That's just a more precise opinion poll. It makes no difference whatsoever to the problem.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 amThis 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.
It's not that unique at all, you just didn't bother putting any thought into it.
Do you want to be punished for your mistakes?
Do you want to be punished for your crimes?
Do you want to be prevented from doing things you want to do?
If you subject your own theory to asic scepticism, you will easily see that it becomes a disaster the second you find a universal immoral thing that everybody wants. People can, and always do want contradictory things. That's why nobody posessing basic sanity would try to form a universal ethic on the basis of stuff people just want. Morality is mostly aout shit you aren't allowed to have that you want.
I love how you think that is your winning question. No I don't want to be killed, so what? There are plenty of circumstances where my not wanting to be killed has no bearing on whether or not I ought to be. I could be a serial killer, a kidnapper, a suicide bomber...Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 amThis is irrelevant.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.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:08 amSo [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.
What matters is the arguments you provide.
Btw, did both of you, agreed you want to be killed?
We routinely do authorise some humans to kill other humans. There are circumstances where it is right and proper to do so.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 am[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'.
If an apple falls from a tree and lands on the ground, there are facts about that apple that have nothng to do with people. It doesn't make any difference whether somebody knows the apple fell off the tree at all, there was some stuff going on with gravity and whatnot about which facts exist. Science has gone through multiple ways of explaining what happened to that apple, and will no doubt go through some more. Science investigates facts such as these. Natural facts.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 amBtw, who decides what is a natural fact?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.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:08 amBtw, 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.
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.
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.
It is highly questionable whether there are any such facts about morality. I am not appealing to God any more than I am appealing to science, or Kant in this matter. If there is such a thing as a moral fact that lies outside mere human interpretation, it is not something that can be discovered through scientific method though. Just using some sciency sounding language to describe your moral opinions isn't actual science.
And what could 'objetive' actually mean in this context?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:00 amI 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.