FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 9:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:08 am
7b+ of humans will say 'I don't want to be killed'
which naturally implied
none of these 7b+ do not expect anyone to kill them,
therefore all the 7b+ [with exceptions] will naturally accept and establish the absolute maxim,
'no human shall kill another human'
which is very logical and rational to reinforce their "I do not want to be killed' and at the same time ensuring by theory and reason, they will not be intentionally killed by another human being.
This is the starting premise and ground for secular morality and the establishment of absolute moral grounds.
You have horribly missed the point. All you could possibly have as a result of that "experiment" is the current number of people in the world who will answer a question in a given way. That's an opinion survey. If 56% of Americans currently believe the president is bad at his job, that is merely the finding of a survey, if you extrapolate from this is that the president is scientifically 56% bad at his job, that is not science just because somebody casually threw the s word into the conversation.
You could enhance your theory with additional background science, and it would make no difference. If you replaced the question and answer format with disection of the subject's brains you can apply neuroscience if you like to find the array of neutrons that disapprove of something. Or you can locate a moral gene that sets everybody's expectation on some moral matter. It still won't make a normative judgment magically become a matter of natural fact.
Science does not determine what is bad or good, only what is and is not. There will never be a science that answers ethical questions, that is not what science is for. What you are attempting here is instrumentally irrational. It's much like trying to use chemistry to decide what flower is prettiest.
I stated somewhere we will have to strive to get 100% of the 7b+* to answer the question. I believe it is possible given the current and potential information technology we have.
* excluding young children and those who are not able to communicate or understand the question.
This exercise will not be one off but done continuously. It will not be an opinion poll but one that will attempt to get every able person to give an answer will a reasonable understanding of the circumstances.
If it is necessary to ask the same question 10 or 100 times during a person's lifetime we will do it.
In addition, we must ensure those who answer are not subjected to any brainwashing as a zombie.
You can not compare the question '
Do you want to be killed?' with any other questions about 'whether the current president is doing a good job or not' and any other question because 'Do you want to be killed?' is extremely unique.
Do you personally think 56%, 75% or 90% will answer 'no' and the rest 25% or 10% will agree they want to be killed?
Need an answer from you on this.
As I had stated, if any one agreed 'they want to be killed' in the ordinary sense, they are likely to be confirmed to be a mental case by a qualified psychiatrist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:08 am
So [a]theist themselves can establish an efficient moral and ethics framework & system without relying on some immutable absolute rules from a God driven by fears and threat of hellfire.
The approach is complementing the impossible 'ought' with the practical "is" to produce an effective moral and ethics system.
I am an easy going moderate atheist or agnostic or whatever. Can is the most annoying anally retentive theistic fanatic in the universe. We disagree at every opportunity. But we both pointed to the same obvious deficiency in your argument.
This is irrelevant.
What matters is the arguments you provide.
Btw, did both of you, agreed you want to be killed?
[A] If you do not want to be killed in the ordinary sense, surely you would expect the maxim 'no human is allowed to kill another human' to be agreed by everyone [which is a natural fact] to secure your initial 'no' answer.
If you apply [A] that to all individual humans then it is very logical and rational to establish the moral absolute 'no human can kill another human'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:08 am
Btw, this is already ongoing at present except it is not organized scientifically and formalized which I am proposing to do in the future.
The UN are already adopting maxims on racism,slavery, human rights and others as
secular absolute guides [not enforceable laws] for member nations to practice at the national levels. What is needed here is more polishing and knowledge to ground the process.
It is a natural fact that most people agree slavery is wrong, and it is a cultural fact that our society considers those who don't recognise the former statement as true are deemed to be morally broken, and actions based on that opinion are often criminal.
None of that makes it a natural fact that slavery is actually wrong, there are no natural facts in such matters.
Your project is designed to obscure the differences between something which is proven true by observation (science stuff) and something that becomes true through persuasion.
Btw, who decides what is a natural fact?
The bottom line is 'what is a natural fact' is based on justifiable intersubjective consensus, if not how else? Surely not from a God of a religion.
Kant had argued for this point extensively and deeply.
My moral project is aimed at how to improve humanity moral's state, grounded on empirical facts.
I am not trying to
persuade based on empirical facts.
Whatever is presented should be self-explanatory, objective, justifiable, testable and rational.
What I proposed is to use the empirical fact to derive a moral absolute, i.e. an ideal as a guide for continuous improvement.
The aversion of slavery or of being enslaved is inherent in all human beings.
It is the same for 'not wanting to be killed in any ordinary sense'.