OUGHT from IS is Possible
Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am
Hume argued it is not possible for an 'Ought' to be derived from "Is".
As such, humanity cannot establish absolute moral rules, laws or principles.
On the contrary, I believe it is logical and possible to establish absolute moral rules.
Note absolute in this case is not absolutely-absolute from a God [a mental illusion] but absolute in the scientific basis, e.g. absolute temperature.
Here is my argument it is possible;
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?
As such, humanity cannot establish absolute moral rules, laws or principles.
On the contrary, I believe it is logical and possible to establish absolute moral rules.
Note absolute in this case is not absolutely-absolute from a God [a mental illusion] but absolute in the scientific basis, e.g. absolute temperature.
Here is my argument it is possible;
- 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed.
3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"
- 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.
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?