No everything I write is not just an opinionAge wrote:
Is EVERY thing you write just an opinion
Because I will also write some facts as well
No everything I write is not just an opinionAge wrote:
Is EVERY thing you write just an opinion
You could ask just a question or you could just look at what isAge wrote:
And when and how will I KNOW the difference
So, again, how will I KNOW that what you write is just an opinion or an actual fact?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:40 amNo everything I write is not just an opinionAge wrote:
Is EVERY thing you write just an opinion
Because I will also write some facts as well
I have 'tried' asking a question.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:50 amYou could ask just a question or you could just look at what isAge wrote:
And when and how will I KNOW the difference
But as I said earlier, I can NEVER KNOW, for sure, the meaning, the definition, nor the intention BEHIND the words being used, without FIRST clarifying.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:50 amYou might not have to do any thing for you may already know
Why don't you guys try to work through an actual example?
What about dead ones?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am Hume argued it is not possible for an 'Ought' to be derived from "Is".
As such, humanity cannot establish absolute moral rules, laws or principles.
On the contrary, I believe it is logical and possible to establish absolute moral rules.
Note absolute in this case is not absolutely-absolute from a God [a mental illusion] but absolute in the scientific basis, e.g. absolute temperature.
Here is my argument it is possible;
- 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
better2. ALL living
But ANY exception undermines your attempt an "absolute"human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed.
That is an ought, NOT an "IS"3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
Wrong. You logic is faulty already. Even if we reject the "exceptions", your conclusion is not made at all, since there are OTHER "IS"s you have ignored.4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"[/list]
WRONG
It is possible to test Premise 2, i.e. answer 'yes' or 'no' on the following;What is your answer, 'Yes' or 'No' to the above question, i.e. premise 2?
- In the ordinary every day circumstances,
1. Do you want to be killed?
2. Do your parents want to be killed?
3. Do your siblings want to be killed?
4. Do your relatives want to be killed?
5. Do your closest friend want to be killed?
6. Do your other friends want to be killed?
7. Do all American want to be killed
8. Does anyone of the 7+ billion humans on earth want to be killed.
Surely not 'Yes'??
I am sure it will be 'No' thus your personal conviction on this moral proposal.
You can do your own survey from people in 2, 3, 4 or 5.
Even if you don't, I would like to know what you think will be their likely answer to the question and this will include 6, 7 and 8.
In the future when more people have access to smartphone, internet and the necessary technology, we should be able to get responses from all able persons, if not all, at least sufficient to justify our hypothesis as an reliable inferential conclusion.
If any of the above answer yes, I am sure they [from 0.0001% of 7B] will be certified to be mentally ill by psychiatrists in that specific field or in terminal conditions certified by doctors, or in the most extreme conditions.
The above testing and potential findings is very scientifically based,
From our reasoning and potential empirical findings anyone would be personally confident we can reason out an absolute moral rule [theory] to act as a guide for ethical considerations [applied].
Therefore is it possible to abstract 'ought' from 'is.'
["is" refers to the the empirical minds of all human beings].
Views?
Do you have any actual examples to begin with?
I'm not confused, I have a clear idea of the Is/Ought problem.Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:07 pmDo you have any actual examples to begin with?
And when you say, "confused statement" do you mean that you find it confusing?
If yes, then if you would like it cleared up, then just say so, and I will do it for you.
But I was not saying you were confused about the supposed is/ought "problem" at all. I was just asking if you found any thing in what I wrote that may have appeared confusing, and if you wanted that cleared up. That is all.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:22 pmI'm not confused, I have a clear idea of the Is/Ought problem.
Okay, fair enough.
The term 'exist' in P1 implied humans who are alive.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:58 pmWhat about dead ones?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:52 am Hume argued it is not possible for an 'Ought' to be derived from "Is".
As such, humanity cannot establish absolute moral rules, laws or principles.
On the contrary, I believe it is logical and possible to establish absolute moral rules.
Note absolute in this case is not absolutely-absolute from a God [a mental illusion] but absolute in the scientific basis, e.g. absolute temperature.
Here is my argument it is possible;
- 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
better2. ALL livingBut ANY exception undermines your attempt an "absolute"human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed.That is an ought, NOT an "IS"3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
I stated the argument is inductive to establish secular absolute moral rules as a guide for the moral and ethical system.Wrong. You logic is faulty already. Even if we reject the "exceptions", your conclusion is not made at all, since there are OTHER "IS"s you have ignored.4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"[/list]
Here are two truths you have chosen to ignore.
1) Many humans LIKE to kill other humans
2) Many humans think there are good reasons to kill other humans
Therefore what you write below is false.
The above test is relevant to support P2.WRONGIt is possible to test Premise 2, i.e. answer 'yes' or 'no' on the following;What is your answer, 'Yes' or 'No' to the above question, i.e. premise 2?
- In the ordinary every day circumstances,
1. Do you want to be killed?
2. Do your parents want to be killed?
3. Do your siblings want to be killed?
4. Do your relatives want to be killed?
5. Do your closest friend want to be killed?
6. Do your other friends want to be killed?
7. Do all American want to be killed
8. Does anyone of the 7+ billion humans on earth want to be killed.
Surely not 'Yes'??
I am sure it will be 'No' thus your personal conviction on this moral proposal.
You can do your own survey from people in 2, 3, 4 or 5.
Even if you don't, I would like to know what you think will be their likely answer to the question and this will include 6, 7 and 8.
In the future when more people have access to smartphone, internet and the necessary technology, we should be able to get responses from all able persons, if not all, at least sufficient to justify our hypothesis as an reliable inferential conclusion.
If any of the above answer yes, I am sure they [from 0.0001% of 7B] will be certified to be mentally ill by psychiatrists in that specific field or in terminal conditions certified by doctors, or in the most extreme conditions.
The above testing and potential findings is very scientifically based,
From our reasoning and potential empirical findings anyone would be personally confident we can reason out an absolute moral rule [theory] to act as a guide for ethical considerations [applied].
Therefore is it possible to abstract 'ought' from 'is.'
["is" refers to the the empirical minds of all human beings].
Views?
THis is irrelevant, because it does not apply to all.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:24 am Here is my refined inductive argument;
- 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed as expected to be proven by the test below.
This is not an IS. it is an OUGHT.3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
Non sequitur.4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"[/list]
The Golden Rule whilst is an 'ought' it also incorporate "is" i.e. the "what you do not want others to do unto you" which is abstracted from experiences then reasoned.Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:27 pmTHis is irrelevant, because it does not apply to all.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:24 am Here is my refined inductive argument;
- 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed as expected to be proven by the test below.This is not an IS. it is an OUGHT.3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.Non sequitur.4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"[/list]
You are getting an OUGHT FROM an OUGHT.
1. 'Humans' existing as 'living beings' is WHY 'you', human beings, are, literally, called "human beings".Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:52 am 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed as expected to be proven by the test below.
3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"[/list]
You are just being ridiculous.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:52 amThe Golden Rule whilst is an 'ought' it also incorporate "is" i.e. the "what you do not want others to do unto you" which is abstracted from experiences then reasoned.Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:27 pmTHis is irrelevant, because it does not apply to all.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:24 am Here is my refined inductive argument;
- 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed as expected to be proven by the test below.This is not an IS. it is an OUGHT.3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.Non sequitur.4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"[/list]
You are getting an OUGHT FROM an OUGHT.
How else is the Golden Rule abstracted from if not from 'experience' i.e. "is".
Not ridiculous but striving for optimal pragmatism.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:56 pmYou are just being ridiculous.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:52 amThe Golden Rule whilst is an 'ought' it also incorporate "is" i.e. the "what you do not want others to do unto you" which is abstracted from experiences then reasoned.
How else is the Golden Rule abstracted from if not from 'experience' i.e. "is".
There is no objective reason for the golden rule. The golden rule is NOT a matter of fact.