There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 1:54 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:40 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:47 am
So...
for deontologists, the goodness of an action is determined by obedience to a rule
for urilitarians, the goodness of an action is determined by the quantity of suffering created or prevented

And for VegetableAmbulancarians the goodness of an action is determined by obedience to prgrammed instructions in the dna - but only if it is a "normal" instruction.

Is that about right?
Resorting to "put downs" indicates [subliminal] insecurities and lack of confidence in your answers. You could not resist that natural negative emotional impulse.

Within morality-proper, it is not a question of obedience as implied in the pseudo-moral systems like deontology, theistic morality and others.

Within morality-proper, there is no question of goodness prior to acting.
Rather, within morality-proper, each individual [with assistance from the collective] self-develops to progress their inherent moral functions to enable the factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" to unfold progressively, be active naturally and thus to flow & act spontaneously without any sense of being consciously obedience nor obligated.

The fact that you don't run out of your house with a chopper killing humans is self-evident the above factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" is active in you [brain and self] at present.
However if that inherent factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" in you is weakened due to various reasons [very likely in your case as evident and given in your weakness in resisting put-downs] you could end up killing humans.
I am a magnanimous overlord so I will grant points for effort on the putdown thing.

The only note is that you should leave that sort of ironic self-sabotage to the pros, I will cheerfully ruin my own argument that way because I don't really care. But you have real difficulty working out what it is that makes an action right or wrong, and using the self-burn putdown thing to show us that you are smuggling an assumption in that matter seems like more than you wanted to do there.
You did not address or counter this point;

The fact that you don't run out of your house with a chopper killing humans is self-evident the above factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" is active in you [brain and self] at present.
This is supported by evidence the majority 99% of people do not ordinarily and normally go on a killing spree on other human beings.

The exception is,
if that inherent factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" in some people is weakened or damage due to various reasons they will end up killing humans.

Malignant psychopaths are clear evidence of those who have damaged inhibition of the oughtness of not to kill humans.
Those who promote and agree to go to wars has weakened inhibitors due to the stronger triggers of the tribalism impulses.
Islamists kill non-believers because their ought-not_ness inhibitors are weakened by an inherent existential cognitive dissonances, thus the impulse to please their Allah is stronger.
A dog can see that you have given him fewer treats than you gave to some other dog. They can perform a quantitative calculation and an evaulation. Monkeys and babies and no doubt rabbits too can all do this sort of thing, which is of course the forming of opinions about stuff they see around them.

Similarly the animal kingdom demonstrates empathy, mercy, grudges, reciprocation, and sometimes revenge.
Research has been done to support the above.

These are obvious clues the moral function is inherent and adaptive via evolution and is more evident in the higher animals and should be many folds more advanced in humans.

The moral elements verified and justified as innate in animals are empathy, sense of fairness, interbreeding avoidance, not killing members of one species arbitrary, etc.
These are innate and inherent with those 'higher' animals and are not elements of nurture.

These are objective facts which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically via a credible FSK and this certain pattern of animal behaviors are compatible with what we recognized as elements of what we called 'morality'.
Since they are innate with those animals they are objective facts and if associated with morality, thus are moral facts.

If the above elements exists as objective facts thus are moral facts in those higher animals, the same inherent innate moral elements should exist within the more higher human beings by defaults of evolution.

Thus these are obvious clues the moral function is inherent and adaptive via evolution and is more evident in the higher animals and should be many folds more advanced in humans.

What I have done is I had verified and justified them empirically and philosophically with a moral FSK as inherent moral facts.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
--objective facts which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically via a credible FSK

But credibility does not guarantee truth. Nobody knows what human nature is.

The narratives people tell about dogs, rabbits,and other species are frames of knowledge not eternal truths. Some frames of knowledge are more reasonable than others but none is eternally true.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:31 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:
--objective facts which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically via a credible FSK

But credibility does not guarantee truth. Nobody knows what human nature is.

The narratives people tell about dogs, rabbits,and other species are frames of knowledge not eternal truths. Some frames of knowledge are more reasonable than others but none is eternally true.
There are no absolute eternal truths and the desperation for them is due to some psychological aberrations culminating in all the terrors and violent acts that certain theistic religions and political groups had committed throughout the history of mankind and will commit in the future.

As I had stated, scientific facts, truth and knowledge are the most credible and is the standard bearer for all other truths BUT yet scientific truths are at best polished conjectures conditioned upon the consensus of humans within the scientific framework and system.

I posted this somewhere; What is of most concern and counts with 'truths' are the acceptable criteria of credibility that science claims and can provide to ensure scientific knowledge are credible to generate utilities for the progress of humanity [which it has done so] along with the awareness of its limitations and potential negatives.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:31 am The narratives people tell about dogs, rabbits,and other species are frames of knowledge not eternal truths. Some frames of knowledge are more reasonable than others but none is eternally true.
Eternal truth is always going to be an incoherent concept in a universe with a time arrow.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 9:33 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:31 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:
--objective facts which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically via a credible FSK

But credibility does not guarantee truth. Nobody knows what human nature is.

The narratives people tell about dogs, rabbits,and other species are frames of knowledge not eternal truths. Some frames of knowledge are more reasonable than others but none is eternally true.
There are no absolute eternal truths and the desperation for them is due to some psychological aberrations culminating in all the terrors and violent acts that certain theistic religions and political groups had committed throughout the history of mankind and will commit in the future.

As I had stated, scientific facts, truth and knowledge are the most credible and is the standard bearer for all other truths BUT yet scientific truths are at best polished conjectures conditioned upon the consensus of humans within the scientific framework and system.

I posted this somewhere; What is of most concern and counts with 'truths' are the acceptable criteria of credibility that science claims and can provide to ensure scientific knowledge are credible to generate utilities for the progress of humanity [which it has done so] along with the awareness of its limitations and potential negatives.
I agree. So is not so-called 'human nature' much less credible than say natural selection, or movements of heavenly bodies?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:35 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:40 am However if that inherent factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" in you is weakened due to various reasons [very likely in your case as evident and given in your weakness in resisting put-downs] you could end up killing humans.
A key problem with you thinking is that you conflate doctrine with evidence. You do not seem to have to capacity to make distinctions of fact and opinion.
Your pronouncements are purely doctrinaire and lack evidentiality.
I will be very interested if you give examples so that I can improve if what you claim of me is true.
All your pronuncements about moral "facts" are purely doctrinaire, and not evident.
If you start there you might make headway.
Perhaps you would like to start with an example?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 11:09 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 9:33 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:31 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:




But credibility does not guarantee truth. Nobody knows what human nature is.

The narratives people tell about dogs, rabbits,and other species are frames of knowledge not eternal truths. Some frames of knowledge are more reasonable than others but none is eternally true.
There are no absolute eternal truths and the desperation for them is due to some psychological aberrations culminating in all the terrors and violent acts that certain theistic religions and political groups had committed throughout the history of mankind and will commit in the future.

As I had stated, scientific facts, truth and knowledge are the most credible and is the standard bearer for all other truths BUT yet scientific truths are at best polished conjectures conditioned upon the consensus of humans within the scientific framework and system.

I posted this somewhere; What is of most concern and counts with 'truths' are the acceptable criteria of credibility that science claims and can provide to ensure scientific knowledge are credible to generate utilities for the progress of humanity [which it has done so] along with the awareness of its limitations and potential negatives.
I agree. So is not so-called 'human nature' much less credible than say natural selection, or movements of heavenly bodies?
It is very hard to say what "human nature" is since it is so bound up with "human culture" which is a stronger determinant for human behaviour. So much, so that what most people take to be human nature is, in fact, highly enculturated. And since morality is human culture, it is a moot point what relevance human nature has in questions of ethics.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:27 pm It is very hard to say what "human nature" is.
It's very hard to say what anything IS.

Because the entire notion of "is-ness" is Philosophical horseshit.

From the 1st person perspective the question is: What am I, really?
From the 3rd person perspective the question is: What are you, really?

Both of those questions are meaningless. The person asking them has no clue what they are asking!
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:47 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 1:54 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:40 am
Resorting to "put downs" indicates [subliminal] insecurities and lack of confidence in your answers. You could not resist that natural negative emotional impulse.

Within morality-proper, it is not a question of obedience as implied in the pseudo-moral systems like deontology, theistic morality and others.

Within morality-proper, there is no question of goodness prior to acting.
Rather, within morality-proper, each individual [with assistance from the collective] self-develops to progress their inherent moral functions to enable the factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" to unfold progressively, be active naturally and thus to flow & act spontaneously without any sense of being consciously obedience nor obligated.

The fact that you don't run out of your house with a chopper killing humans is self-evident the above factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" is active in you [brain and self] at present.
However if that inherent factual real "oughtness" of "ought-not to kill humans" in you is weakened due to various reasons [very likely in your case as evident and given in your weakness in resisting put-downs] you could end up killing humans.
I am a magnanimous overlord so I will grant points for effort on the putdown thing.

The only note is that you should leave that sort of ironic self-sabotage to the pros, I will cheerfully ruin my own argument that way because I don't really care. But you have real difficulty working out what it is that makes an action right or wrong, and using the self-burn putdown thing to show us that you are smuggling an assumption in that matter seems like more than you wanted to do there.
You did not address or counter this point;
You didn't answer the question. What actually makes an action good or bad? You've been dodging the same question from Pete as well.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:16 pm You didn't answer the question. What actually makes an action good or bad? You've been dodging the same question from Pete as well.
Oh nooo! Not the question-dodging accusation?!?!? The lame tactic of attempting to claim the Philosophical high-ground from which to launch an effective attack!

What makes anything anything?

What makes this red?
red.png
red.png (9.26 KiB) Viewed 1883 times
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:35 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:27 pm It is very hard to say what "human nature" is.
It's very hard to say what anything IS.

Because the entire notion of "is-ness" is Philosophical horseshit.

From the 1st person perspective the question is: What am I, really?
From the 3rd person perspective the question is: What are you, really?

Both of those questions are meaningless. The person asking them has no clue what they are asking!
it is less hard to say what natural selection is than it is to say what human nature is. It is also
easier to define the nature of some wild animal species than to define what is characterised by its own adaptability i.e. so-called human nature.

Is "is-ness" adequately described by set theory?
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:17 pm it is less hard to say what natural selection is than it is to say what human nature is. It is also
easier to define the nature of some wild animal species than to define what is characterised by its own adaptability i.e. so-called human nature.

Is "is-ness" adequately described by set theory?
Aye, language imposes certain communication limits on us. Limits that would be much easier to overcome if we all just relaxed a little and turned it into a cooperative rather than a dismissive affair.

I don't think "isness" is captured by any theory. Ultimately all theories leave one wanting. Mathematicians have long wanted to say stuff about "the continuum". They have wanted, tried and failed. Axiomatic reasoning (theoretical reasoning) restricts expressivity.

This image captures the inadequacy of Mathematics in that regard. Unreachable truths and unreachable falsehoods. As a result of our fear of uttering "falsehoods" we impose artificial limits upon ourselves which rob us from the whole truth.

Image
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Belinda »

Regarding 'is-ness' and continuum of existence, Max Planck said subatomic energies were divided into quanta. Why would time, space, and force not be divided into quanta?
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:53 pm Regarding 'is-ness' and continuum of existence, Max Planck said subatomic energies were divided into quanta. Why would time, space, and force not be divided into quanta?
Quantization is the general strategy employed in Quantum physics. It works until it doesn't.

Gravity cannot be quantized which leads to interesting conceptual paradoxes between small scale and large scale phenomena.

Our two most successful scientific theories contradict each other.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: There is no 'Matter of Fact' [Analytic].

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:01 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:53 pm Regarding 'is-ness' and continuum of existence, Max Planck said subatomic energies were divided into quanta. Why would time, space, and force not be divided into quanta?
Quantization is the general strategy employed in Quantum physics. It works until it doesn't.

Gravity cannot be quantized which leads to interesting conceptual paradoxes between small scale and large scale phenomena.

Our two most successful scientific theories contradict each other.
Thank you. Please tell me the names of our two most successful scientific theories just so I know.

Does "successful scientific theories" imply scientists are pragmatists?
Post Reply