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

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:39 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 4:11 am
Sculptor wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:52 am


The Golden Rule whilst is an 'ought' it also incorporate "is" i.e. the "what you do not want others to do unto you" which is abstracted from experiences then reasoned.
How else is the Golden Rule abstracted from if not from 'experience' i.e. "is".
You are just being ridiculous.
There is no objective reason for the golden rule. The golden rule is NOT a matter of fact.
Not ridiculous but striving for optimal pragmatism.
The Golden Rule is abstracted from facts, thus grounded on facts, i.e. "is".
Totally irrelevant and ridiculous given your context, thought it might have some qualities to recommend it.
But I take your Golden Rule and raise you utilitarianism.
Both OUGHTS; neither ISes
What follows from you is not relevant to the thread.
Note this [Wiki].
  • 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.
    And although it isn’t possible to know what it really feels like to be a different person or live in different circumstances and have different life experiences, it isn’t difficult for most of us to imagine what would cause us suffering and to try to avoid causing suffering to others.
    For this reason many people find the Golden Rule’s corollary – "do not treat people in a way you would not wish to be treated yourself" – more pragmatic.[62]
    — Maria MacLachlan, Think Humanism[64]
Thus the Golden Rule is grounded on empathy.
Empathy is grounded on mirror neurons i.e. neurosciences and neuro-psychological.

What do you mean by objective reason?
What is objective is merely intersubjective consensus.
The most objective knowledge we have are Scientific theories.
Scientific theories according to Popper are merely polished conjectures [hypothesis] and grounded on intersubjective consensus of the relevant scientists and their peers.
How I am trying to ground the above is based on the Scientific Method, thus potentially objective.

At present the above are indications and leads based on facts.
Whilst we do not have conclusive evidences yet, it would be dumb to dismiss it totally.
PLONK

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Sep 29, 2019 2:15 pm

Age wrote:
So again how will I KNOW that what you write is an actual fact or just an opinion

What can I do to be able to tell the difference
You could simply ask me the question is that an actual fact or just your opinion
This is what I would do were I unsure and wanted to know what the answer was

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Sun Sep 29, 2019 3:46 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 2:15 pm
Age wrote:
So again how will I KNOW that what you write is an actual fact or just an opinion

What can I do to be able to tell the difference
You could simply ask me the question is that an actual fact or just your opinion
This is what I would do were I unsure and wanted to know what the answer was
Mostly statements are obviously empirical OR judgements.
Empiricals are either true of false, not opinions.
Judgements are always opinions.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:05 am

Sculptor wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:39 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 4:11 am
Sculptor wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:56 pm


You are just being ridiculous.
There is no objective reason for the golden rule. The golden rule is NOT a matter of fact.
Not ridiculous but striving for optimal pragmatism.
The Golden Rule is abstracted from facts, thus grounded on facts, i.e. "is".
Totally irrelevant and ridiculous given your context, thought it might have some qualities to recommend it.
But I take your Golden Rule and raise you utilitarianism.
Both OUGHTS; neither ISes
What follows from you is not relevant to the thread.
Irrelevant??

I am the one who raised the thread so I should know what is the intention.

Utilitarianism is too subjective on what is 'good'.
Point is, DNA wise all humans has the potential for good and evil.
However, via evolution wise, the potential for evil is very much greater than good.
This is evident by the very recent evolved 'mirror neurons' within the primates [less] and homo-sapien [more].
However the mirror neurons whilst are more than primates is still too little and not full activated to drive humans to higher good. One solution is to activate more of the existing mirror neurons and the other is to expedite their growth in the individual.

Re the limitation of Utilitarianism, for example the majority at present still think war is good and a necessity within certain conditions. The majority are still ignorant of their inherent evil potential.
Thus it is likely the 'good' condoned by Utilitarianism could actually be evil because Utilitarianism do not establish absolute standards as guideposts but merely depend on the majority's consensus.
The problem with Utilitarianism, what is good is dependent on time and circumstances and the goals will change arbitrary even up to year 9019 and further.
There is no fixed goals in the utilitarianism approach.

I had proposed a System Approach to Morality and Ethics which must be guided [note guided not enforced] by the what is considered absolute good or the highest possible good independent of temperamental human wishes.
The System Approach will also exposed the evil potential inherent in all humans thus the need to modulate and regulate such inherent impulses.
The Utilitarianism Approach do not have the above facilities for improvement.

Human beings has an inherent natural servomechanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servomechanism
  • In control engineering a servomechanism, sometimes shortened to servo, is an automatic device that uses error-sensing negative feedback to correct the action of a mechanism.[1] It usually includes a built-in encoder or other position feedback mechanism to ensure the output is achieving the desired effect.
    -wiki
Thus we need to establish secular absolute ought[s] as proposed in the OP, based on a scientific approach as guide for the inherent natural servomechanism to progress in morality and ethics.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:12 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:05 am
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:39 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 4:11 am

Not ridiculous but striving for optimal pragmatism.
The Golden Rule is abstracted from facts, thus grounded on facts, i.e. "is".
Totally irrelevant and ridiculous given your context, thought it might have some qualities to recommend it.
But I take your Golden Rule and raise you utilitarianism.
Both OUGHTS; neither ISes
What follows from you is not relevant to the thread.
Irrelevant??

I am the one who raised the thread so I should know what is the intention.
One would have thought so, and yet you haven't got a clue.

Utilitarianism is too subjective on what is 'good'.
Exactly the same problem exists with the GOlden rule.
QED - "irrelevant"
Point is, DNA wise all humans has the potential for good and evil
DUH.
"good and evil" are subjective.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:42 am

Sculptor wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:12 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:05 am
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:39 pm

Totally irrelevant and ridiculous given your context, thought it might have some qualities to recommend it.
But I take your Golden Rule and raise you utilitarianism.
Both OUGHTS; neither ISes
What follows from you is not relevant to the thread.
Irrelevant??

I am the one who raised the thread so I should know what is the intention.
One would have thought so, and yet you haven't got a clue.

Utilitarianism is too subjective on what is 'good'.
Exactly the same problem exists with the GOlden rule.
QED - "irrelevant"
Point is, DNA wise all humans has the potential for good and evil
DUH.
"good and evil" are subjective.
Yes but we can convert the subjective to 'objective' like what Science is doing.

Note what is objective is equal to intersubjective consensus.
That scientific knowledge is objective is grounded entirely on the intersubjective consensus of only a few scientist peers within the specific field of scientific knowledge.

Yes, good and evil are definitely subjective.
Instead of being paralyzed by duality and non-contradiction, we must be pragmatic and take actions. To be pragmatic we can convert what is good and evil to be objective using the same principles of Science within the Scientific Method and reinforce such an objective basis with philosophical tools.

In Utilitarianism, killing would be acceptable as long as there is any element of utility that is acceptable the majority.
But I have argued, inherently within all humans, the propensity for evil is too dominant in the newly evolved humans, thus the acceptable utility by the majority may likely to be imbue with more 'evil' than good.

Based on the trend of mirror neurons [this is objective] I estimate the current active potential within the majority of humans is the following;
  • 1. Active potential to Evil = 90%
    2. Active potential for Good =10%
From the above 'evil' = there will be killing, 'good' = no killing.
The worst evil meant ALL will be killed.
The highest 'good' therefore equal ZERO killing.

In Utilitarianism, the goal is to accept the least evil [optimal utility], i.e. some killings are acceptable. This is not the best moral & ethics model.

Rationally, the best and moral & ethics model would be the System Approach that incorporate the highest 'good' as a guide [note guide, not to be enforced] within the System model.

The additional advantage of such a System Approach is we can also include the Utilitarianism and Consequentialism models as sub-systems within its overall system. In this case, we must keep questioning why the optimal sub-goals established and set via Utilitarianism and Consequentialism are still short of the to goals of the highest good.
As such this System Approach is effective, it will generate Moral Gaps that need improvements and humans must strive to improve toward the never-achievable absolute moral goals or ideals.

To rely on the Utilitarianism model is a sub-standard approach, sub-optimizing.

For the holistic System Approach to be effective we need to impute secular moral absolutes as the ultimate goals.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:01 am

Suffering is an inevitable part of the human condition so it cannot be completely eliminated
Therefore given this the best available option is to eliminate it as much as humanly possible

Utilitarianism is in that respect an entirely credible philosophy as it is one that is both moral and practical rather than simply moral
For a moral philosophy that treats morality as absolute in an abstract sense and takes zero account of reality is entirely superfluous
All moral philosophy must by default have a practical foundation to it or else it is nothing more than eternally impossible utopianism

The best moral philosophy would be a combination of consequentialism and deontology rather than just exclusively one of these
Moral problems are not like mathematical ones in that they do not have definitive solutions to them that everyone can agree on

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:29 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:01 am
Suffering is an inevitable part of the human condition so it cannot be completely eliminated
Therefore given this the best available option is to eliminate it as much as humanly possible

Utilitarianism is in that respect an entirely credible philosophy as it is one that is both moral and practical rather than simply moral
For a moral philosophy that treats morality as absolute in an abstract sense and takes zero account of reality is entirely superfluous
All moral philosophy must by default have a practical foundation to it or else it is nothing more than eternally impossible utopianism

The best moral philosophy would be a combination of consequentialism and deontology rather than just exclusively one of these
Moral problems are not like mathematical ones in that they do not have definitive solutions to them that everyone can agree on
Not sure if you are countering my views, but if so, you missed my point.

I mentioned above;
Instead of being paralyzed by duality and non-contradiction, we must be pragmatic and take actions.
..
As such this System Approach is effective, it will generate Moral Gaps that need improvements and humans must strive to improve toward the never-achievable absolute moral goals or ideals.
In addition, I also mentioned,
  • "The additional advantage of such a System Approach is we can also include the Utilitarianism and Consequentialism models as sub-systems within its overall system."
While I advocate the reliance of absolute moral rules as a guide only, I would avoid the term 'deontological' because normally it is associated with an element of enforcement of moral rules by threats of penalties or threats of perdition and hellfire in the case of the theological moral model.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:42 am
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:12 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 4:05 am

Irrelevant??

I am the one who raised the thread so I should know what is the intention.
One would have thought so, and yet you haven't got a clue.

Utilitarianism is too subjective on what is 'good'.
Exactly the same problem exists with the GOlden rule.
QED - "irrelevant"
Point is, DNA wise all humans has the potential for good and evil
DUH.
"good and evil" are subjective.
Yes but we can convert the subjective to 'objective' like what Science is doing.
Rubbish.

Note what is objective is equal to intersubjective consensus.
That scientific knowledge is objective is grounded entirely on the intersubjective consensus of only a few scientist peers within the specific field of scientific knowledge.

Yes, good and evil are definitely subjective.
Instead of being paralyzed by duality and non-contradiction, we must be pragmatic and take actions. To be pragmatic we can convert what is good and evil to be objective using the same principles of Science within the Scientific Method and reinforce such an objective basis with philosophical tools.

In Utilitarianism, killing would be acceptable as long as there is any element of utility that is acceptable the majority.
But I have argued, inherently within all humans, the propensity for evil is too dominant in the newly evolved humans, thus the acceptable utility by the majority may likely to be imbue with more 'evil' than good.

Based on the trend of mirror neurons [this is objective] I estimate the current active potential within the majority of humans is the following;
  • 1. Active potential to Evil = 90%
    2. Active potential for Good =10%
From the above 'evil' = there will be killing, 'good' = no killing.
The worst evil meant ALL will be killed.
The highest 'good' therefore equal ZERO killing.

In Utilitarianism, the goal is to accept the least evil [optimal utility], i.e. some killings are acceptable. This is not the best moral & ethics model.

Rationally, the best and moral & ethics model would be the System Approach that incorporate the highest 'good' as a guide [note guide, not to be enforced] within the System model.

The additional advantage of such a System Approach is we can also include the Utilitarianism and Consequentialism models as sub-systems within its overall system. In this case, we must keep questioning why the optimal sub-goals established and set via Utilitarianism and Consequentialism are still short of the to goals of the highest good.
As such this System Approach is effective, it will generate Moral Gaps that need improvements and humans must strive to improve toward the never-achievable absolute moral goals or ideals.

To rely on the Utilitarianism model is a sub-standard approach, sub-optimizing.

For the holistic System Approach to be effective we need to impute secular moral absolutes as the ultimate goals.
I think you are on your own.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:18 am

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:42 am
Sculptor wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:12 am

One would have thought so, and yet you haven't got a clue.

Exactly the same problem exists with the GOlden rule.
QED - "irrelevant"

DUH.
"good and evil" are subjective.
Yes but we can convert the subjective to 'objective' like what Science is doing.
Rubbish.

Note what is objective is equal to intersubjective consensus.
That scientific knowledge is objective is grounded entirely on the intersubjective consensus of only a few scientist peers within the specific field of scientific knowledge.

Yes, good and evil are definitely subjective.
Instead of being paralyzed by duality and non-contradiction, we must be pragmatic and take actions. To be pragmatic we can convert what is good and evil to be objective using the same principles of Science within the Scientific Method and reinforce such an objective basis with philosophical tools.

In Utilitarianism, killing would be acceptable as long as there is any element of utility that is acceptable the majority.
But I have argued, inherently within all humans, the propensity for evil is too dominant in the newly evolved humans, thus the acceptable utility by the majority may likely to be imbue with more 'evil' than good.

Based on the trend of mirror neurons [this is objective] I estimate the current active potential within the majority of humans is the following;
  • 1. Active potential to Evil = 90%
    2. Active potential for Good =10%
From the above 'evil' = there will be killing, 'good' = no killing.
The worst evil meant ALL will be killed.
The highest 'good' therefore equal ZERO killing.

In Utilitarianism, the goal is to accept the least evil [optimal utility], i.e. some killings are acceptable. This is not the best moral & ethics model.

Rationally, the best and moral & ethics model would be the System Approach that incorporate the highest 'good' as a guide [note guide, not to be enforced] within the System model.

The additional advantage of such a System Approach is we can also include the Utilitarianism and Consequentialism models as sub-systems within its overall system. In this case, we must keep questioning why the optimal sub-goals established and set via Utilitarianism and Consequentialism are still short of the to goals of the highest good.
As such this System Approach is effective, it will generate Moral Gaps that need improvements and humans must strive to improve toward the never-achievable absolute moral goals or ideals.

To rely on the Utilitarianism model is a sub-standard approach, sub-optimizing.

For the holistic System Approach to be effective we need to impute secular moral absolutes as the ultimate goals.
I think you are on your own.
No arguments to justify your views?

Btw, I have explained the model I am proposing is already in practice at present in a very partial form as in done with the UN's crude system approach and the deontological moral model of Christianity. These ongoing models can be polished and refined to get rid of their limitations and cons.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:52 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:18 am
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:42 am

Yes but we can convert the subjective to 'objective' like what Science is doing.
Rubbish.

Note what is objective is equal to intersubjective consensus.
That scientific knowledge is objective is grounded entirely on the intersubjective consensus of only a few scientist peers within the specific field of scientific knowledge.

Yes, good and evil are definitely subjective.
Instead of being paralyzed by duality and non-contradiction, we must be pragmatic and take actions. To be pragmatic we can convert what is good and evil to be objective using the same principles of Science within the Scientific Method and reinforce such an objective basis with philosophical tools.

In Utilitarianism, killing would be acceptable as long as there is any element of utility that is acceptable the majority.
But I have argued, inherently within all humans, the propensity for evil is too dominant in the newly evolved humans, thus the acceptable utility by the majority may likely to be imbue with more 'evil' than good.

Based on the trend of mirror neurons [this is objective] I estimate the current active potential within the majority of humans is the following;
  • 1. Active potential to Evil = 90%
    2. Active potential for Good =10%
From the above 'evil' = there will be killing, 'good' = no killing.
The worst evil meant ALL will be killed.
The highest 'good' therefore equal ZERO killing.

In Utilitarianism, the goal is to accept the least evil [optimal utility], i.e. some killings are acceptable. This is not the best moral & ethics model.

Rationally, the best and moral & ethics model would be the System Approach that incorporate the highest 'good' as a guide [note guide, not to be enforced] within the System model.

The additional advantage of such a System Approach is we can also include the Utilitarianism and Consequentialism models as sub-systems within its overall system. In this case, we must keep questioning why the optimal sub-goals established and set via Utilitarianism and Consequentialism are still short of the to goals of the highest good.
As such this System Approach is effective, it will generate Moral Gaps that need improvements and humans must strive to improve toward the never-achievable absolute moral goals or ideals.

To rely on the Utilitarianism model is a sub-standard approach, sub-optimizing.

For the holistic System Approach to be effective we need to impute secular moral absolutes as the ultimate goals.
I think you are on your own.
No arguments to justify your views?

Btw, I have explained the model I am proposing is already in practice at present in a very partial form as in done with the UN's crude system approach and the deontological moral model of Christianity. These ongoing models can be polished and refined to get rid of their limitations and cons.
The reason I am leaving you to it, is that you have failed to understand the most simple ideas you are trying to discuss.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:38 am

Sculptor wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:18 am
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:41 am

Rubbish.

I think you are on your own.
No arguments to justify your views?

Btw, I have explained the model I am proposing is already in practice at present in a very partial form as in done with the UN's crude system approach and the deontological moral model of Christianity. These ongoing models can be polished and refined to get rid of their limitations and cons.
The reason I am leaving you to it, is that you have failed to understand the most simple ideas you are trying to discuss.
It is so easy to say the above without justifications.
You are banging on Utilitaranism which I had pointed out has a lot of holes.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:35 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:38 am
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:18 am

No arguments to justify your views?

Btw, I have explained the model I am proposing is already in practice at present in a very partial form as in done with the UN's crude system approach and the deontological moral model of Christianity. These ongoing models can be polished and refined to get rid of their limitations and cons.
The reason I am leaving you to it, is that you have failed to understand the most simple ideas you are trying to discuss.
It is so easy to say the above without justifications.
You are banging on Utilitaranism which I had pointed out has a lot of holes.
No I have not advocated ANY moral system. I was staying on the topic, which includes two concepts (is and ought), which you have failed to understand.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2684
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:11 am

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:38 am
Sculptor wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:52 pm

The reason I am leaving you to it, is that you have failed to understand the most simple ideas you are trying to discuss.
It is so easy to say the above without justifications.
You are banging on Utilitaranism which I had pointed out has a lot of holes.
No I have not advocated ANY moral system. I was staying on the topic, which includes two concepts (is and ought), which you have failed to understand.
You are jumping to conclusion.
I understand Hume's no "ought" from "is."
But I had argued Hume's "ought" from "is" is obvious and confined to the rationalism versus empiricism dichotomy.

You are stuck with Hume's no "ought" from "is."
It is obvious black cannot be white.
"Is" and 'ought' are in different philosophical realms from a dualistic perspective.
But there are alternative views to the above.

It was Kant who woke up from his dogmatic slumber [rationalism dogmatism], to abandon his dogmatic rationalism and went one step deeper to reconcile "ought" with "is" for pragmatic reason and proposed his System Approach to morality and ethics.

Here is one clue to the above point where Kant reconciled 'ought' to 'is';
  • No duality of Is and Ought can be found in Kant's philosophy for the very simple reason that, for Kant, the moral norm (the moral Ought, the moral law) emanates from reason in its function as practical reason, the very same reason whose function it is to know what is.
    For Kant says explicitly in the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals that practical reason, the moral legislator, is fundamentally the same as theoretical reason: ‘I require of a critical examination of a pure practical reason, if it is to be complete, that its unity with the speculative be subject to presentation under a common principle, because in the final analysis there can be but one and the same reason which must be differentiated only in application’.
    https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/ ... chapter-18
Is it noted you did not bother to widen your philosophical range to take note and understand [not necessary agree with] alternative views. If you do not consider alternative views [especially from one of the greatest philosopher of all times] how do you know your views are sound and permanent.

What is critical is to step up and view the two opposites from a complementarity perspective just as how the Taoists reconcile Yin with Yang and Quantum physics deal with polar opposites using complementarity. This critical step will enable one to translate theory into practice and producing positive results.

When you are stuck with Hume's no "ought" from "is" then one is paralyzed without the ability to move into productive actions.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:37 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:11 am
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:38 am

It is so easy to say the above without justifications.
You are banging on Utilitaranism which I had pointed out has a lot of holes.
No I have not advocated ANY moral system. I was staying on the topic, which includes two concepts (is and ought), which you have failed to understand.
You are jumping to conclusion.
I understand Hume's no "ought" from "is."
But I had argued Hume's "ought" from "is" is obvious and confined to the rationalism versus empiricism dichotomy.

You are stuck with Hume's no "ought" from "is."
It is obvious black cannot be white.
"Is" and 'ought' are in different philosophical realms from a dualistic perspective.
But there are alternative views to the above.

It was Kant who woke up from his dogmatic slumber [rationalism dogmatism], to abandon his dogmatic rationalism and went one step deeper to reconcile "ought" with "is" for pragmatic reason and proposed his System Approach to morality and ethics.

Here is one clue to the above point where Kant reconciled 'ought' to 'is';
  • No duality of Is and Ought can be found in Kant's philosophy for the very simple reason that, for Kant, the moral norm (the moral Ought, the moral law) emanates from reason in its function as practical reason, the very same reason whose function it is to know what is.
    For Kant says explicitly in the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals that practical reason, the moral legislator, is fundamentally the same as theoretical reason: ‘I require of a critical examination of a pure practical reason, if it is to be complete, that its unity with the speculative be subject to presentation under a common principle, because in the final analysis there can be but one and the same reason which must be differentiated only in application’.
    https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/ ... chapter-18
Is it noted you did not bother to widen your philosophical range to take note and understand [not necessary agree with] alternative views. If you do not consider alternative views [especially from one of the greatest philosopher of all times] how do you know your views are sound and permanent.

What is critical is to step up and view the two opposites from a complementarity perspective just as how the Taoists reconcile Yin with Yang and Quantum physics deal with polar opposites using complementarity. This critical step will enable one to translate theory into practice and producing positive results.

When you are stuck with Hume's no "ought" from "is" then one is paralyzed without the ability to move into productive actions.
Please refer to the posts I made above.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests