OUGHT from IS is Possible

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

surreptitious57
Posts: 3613
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:40 am

Age wrote:
Is EVERY thing you write just an opinion
No everything I write is not just an opinion
Because I will also write some facts as well

surreptitious57
Posts: 3613
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:50 am

Age wrote:
And when and how will I KNOW the difference
You could ask just a question or you could just look at what is
You might not have to do any thing for you may already know

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age » Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:46 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:40 am
Age wrote:
Is EVERY thing you write just an opinion
No everything I write is not just an opinion
Because I will also write some facts as well
So, again, how will I KNOW that what you write is just an opinion or an actual fact?

What can I do to be able to tell the difference?

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age » Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:53 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:50 am
Age wrote:
And when and how will I KNOW the difference
You could ask just a question or you could just look at what is
I have 'tried' asking a question.

I could also look at what IS, see that what you are saying is WRONG, but IF you are only saying it as an opinion, which could be completely wrong, then I really do NOT care one iota what you say. If, however, you are saying that as an actual fact, and I KNOW it is wrong, then I will want to question you even more.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:50 am
You might not have to do any thing for you may already know
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.

Sure, I can THINK what you or "another" are meaning, et cetera, but unless I ask then I will NEVER KNOW, for sure.

And, sure what I was THINKING, might actually be 100% True and Right, but again unless I am told I will NEVER KNOW this, for sure.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 758
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:58 pm

Age wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:31 am

a Confused statement.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:42 am
s".

confused response.
Why don't you guys try to work through an actual example?
Start with a morally interested fact, where you both agree it "IS" true.
Then see if you can both agree with an undeniable reaction as to how one "OUGHT" to respond to it

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 758
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:58 pm

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.
What about dead ones?
2. ALL living
better
human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed.
But ANY exception undermines your attempt an "absolute"
3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
That is an ought, NOT an "IS"
4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"[/list]
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.
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.

It is possible to test Premise 2, i.e. answer 'yes' or 'no' on the following;
  • 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.
What is your answer, 'Yes' or 'No' to the above question, i.e. premise 2?
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?
WRONG

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age » Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:07 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:58 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:31 am

a Confused statement.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:42 am
s".

confused response.
Why don't you guys try to work through an actual example?
Start with a morally interested fact, where you both agree it "IS" true.
Then see if you can both agree with an undeniable reaction as to how one "OUGHT" to respond to it
Do 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.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 758
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:22 pm

Age wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:07 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:58 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:31 am

a Confused statement.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:42 am
s".

confused response.
Why don't you guys try to work through an actual example?
Start with a morally interested fact, where you both agree it "IS" true.
Then see if you can both agree with an undeniable reaction as to how one "OUGHT" to respond to it
Do 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.
I'm not confused, I have a clear idea of the Is/Ought problem.

I would not want to queer your pitch by imposing my own idea, or example.

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age » Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:44 am

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:22 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:07 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:58 pm




Why don't you guys try to work through an actual example?
Start with a morally interested fact, where you both agree it "IS" true.
Then see if you can both agree with an undeniable reaction as to how one "OUGHT" to respond to it
Do 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.
I'm not confused, I have a clear idea of the Is/Ought problem.
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.

To tell you the truth I did not even know that there was some supposed is/ought "problem".
Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:22 pm
I would not want to queer your pitch by imposing my own idea, or example.
Okay, fair enough.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:24 am

Sculptor wrote:
Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:58 pm
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.
What about dead ones?
2. ALL living
better
human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed.
But ANY exception undermines your attempt an "absolute"
3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
That is an ought, NOT an "IS"
The term 'exist' in P1 implied humans who are alive.
I did not claim absolutely-absolute, thus my 'absolute' is qualified to the exception, i.e. the mentally ill.

Note my argument is not meant to be deductive but inductive.

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.
    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"
The golden rule above can be translated as "is" i.e.
No human will do unto others what s/he do not want others to do unto him/her.
This can be proven and tested based on the inherent functions of mirror neuron.

Thus the golden rule in 'is' term translate P2 to P4.
4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"[/list]
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.
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.
I stated the argument is inductive to establish secular absolute moral rules as a guide for the moral and ethical system.
This is how we establish pure principles as ought to guide the applied in the various fields of knowledge, e.g. mathematics, geometry, Science and the likes.

Re your points;
1) Many humans LIKE to kill other humans
2) Many humans think there are good reasons to kill other humans.

This is irrelevant.
True there are many humans who like to kill other humans, but they do not want to be killed by others.

As I had argued, without the absolute secular rule 'no human can kill another' as a guide there will be no guidelines to deal with those who like to kill.
Point is, in order to ensure 'no human can kill another' we must find solutions to ensure no human will like to kill or have reasons to kill other humans. I am optimistic such solutions can be found, given the current exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.
It is possible to test Premise 2, i.e. answer 'yes' or 'no' on the following;
  • 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.
What is your answer, 'Yes' or 'No' to the above question, i.e. premise 2?
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?
WRONG
The above test is relevant to support P2.

The above test has not been carried out yet.
However based on personal opinions, view of others, knowledge of human nature, it is reasoned no living humans will want to be killed.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 758
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:27 pm

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 irrelevant, because it does not apply to all.
3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
This is not an IS. it is an OUGHT.
4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"[/list]
Non sequitur.
You are getting an OUGHT FROM an OUGHT.


Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:52 am

Sculptor wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:27 pm
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 irrelevant, because it does not apply to all.
3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
This is not an IS. it is an OUGHT.
4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"[/list]
Non sequitur.
You are getting an OUGHT FROM an OUGHT.
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.
How else is the Golden Rule abstracted from if not from 'experience' i.e. "is".

Thus I have used the Golden Rule as a transition to reconcile 'is' to 'ought'.

Such a transition is done very commonly in the secular world as I had given examples re the setting of empirical oughts in term of standard like the standard kilogram.

Age
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Age » Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:37 am

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]
1. 'Humans' existing as 'living beings' is WHY 'you', human beings, are, literally, called "human beings".

2. How many human beings commit suicide EVERY day, and how many other human beings do not want to live, and so, also want to be killed, EVERY day?

3. Are those many upon many human beings who do not want to live and thus want to be killed then allowed to kill "other" human beings?

4. Does the maxim; 'you' shall not kill, already exist now? Has this maxim been around for quite some time now already?


1. Satisfied, complete, and finished?

2. If there is just one, then your statement beginning with, 'ALL ....', is just plain WRONG. If there are exceptions, then there ARE EXCEPTIONS, and therefore it is NOT 'all', at all.

3. IF you want to follow that idiotic and illogical so called "golden rule", then are those, who want to be killed, then allowed to kill "others"?
(The so called "logic" and "reasoning" does appear to follow that way.)

4. If the maxim; "No 'living' human being shall kill another human being" is made into some sort of 'ought', which 'should be' or 'ought to be followed, then do you think that it would somehow work? The maxim; " 'you' shall not kill", has been around for some time now, and to absolutely NO avail, I might add.

(By the way, could a 'dead' human being even be able to kill "another" human being, and if they could, do you think adding into the rule; "No living,
OR DEAD, human being shall kill another human being" is really going to have that much more affect or bearing on any thing at all really? In other
words, is the 'living' word really NEEDED in what is essentially a 'maxim'?

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 758
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Sculptor » Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:56 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:52 am
Sculptor wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:27 pm
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 irrelevant, because it does not apply to all.
3. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
This is not an IS. it is an OUGHT.
4. Therefore, the MAXIM: "No living human being shall kill another human being"[/list]
Non sequitur.
You are getting an OUGHT FROM an OUGHT.
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.
How else is the Golden Rule abstracted from if not from 'experience' i.e. "is".
You are just being ridiculous.
There is no objective reason for the golden rule. The golden rule is NOT a matter of fact.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2767
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: OUGHT from IS is Possible

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Sep 29, 2019 4:11 am

Sculptor wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:56 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:52 am
Sculptor wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:27 pm

THis is irrelevant, because it does not apply to all.

This is not an IS. it is an OUGHT.

Non sequitur.
You are getting an OUGHT FROM an OUGHT.
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.
How else is the Golden Rule abstracted from if not from 'experience' i.e. "is".
You are just being ridiculous.
There is no objective reason for the golden rule. The golden rule is NOT a matter of fact.
Not ridiculous but striving for optimal pragmatism.

The Golden Rule is abstracted from facts, thus grounded on facts, i.e. "is".

Note this [Wiki].
  • Trying to live according to the Golden Rule means trying to empathise with other people, including those who may be very different from us.
    Empathy is at the root of kindness, compassion, understanding and respect – qualities that we all appreciate being shown, whoever we are, whatever we think and wherever we come from.
    And although it isn’t possible to know what it really feels like to be a different person or live in different circumstances and have different life experiences, it isn’t difficult for most of us to imagine what would cause us suffering and to try to avoid causing suffering to others.
    For this reason many people find the Golden Rule’s corollary – "do not treat people in a way you would not wish to be treated yourself" – more pragmatic.[62]
    — Maria MacLachlan, Think Humanism[64]
Thus the Golden Rule is grounded on empathy.
Empathy is grounded on mirror neurons i.e. neurosciences and neuro-psychological.

What do you mean by objective reason?
What is objective is merely intersubjective consensus.
The most objective knowledge we have are Scientific theories.
Scientific theories according to Popper are merely polished conjectures [hypothesis] and grounded on intersubjective consensus of the relevant scientists and their peers.
How I am trying to ground the above is based on the Scientific Method, thus potentially objective.

At present the above are indications and leads based on facts.
Whilst we do not have conclusive evidences yet, it would be dumb to dismiss it totally.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests