ALL Humans Ought To Breathe is a Moral Objective

[Veritas Aequitas]

"ALL Humans Ought To Breathe" is a Moral Objective Law as evident and justified from empirical evidence on human nature.

This is proof, that 'ought' can be derived from "is".
This 'ought' is reasoned and inferred from actual empirical evidence on human nature.

Therefore it is morally wrong if one do not want to breathe.
Note there are people who commit against this objective moral law when they sealed a plastic bag over their head then die as a result. These are those who are morally incompetent.

If this 'ought' do not exists as a moral fact, then the vice-versa, i.e. 'all humans ought not to breathe' will by reason result in the extermination of the human species.

Thus the absolute objective moral law "ALL Humans Ought To Breathe" is a default and inherent within humanity as a moral fact.

The point is this moral fact is only to be used as a GUIDE only and not to be enforced on anyone. I repeat to be used as a GUIDE ONLY.
The task of humanity is to establish fool proof approaches to develop the natural activation of this moral fact within the consciousness of all humans so that they act spontaneously and effortless without any external enforcement nor threats.
This will involve positive neural changes within the moral faculty in the brain of each individual. How? that is the $6 million question.

The above is a counter argument against moral relativists who argue there are no inherent absolute and objective moral laws that are independent of human views.

[henry quirk]

Your argument doesn't sit right with me.

Slavery is wrong, it seems to me, cuz a person is intrinsically, irrevocably, his own. To lay claim to him is to violate that owness.

But the individual who chooses not to breathe (who commits suicide) isn't bein' immoral (he's bein' stupid or crazy, but not immoral) because he is his own; he doin' with himself as he chooses. Suicide is dumb (or crazy), and it lays grief on loved ones, but it violates no other person's owness.

Anyway: I can't agree with your argument, but I'm with you on wantin' to stick a thumb in the relativist's eye.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your argument doesn't sit right with me.

Slavery is wrong, it seems to me, cuz a person is intrinsically, irrevocably, his own. To lay claim to him is to violate that owness.

But the individual who chooses not to breathe (who commits suicide) isn't bein' immoral (he's bein' stupid or crazy, but not immoral) because he is his own; he doin' with himself as he chooses. Suicide is dumb (or crazy), and it lays grief on loved ones, but it violates no other person's owness.

Anyway: I can't agree with your argument, but I'm with you on wantin' to stick a thumb in the relativist's eye.

Note what is morality,

Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Choosing not to breathe [committing suicide with a seal plastic over the head] is wrong and bad behavior, i.e. it is not right nor good behavior.
Therefore not breathing and causing one's own death is morally wrong.

"ALL Humans Ought To Breathe" is applicable to those who stop other people from breathing via choking, poisoning and preventing them from breathing via other means.

Btw, morality is not merely related to slavery.
For example, lying is immoral of a certain degree but it does not violate no other person's own_ness.

Morality is also "virtue in sexual matters; chastity" etc.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/morality?s=t

There are many aspects of morality that do not impose on the 'own_ness' of other people.

Suicide is dumb (or crazy), and it lays grief on loved ones, but it violates no other person's owness.

Suicide not only lay grief on loved ones but do generate loads of other suffering on others. For example if a person owe a lot of money, i.e. incur a large debt with another, then commit suicide, that will cause terrible financial loss to the other person.

But the point is this;
by default, 'all humans ought to breathe' is an absolute moral law because there is no compromise to it.
If on the contrary we all, 'all humans ought not to breathe' then the human species will be extinct in theory.
Therefore "all humans ought to breathe" is an absolute moral law at the least within moral theory and principles.

This is a strong argument to counter the moral relativist stance who would have to adopt the point ''all humans can choose not to breathe' which will condone and promote suicide rather than prevent and deter suicide.

Btw, as usual, I stated an absolute moral law is merely a GUIDE, not a law that must be enforced in any way.

[Skepdick]

But the individual who chooses not to breathe (who commits suicide) isn't bein' immoral (he's bein' stupid or crazy, but not immoral) because he is his own; he doin' with himself as he chooses. Suicide is dumb (or crazy), and it lays grief on loved ones, but it violates no other person's owness.

But we as a society can say "suicide is wrong - it causes harm. There ought to be less suicide". And we say this without passing moral judgment or sticking labels to the people who commit suicide. We can work towards reducing suicide in general by addressing the circumstantial factors (depression, distress, isolation, etc) ,without stopping any individual from having the choice to go through with it anyway.

One of the dumbest laws in my country is the one decrees suicide illegal. I don't think anybody has been convicted yet. Labelling suicide as 'immoral' is just as useless an exercise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We can work towards reducing suicide in general by addressing the circumstantial factors (depression, distress, isolation, etc) ,without stopping any individual from having the choice to go through with it anyway.

It would be more effective if the above preventive strategies is matched against some ideal yardstick, i.e. 'suicide is morally wrong' therefore there should be a ZERO suicide target.
This ideal yardstick is merely a guide as a fixed goal post.
Obviously it is difficult to stop anyone from committing suicide.

But the point that we have a absolute moral law on suicide [Zero suicide] as a guide is to enable society to compute a variance and moral Gap in comparison to the actual number of suicides that has happened.

If there is no establishment of an objective absolute moral law on suicide as immoral, i.e. ZERO suicide, then if there are 1000 suicides per year, people may not be triggered to take preventive actions because such a number may be regarded a normal and acceptable.

BUT if the target is Zero suicide is set [because suicide is absolutely wrong] and in reality there are 1000 suicides a year, then this create a variance and moral gap that need to be close and thus trigger actions and research to find solutions to close the gap to an near as possible to the target of Zero.

There are no ontological [God commanded] absolute moral laws.

However humanity must established justified absolute moral laws inferred from empirical evidence so as to set up an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
This Framework and System of Morality and Ethics should be independent of politics and its legislature laws that are enforceable with punishments.

Moral systems with flexible goals [moving goal posts] like those of consequentialism and utilitarianism are not effective.

[Skepdick]

It would be more effective if the above preventive strategies is matched against some ideal yardstick, i.e. 'suicide is morally wrong' therefore there should be a ZERO suicide target.
This ideal yardstick is merely a guide as a fixed goal post.
Obviously it is difficult to stop anyone from committing suicide.

This is your Philosophical brain falling into the "premise -> conclusion" pattern. It's not necessary. The sentence "suicide is morally wrong" serves no purpose whatsoever. In fact - it does more harm than good. It socially stigmatises suicide. The label "morally wrong" sways the uncritical mind towards missing the point.

We should reduce suicide to ZERO? Why? Because I am a moral human being and I want to reduce that which drives people to suicide. I don't need to externalise my justifications.

The yardstick is (and always has been) NO HARM. Zero. There is no argument, logic, premise or justification that can sway me from it.

Non-maleficence. Most humans understand this intuitively. It's Philosophers who over-think it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It would be more effective if the above preventive strategies is matched against some ideal yardstick, i.e. 'suicide is morally wrong' therefore there should be a ZERO suicide target.
This ideal yardstick is merely a guide as a fixed goal post.
Obviously it is difficult to stop anyone from committing suicide.

This is your Philosophical brain falling into the "premise -> conclusion" pattern. It's not necessary. The sentence "suicide is morally wrong" serves no purpose whatsoever. In fact - it does more harm than good. It socially stigmatises suicide. The label "morally wrong" sways the uncritical mind towards missing the point.

We should reduce suicide to ZERO? Why? Because I am a moral human being and I want to reduce that which drives people to suicide. I don't need to externalise my justifications.

The yardstick is (and always has been) NO HARM. Zero. There is no argument, logic, premise or justification that can sway me from it.

Non-maleficence. Most humans understand this intuitively. It's Philosophers who over-think it.

It is not we must reduce suicide to ZERO, knowing that in practice this is not a likely possibility due to the inherent human nature and the possibilities of defects in any large group of people. Note Normal Distribution, there is always a percentile of people at the extreme after 3-4 standard deviation.

What I had proposed is, we need to establish an objective moral law that is translated to ZERO suicide to be used as an ultimate yardstick that is fixed to manage and modulate what is in the practical.

No Harm? that is so subjective re the definition of 'what is harm' and the degrees involved.

ZERO suicide is very specific and objective which can easily be used at a yardstick to compare to actual suicides, thus generating a variance between ideal and actual, thus enabling a basis for improvement.

Setting variable goals is the worst kind of a control system for continuous improvements towards an ideal.

[Skepdick]

It is not we must reduce suicide to ZERO, knowing that in practice this is not a likely possibility due to the inherent human nature and the possibilities of defects in any large group of people. Note Normal Distribution, there is always a percentile of people at the extreme after 3-4 standard deviation.

That's fine. The goal is zero, even if we never get there! That is a desirable property of a moral goal! It's supposed to be a Sysypian task. It's not done until it's done. It's done when it's zero.

If it were anything BUT zero (say 10000), then you would stop trying to get it done.

No Harm? that is so subjective re the definition of 'what is harm' and the degrees involved.

Dumb Philosopher. Any and all definitions can be stretched to oblivion.

Do you need me to demonstrate it? (again and again and again)

ZERO suicide is very specific and objective which can easily be used at a yardstick to compare to actual suicides, thus generating a variance between ideal and actual, thus enabling a basis for improvement.

ZERO suicide is so subjective re the definition of "what suicide is" and the degrees involved. Was it suicide, was it an assisted suicide, was it an accidental self-asphyxiation, was it euthanasia?

Language is broken. We know this - move on. Resist the urge to play the stupid language games.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is not we must reduce suicide to ZERO, knowing that in practice this is not a likely possibility due to the inherent human nature and the possibilities of defects in any large group of people. Note Normal Distribution, there is always a percentile of people at the extreme after 3-4 standard deviation.

That's fine. The goal is zero. If it were anything BUT zero (say 100 suicides a year is fine), then you would stop trying to reduce the 100 to 99.

No Harm? that is so subjective re the definition of 'what is harm' and the degrees involved.

Dumb Philosopher. Any and all definitions can be stretched to oblivion.

Do you need me to demonstrate it? (again and again and again)

ZERO suicide is very specific and objective which can easily be used at a yardstick to compare to actual suicides, thus generating a variance between ideal and actual, thus enabling a basis for improvement.

ZERO suicide is so subjective re the definition of "what suicide is" and the degrees involved. Was it suicide, was it an assisted suicide, was it an accidental self-asphyxiation, was it euthanasia?

Language is broken. We know this - move on. Resist the urge to play the stupid language games.

It is not difficult to define 'what is suicide' and identify the types upon further investigations.
https://www.who.int/mental_health/preve ... revent/en/
There is a possibility of error of judgment, but the errors would not be significant in relation to the total.

[Skepdick]

It is not difficult to define 'what is suicide' upon further investigations.
https://www.who.int/mental_health/preve ... revent/en/
There is a possibility of error of judgment, but the errors would not be significant in relation to the total.

Dumb fucking Philosopher.

Definitions don't matter. Interpretation matters - Interpretation IS judgment! Your better judgment is all you have when the ambiguity of language rears its ugly head!

Man is the measure of all things --Protagoras.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is not difficult to define 'what is suicide' upon further investigations.
https://www.who.int/mental_health/preve ... revent/en/
There is a possibility of error of judgment, but the errors would not be significant in relation to the total.

Dumb fucking Philosopher.

Definitions don't matter. Interpretation matters - Interpretation IS judgment! Your better judgment is all you have when the ambiguity of language rears its ugly head!

Man is the measure of all things --Protagoras.

You are the stupid one.
How can one interpret without a definition in place?
You are stupid in not knowing, all the philosophical theories by all notable philosophers are grounded on definition of the terms they used.
Show me one who do not define the terms they used?

[Skepdick]

You are the stupid one.
How can one interpret without a definition in place?

Strawman. How can one interpret when all definitions are infinitely ambiguous in the absence of an interpretative context?

You are stupid in not knowing, all the philosophical theories by all notable philosophers are grounded on definition of the terms they used.

That's why all those Philosophers are idiots. They can't even ground the term 'definition'!

Show me one who do not define the terms they used?

I am showing you one! Me!

Queue the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

[RCSaunders]

Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Choosing not to breathe [committing suicide with a seal plastic over the head] is wrong and bad behavior ...

The problem here, VA, is not defining what makes anything good or bad. Good and bad, right and wrong, important and unimportant are value terms. All value terms are concepts of relationship. Any action, for example, is only right or wrong relative to some objective, (a purpose, end, or goal), that is to be achieved. An action is right if it achieves the objective, but it is wrong if it fails to achieve the objective. Nothing is just good or bad unless your specify what a thing is good or bad for and to whom. There are no intrinsic values.

Quite frankly if Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein offed themselves with plastic bags over their heads they would have done the world a favor. [Apparently Jeffy did something like that.]

[RCSaunders]

... all the philosophical theories by all notable philosophers are grounded on definition of the terms they used.
Show me one who do not define the terms they used?

Hume!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Choosing not to breathe [committing suicide with a seal plastic over the head] is wrong and bad behavior ...

The problem here, VA, is not defining what makes anything good or bad.

Where did I say that?
Definitions are important so that the reader and the writer [proposal] are kept on the same page and do not veer off course into an 'apple' and 'orange' situation or talk pass each other.
If you disagree with the above or any definition, then we discuss to get to consensus before we proceed to discuss the topic, i.e. in this case Morality.

Good and bad, right and wrong, important and unimportant are value terms. All value terms are concepts of relationship. Any action, for example, is only right or wrong relative to some objective, (a purpose, end, or goal), that is to be achieved. An action is right if it achieves the objective, but it is wrong if it fails to achieve the objective. Nothing is just good or bad unless your specify what a thing is good or bad for and to whom. There are no intrinsic values.

Agree, good and evil are value terms relative to a framework and system within reality.
In the case of good and evil in relation to the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics, they are terms relative to the Framework and System of Human Nature in regards to human actions and their impact on other humans.

In the case of human nature, stopping breathing till death, logically, by reason and critical thinking, is a bad thing for the individual and the human species.
As such we can inferred from reason 'All Human Ought to Breathe' as an imperative maxim for the good of the individual and human species.
As stated many times, such an 'ought' is merely a guide as the ideal target and not to be enforced.

Surely it is logical 'All Human Ought to Breathe' as evident and justified is more efficient as an ideal guide than 'All Human Ought Not to Breathe.' Do you dispute that?

Whilst the above absolute moral law is merely a guide, there will likely to be people who will commit suicide for various reasons.
It is because we have an ideal guide that we can use it as a yardstick to determine how many people commit suicide in reality as a variance from the ideal. This variance is a value that can be researched for preventive measures.

Quite frankly if Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein offed themselves with plastic bags over their heads they would have done the world a favor. [Apparently Jeffy did something like that.]

That is your personal skewed opinion which is not contributive to humanity as a whole.

Say, If Weistein and Epstein had committed suicide, that would be a variance of 2 from the ideal of ZERO suicide derived from 'All Human Ought to Breathe' [at least till the inevitable].
The question is why there is a variance of 2.
The source of the variance is sexual abuse of children/adults.
In this case, humanity need to resolve the problem of why these people are get into sexual abuse.
When we resolve this sexual abuse, then there will be no case of suicides like those of Weinstein and Epstein.

As such we analyze the various types of suicide and drill down to their root causes and take preventive steps at source.

If we do not establish the absolute moral law 'All Human Ought to Breathe' as a guide and set the ideal target of ZERO suicide, we will not have an efficient Moral Model to work with.