really want to understand what I am really saying and just want to share what you always see and how you class those things

To avoid any misunderstanding you should try to be as clear as possible so that I can understand exactly what you are saying here
Because I do want to understand you or else there is absolutely no point in having a conversation with you about anything is there

So, when I say, for example, some thing like; 'There is only one Mind', but you reply by saying some thing like; "There ARE many minds", then how exactly does that show that you really do want to understand me?

Also, when you say things like;
Yes I really do think that something which is NOT physical could NOT exist because physicality is a condition of existence
That is how I define physical so therefore everything that has ever existed or will ever exist by default has to be physical

Even absolute nothing at the quantum level occupies physical space even if there is nothing within that space
Anything that exists is physical and that is how I define it even if this is not the standard definition of physical

Then it does not really come across as though you really do want to understand what some one Is saying. How it comes across is that that is how you see things, which you assume is true. Not asking for clarification of what it is that "another" is saying appears, to me, as though you do not really want to understand what the "other" is saying. To me it appears that you only want to express what you think and assume is true, right, and correct.

Also, me just 'trying to' be as clear as possible will NOT necessarily avoid any misunderstanding at all, as you suggested above. Only when I have learned how to communicate properly, so that I will not be misunderstood by any one, then, only then, I CAN avoid any misunderstanding.

[surreptitious57]

Or maybe there might be some thing that does exist but which is really non physical and thus also be non visible or invisible
I think the last issue of being invisible or non visible does not really matter but it may come in very handy as a great distinction

Could you explain how a non physical non visible or invisible thing could exist in reality
There is indeed a distinction between invisible and non visible as I have already stated

[surreptitious57]

Is is not a possibility that existence could exist without some non physical things

As I already stated absolute nothing does exist but it has physical dimension
There is nothing that actually exists that cannot be defined in physical terms

[surreptitious57]

So when I say for example some thing like There is only one Mind but you reply by saying some thing like There ARE
many minds then how exactly does that show that you really do want to understand me

I want to understand you and so what you have said here does not invalidate that at all

[surreptitious57]

Not asking for clarification of what it is that another is saying appears to me as though you do not really want to understand

I have already told you [ this is now I think the third time ] that I dont have the mental energy to ask you clarifying questions all of the time
Sometimes I do and will ask questions but most of the time I dont bother for the reason I have just given so can you try to rememember this

[surreptitious57]

But are you open to other possibilities

I am open to any possibility that could be true but not to any that could be false
So why dont you provide some of these alternatives so that we can discuss them

[Age]

Or maybe there might be some thing that does exist but which is really non physical and thus also be non visible or invisible
I think the last issue of being invisible or non visible does not really matter but it may come in very handy as a great distinction

Could you explain how a non physical non visible or invisible thing could exist in reality

Yes.

But first I am just wondering WHY you do not answer any of my clarifying questions, yet you instantly ask me a clarifying question?

If there was not a non physical, non visible or invisible thing existing, then there would only be one singular, infinite compression of matter, thing.
If there was not a distance between physical matter, then there would only be singularity existing.
There is obviously not singularity existing now, when this is written.
Therefore, that is HOW there IS a non physical thing existing.

I just call this distance between physical matter or physical objects 'space'.

There is indeed a distinction between invisible and non visible as I have already stated

I already KNOW that 'you' see, and have made, a distinction.

By the way, when you use words like; "There is indeed ...", what do you actually mean by this?

1. That that is how you see things? Or,
2. That is the Truth of things?

Also, when you say, "There is indeed ...", are you open to there is indeed some thing else, or when you say, "There is indeed ...", does that mean that that is the case and nothing contrary could be true nor right?

Your honest answers to my clarifying questions, like I always give you, would be much appreciated.

[Age]

Is is not a possibility that existence could exist without some non physical things

As I already stated absolute nothing does exist but it has physical dimension

So, to you, 'absolute nothing' really is just some thing physical. Okay noted.

There is nothing that actually exists that cannot be defined in physical terms

When you do not answer my clarifying questions, then your are NOT supporting your claim that there is nothing that actually exists that can not be defined in physical terms.

Is your claim an absolute FACT, which is irrefutable? Or, is your claim just how you see and view things, and therefore could actually be false, wrong, and/or incorrect?