'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

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
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:55 am Say, if a person is born without limbs or full blind,
in this case, there is an oughtness that all humans should be born with 4 limbs and with full eyesight in alignment with the universal qualities of human nature.
This is what you're stating. What I'm asking for is a justification of it.

There is an "oughtness" that comes from what?
But because the universal of human nature is an inherent standards,
Are you attempting to say that it's something other than statistical norms at this point? (And again, re some of the stuff I cut out earlier, a property that 99.9...% of xs have isn't a universal property of xs . . . not that universality matters for anything here anyway. The point about statistical norms is that statistical norms do not imply universality, and they certainly do not imply that anything should be universal).
if your child has an abnormal heart, wouldn't you expect his heart ought to be corrected to what is verified and justified as a normal human heart?
I would WANT it to be taken care of as well as it can be, as would many other people. That we WANT this, that it's a desire or preference we have, doesn't imply that outside of that context, including for other people's desires or preferences, it ought or should be a particular way.
This is why it is critical to establish what is universal and normal for a human being and if there are deviations they need to be corrected to normal standards.
Oy vey. So it's just a paean to conformism for you. That something is a statistical norm DOES NOT IMPLY that anything SHOULD be like the statistical norm.

It's clear you're not really analyzing the source of your "rah rah conformism" view. It's just a disposition that you have.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:37 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:55 am Say, if a person is born without limbs or full blind,
in this case, there is an oughtness that all humans should be born with 4 limbs and with full eyesight in alignment with the universal qualities of human nature.
This is what you're stating. What I'm asking for is a justification of it.
There is an "oughtness" that comes from what?
From human nature.
But because the universal of human nature is an inherent standards,
Are you attempting to say that it's something other than statistical norms at this point? (And again, re some of the stuff I cut out earlier, a property that 99.9...% of xs have isn't a universal property of xs . . . not that universality matters for anything here anyway. The point about statistical norms is that statistical norms do not imply universality, and they certainly do not imply that anything should be universal).
Surely you understand the useful and limitation of statistics which do not represent reality in the most realistic mode. Note, What is critical are the real facts, i.e. moral facts that must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK.
if your child has an abnormal heart, wouldn't you expect his heart ought to be corrected to what is verified and justified as a normal human heart?
I would WANT it to be taken care of as well as it can be, as would many other people. That we WANT this, that it's a desire or preference we have, doesn't imply that outside of that context, including for other people's desires or preferences, it ought or should be a particular way.
The first experience is 'want' but this 'want' is reducible to an inherent 'ought_ness' i.e. to be proper, correct and in alignment with inherent human nature.

I am confident, ALL 'normal' parents would want their child to be normal in the above case. The inherent impulse in "ALL" is the universal and the norm as an inherent 'oughtness' that drive them to 'want'.
This is why it is critical to establish what is universal and normal for a human being and if there are deviations they need to be corrected to normal standards.
Oy vey. So it's just a paean to conformism for you. That something is a statistical norm DOES NOT IMPLY that anything SHOULD be like the statistical norm.

It's clear you're not really analyzing the source of your "rah rah conformism" view. It's just a disposition that you have.
Note my point above, [repeat],
What is critical are the real facts, i.e. moral facts that must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:18 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:37 pm Are you attempting to say that it's something other than statistical norms at this point? (And again, re some of the stuff I cut out earlier, a property that 99.9...% of xs have isn't a universal property of xs . . . not that universality matters for anything here anyway. The point about statistical norms is that statistical norms do not imply universality, and they certainly do not imply that anything should be universal).
Surely you understand the useful and limitation of statistics which do not represent reality in the most realistic mode.
Huh? I didn't even understand that sentence.

You had said that by "human nature," you're referring to statistical norms. I'm asking you how statistical norms amount to any "ought," "should," etc.
What is critical are the real facts, i.e. moral facts that must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK.
For the umpteenth time, we'd need to detail how an example of that is supposed to work.

I would WANT it to be taken care of as well as it can be, as would many other people. That we WANT this, that it's a desire or preference we have, doesn't imply that outside of that context, including for other people's desires or preferences, it ought or should be a particular way.
The first experience is 'want' but this 'want' is reducible to an inherent 'ought_ness' i.e. to be proper, correct and in alignment with inherent human nature.
Unless you're saying that "human nature" is something other than statistical norms here (in which case you'd need to make explicit what "human nature" is supposed to be referring to instead of statistical norms), how would the fact that something is a statistical norm imply that the statistical norm is "proper" or "correct" or that it's something that ought to or should be the case?
I am confident, ALL 'normal' parents would want their child to be normal in the above case.
Yes. Most people would want this. But what of it? How does that fact imply anything about any ought or should? How does it imply anything for, say, a lone unusual person who wants something different?
What is critical are the real facts, i.e. moral facts that must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK.
I haven't the faintest idea what this is saying--"What is critical"??? And again, re "moral facts," give a single example of one and explain how it works "within the moral FSK"--can you do that?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:16 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:18 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:37 pm Are you attempting to say that it's something other than statistical norms at this point? (And again, re some of the stuff I cut out earlier, a property that 99.9...% of xs have isn't a universal property of xs . . . not that universality matters for anything here anyway. The point about statistical norms is that statistical norms do not imply universality, and they certainly do not imply that anything should be universal).
Surely you understand the useful and limitation of statistics which do not represent reality in the most realistic mode.
Huh? I didn't even understand that sentence.

You had said that by "human nature," you're referring to statistical norms. I'm asking you how statistical norms amount to any "ought," "should," etc.
I was referring to statistics itself which has limitations.

What is fact, e.g. of human nature is determined within a FSK which may rely on statistics among other processes.
What is critical are the real facts, i.e. moral facts that must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK.
For the umpteenth time, we'd need to detail how an example of that is supposed to work.

I would WANT it to be taken care of as well as it can be, as would many other people. That we WANT this, that it's a desire or preference we have, doesn't imply that outside of that context, including for other people's desires or preferences, it ought or should be a particular way.
The first experience is 'want' but this 'want' is reducible to an inherent 'ought_ness' i.e. to be proper, correct and in alignment with inherent human nature.
Unless you're saying that "human nature" is something other than statistical norms here (in which case you'd need to make explicit what "human nature" is supposed to be referring to instead of statistical norms), how would the fact that something is a statistical norm imply that the statistical norm is "proper" or "correct" or that it's something that ought to or should be the case?
I am confident, ALL 'normal' parents would want their child to be normal in the above case.
Yes. Most people would want this. But what of it? How does that fact imply anything about any ought or should? How does it imply anything for, say, a lone unusual person who wants something different?
What is critical are the real facts, i.e. moral facts that must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the moral FSK.
I haven't the faintest idea what this is saying--"What is critical"??? And again, re "moral facts," give a single example of one and explain how it works "within the moral FSK"--can you do that?
Frankly I have done that a "1000" times.
That is why I raised these threads; Here is a post justifying moral facts are a reality with the example re "the ought-not_ness of killing another human";

First, we need to define what is morality-proper i.e. promoting 'good' and avoiding 'evil'. We need to define the terms 'good' and 'evil' therein,
In addition, judgments, decisions, opinions, beliefs on what is right or wrong by individuals or groups are not related to morality proper.
  • I believe morality is universal and generic to all human beings - note not universal in the Plato's sense of 'universals'.

    Let not jump into "humans killing other humans" is "morally wrong" at this point.

    Rather we should state "a human killing another human" is not morally-proper, i.e. morally it is something a human ought-not to do.
    Why 'morally'? it is because it is dealt within a Moral Framework and System as defined.
    Why? because it is justifiable and verifiable inductively as a moral fact, no normal living human would want nor volunteer to be killed or murdered.
    (The above is one justification which is sufficient, there are many other basis of justifications which I will not go into - neurons, algorithms, etc.)

    Once the moral fact ' no human ought-to kill another human' is justified within a Moral Framework and System, it is a moral fact that is objective and independent of individuals', cultural tribes, and other groups' opinions and beliefs. This is the same with Science and other FSK.

    Once the Moral and Ethical Framework and System is established, whatever that is not in compliance with the justified standards set therein, they are morally false, not morally objective, not-true or morally wrong.
    On this basis we can state "killing another human" is morally wrong conditioned upon the Moral System and Framework which establish the justified moral fact 'no human ought-to kill another human'.
    Thus the moral rightness and wrongness, truth or falsehood must be qualified to the specific Moral-Ethics Framework and System.
Btw, note that why you are having difficulties understanding my views is because you are brainwashed and is stuck in a different rigid dogmatic moral paradigm of Ayer and his likes.
So you have to be patient with yourself and your dogmatism and not me.
You'll need to go through a cold-turkey process to understand [not necessary agree with] my views.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:30 am Frankly I have done that a "1000" times.
That is why I raised these threads;
If I go searching through another thread and it doesn't actually address what I'm asking, what is my consolation prize for the time spent searching through irrelevant text?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 4:43 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:30 am Frankly I have done that a "1000" times.
That is why I raised these threads;
If I go searching through another thread and it doesn't actually address what I'm asking, what is my consolation prize for the time spent searching through irrelevant text?
I did not suggest you read all the posts in the thread but merely the OP and conveniently the next few posts.
I believe my OP is relevant to the point, if not, you can get back to me why my OP is not relevant and I will be willing to elaborate further and I raise a new thread to address your specific points.

If you refer to any thread of yours I will definitely read at least the OP and posts that catches my eyes.

Btw, you threw the Stilley's thesis at me which I suspect you never read the whole thesis.
Earlier in my research, I have downloaded Stilley's thesis and scanned the abstract and conclusion. However because I think it could be relevant, I spent two days reading 90% thesis [one chapter is not relevant].

Note Stilley - a Catholic - focused a lot on Aquinas which sparked my interest and I intend to read up Aquinas Summa Theologica Second Part.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:52 am If you refer to any thread of yours I will definitely read at least the OP and posts that catches my eyes.
I'd never do that. As a courtesy, I'd at least copy/paste something I wrote that addresses the question or point being asked, and I'd make sure that I only copy/paste stuff that directly, succinctly addresses the question or point.
Post Reply