Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:52 am
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:36 am
That a program is normally instantiated in a particular way doesn't imply that it's supposed to be or that it ought to be instantiated that way.
Once again that simply amounts to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
What is that?
In any program,
IF X, then Y ought to follow.
Whether Y follows or not is not relevant in this case.
What is of relevant here is that 'oughtness' within the program itself that is a fact.
- 1. All humans are 'programmed' to live till the inevitable.
2. To live till the inevitable, ALL humans are programmed to breathe, else they die.
3. IF 1 then 2 ought to follow.
What is fact is that oughtness to breathe which is an inherent force that is supported by its physical mechanisms.
If someone who is suicidal and decided not to breathe, one cannot deny that fact of 'the oughtness to breathe' exists while he [any human] is alive.
It is the same with moral oughtness as fact within the brain and physical self of the person.
Your claim of argumentum ad populum fallacy is itself fallacious.
Factual premise: the human body works in such-and-such a way.
Conclusion: therefore, the human body
ought to work in such-and-such a way.
This argument is invalid, because the premise doesn't entail the conclusion; the conclusion doesn't follow deductively from the premise; it's not the case that in any situation in which the premise is (or is taken to be) true, the conclusion must be (or be taken to be) true.
You don't understand how English speakers use the word 'ought' in this context. Why
ought things to do what they're designed or programmed - or what they have evolved - to do? Are they under any obligation to do so? Ought a hammer to bang in a nail?
Things either do or don't do what they're designed or programmed to do. There's no 'oughtness' in any of this. That's a fiction.
I agree with Skepdick's view on your thinking, i.e.
"The Philosophicus Retardicus is still stuck in the kindergarten of appraising arguments."
It is either you are ignorant or desperate to be deceptive.
Note here is how a proper argument should proceed;
Whatever is Fact is specific to a credible FSK.
The moral FSK is as credible as the scientific FSK.
Scientific FSK:
S1 Scientific facts are verifiable and justifiable from empirical observations
S2The human body is observed in in such-and-such a way as verified and justified
S3 Therefore Scientific Factual premise: the human body works in such-and-such a way.
Based on the above processes of the scientific FSK as verified and justified
S4 ALL humans ought not to kill humans - physical neural referent.
Moral FSK:
M1 Morality-proper is about what ought to be good or ought-not be evil.
M2 ALL humans ought not to kill humans S4 - killing humans is evil
M3 Therefore Moral Factual Premise: All humans ought-not to kill humans.
From above the justified true moral fact 'all humans ought-not to kill humans' which is objective is traceable to its physical neural referent which is more objective.