Counters to the Following Arguments?

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

Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

The following has been repeated a "1000" times but Peter Holmes et. al. still have not provided any convincing counter but kept repeating the following assertions;
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 1:50 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:09 am The point is regardless what the individual thinks or does, there is no denying there is the inherent moral function or moral oughtness [the moral fact] which exists as a physical mechanism within the brain of the individual.
Nope. There is every denying. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in a certain way is NOT a moral mechanism or function.
And the reason why it isn't is that judgement as to the moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour is a separate matter. I've explained this to you a thousand times.

For the same reason, that we are obviously programmed to kill humans that threaten ourselves, our families, or our group, doesn't mean that we ought to do so - that it's morally right to do so. For the thousandth time. But ignore this fact, by all means, as usual.
You are the one who is ignoring all my counters to your above.

1. "the moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour is a separate matter"
is not an issue within morality proper.
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
You have not countered the above point.

2. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in moral ways within a moral FSK is [ ] a moral mechanism or function. re morality as defined.
A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in sexual ways within a sex-FSK is [ ] a sexual mechanism or function.
This applicable to all different functions, e.g. visual, auditory, intellectual, compassion, etc.
note the above is edited, i.e. [ ] replaced [NOT]

3. That humans are programmed to kill for various reason has nothing to do with morality on a primary basis but rather they had to kill for food and basic survival.

I have explained ad nauseam on the above but you have not provided any convincing counter to the above.

Show me your counters to the above.

Peter or anyone?
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Hmmm...

P1. Veritable Artichoke has been given thousands of arguments that he is wrong about stuff.
P2. Thousands of times is plenty.
P3. If Vestigial Aquafresh were ever wrong, he would know about that because thousands is plenty.
Therefore: Vaginal Aquaduct has never been wrong.

That's some rock solid wonder logic. No chance of any alternative explanation there.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3730
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:38 am The following has been repeated a "1000" times but Peter Holmes et. al. still have not provided any convincing counter but kept repeating the following assertions;
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 1:50 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:09 am The point is regardless what the individual thinks or does, there is no denying there is the inherent moral function or moral oughtness [the moral fact] which exists as a physical mechanism within the brain of the individual.
Nope. There is every denying. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in a certain way is NOT a moral mechanism or function.
And the reason why it isn't is that judgement as to the moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour is a separate matter. I've explained this to you a thousand times.

For the same reason, that we are obviously programmed to kill humans that threaten ourselves, our families, or our group, doesn't mean that we ought to do so - that it's morally right to do so. For the thousandth time. But ignore this fact, by all means, as usual.
You are the one who is ignoring all my counters to your above.

1. "the moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour is a separate matter"
is not an issue within morality proper.
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
You have not countered the above point.

2. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in moral ways within a moral FSK is NOT a moral mechanism or function. re morality as defined.

A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in sexual ways within a sex-FSK is NOT a sexual mechanism or function.
This applicable to all different functions, e.g. visual, auditory, intellectual, compassion, etc.

3. That humans are programmed to kill for various reason has nothing to do with morality on a primary basis but rather they had to kill for food and basic survival.

I have explained ad nauseam on the above but you have not provided any convincing counter to the above.

Show me your counters to the above.

Peter or anyone?
Here are my counters, in your number order.

1 You claim that what you call 'morality-proper' or (here) 'morality per se' has nothing to do with judgements, beliefs, decisions or opinions. So you claim that the assertion 'abortion is morally wrong' doesn't express a judgement, belief, decision or opinion - but is instead a factual assertion that is true or false, independently from opinion and therefore subjectivity. And this claim is false.

If your claim doesn't apply to 'abortion is morally wrong' - because that's a matter of opinion - but instead applies to 'no human ought to kill humans' - in other words, if some moral assertions are factual, but others aren't - then you have to demonstrate that that distinction between moral assertions is objective (factual) and not, in itself, merely a matter of opinion. In other words: is it a fact that some moral assertions are factual (and therefore true or false) but that others aren't factual? My answer is: no.

Also, your description of morality doesn't conform to any dictionary definition of the word 'morality', all of which (including the one you repeatedly cite) refer to the rightness and wrongness, the propriety and impropriety, or the goodness and badness of behaviour. And if your version of morality merely involves consistency with programming, or other causal aspects of human nature, then it has nothing to do with what the rest of us call 'morality'.

2 This seems to endorse my point about the use of 'moral' as a modifier in the way you use it, for example in the incoherent expression 'moral fact'. I'm delighted you understand this point, at last.

3 Your expression 'morality on a primary basis' is as empty as your expressions 'morality-proper' and 'morality per se'. Changing the name doesn't change the fact that this is your invention, as is the 'morality framework and system of knowledge'. You've deluded yourself into thinking these things exist, but have failed to provide what you yourself insist on: empirical evidence. Your claim that programming represents an 'oughtness' in humans that somehow translates into a moral 'oughtness' is fatuous - as I and others have demonstrated a thousand times.

Your claims are false, or not shown to be true. And your arguments are unsound, or not shown to be sound. And nothing will change for you until you go back to the drawing board, wipe off all the elaborate nonsense you've chalked up, and start again.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:47 am If your claim doesn't apply to 'abortion is morally wrong' - because that's a matter of opinion - but instead applies to 'no human ought to kill humans' - in other words, if some moral assertions are factual, but others aren't - then you have to demonstrate that that distinction between moral assertions is objective (factual) and not, in itself, merely a matter of opinion. In other words: is it a fact that some moral assertions are factual (and therefore true or false) but that others aren't factual? My answer is: no.
At any rate, the issue wouldn't be whether "Abortion is morally wrong" or "No human ought to kill other humans" or anything like that is a judgment or a decision or anything like that. And it would be difficult to make semantic sense of either if they're not assessments of possible behavior--he'd have to be suggesting some very idiosyncratic semantics for sentences like that. The issue is whether anything amount to "Abortion is morally wrong," "No human ought to kill other humans," or anything like that occurs in the extramental world or not, so that it can be the case if someone says, "Abortion is morally permissible," and they're trying to accurately report what the extramental world is like, that they can be mistaken about what's the case re the extramental world's properties.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:34 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 1:50 pm
Nope. There is every denying. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in a certain way is NOT a moral mechanism or function. And the reason why it isn't is that judgement as to the moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour is a separate matter. I've explained this to you a thousand times.

For the same reason, that we are obviously programmed to kill humans that threaten ourselves, our families, or our group, doesn't mean that we ought to do so - that it's morally right to do so. For the thousandth time. But ignore this fact, by all means, as usual.
You are the one who is ignoring all my counters to your above.

1. "the moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour is a separate matter"
is not an issue within morality proper.
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
You have not countered the above point.

2. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in moral ways within a moral FSK is NOT a moral mechanism or function. re morality as defined.
A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in sexual ways within a sex-FSK is NOT a sexual mechanism or function.
This applicable to all different functions, e.g. visual, auditory, intellectual, compassion, etc.

3. That humans are programmed to kill for various reason has nothing to do with morality on a primary basis but rather they had to kill for food and basic survival.

I have explained ad nauseam on the above but you have not provided any convincing counter to the above.
Show me your counters to the above.
Here are my counters, in your number order.

1 You claim that what you call 'morality-proper' or (here) 'morality per se' has nothing to do with judgements, beliefs, decisions or opinions. So you claim that the assertion 'abortion is morally wrong' doesn't express a judgement, belief, decision or opinion - but is instead a factual assertion that is true or false, independently from opinion and therefore subjectivity. And this claim is false.

If your claim doesn't apply to 'abortion is morally wrong' - because that's a matter of opinion - but instead applies to 'no human ought to kill humans' - in other words, if some moral assertions are factual, but others aren't - then you have to demonstrate that that distinction between moral assertions is objective (factual) and not, in itself, merely a matter of opinion. In other words: is it a fact that some moral assertions are factual (and therefore true or false) but that others aren't factual? My answer is: no.
You are creating your own strawman and is deceptive as usual.
I did not state this "'abortion is morally wrong' doesn't express a judgement, belief, decision or opinion."

I agree 'abortion is morally wrong' is a judgment, belief or opinion, but such a judgment is not applicable to morality-proper [as defined].

Morality-proper do not deal primarily with judgments, beliefs or opinions.
Note my general principle;
Whatever is claimed as a moral fact, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK, e.g.
'no human ought to kill humans'
which I had justified.

If it is related to abortion then the moral fact would be,
"no human ought to abort any unborn human'
But note, I have not justified this moral fact solidly and soundly yet, so I am not making any strong claim on it at present.

Also, your description of morality doesn't conform to any dictionary definition of the word 'morality', all of which (including the one you repeatedly cite) refer to the rightness and wrongness, the propriety and impropriety, or the goodness and badness of behaviour. And if your version of morality merely involves consistency with programming, or other causal aspects of human nature, then it has nothing to do with what the rest of us call 'morality'.
I am aware morality is defined in term of 'right or wrong' but I do not prefer such "too-loose" terms so I am opting for 'good' or 'evil' which I had defined the latter terms.
2 This seems to endorse my point about the use of 'moral' as a modifier in the way you use it, for example in the incoherent expression 'moral fact'. I'm delighted you understand this point, at last.
I was rushing to do something, thus there is an omission there and I had merely copied what you wrote without editing it out the 'NOT'. I will represent, i.e.
  • 2. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that make us behave in moral ways within a moral FSK is a moral mechanism or function. re morality as defined.
    A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that make us behave in sexual ways within a sex-FSK is a sexual mechanism or function.
    This applicable to all different functions, e.g. visual, auditory, intellectual, compassion, etc.
3 Your expression 'morality on a primary basis' is as empty as your expressions 'morality-proper' and 'morality per se'. Changing the name doesn't change the fact that this is your invention, as is the 'morality framework and system of knowledge'. You've deluded yourself into thinking these things exist, but have failed to provide what you yourself insist on: empirical evidence. Your claim that programming represents an 'oughtness' in humans that somehow translates into a moral 'oughtness' is fatuous - as I and others have demonstrated a thousand times.

Your claims are false, or not shown to be true. And your arguments are unsound, or not shown to be sound. And nothing will change for you until you go back to the drawing board, wipe off all the elaborate nonsense you've chalked up, and start again.
Point is I have defined what is 'morality-proper.'
This definition is in alignment with the fundamentals of what is generally defined as 'morality', e.g. deontology, consequentialism, theistic morality, those of moral relativism. e.g.
Do you have a problem with that definition?

How come you are so ignorant of what is generally a Framework and System of Knowledge or Reality as in Science and the range of knowledge out there?
As such there is no issue with what is a moral framework and system.
Whatever "programming" in the brain is justified with the moral FSK is a moral fact just as scientific facts are from a scientific FSK.

Why you cannot understand my rational views is because you have been indoctrinated with the bastardized views of the logical positivists and the archaic classical analytic philosophers.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:02 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:47 am If your claim doesn't apply to 'abortion is morally wrong' - because that's a matter of opinion - but instead applies to 'no human ought to kill humans' - in other words, if some moral assertions are factual, but others aren't - then you have to demonstrate that that distinction between moral assertions is objective (factual) and not, in itself, merely a matter of opinion. In other words: is it a fact that some moral assertions are factual (and therefore true or false) but that others aren't factual? My answer is: no.
At any rate, the issue wouldn't be whether "Abortion is morally wrong" or "No human ought to kill other humans" or anything like that is a judgment or a decision or anything like that. And it would be difficult to make semantic sense of either if they're not assessments of possible behavior--he'd have to be suggesting some very idiosyncratic semantics for sentences like that.

The issue is whether anything amount to "Abortion is morally wrong," "No human ought to kill other humans," or anything like that occurs in the extramental world or not, so that it can be the case if someone says, "Abortion is morally permissible," and they're trying to accurately report what the extramental world is like, that they can be mistaken about what's the case re the extramental world's properties.
First to me 'what is mind' is part of the living brain, i.e. no living brain = no mind at all.

I claim that 'no human ought to kill humans' as a moral fact as justified empirically and philosophically within a moral framework and system. This moral fact as an 'ougthness' is represented by its physical mechanism within the brain and mind of a living person.
As such this moral fact cannot be extramental, cannot be outside the mind nor exists without a living brain.

In another sense, it could be extramental of an individual's mind, i.e. it exists physically and objective in the brains of other humans which are external to an individual's mind.

Note the analogy of an "oughtness" to breathe which exists as a physical mechanism represented by neurons, chemical, etc. in the brain of a living person.
Similarly there is an oughtness to act with moral elements, i.e. the moral fact 'no human ought to kill humans' which is so glaring evident from empirically evidence that the majority of the nearly 8 billion do not simply kill on any arbitrary impulse.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3730
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:44 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:34 am
You are the one who is ignoring all my counters to your above.

1. "the moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour is a separate matter"
is not an issue within morality proper.
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
You have not countered the above point.

2. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in moral ways within a moral FSK is NOT a moral mechanism or function. re morality as defined.
A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in sexual ways within a sex-FSK is NOT a sexual mechanism or function.
This applicable to all different functions, e.g. visual, auditory, intellectual, compassion, etc.

3. That humans are programmed to kill for various reason has nothing to do with morality on a primary basis but rather they had to kill for food and basic survival.

I have explained ad nauseam on the above but you have not provided any convincing counter to the above.
Show me your counters to the above.
Here are my counters, in your number order.

1 You claim that what you call 'morality-proper' or (here) 'morality per se' has nothing to do with judgements, beliefs, decisions or opinions. So you claim that the assertion 'abortion is morally wrong' doesn't express a judgement, belief, decision or opinion - but is instead a factual assertion that is true or false, independently from opinion and therefore subjectivity. And this claim is false.

If your claim doesn't apply to 'abortion is morally wrong' - because that's a matter of opinion - but instead applies to 'no human ought to kill humans' - in other words, if some moral assertions are factual, but others aren't - then you have to demonstrate that that distinction between moral assertions is objective (factual) and not, in itself, merely a matter of opinion. In other words: is it a fact that some moral assertions are factual (and therefore true or false) but that others aren't factual? My answer is: no.
You are creating your own strawman and is deceptive as usual.
I did not state this "'abortion is morally wrong' doesn't express a judgement, belief, decision or opinion."

I agree 'abortion is morally wrong' is a judgment, belief or opinion, but such a judgment is not applicable to morality-proper [as defined].

Morality-proper do not deal primarily with judgments, beliefs or opinions.
Note my general principle;
Whatever is claimed as a moral fact, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK, e.g.
'no human ought to kill humans'
which I had justified.

If it is related to abortion then the moral fact would be,
"no human ought to abort any unborn human'
But note, I have not justified this moral fact solidly and soundly yet, so I am not making any strong claim on it at present.

Also, your description of morality doesn't conform to any dictionary definition of the word 'morality', all of which (including the one you repeatedly cite) refer to the rightness and wrongness, the propriety and impropriety, or the goodness and badness of behaviour. And if your version of morality merely involves consistency with programming, or other causal aspects of human nature, then it has nothing to do with what the rest of us call 'morality'.
I am aware morality is defined in term of 'right or wrong' but I do not prefer such "too-loose" terms so I am opting for 'good' or 'evil' which I had defined the latter terms.
2 This seems to endorse my point about the use of 'moral' as a modifier in the way you use it, for example in the incoherent expression 'moral fact'. I'm delighted you understand this point, at last.
I was rushing to do something, thus there is an omission there and I had merely copied what you wrote without editing it out the 'NOT'. I will represent, i.e.
  • 2. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that make us behave in moral ways within a moral FSK is a moral mechanism or function. re morality as defined.
    A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that make us behave in sexual ways within a sex-FSK is a sexual mechanism or function.
    This applicable to all different functions, e.g. visual, auditory, intellectual, compassion, etc.
3 Your expression 'morality on a primary basis' is as empty as your expressions 'morality-proper' and 'morality per se'. Changing the name doesn't change the fact that this is your invention, as is the 'morality framework and system of knowledge'. You've deluded yourself into thinking these things exist, but have failed to provide what you yourself insist on: empirical evidence. Your claim that programming represents an 'oughtness' in humans that somehow translates into a moral 'oughtness' is fatuous - as I and others have demonstrated a thousand times.

Your claims are false, or not shown to be true. And your arguments are unsound, or not shown to be sound. And nothing will change for you until you go back to the drawing board, wipe off all the elaborate nonsense you've chalked up, and start again.
Point is I have defined what is 'morality-proper.'
This definition is in alignment with the fundamentals of what is generally defined as 'morality', e.g. deontology, consequentialism, theistic morality, those of moral relativism. e.g.
Do you have a problem with that definition?

How come you are so ignorant of what is generally a Framework and System of Knowledge or Reality as in Science and the range of knowledge out there?
As such there is no issue with what is a moral framework and system.
Whatever "programming" in the brain is justified with the moral FSK is a moral fact just as scientific facts are from a scientific FSK.

Why you cannot understand my rational views is because you have been indoctrinated with the bastardized views of the logical positivists and the archaic classical analytic philosophers.
I understand your claims and argument perfectly well. And here's a summary.

1 Morality-proper is to do with good and evil, defined as follows.
2 Good is what produces a net-benefit for the individual and society. Evil is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
3 Morality-proper is not to do with opinions.
4 Good and evil exist independently from opinion.
5 What counts as a benefit and disbenefit for the individual and society is not a matter or opinion.

And here's why your claims are false and your argument unsound.

A definition of good and evil is a choice, and therefore subjective. There are no abstract things - good and evil - that exist independently from opinion, and that we can describe. (And the same goes for benefit and disbenefit.) That's a metaphysical delusion, commonly harboured by the faithful. Yours is a statement of faith. So your claims and argument collapse there. End of story.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:59 am A definition of good and evil is a choice, and therefore subjective.
A definition of meters, seconds, degrees, joules are choices, and therefore subjective.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:59 am There are no abstract things - good and evil - that exist independently from opinion, and that we can describe.
There are no abstract things - distances, durations, temperatures, energies - that exist independently from opinion, and that we can describe.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:59 am (And the same goes for benefit and disbenefit.)
And same goes for acceleration and deceleration, speedups and slow downs, increase and decrease in temperatures and energies.

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:59 am That's a metaphysical delusion, commonly harboured by the faithful. Yours is a statement of faith. So your claims and argument collapse there. End of story.
That's a metaphysical delusion, commonly harboured by the faithful physicists.

Congratulations, retard. You have repeatedly demonstrated that Philosophers (such as yourself) have absolutely no fucking idea how humans and scientists use the word "objective".
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:59 am I understand your claims and argument perfectly well. And here's a summary.

1 Morality-proper is to do with good and evil, defined as follows.
2 Good is what produces a net-benefit for the individual and society. Evil is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
3 Morality-proper is not to do with opinions.
4 Good and evil exist independently from opinion.
5 What counts as a benefit and disbenefit for the individual and society is not a matter or opinion.

And here's why your claims are false and your argument unsound.

A definition of good and evil is a choice, and therefore subjective. There are no abstract things - good and evil - that exist independently from opinion, and that we can describe. (And the same goes for benefit and disbenefit.) That's a metaphysical delusion, commonly harboured by the faithful. Yours is a statement of faith. So your claims and argument collapse there. End of story.
I have to say you are VERY stupid [lack intelligence and cognitive powers] in this case because you deliberately or your skull is SO thick you cannot recognize what I have repeated a 'million' times, in addition you are unable to reproduce my argument precisely.

Your P2 is wrong! Should be;
2 Good is not-evil. Evil [listed within a specific taxonomy] is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
Note I deliberately did not define 'good' by itself since it is prone to various contentious issues.

Every act of what is evil within the taxonomy must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the definition of evil within a credible moral FSK.
E.g. genocide the killing of humans [of large group of humans up to billions or all humans] is definitely a net-negative to the individuals and humanity - thus highly evil as defined. You deny this?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:45 am Your P2 is wrong! Should be;
2 Good is not-evil. Evil [listed within a specific taxonomy] is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
Note I deliberately did not define 'good' by itself since it is prone to various contentious issues.
There exists a substance called "Genuine American Cheese" which lies halfway between plastic and actual cheese. That's why they have to include the word genuine in its name.

A system of morality that is too feeble to define 'good' falls into a similar category, and that is why the desperate inclusion of "-proper" in its name causes such mirth.

An accurate name for the cheese would be "inferior cheese substitute"
An accurate name for morality-proper would follow a similar pattern.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3730
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:45 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:59 am I understand your claims and argument perfectly well. And here's a summary.

1 Morality-proper is to do with good and evil, defined as follows.
2 Good is what produces a net-benefit for the individual and society. Evil is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
3 Morality-proper is not to do with opinions.
4 Good and evil exist independently from opinion.
5 What counts as a benefit and disbenefit for the individual and society is not a matter or opinion.

And here's why your claims are false and your argument unsound.

A definition of good and evil is a choice, and therefore subjective. There are no abstract things - good and evil - that exist independently from opinion, and that we can describe. (And the same goes for benefit and disbenefit.) That's a metaphysical delusion, commonly harboured by the faithful. Yours is a statement of faith. So your claims and argument collapse there. End of story.
I have to say you are VERY stupid [lack intelligence and cognitive powers] in this case because you deliberately or your skull is SO thick you cannot recognize what I have repeated a 'million' times, in addition you are unable to reproduce my argument precisely.

Your P2 is wrong! Should be;
2 Good is not-evil. Evil [listed within a specific taxonomy] is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
Note I deliberately did not define 'good' by itself since it is prone to various contentious issues.

Every act of what is evil within the taxonomy must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the definition of evil within a credible moral FSK.
E.g. genocide the killing of humans [of large group of humans up to billions or all humans] is definitely a net-negative to the individuals and humanity - thus highly evil as defined. You deny this?
Oh, ffs. Here's your argument, with the crucial improvement to #2.

1 Morality-proper is to do with good and evil, defined as follows.
2 Good is not-evil. Evil is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
3 Morality-proper is not to do with opinions.
4 Good and evil exist independently from opinion.
5 What counts as a benefit and disbenefit for the individual and society is not a matter or opinion.

Now, how about actually addressing my refutation?

Just mantra-mumbling that 'every act of what is evil within the taxonomy must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the definition of evil within a credible moral FSK' DOES NOT WORK.

And this is because a 'taxonomy' and 'definition' of evil and disbenefit is a matter of choice, and is therefore subjective. Do you understand that? Just say if you don't, because I'll explain it really slowly and carefully, so that you can understand it.

Definitions, descriptions and taxonomies don't come in advance, as unarguable 'givens'. How ever you define or describe evil and disbenefit, they can be defined or described differently. So there's no moral objectivity here. Your argument DOES NOT establish the existence of moral facts.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:53 am A system of morality that is too feeble to define 'good' falls into a similar category, and that is why the desperate inclusion of "-proper" in its name causes such mirth.
We know this! Tarski told us!.

And Godel told us too. Feeble Consistency or Powerful-but-Contradictory Completeness.

Choose one.

And the problem of concrete universals? We solved that one also! That's why I keep mocking Philosophers. You have fuckall to add to the dicussion.

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

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:59 am 1 Morality-proper is to do with good and evil, defined as follows.
2 Good is what produces a net-benefit for the individual and society. Evil is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
3 Morality-proper is not to do with opinions.
4 Good and evil exist independently from opinion.
5 What counts as a benefit and disbenefit for the individual and society is not a matter or opinion.
Yeah, that "good" should be "what produces a net benefit for the individual and society" isn't objective (and indeed that's the case for all terminology--there are no objectively determined words, meanings, definitions, etc.), and what counts as a net benefit versus a net "disbenefit" isn't objective. In other words, for the latter, there are no objective states that in any way amount to preferred, valued, recommended, etc. states, and that isn't a point about language, it's a point about what sorts of things there are in the world and where those sorts of things are located.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:04 am
First to me 'what is mind' is part of the living brain, i.e. no living brain = no mind at all.

This moral fact as an 'ougthness' is represented by its physical mechanism within the brain and mind of a living person.
As such this moral fact cannot be extramental, cannot be outside the mind nor exists without a living brain.

In another sense, it could be extramental of an individual's mind, i.e. it exists physically and objective in the brains of other humans which are external to an individual's mind.
This is what Peter and I are saying. So you're agreeing with us.

We characterize the above facts as "subjective."

So you mean to tell me that you're going through all of this over a simple disagreement about which word to use for the same facts?
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Counters to the Following Arguments?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:12 pm So you mean to tell me that you're going through all of this over a simple disagreement about which word to use for the same facts?
That's precisely what you are doing with moral disagreements too!

You call the state of affairs "wrong".
I call the state of affairs "right".

It's just nomenclature. Apparently.
Post Reply