FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:11 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am
I'll address some of the points not done earlier.
This one line bankrupts your whole argument. You've been claiming simple facts such as the price of a chair as moral knowledge, and now you are exposing even simple facts as incomplete and subject to interpretation at many levels.
Imagine what happens when you take a complex moral issue where none of the inputs are even quantifiable?
Repeat: As I had stated, the default of progress and improvement, i.e. morality in this case, has to be justified and quantified from empirical evidences.
Note axiology - the measurement of values [re Prof].
Prof is unable to measure them too, all of his nonsense is pretty much the same as yours. There is nothing with which to measure moral outcomes as if quantifiable objects.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am
The big white heap was a fact with a referent.
The 0.01% Fe and 99.99% C-O-H was fact with referent.
Your work there, at best, demonstrates that an object in the universe cannot be reduced to a single fact, but that it is actually the referent to an uncountable number of facts available for an unimaginable number of purposes. And yet, the one sort of fact you want to be able to assert about it is moral, and that one still isn't working for you.
Repeat: As I had stated, the default of progress and improvement, i.e. morality in this case, has to be justified and quantified from empirical evidences.
Note axiology - the measurement of values [re Prof].
What you do is apply your faith. You make an observation of something that can be quantified, and then you decide to have faith that it represents something else that you cannot. That's all Prof's thing is, and it's all yours is too.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am
That is where intelligence and wisdom are necessary to produce the effective quantification of values for the purpose of morality.
That's unfortunate. Wise and intelligent people will just tell you that effective quantification of moral outcomes or inputs is
impossible and you should stop pretending that they are better than estimates.
What do you mean by 'impossible'? as if there are absolutely absolute measurements.
There are no absolutely absolute measurements.
All measurements even if claimed to be 'absolute' [e.g. absolute temperature] are fundamentally relative and justified estimates.
Even in Science, whatever is ultimately measured is at best 'polished conjectures' [Popper].
I agree it is easier to measure physical objects while it is more difficult with abstract things.
But nevertheless, my point is everything is quantifiable and measurable as long as the Framework of Measurement is established rationally and steps are taken to ensure it is fool proof, and there is consensus.
Note I never claimed to measure 'moral outcomes,' to me that is Ethics not morality.
What I claimed are moral facts and principles based on justified empirical evidences and philosophically reasoning.
It is a moral fact,
no [100% none] normal human being would want to be killed by another human. This can be tested empirically.
Then from the Framework and System of Morality, the following moral fact is established, i.e,
No human ought to kill another human. [period]
this is extended to babies in the womb.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am
I have shown example how the fact of the value of the US Dollar is totally based on sentiments of confidence levels on trust and performance of the US Government. Note what happened to the Zimbabwe Dollar and currencies of other 'banana republics'.
You have not. You are never going to be able to show that money tracks some particular sentiment (i.e, when trust in the US government increases the dollar rises by the same amount). You can get about as far as this: If the Fed or the ECB promises to create as much money as it takes to reach a specific monetary outcome, the markets usually believe them and respond appropriately.
If you are measuring something that is not the thing itself and extrapolating via that measurement, the thing being measured needs to track the thing being being measured by proxy.
Yours is a strawman.
I am not arguing about specific sentiments, e.g. fear, love, trust, confidence, etc.
My point is, it is a fact, the US Dollar is totally [100%] based on sentiments, no gold equivalent like the past.
Thus my point, this fact of the USD is fact of value that is based on 100% sentiment.
Your point is, a "fact" cannot be a value nor be evaluative.
Can you dispute this?
Nevertheless, it may not be practical to track every sentiment, but if say, Trump is assassinated and suddenly there is anarchy in the US, then next day the US Dollar dropped by 20% against all other currency. We can estimate the 20% drop is due mostly to the sentiment of fear.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am
Re Morality, for example if I rate the evil act of genocide with a base index of 100 evilness, any normal person can rate any petty crime at 1/100 evilness in relative equivalents and that would be acceptable by all who are normal human.
From the above extremes, we can estimate the evilness of the in-between to the best accuracy possible based on effective justifications, intelligence, wisdom, rationality, philosophical reasoning, etc.
None of those things has resolved the controversies of ethics before. Just presenting a chart with worst_crime=Maximum Naughties; least_crime = Minimum Naughties is no use. That's tautologous. You have provided no new method to resolve controversy.
You can put abortion wherever you like on your chart, and somebody is well within their rights to just say you put it in the wrong place. And then what? When you come back at them with your bullshit measurement? They are going to say you measured wrong, or they will say that these things cannot be measured at all.
Your don't have any idea of what
morality-proper is.
Note I stated, morality is about establishing moral facts and principles.
The following moral facts as standard is established via a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
From above;
No human ought to kill another human. [period]
this is extended to babies in the womb.
This moral fact is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, thus, it is objective, albeit relative.
Thus from the above, 'abortion' is morally wrong!
But the above standard is only a GUIDE, there will be no enforcement.
In practice, at present many people, being human, will not be able to control their sexual lust [inherent] and thus resulting in the need for abortion for various reasons [justified or unjustified].
Within the Moral Framework and System, there is no enforcement nor punishments for abortion.
However the establishment of the moral standard as a moral objective, i.e. a GUIDE, when contrasted with what is actually happening, i.e. abortions need to be performed, a
moral variance is generated.
The task for humanity is establish strategies on HOW to reduce the
moral variance re abortion progressively and optimally.
Point is you are ignorant what is morality proper inherently in alignment with human nature.
Instead you are veering off to some idea of pseudo-morality, trolley dilemmas, etc.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am
The framework and System of Morality and Ethics [proposed for the future not now] will deal with, eliminate or prevent the same acts of evilness but without enforcement and punishments but rather inculcate spontaneous dispositions of good by the individuals.
Oooh, excellent. Once you have determined the experts to decide what everyone should think, you will wash our brains to make sure that we do.
Again you are ignorant of what is going within the human brain since 100,000 years ago to the present.
It is very
evident, for example, the dormant mirror neurons within the average human brain is unfolding and being activated.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:54 am
One thing for sure, I an endeavoring to strive for improving the well being of the individuals and humanity
in the future, while you are dogmatically insisting and stuck with the status quo.
You are so typical with those who were solidly
resistance to change in terms of philosophy, technology, medicines, etc. Why? It has something to do with the defense mechanisms from the existential crisis.
Your work is shit though. You never learn from your mistakes. You are endeavouring to do something unintelligible.
What I am doing is, given the current state of humanity, I have a concern for humanity, thus taking the responsibility to generate and proposed solutions.
What is critical is whether what I presented is supported by empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
You have not show any of my premises are false or illusory.
All you do is to stir the shit of others from a very ignorant state.