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

[FlashDangerpants]

I believe you are too 'emotional' with the term 'ought' as if it is a serious command from some authority.
Point is since it is programmed then the 'ought' logically follows.

If that were true you wouldn't need any modifiers. But you do, because psychopaths follow their "programming" to kill, and paedos follows theirs to rape babies. So people can follow this programming to evil ends.

Thus you cannot logically claim that oughtness comes from the progroamming - because there is some programming that ought to be different. So what is this thing that supersedes this programming and confers the ought?

It cannot be that only "normal" programming is good, because then you end up with a categorical imperative to "be normal", which would have the obviously absurd outcome of rendering heroism morally undesirable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

QED
That is PURE doctrinaire.

You can justify the opinion as much as you like. That does not make it a fact.
It is clearly evident that this is NOT an opinion shared by humans throughout history. Killing is as much a part of the human moral experience as any thing else.

People, do, in fact go around killing people: murder, mayhem, revenge, legal executions, warfare- legal and illegal.

"Normal" - what a can of worms that is!!
I do not regard YOU as normal. Because normal people know the difference between suggestions, opinions and doctrines.

I have no need to kill to prove you wrong. "Normal" people (so called) kill people all the time.
Of the tens of thousands of soldiers engaged in warfare the world over - how many of them do you consider the be abnormal?

Being silly does not advance your claim.

It is most ignorant & stupid [relative to this forum] to insist we cannot verify and justify an opinion.

It is always stupid to portray an opinon as objective fact, as you do.

Note most scientific facts started as opinions [conjectures] upon a hunch, then converted into a hypothesis and when the hypothesis is verified and justified scientifically, then that original opinion is a polished-conjecture.

There is a big difference between an hypothesis which requires testing and your opinions. Hypotheses are taked as not "factual" until proven. Your opions as so far expressed and not capable of the most basic forms of scientific falsifyability or epirical verification. They are not even in the right kinds of category of ideas.

One of the most assuring process to a theory and knowledge is self-experience so that it is personally self-evident.

That's what ALL flat earthers say. ANd surely it is alsi self evident that the earth is the centre of the universe.

Why don't you go out and kill some people in a massage parlor or anywhere?
WHY???

Why do people do that. WHY????? WHY???

Hey, you need to go back to the proper philosophical kindergarten school and start again.

You always fall down on insults, when you are flummoxed.
As you answer you know you are failing in your arguments. Rather than tell others to go back to school, you are just projecting as you know you lack critical self awareness, and deep down you know you are wrong.

Point is you keep accusing my views as opinion even I have presented verifications and justification they are moral facts within a moral FSK.

One of the most efficient ways to recognize knowledge is to start with self-evident experience but of course that has to be confirmed with independent verification and justification via a credible FSK.
One may have faith when scientists claimed the fact that lemons are sour but one will depend on less faith and increase one's confidence level if one personally experienced the taste of lemons as sour ceteris paribus

It is the same with the moral fact which is existing within your self and experienced by yourself. That is the starting point to have a person conviction it is 99.9% true to you personally.
Then you get it verified and justified within a credible moral framework to confirm it is a moral fact objectively to get that AHA! confirmation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe you are too 'emotional' with the term 'ought' as if it is a serious command from some authority.
Point is since it is programmed then the 'ought' logically follows.

If that were true you wouldn't need any modifiers. But you do, because psychopaths follow their "programming" to kill, and paedos follows theirs to rape babies. So people can follow this programming to evil ends.

Thus you cannot logically claim that oughtness comes from the progroamming - because there is some programming that ought to be different. So what is this thing that supersedes this programming and confers the ought?

It cannot be that only "normal" programming is good, because then you end up with a categorical imperative to "be normal", which would have the obviously absurd outcome of rendering heroism morally undesirable.

There are evidence to support the thesis that ALL human are 'programmed' to survive till the inevitable and for that they are "programmed" to kill living things for food, against serious threats, etc.
The main program in this case if 'survival' not killing of humans.

There is no evidence to support any thesis that ALL humans are 'programmed' to kill humans arbitrary without justifications.

Malignant psychopaths kill humans because their program of 'ought not to kill humans' is weakened and or damaged. This is recognized within the psychiatric [DSM-V] and psychology community.
So malignant psychopaths do not follow any inherent 'program' to evil ends. Rather they end up with evil because their inherent program 'not to kill humans' is damaged.

One can still be heroic without killing humans.
Whatever [justified, heroic or not] that involve killing of humans is not in alignment with the inherent moral fact, i.e. "ought-not_ness to kill humans" thus need improvements.

[Terrapin Station]

I believe you are too 'emotional' with the term 'ought' as if it is a serious command from some authority.
Point is since it is programmed then the 'ought' logically follows.

If that were true you wouldn't need any modifiers. But you do, because psychopaths follow their "programming" to kill, and paedos follows theirs to rape babies. So people can follow this programming to evil ends.

Thus you cannot logically claim that oughtness comes from the progroamming - because there is some programming that ought to be different. So what is this thing that supersedes this programming and confers the ought?

It cannot be that only "normal" programming is good, because then you end up with a categorical imperative to "be normal", which would have the obviously absurd outcome of rendering heroism morally undesirable.

Not to mention that nothing supports "one ought to be normal/one ought to conform to normality" in the first place.

[Skepdick]

Not to mention that nothing supports "one ought to be normal/one ought to conform to normality" in the first place.

Would you say that this assertion implies an ought NOT? e.g one ought not conform to normality?

And if nothing implies an ought OR an ought-NOT then, what do you even mean by "ought"?

[Sculptor]

It is most ignorant & stupid [relative to this forum] to insist we cannot verify and justify an opinion.

It is always stupid to portray an opinon as objective fact, as you do.

Note most scientific facts started as opinions [conjectures] upon a hunch, then converted into a hypothesis and when the hypothesis is verified and justified scientifically, then that original opinion is a polished-conjecture.

There is a big difference between an hypothesis which requires testing and your opinions. Hypotheses are taked as not "factual" until proven. Your opions as so far expressed and not capable of the most basic forms of scientific falsifyability or epirical verification. They are not even in the right kinds of category of ideas.

One of the most assuring process to a theory and knowledge is self-experience so that it is personally self-evident.

That's what ALL flat earthers say. ANd surely it is alsi self evident that the earth is the centre of the universe.

Why don't you go out and kill some people in a massage parlor or anywhere?
WHY???

Why do people do that. WHY????? WHY???

Hey, you need to go back to the proper philosophical kindergarten school and start again.

You always fall down on insults, when you are flummoxed.
As you answer you know you are failing in your arguments. Rather than tell others to go back to school, you are just projecting as you know you lack critical self awareness, and deep down you know you are wrong.

Point is you keep accusing my views as opinion even I have presented verifications and justification they are moral facts within a moral FSK.

Your FSK (WETF that is) IS AN OPINION.

One of the most efficient ways to recognize knowledge is to start with self-evident experience but of course that has to be confirmed with independent verification and justification via a credible FSK.

Your FSK is not credible

One may have faith when scientists claimed the fact that lemons are sour but one will depend on less faith and increase one's confidence level if one personally experienced the taste of lemons as sour ceteris paribus

Faith is for priests and other idiots.
The sourness of lemons is subjective. Take care you do not slip up here. LOL

It is the same with the moral fact which is existing within your self and experienced by yourself.

Yes - like the sourness of lemons , moral "facts" are subjective. And as people have disagreed with yours that verifies their subjectivity.

That is the starting point to have a person conviction it is 99.9% true to you personally.
Then you get it verified and justified within a credible moral framework to confirm it is a moral fact objectively to get that AHA! confirmation.

AHA. LOL

[Belinda]

Sculptor complained to Veritas Aequitas:

Point is you keep accusing my views as opinion

Within a democratic discussion all opinions are hypotheses, or heuristic devices. That some opinions seem less probable does not mean they are not worth considering.

[FlashDangerpants]

I believe you are too 'emotional' with the term 'ought' as if it is a serious command from some authority.
Point is since it is programmed then the 'ought' logically follows.

If that were true you wouldn't need any modifiers. But you do, because psychopaths follow their "programming" to kill, and paedos follows theirs to rape babies. So people can follow this programming to evil ends.

Thus you cannot logically claim that oughtness comes from the progroamming - because there is some programming that ought to be different. So what is this thing that supersedes this programming and confers the ought?

It cannot be that only "normal" programming is good, because then you end up with a categorical imperative to "be normal", which would have the obviously absurd outcome of rendering heroism morally undesirable.

There are evidence to support the thesis that ALL human are 'programmed' to survive till the inevitable and for that they are "programmed" to kill living things for food, against serious threats, etc.
The main program in this case if 'survival' not killing of humans.

There is no evidence to support any thesis that ALL humans are 'programmed' to kill humans arbitrary without justifications.

Malignant psychopaths kill humans because their program of 'ought not to kill humans' is weakened and or damaged. This is recognized within the psychiatric [DSM-V] and psychology community.
So malignant psychopaths do not follow any inherent 'program' to evil ends. Rather they end up with evil because their inherent program 'not to kill humans' is damaged.

One can still be heroic without killing humans.
Whatever [justified, heroic or not] that involve killing of humans is not in alignment with the inherent moral fact, i.e. "ought-not_ness to kill humans" thus need improvements.

That did not answer the question. Wasn't even close.

[Terrapin Station]

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.

[Skepdick]

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.

In one universe the implication exists.
In another universe the implication doesn't exist.

How do you propose we determine which universe we are in?

If we are in a universe where no such implication exists, what would be different if the implication suddenly took hold?
If we are in a universe where such an implication exists, what would be different if the implication suddenly disappeared?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Point is you keep accusing my views as opinion even I have presented verifications and justification they are moral facts within a moral FSK.

Your FSK (WETF that is) IS AN OPINION.

I have already explained what is a FSK a "1000" times and have linked two thread to it.

One of the most efficient ways to recognize knowledge is to start with self-evident experience but of course that has to be confirmed with independent verification and justification via a credible FSK.

Your FSK is not credible

One may have faith when scientists claimed the fact that lemons are sour but one will depend on less faith and increase one's confidence level if one personally experienced the taste of lemons as sour ceteris paribus

Faith is for priests and other idiots.
The sourness of lemons is subjective. Take care you do not slip up here. LOL

You are very ignorant on the above.
What do you rely on when you accept the truth of scientific facts.
Did you do the experiments yourself to prove the said scientific conclusions?
Faith comes in a degree and continuum with theists exercise faith with the highest degree.

The sourness of lemons is subjective to an individual but it objective as a scientific fact based on intersubjectivity and intersubjective consensus of scientists within the scientific FSK.

Don't insult your own intelligence, see the objectivity of what is sourness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste#Sourness

• The juice of the lemon is about 5% to 6% citric acid, with a pH of around 2.2, giving it a sour taste. The distinctive sour taste of lemon juice makes it a key ingredient in drinks and foods such as lemonade and lemon meringue pie.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon

It is your ignorance and stupidity in the above knowledge that I have to waste time quoting the above references.

It is the same with the moral fact which is existing within your self and experienced by yourself.

Yes - like the sourness of lemons , moral "facts" are subjective. And as people have disagreed with yours that verifies their subjectivity.

If you insist sourness of lemons is subjective, then you are ignorant and stupid.
See my explanation above.

That is the starting point to have a person conviction it is 99.9% true to you personally.
Then you get it verified and justified within a credible moral framework to confirm it is a moral fact objectively to get that AHA! confirmation.

AHA. LOL

AHA. LOL at your own ignorance and stupidity which I had exposed above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

[Peter Holmes]

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.

[Skepdick]

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.

The Philosophicus Retardicus is still stuck in the kindergarten of appraising arguments. Appraise this one...

If murder is wrong then it is wrong to murder Peter Holmes.

That must be valid and sound, right? (Modus Ponens)

Otherwise it's not wrong to murder Peter Holmes therefore murder is not wrong (Modus tollens)

You don't understand how English speakers use the word 'ought' in this context.

Then explain it to us. In a way that the explanation comes to an end.

[Peter Holmes]

Logic doesn't deal with the truth-value of premises, but only the structure of arguments.

And the dispute is about whether the assertion 'abortion is wrong' even has a truth-value.