bahman wrote: ↑
Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:58 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑
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;
- 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"
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].
The majority follow their nature and they rule due to that. They define the code of laws. They have power so they are able to proceed accordingly. In this sense, the majority is, therefore, the majority might. But the truth is that they just follow their nature so I don't see how one can get to ought.
You are mixing and conflating to many concepts and perspectives in the above.
First you are straight-jacketed by crude duality, i.e.
- East is East and West is West and never shall the twain meet.
Black is black, White is White and Black will never be White.
Hard is hard and Soft is soft, and hard will never be soft.
p is p and not-p is not-p, p will never be not-p
So I agree along the above principles [crudely] "is" is not 'ought'.
But we should not be stuck with the above in merely one dimension and perspective.
Note the example.
"Hard is hard and Soft is soft, and hard will never be soft."
Water [cluster of H20 molecules] is generally soft, especially as mist, cloud or steam, but this same cluster of molecules can be hard when turned into ice.
At present water can be hard enough to be used to cut the hardest type of steel.
Therefore water [a cluster of h20] can be soft and hard at the same time but not in the same sense rather it depends on the different perspective applied.
Therefore an 'ought' can be abstracted from 'is' based on the following perspectives;
- 1. The crude concept of duality is ignored
2. The type of 'ought' is very specific, i.e. confined to 'killing another human being'.
3. The 'ought' is abstracted from the empirical evidence above.
4. The 'ought' is NOT to be imposed by might or via any legislature.
5. The 'ought' is only to be used as a guide within a Moral and Ethics framework.
Thus based on the above specific conditions, we can abstract an 'ought' from 'is'.
Can you counter this?
It is the same with how Science works.
Scientists made observations of what go on in nature and derived 'oughts' as scientific theories from persistent patterns. Such theories when justified scientifically
are recognized as scientific knowledge.
These scientific knowledge whilst are not absolute have proven to be very useful to humankind.
One good example is that of the Laws of Universal Gravitation discovered by Newton.
Generally, 'what goes up ought
to come down' [with exceptions].
While this law is not absolute and more refined principles of gravity are discovered, it is still very useful to humankind.
It was Hume who argued there is no absolute 'ought' is science but regardless they have utility for humankind. However Kant disputed Hume in arguing Hume is only viewing this argument from one dimension.
As with Science we can rely on "ought" abstracted from empirical "is" in this case 'no human shall be killed' abstracted from 'no human want to be killed' specifically
under conditions 1 to 5 above within a Moral and Ethics Framework and System.
The question is whether such a system will produce net-positive moral and ethical results. I am optimistic it will, provided all the necessary conditions are complied with.
One critical conditions the the Moral Quotient of the average individual must be increased to 10,000 if the current is 100. Again this is a possibility but it will take time, i.e. possibly within the next 50-100 or 200 years if we start constructing the system from now. The progress of such a moral and ethical system will be based on the principles of continuous improvements.
One critical point is;
do not think of enforcing and imposing the 'ought' in this case, with might or legal laws.
This is the usual wrong perspectives that most are caught with when countering my hypothesis.
The absolute secular ought 'no human shall kill another human
' is merely a guide and not to be imposed by might and laws of majority.
This is merely a guide to develop the moral and ethical skills, conscience and compass of the individual[s] to the highest possible level where they will act morally & ethically spontaneously without the need for any enforcement.
Enforceable laws are only needed for the rare exceptional individuals who are mentally incapacitated and thus do not have any potential to develop their moral competence.