Moral Drive = Moral Ought
Re: Moral Drive = Moral Ought
These posts are becoming like a virus.
They mutate but basically they are the same old, same old.
You can't get me: I'm vaccinated with reason.
They mutate but basically they are the same old, same old.
You can't get me: I'm vaccinated with reason.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6335
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Moral Drive = Moral Ought
And in your hands they are instrumentall to the singular purpose of reducing everything to a computational problem.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:21 pmGood thing that I am not "fooling" myself then. My FSK is not "derived from maths or computer science". Maths/computer science/logic/deduction/induction/science - is all invented. Like all human knowledge - they are instrumental.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:45 pm It sure would be if I were fooling myself my "FSK" thing was dervied from maths or computer science, but that is a You problem which I don't share.
The reason why you are never more than three posts away from telling you other guy that he is talking about computers is because you are never talking about anything else.
That's quite transparently untrue. My case always revolves around the commonly understood public meaning of concepts such as knowledge and objectivity, and it centres on the abuses that you and Vaginal Extract subject these concepts to.
I am referring to stupid shit like conflating detection of the existence of your personal opinion with data about obective morality and your absurd claim that such mere detection counts as "measurement of 1 bit of information." Which is an abuse of the concept of measurement. I am also referring to Vestigial Aquaman's claim that morality is a construct measurable by the inspection of DNA, which is equally insane.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:21 pm"robotic observation of data"FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:45 pm And it would be ironic, if I were retailing some vision of indubitable moral certainty derived via robotic observation of data, but that is a You and Vulnerable Equestrian problem, which I also don't share in.
Is that what you call "introspection"? Your have the EQ of a potato.
As for your introspection thing, well that just takes us back to the issue of you relegating everything to computational problems because you have an obsession with computers.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Moral Drive = Moral Ought
Then you agree that no is implies an ought, because what I said above is what that is about.
Re: Moral Drive = Moral Ought
You are not talking about anything else, either dumbo.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:18 pm And in your hands they are instrumentall to the singular purpose of reducing everything to a computational problem.
The reason why you are never more than three posts away from telling you other guy that he is talking about computers is because you are never talking about anything else.
The computational notion of execution models is the exact same thing as "plan of action".
Oh yeah, call that an "ought".
Ahhh yeah. But then you conveniently forget about the commonly understood public meanings of "murder" and "wrong".FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:18 pm That's quite transparently untrue. My case always revolves around the commonly understood public meaning of concepts such as knowledge and objectivity, and it centres on the abuses that you and Vaginal Extract subject these concepts to.
Because <reasons>.
Ahhhh! You don't have any moral opinions but you have opinions on the "abuse" of language.
Yeah! I do.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:18 pm As for your introspection thing, well that just takes us back to the issue of you relegating everything to computational problems because you have an obsession with computers.
I have an obsession with humans.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6335
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Moral Drive = Moral Ought
I assumed you would at least not immediately make my point for me.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:07 pmThe computational notion ofFlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:18 pm you are never more than three posts away from telling you other guy that he is talking about computers
Re: Moral Drive = Moral Ought
Oh, no! You made a point! *slow clap* FlashDangerdork has learned to use words to express himself.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:43 pm I assumed you would at least not immediately make my point for me.
What was the point of your point?
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6335
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Moral Drive = Moral Ought
That you reduce everything you don't understand to computational problems that perhaps you do, but which seldom have relevance to the starting issue. Then you forget what was even really being discussed and just talk about computers.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:49 pmOh, no! You made a point! *slow clap* FlashDangerdork has learned to use words to express himself.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:43 pm I assumed you would at least not immediately make my point for me.
What was the point of your point?
Re: Moral Drive = Moral Ought
Which is why I also translated it for you in English by calling it an "execution plan"; or if you want an "action plan".FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:51 pm That you reduce everything you don't understand to computational problems that perhaps you do, but which seldom have relevance to the starting issue. Then you forget what was even really being discussed and just talk about computers.
So... I am still on-track in terms of the OP while you are off on some tangent being upset about the fact that I have a model for my own mind and you don't.
I mean... just try not to project all your bullshit.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6335
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Moral Drive = Moral Ought
Vest Andpants's OP still has exactly the usual set of logical problems that come with everything he writes.
You made your usual cack handed attempt to tu quoque me, with its own boringly familiar failings.
Nothing worthy of note happened at all.
Re: Moral Drive = Moral Ought
Why are you reducing this to a computational problem?
Yep. None of us are surprised by your usual angryjackulation either.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:43 pm You made your usual cack handed attempt to tu quoque me, with its own boringly familiar failings.
Nothing worthy of note happened at all.
-
- Posts: 12617
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Moral Drive = Moral Ought
You still cannot get it despite my explaining it more than a "1000" times.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:47 amNo. Pay attention. The fact (if it is a fact) that we have 'drives' or 'programming' to behave in certain ways has no - NO - moral significance or implication. It doesn't mean that the behaviour is either morally right or good, or morally wrong or bad or evil.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 5:55 am
So you agree that drive [moral] is a biological fact.
The point is when this biological fact, i.e. the drive [moral] is input within the moral FSK with other inputs and processes, it is then a moral fact.
For example, that we're programmed to have sex doesn't mean that having sex is either right or wrong, good or bad. And, for example, that we're programmed (if we are) not to kill humans doesn't mean that killing humans is either right or wrong, good or bad.
Those moral judgements about behaviour are a separate matter from facts about our behaviour.
Perhaps the penny will drop? Perhaps pigs will fly?
Re the sex example,
what is the biological fact is 'the embedded program to have sex'.
Whether having sex is right or wrong is not the issue.
[btw, I have not deliberated on sex is related to morality-proper].
similarly,
what is the moral fact is 'the embedded program to be moral'.
Whether the act is moral or not is not the main issue of morality-proper.
thus what is the moral fact is 'the embedded program not to kill humans'.
This program is basically a biological fact but recognized as a moral fact within the moral FSK.
The question of whether is wrong or right to kill is not the main issue of morality-proper. I have already stated a "1000" times, this is irrelevant to morality-proper.
- Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
Personal judgments and decisions made by individuals [in real life or from thought experiments] related to moral elements are not Morality Per se.
These are subjective opinions and beliefs of the individual[s] and they are not moral facts.
Analogy:
What is fact with this philosophy forum is the embedded program in codes [the software] that is installed in the computer.
The views and opinions expressed by members are not the critical issue.
-
- Posts: 12617
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Moral Drive = Moral Ought
You ignore my other points where I explained where the normative can be derived.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:28 pmThen you agree that no is implies an ought, because what I said above is what that is about.
As I had stated the "ought from is" is that inherent "oughtness" verified and justified as a moral fact within a moral FSK.
Read my above post to Peter Holmes.
What I am referring is to the inherent program of the moral drive [e.g. not to kill humans] within the brains of all humans; that is the moral fact.
How they act from that brain is not the main issue in this case.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Moral Drive = Moral Ought
Because it's important for you to understand what the is/ought argument is traditionally about, and it turns out that you actually agree with it.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:07 amYou ignore my other points where I explained where the normative can be derived.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:28 pmThen you agree that no is implies an ought, because what I said above is what that is about.
Arguing something else is fine, but we need to acknowledge that we're changing the subject then.
-
- Posts: 12617
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Moral Drive = Moral Ought
How is that I am agreeing with it?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:57 pmBecause it's important for you to understand what the is/ought argument is traditionally about, and it turns out that you actually agree with it.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:07 amYou ignore my other points where I explained where the normative can be derived.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:28 pm
Then you agree that no is implies an ought, because what I said above is what that is about.
Arguing something else is fine, but we need to acknowledge that we're changing the subject then.