'Speech Acts' Relevant to 'Is-Ought' Problem.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The concept of 'Speech Acts' is relevant to the 'Is-Ought' Problem.

In Searle's derivation of 'Ought from Is' argument he relied on the concept of 'Speech Acts' to support his justifications.
viewtopic.php?p=462615#p462615

If you like, then, we have shown that "promise" is an evaluative word, but since it is also purely descriptive, we have really shown that the whole distinction needs to be re-examined.
The alleged distinction between descriptive and evaluative statements is really a conflation of at least two distinctions.

On the one hand there is a distinction between different kinds of speech acts, one family of speech acts including evaluations, another family including descriptions.
This is a distinction between different kinds of illocutionary force.9
On the other hand there is a distinction between utterances which involve claims objectively decidable as true or false and those which involve claims not objectively decidable, but which are "matters of personal decision" or "matters of opinion."

It has been assumed that the former distinction is (must be) a special case of the latter, that if something has the illocutionary force of an evaluation, it cannot be entailed by factual premises.

Part of the point of my argument is to show that this contention is false, that factual premises can entail evaluative conclusions.

If I am right, then the alleged distinction between descriptive and evaluative utterances is useful only as a distinction between two kinds of illocutionary force, describing and evaluating,
and it is not even very useful there, since if we are to use these terms strictly, they are only two among hundreds of kinds of illocutionary force; and utterances of sentences of the form (5) "Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars" would not characteristically fall in either class.

Re what is Speech Act,

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act
In the philosophy of language and linguistics, speech act is something expressed by an individual that not only presents information, but performs an action as well.

Speech acts serve their function once they are said or communicated. These are commonly taken to include acts such as apologizing, promising, ordering, answering, requesting, complaining, warning, inviting, refusing, and congratulating.

The concept of speech acts is contrasted to the views held by Peter Holmes, Sculptor, Pantflasher and their gangs who insist a statement of fact is purely descriptive and never prescriptive like the Logical Positivists insisted, i.e. fact is state of affairs blah, blah, blah,

For much of the history of the positivist philosophy of language, language was viewed primarily as a way of making factual assertions, and the other uses of language tended to be ignored, as Austin states at the beginning of Lecture 1, "It was for too long the assumption of philosophers that the business of a 'statement' can only be to 'describe' some state of affairs, or to 'state some fact', which it must do either truly or falsely."

Therefrom;

Wittgenstein came up with the idea of "don't ask for the meaning, ask for the use," showing language as a new vehicle for social activity.[5] Speech act theory hails from Wittgenstein's philosophical theories. Wittgenstein believed meaning derives from pragmatic tradition, demonstrating the importance of how language is used to accomplish objectives within specific situations. By following rules to accomplish a goal, communication becomes a set of language games. Thus, utterances do more than reflect a meaning, they are words designed to get things done.[6]

And;

The work of J. L. Austin, particularly his How to Do Things with Words, led philosophers to pay more attention to the non-declarative uses of language. The terminology he introduced, especially the notions "locutionary act", "illocutionary act", and "perlocutionary act", occupied an important role in what was then to become the "study of speech acts". All of these three acts, but especially the "illocutionary act", are nowadays commonly classified as "speech acts".

And it was further developed by John Searle;

The speech act theory was introduced by Oxford philosopher J.L. Austin in How to Do Things With Words and further developed by American philosopher J.R. Searle. It considers the degree to which utterances are said to perform locutionary acts, illocutionary acts, and/or perlocutionary acts.
https://www.thoughtco.com/speech-act-theory-1691986#:

Peter Holmes, Sculptor, Pantflasher and gang, what do you have to say to the above and don't keep blaring and clutching to your dogmatic 'fact is fact' and 'value is value' never the twain shall meet, without taking the above into consideration.

View from others?

[nothing]

On the other hand there is a distinction between utterances which involve claims objectively decidable as true or false and those which involve claims not objectively decidable, but which are "matters of personal decision" or "matters of opinion."

True or false must be a definite condition(s), thus can only follow from a resolutely definite proposition.
'Is' is (a) definite proposition. 'Is not' is also a definite proposition.
Is/Not are thus two discrete definite conditions which may be applied
to any single subject/object. "To be, or not to be" reflects the same.

The distinction is thus more a matter of definition rather than objectivity.
The limitation associated is the discipline (or lack) of the conscience to posit
and/or address definite propositions which, by definition, must have
a decidedly true or false result. If this is done correctly, the "true" answer(s)
to any/all definite inquiries will appear in the constituency of the "right" question(s) asked.
The art of inquiry thus lies in the (integrity of the) question so much more so than some answer
as the same is the agency needed to discern between what is true/real and/or not.

It is for this reason "seek and ye shall find" is generally true:
answers to any/all questions are inside of the proper questions asked.
However, this relates to consciousness (ie. capacity for conscience inquiry)
which is a simple present/absent condition. Either one is conscious and/or not,
with every degree in between reflecting all degrees of consciousness.

Part of the point of my argument is to show that this contention is false, that factual premises can entail evaluative conclusions.

The counter-argument is generally sound - if by factual premises
we equate the construction of a definite proposition, then
certainly factual premises can (as they do) entail evaluative conclusions.

Obviously the problem reduces into the capacity to acknowledge what really is,
rather than believing what is (as an extension of what one merely wants to be true).
Ultimately, the problem is one of consciousness before anything else, as
"belief" is not a conscious process, whereas trying/testing/falsifying belief is.

Peter Holmes, Sculptor, Pantflasher and gang, what do you have to say to the above and don't keep blaring and clutching to your dogmatic 'fact is fact' and 'value is value' never the twain shall meet, without taking the above into consideration.

View from others?

The outstanding Riemann Hypothesis is practically a mathematical reflection of the barrier.
Understanding the nature of the relationship between real and imaginary numbers is the same as
understanding the nature of (the relationship between) what is rational and what is irrational:
what real is to rational, imaginary is to irrational. Rational and irrational are the two components
of any circle: a radius and a circumference, thus the immutable laws that govern the physical cosmos
are the same that all is subject to/of. If/when a decidedly false "belief" is acted upon as true
(ie. is imaginary) there are REAL consequences. Consciousness is what is needed to recognize
and acknowledge those consequences as products of the false belief(s) taken to be true.

The real problem is thus in the capacity for one to acknowledge what really is.
Whereas one can not derive an ought from an is, one may derive
and ought not from an is, however this implies one have a capacity
to see the existential reality just the way it is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

On the other hand there is a distinction between utterances which involve claims objectively decidable as true or false and those which involve claims not objectively decidable, but which are "matters of personal decision" or "matters of opinion."

True or false must be a definite condition(s), thus can only follow from a resolutely definite proposition.
'Is' is (a) definite proposition. 'Is not' is also a definite proposition.
Is/Not are thus two discrete definite conditions which may be applied
to any single subject/object. "To be, or not to be" reflects the same.

The distinction is thus more a matter of definition rather than objectivity.
The limitation associated is the discipline (or lack) of the conscience to posit
and/or address definite propositions which, by definition, must have
a decidedly true or false result. If this is done correctly, the "true" answer(s)
to any/all definite inquiries will appear in the constituency of the "right" question(s) asked.
The art of inquiry thus lies in the (integrity of the) question so much more so than some answer
as the same is the agency needed to discern between what is true/real and/or not.

It is for this reason "seek and ye shall find" is generally true:
answers to any/all questions are inside of the proper questions asked.
However, this relates to consciousness (ie. capacity for conscience inquiry)
which is a simple present/absent condition. Either one is conscious and/or not,
with every degree in between reflecting all degrees of consciousness.

Part of the point of my argument is to show that this contention is false, that factual premises can entail evaluative conclusions.

The counter-argument is generally sound - if by factual premises
we equate the construction of a definite proposition, then
certainly factual premises can (as they do) entail evaluative conclusions.

Obviously the problem reduces into the capacity to acknowledge what really is,
rather than believing what is (as an extension of what one merely wants to be true).
Ultimately, the problem is one of consciousness before anything else, as
"belief" is not a conscious process, whereas trying/testing/falsifying belief is.

Not sure where you get the above first quote from?
I cannot grasp your points precisely, but I'll try to response as accurate as possible.

The OP is about 'Speech Acts' as defined is,
"speech act is something expressed by an individual that not only presents information, but performs an action as well"

For example if A make the following statement to his girlfriend,
"I promise to marry you by 31st December 2020."
This is a descriptive statement, but at the same time it is also prescriptive, i.e. it is implied instantaneously, A ought to marry his girlfriend by 31st December 2020.
Whether he followed through the promise is a separate issue.

"What really is" is the statement made by A which can be made objectively via a written, voice or video recording or as witness by others.

"Belief" i.e. a justified personal conviction is definitely a conscious process.
Intuitive on the other hand is not a conscious process.

The outstanding Riemann Hypothesis is practically a mathematical reflection of the barrier.
Understanding the nature of the relationship between real and imaginary numbers is the same as
understanding the nature of (the relationship between) what is rational and what is irrational:
what real is to rational, imaginary is to irrational. Rational and irrational are the two components
of any circle: a radius and a circumference, thus the immutable laws that govern the physical cosmos
are the same that all is subject to/of. If/when a decidedly false "belief" is acted upon as true
(ie. is imaginary) there are REAL consequences. Consciousness is what is needed to recognize
and acknowledge those consequences as products of the false belief(s) taken to be true.

The real problem is thus in the capacity for one to acknowledge what really is.
Whereas one can not derive an ought from an is, one may derive
and ought not from an is, however this implies one have a capacity
to see the existential reality just the way it is.

I don't see the link between the current issue and Riemann Hypothesis which is purely mathematical and is a hypothetical issue.

In Searle's case, he had demonstrated it is plausible to derive an 'ought' from 'is' using counterfactual examples.

[nothing]

Not sure where you get the above first quote from?
I cannot grasp your points precisely, but I'll try to response as accurate as possible.

I got it from the OP:

The concept of 'Speech Acts' is relevant to the 'Is-Ought' Problem.

In Searle's derivation of 'Ought from Is' argument he relied on the concept of 'Speech Acts' to support his justifications.
viewtopic.php?p=462615#p462615

If you like, then, we have shown that "promise" is an evaluative word, but since it is also purely descriptive, we have really shown that the whole distinction needs to be re-examined.
The alleged distinction between descriptive and evaluative statements is really a conflation of at least two distinctions.

On the one hand there is a distinction between different kinds of speech acts, one family of speech acts including evaluations, another family including descriptions.
This is a distinction between different kinds of illocutionary force.9
On the other hand there is a distinction between utterances which involve claims objectively decidable as true or false and those which involve claims not objectively decidable, but which are "matters of personal decision" or "matters of opinion."

The OP is about 'Speech Acts' as defined is,
"speech act is something expressed by an individual that not only presents information, but performs an action as well"

For example if A make the following statement to his girlfriend,
"I promise to marry you by 31st December 2020."
This is a descriptive statement, but at the same time it is also prescriptive, i.e. it is implied instantaneously, A ought to marry his girlfriend by 31st December 2020.
Whether he followed through the promise is a separate issue.

I find that all speech satisfies the two conditions of the definition provided, thus
"speech acts" is relatively meaningless to me. The example you provided can be used
to understand this: the action is rooted in the motive (impetus) of the being A,
thus all speech is rooted in the same motive/will/intention of A. I find "speech acts"
needlessly complicates what may be better looked at as a motivation.

"What really is" is the statement made by A which can be made objectively via a written, voice or video recording or as witness by others.

The statement itself, sure, but this says nothing of a "real" motive/will/intention.
"What really is" must involve real motive/will/intent. Therefor it is necessary
to allow the possibility that any/all expressions of the same may not be
"what really is". This begs the need for a disciplined conscience to discern.

"Belief" i.e. a justified personal conviction is definitely a conscious process.

It is actually the opposite: an unconscious one.

A "justified" personal conviction will always be rooted in the fallibility of the being themselves, as
it will always be the being themselves whence any such justifications begin/end. "Belief" implies
not knowing ie. one or more degrees of uncertainty. If a belief were found to be true, it would
no longer be a belief, but a knowledge serving as a temperance from "believing" that
which is not necessarily true.

All knowing is by way of consciously trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of consciously trying to know all.

Intuitive on the other hand is not a conscious process.

A lot of beliefs rely on the argument "I just know it!" as if intuited.
Intuition is certainly a step below being subject to scientific inquiry,
thus intuition itself may not be a conscious process, but trying/testing
the validity of the constituency of the intuition certainly is, however
this implies the use of a faculty of (further) inquiry (ie. science).

I don't see the link between the current issue and Riemann Hypothesis which is purely mathematical and is a hypothetical issue.

Hardly anyone does, as hardly anyone can with all of the nonsense that has been taught for thousands of years,
however note that "purely mathematical" is how the physical universe actually works,
and is thus not a "hypothetical" issue. The problem is Western science does not understand the nature of the relationship between
space and time as reflected in the real/imaginary axes of complex analysis (used to model the physical universe). All this due to
Western science being unable to properly measure a circle, thus understand the precise relation between line and curve.

All of this is pertinent to deriving ought (not) from an is because one must actually be able to acknowledge what is
and/or what is not instead of being firmly rooted in some belief-based "justified personal conviction".

In Searle's case, he had demonstrated it is plausible to derive an 'ought' from 'is' using counterfactual examples.

Should one ought to know what is before attempting to derive an ought from an is?
If not, at best one has their own locally-arrived-at "justified personal conviction"
such as "we must kill all the unbelievers and dominate the planet".

The global problem is inside of the "believer vs. unbeliever" division:
if good and evil do exist, it doesn't matter what they are, it would anyways
take a "believer" to "believe" one is the other and/or the other is the one.
The same is true: it would take a "believer" to "believe" themselves superior
to others and/or others are inferior to themselves. Thus all Nazis are pinned
to the side of the "believers" viz. all Nazis are believers, but not all believers
are Nazis.

Given the above, ought one endeavor to know all not to believe?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The OP is about 'Speech Acts' as defined is,
"speech act is something expressed by an individual that not only presents information, but performs an action as well"

For example if A make the following statement to his girlfriend,
"I promise to marry you by 31st December 2020."
This is a descriptive statement, but at the same time it is also prescriptive, i.e. it is implied instantaneously, A ought to marry his girlfriend by 31st December 2020.
Whether he followed through the promise is a separate issue.

I find that all speech satisfies the two conditions of the definition provided, thus
"speech acts" is relatively meaningless to me. The example you provided can be used
to understand this: the action is rooted in the motive (impetus) of the being A,
thus all speech is rooted in the same motive/will/intention of A. I find "speech acts"
needlessly complicates what may be better looked at as a motivation.

Point is the moral-ought-deniers like Peter Holmes et. al. insist any descriptive statement expressed by a person cannot be prescriptive at the same time.

The relevance of 'speech acts' in this case is to counter the moral-ought-deniers, that there are counter examples to their absolute claim "there cannot be ought from is".

Generally the intention of the speaker is reflected in the statement of the speech made. But if the speaker decides to cheat, that would be a different topic.

"What really is" is the statement made by A which can be made objectively via a written, voice or video recording or as witness by others.

The statement itself, sure, but this says nothing of a "real" motive/will/intention.
"What really is" must involve real motive/will/intent. Therefor it is necessary
to allow the possibility that any/all expressions of the same may not be
"what really is". This begs the need for a disciplined conscience to discern.

Generally it is impossible to read the mind of any other person directly of what is in their mind.
Therefore, yes, it is possible what is expressed by a person can be a deception. In other cases, those who are mentally unsound may not speak what is intended in the mind.

As such, generally, without any inkling of suspicion, what is spoken by another person, we have to assume his intention is reflected in his speech and circumstances.

"Belief" i.e. a justified personal conviction is definitely a conscious process.

It is actually the opposite: an unconscious one.

A "justified" personal conviction will always be rooted in the fallibility of the being themselves, as
it will always be the being themselves whence any such justifications begin/end. "Belief" implies
not knowing ie. one or more degrees of uncertainty. If a belief were found to be true, it would
no longer be a belief, but a knowledge serving as a temperance from "believing" that
which is not necessarily true.

All knowing is by way of consciously trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of consciously trying to know all.

It is noted all beliefs are expressed consciously, e.g. Theists expressed their belief, God Exist, I believe the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth, etc.
Note Einstein's theory of relativity was his personal belief, i.e. personal conviction via his own proofs, but his belief became a Justified True Belief [JTB], i.e. knowledge only when his belief was tested and confirmed by his peers.

But I have always stated, what is consciously expressed is significantly influenced by the unconscious. Note Damasio's work on how emotions influence decision making.

Intuitive on the other hand is not a conscious process.

A lot of beliefs rely on the argument "I just know it!" as if intuited.
Intuition is certainly a step below being subject to scientific inquiry,
thus intuition itself may not be a conscious process, but trying/testing
the validity of the constituency of the intuition certainly is, however
this implies the use of a faculty of (further) inquiry (ie. science).

"I just know it" as intuitively is merely an opinion without any sort of justifications on a personal basis.
A person opinion becomes a belief when the person had made the relevant justifications and believed his proposition is true on a personal basis.

I don't see the link between the current issue and Riemann Hypothesis which is purely mathematical and is a hypothetical issue.

Hardly anyone does, as hardly anyone can with all of the nonsense that has been taught for thousands of years,
however note that "purely mathematical" is how the physical universe actually works,
and is thus not a "hypothetical" issue. The problem is Western science does not understand the nature of the relationship between
space and time as reflected in the real/imaginary axes of complex analysis (used to model the physical universe). All this due to
Western science being unable to properly measure a circle, thus understand the precise relation between line and curve.

All of this is pertinent to deriving ought (not) from an is because one must actually be able to acknowledge what is
and/or what is not instead of being firmly rooted in some belief-based "justified personal conviction".

I agree, what is deemed moral 'ought' or 'ought-not' must be justified empirically and philosophically within a Moral Framework and System like how scientific theories are derived.
What 'ought' and 'ought-not' cannot be based on personal conviction.

Note how this moral fact is derived from universal empirical fact, e.g.

• 1. All humans breathe else they die.
  2. All human ought to breathe else they die.
  3. Input 1 and 2 into a Moral System and Framework.
  4. Output: No human ought to stop another from breathing till he dies.

The above is grounded on empirical facts not personal convictions.

In Searle's case, he had demonstrated it is plausible to derive an 'ought' from 'is' using counterfactual examples.

Should one ought to know what is before attempting to derive an ought from an is?
If not, at best one has their own locally-arrived-at "justified personal conviction"
such as "we must kill all the unbelievers and dominate the planet".

The global problem is inside of the "believer vs. unbeliever" division:
if good and evil do exist, it doesn't matter what they are, it would anyways
take a "believer" to "believe" one is the other and/or the other is the one.
The same is true: it would take a "believer" to "believe" themselves superior
to others and/or others are inferior to themselves. Thus all Nazis are pinned
to the side of the "believers" viz. all Nazis are believers, but not all believers
are Nazis.

Given the above, ought one endeavor to know all not to believe?

There are two points to Searle's argument;

• 1. In general it is plausible to derive 'ought' from 'is'.
  2. The example given by Searle, i.e. "promise" has moral content.
  3. Thus it is plausible to derive moral ought from is.

Premise 2 is assumed in this case as a matter of convenience.
Ultimately for the above conclusion re "promise" to stand, it must be justified to be a true moral ought within a Moral Framework and System.
I have given examples of moral justification for ought related to breathing, food, chattel slavery, etc.
Every individual moral ought must be justified to be a Justified True Moral Fact, no exceptions.

[nothing]

Point is the moral-ought-deniers like Peter Holmes et. al. insist any descriptive statement expressed by a person cannot be prescriptive at the same time.

The relevance of 'speech acts' in this case is to counter the moral-ought-deniers, that there are counter examples to their absolute claim "there cannot be ought from is".

Generally the intention of the speaker is reflected in the statement of the speech made. But if the speaker decides to cheat, that would be a different topic.

It seems to me the real root here is the difference between a description and an explanation. All moral considerations aside (not even granting there is such a thing as objective morality) any true science must be able to explain phenomena, not merely describe it.

Yet the problem remains: science must begin with the capacity to resolutely ascertain what really is, such to derive either an ought or ought not therefrom. In other words: one can not derive anything from an is unless what is, is acknowledged as-is.

Indeed this is how/why motive/will/intention is important in any/all social constructs, science itself being one such construct wherein the "peer review" process may be (is) entirely corruptible if/when particular agendas are pursued and acted upon. This all relates back to the need to acknowledge what is, and from here one must trace back to the deepest root(s) possible.

Generally it is impossible to read the mind of any other person directly of what is in their mind.
Therefore, yes, it is possible what is expressed by a person can be a deception. In other cases, those who are mentally unsound may not speak what is intended in the mind.

As such, generally, without any inkling of suspicion, what is spoken by another person, we have to assume his intention is reflected in his speech and circumstances.

I would say one must consider the mind of a being as not actually being the being themselves, as for all we know: the being may be identified with/as the mind itself (ie. a lunatic). There are certain individuals on this forum for example who are of this nature: they are loopy and can not sever from the machinations of their own mind. I therefor find it is better to look deeper than what presents itself in/as the mind and see how/why a person is deceiving themselves before others.

It is noted all beliefs are expressed consciously, e.g. Theists expressed their belief, God Exist, I believe the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth, etc.
Note Einstein's theory of relativity was his personal belief, i.e. personal conviction via his own proofs, but his belief became a Justified True Belief [JTB], i.e. knowledge only when his belief was tested and confirmed by his peers.

But I have always stated, what is consciously expressed is significantly influenced by the unconscious. Note Damasio's work on how emotions influence decision making.

I do not share in this view, as I see in some cases the opposite: all beliefs are unconscious expressions. If one does not actually know something, the best they can do is believe. I need not believe the sun is 93 000 000 million miles from earth, as this is measurable. Einstein's Relativity contains equations which describe (not explain) how our physical universe seems to operate, and is very accurate, thus not merely belief based. I do not subscribe to the "justified true belief" following as I see this as yet another way to fix belief as a kind of knowledge.

"I just know it" as intuitively is merely an opinion without any sort of justifications on a personal basis.
A person opinion becomes a belief when the person had made the relevant justifications and believed his proposition is true on a personal basis.

I would say a belief is a matter of a personal opinion that anyways implies a lack of knowledge.
There may be knowledge underlying a belief, but this is where knowledge begins/ends
whereas belief begins/ends upon leaving the terrains of knowledge.

I agree, what is deemed moral 'ought' or 'ought-not' must be justified empirically and philosophically within a Moral Framework and System like how scientific theories are derived.
What 'ought' and 'ought-not' cannot be based on personal conviction.

Note how this moral fact is derived from universal empirical fact, e.g.

1. All humans breathe else they die.
2. All human ought to breathe else they die.
3. Input 1 and 2 into a Moral System and Framework.
4. Output: No human ought to stop another from breathing till he dies.

The above is grounded on empirical facts not personal convictions.

I tend to avoid the "moral" dimension but generally it is true that ought/not must be justified empirically ie. be rooted in the same governing principles that the universe employs and abides by. Relativity is a theory of measurement, not of the physical universe, and has no explanatory power (only descriptive).

Your example is very well put, and certainly is inductively rooted in the empirical nature of the cosmos.
I would question how much this has to do with any kind of "morality" and rather consider it to be of ethics/consciousness.
For example, one must be conscious that trees are the "other half" of the human lung.
What trees are exhaling, we are inhaling, What we exhale, trees inhale.
Planetary tree and human lung are not two separate things concerning human life.

There are two points to Searle's argument;

1. In general it is plausible to derive 'ought' from 'is'.
2. The example given by Searle, i.e. "promise" has moral content.
3. Thus it is plausible to derive moral ought from is.

Premise 2 is assumed in this case as a matter of convenience.
Ultimately for the above conclusion re "promise" to stand, it must be justified to be a true moral ought within a Moral Framework and System.
I have given examples of moral justification for ought related to breathing, food, chattel slavery, etc.
Every individual moral ought must be justified to be a Justified True Moral Fact, no exceptions.

The second premise ' "promise" has moral content ' is troubling for me. I am likely in isolation on this view, but I reject morality as having any empirical basis in reality. I find pursuit of morality as a perversion rooted in the "belief" that without (fear of) god there would be no objective morality framework/system.

Take "fear of god is the beginning of wisdom", something deeply entrenched in Abrahamic theology.
Why should we be willing to "believe" this is true? Suppose the opposite is true?

For any definite proposition P, it is important to realize P has its own "opposite"
which we may thus capture as √P being +P, -P. Let the original proposition be +P:

+P "fear of god is the beginning of wisdom"

What is the opposite of this, such to try/test to see if the opposite is actually more true?
Obviously the opposite of "is" is "not" such "is not" doesn't tell us anything new.
However, what is the opposite of wisdom? "Fear of god is the beginning of..."

Try madness.

+P "fear of god is the beginning of wisdom"
-P "fear of god is the beginning of madness"
_____________________________________
which is more true?

It seems to me that fear of god as due to "belief" in god has just about destroyed both this planet and the collective human spirit.

This is how/why I have been attempting to emphasize the point that given a universal binary "ALL" and "NOT" as operators,
the two roots "TO KNOW" and "TO BELIEVE" produce the two conditions which move towards and/or away from any possible
all-knowing state, god-or-no-god. This logic is actually contained in the same mathematics that describes the physical universe.

E = MC²
16 = Φπ²
1 = Φπ²/16
Φ = (1+√5)/2
√5 = √(√1+2√4)

The last line shows the roots of unity (all unity, not unity as √1 = +1, -1)
in relation to the two 2√4 directions given by the 2x2 roots/operators:
...to know all (thus) not to believe... approaches all-knowing
...to believe all (thus) not to know... captures all-belief-based ignorance.

The clarification of the nature of the relationship between knowledge and belief
would ultimately collapse the "believer vs. unbeliever" crises that is the embodiment
of the MADNESS that people suffer due to a fear/belief in god.

It almost leads me to say: if morality exists, "believing" in an all-knowing god is the most immoral act possible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Point is the moral-ought-deniers like Peter Holmes et. al. insist any descriptive statement expressed by a person cannot be prescriptive at the same time.

The relevance of 'speech acts' in this case is to counter the moral-ought-deniers, that there are counter examples to their absolute claim "there cannot be ought from is".

Generally the intention of the speaker is reflected in the statement of the speech made. But if the speaker decides to cheat, that would be a different topic.

It seems to me the real root here is the difference between a description and an explanation. All moral considerations aside (not even granting there is such a thing as objective morality) any true science must be able to explain phenomena, not merely describe it.

Yet the problem remains: science must begin with the capacity to resolutely ascertain what really is, such to derive either an ought or ought not therefrom. In other words: one can not derive anything from an is unless what is, is acknowledged as-is.

Indeed this is how/why motive/will/intention is important in any/all social constructs, science itself being one such construct wherein the "peer review" process may be (is) entirely corruptible if/when particular agendas are pursued and acted upon. This all relates back to the need to acknowledge what is, and from here one must trace back to the deepest root(s) possible.

The requirement for explanation/justification is basic.
What the moral-fact deniers are insisting more precisely and ideologically, there cannot be any moral-ought from any "is".

Generally it is impossible to read the mind of any other person directly of what is in their mind.
Therefore, yes, it is possible what is expressed by a person can be a deception. In other cases, those who are mentally unsound may not speak what is intended in the mind.

As such, generally, without any inkling of suspicion, what is spoken by another person, we have to assume his intention is reflected in his speech and circumstances.

I would say one must consider the mind of a being as not actually being the being themselves, as for all we know: the being may be identified with/as the mind itself (ie. a lunatic). There are certain individuals on this forum for example who are of this nature: they are loopy and can not sever from the machinations of their own mind. I therefor find it is better to look deeper than what presents itself in/as the mind and see how/why a person is deceiving themselves before others.

I agree if you meant we need to understand [scientifically] the psychological and neural basis why a person behave as in such and such a manner.

It is noted all beliefs are expressed consciously, e.g. Theists expressed their belief, God Exist, I believe the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth, etc.
Note Einstein's theory of relativity was his personal belief, i.e. personal conviction via his own proofs, but his belief became a Justified True Belief [JTB], i.e. knowledge only when his belief was tested and confirmed by his peers.

But I have always stated, what is consciously expressed is significantly influenced by the unconscious. Note Damasio's work on how emotions influence decision making.

I do not share in this view, as I see in some cases the opposite: all beliefs are unconscious expressions. If one does not actually know something, the best they can do is believe. I need not believe the sun is 93 000 000 million miles from earth, as this is measurable. Einstein's Relativity contains equations which describe (not explain) how our physical universe seems to operate, and is very accurate, thus not merely belief based. I do not subscribe to the "justified true belief" following as I see this as yet another way to fix belief as a kind of knowledge.

I do not believe [as I do now consciously] all beliefs are unconscious.
I view 'unconscious' as any act one acted out without being conscious of it, e.g. breathing naturally, a spontaneous act, various instinctual driven actions and the likes.

Actually you have to believe [not know directly] the Sun is 93 million miles because you did not do the measurements yourself, but rather you rely [consciously] on trust, faith and other basis to believe [consciously] what the scientists who did the measurements has concluded.
Many times accepted scientific 'knowledge' had be rejected upon new evidences.
What scientists do is justifying Justified True Beliefs directly via the Scientific Framework and System.
The above is the same for all scientific knowledge.

Btw, there is no question of 'absolute' [100% certainty] accuracy, scientific knowledge are at best 'polished conjectures' [Popper] conditioned upon available evidence.

"I just know it" as intuitively is merely an opinion without any sort of justifications on a personal basis.
A person opinion becomes a belief when the person had made the relevant justifications and believed his proposition is true on a personal basis.

I would say a belief is a matter of a personal opinion that anyways implies a lack of knowledge.
There may be knowledge underlying a belief, but this is where knowledge begins/ends
whereas belief begins/ends upon leaving the terrains of knowledge.

An opinion to be precise is a crude unprocessed thought and view on the go.

A belief is personal and can range from something that has credible truths [the Sun will rise tomorrow - but note problem of induction] to none at all [God exists]. Theists, especially theologians do put a lot of conscious effort and rely on 'logic' to prove to themselves God exists.

What is knowledge is only when there is inter-subjective consensus, i.e. peer reviewed and consensus obtained within scientists for any confirmed scientific knowledge or theory.
Note my point above re belief which flow within a continuum from,
opinion to belief to knowledge which is dependent on the degree of justifications, thus subjectivity or objectivity.

I agree, what is deemed moral 'ought' or 'ought-not' must be justified empirically and philosophically within a Moral Framework and System like how scientific theories are derived.
What 'ought' and 'ought-not' cannot be based on personal conviction.

Note how this moral fact is derived from universal empirical fact, e.g.

1. All humans breathe else they die.
2. All human ought to breathe else they die.
3. Input 1 and 2 into a Moral System and Framework.
4. Output: No human ought to stop another from breathing till he dies.

The above is grounded on empirical facts not personal convictions.

I tend to avoid the "moral" dimension but generally it is true that ought/not must be justified empirically ie. be rooted in the same governing principles that the universe employs and abides by. Relativity is a theory of measurement, not of the physical universe, and has no explanatory power (only descriptive).

Your example is very well put, and certainly is inductively rooted in the empirical nature of the cosmos.
I would question how much this has to do with any kind of "morality" and rather consider it to be of ethics/consciousness.
For example, one must be conscious that trees are the "other half" of the human lung.
What trees are exhaling, we are inhaling, What we exhale, trees inhale.
Planetary tree and human lung are not two separate things concerning human life.

There is no need to bring in consciousness [whilst a critical subject by itself] in this case.

Morality and Ethics are often used interchangeably by various people.
I would term Morality as the PURE and Ethics the APPLIED aspect of the management of right and wrong in terms of "good and evil."

Morality as in the above case, are to abstract PURE principles to guide human behaviors regarding good and evil within Ethics -the applied and practices.
It is obvious, "No human ought to stop another from breathing till he die" as justified empirically and philosophically, as a principle and maxim is a good guide [note GUIDE only not something to be enforced] for all humans.

There are two points to Searle's argument;

1. In general it is plausible to derive 'ought' from 'is'.
2. The example given by Searle, i.e. "promise" has moral content.
3. Thus it is plausible to derive moral ought from is.

Premise 2 is assumed in this case as a matter of convenience.
Ultimately for the above conclusion re "promise" to stand, it must be justified to be a true moral ought within a Moral Framework and System.
I have given examples of moral justification for ought related to breathing, food, chattel slavery, etc.
Every individual moral ought must be justified to be a Justified True Moral Fact, no exceptions.

The second premise ' "promise" has moral content ' is troubling for me. I am likely in isolation on this view, but I reject morality as having any empirical basis in reality. I find pursuit of morality as a perversion rooted in the "belief" that without (fear of) god there would be no objective morality framework/system.

Anything to do with God, i.e. theology and also politics are independent of Morality/Ethics, albeit they overlap incidentally.

As I had stated Morality/Ethics deal with the rights and wrongs within good & evil.
"Stopping another human from breathing till he die" is immoral in principle, surely such a maxim as guide is good for humanity to strive for.
There is no need for a God nor politics [which has their own fundamental objectives] to be involved because Morality/Ethics are fundamentally a voluntary personal development exercise of one's inherent moral potentials.

Take "fear of god is the beginning of wisdom", something deeply entrenched in Abrahamic theology.
Why should we be willing to "believe" this is true? Suppose the opposite is true?

For any definite proposition P, it is important to realize P has its own "opposite"
which we may thus capture as √P being +P, -P. Let the original proposition be +P:

+P "fear of god is the beginning of wisdom"

What is the opposite of this, such to try/test to see if the opposite is actually more true?
Obviously the opposite of "is" is "not" such "is not" doesn't tell us anything new.
However, what is the opposite of wisdom? "Fear of god is the beginning of..."

Try madness.

+P "fear of god is the beginning of wisdom"
-P "fear of god is the beginning of madness"
_____________________________________
which is more true?

It seems to me that fear of god as due to "belief" in god has just about destroyed both this planet and the collective human spirit.

This is how/why I have been attempting to emphasize the point that given a universal binary "ALL" and "NOT" as operators,
the two roots "TO KNOW" and "TO BELIEVE" produce the two conditions which move towards and/or away from any possible
all-knowing state, god-or-no-god. This logic is actually contained in the same mathematics that describes the physical universe.

E = MC²
16 = Φπ²
1 = Φπ²/16
Φ = (1+√5)/2
√5 = √(√1+2√4)

The last line shows the roots of unity (all unity, not unity as √1 = +1, -1)
in relation to the two 2√4 directions given by the 2x2 roots/operators:
...to know all (thus) not to believe... approaches all-knowing
...to believe all (thus) not to know... captures all-belief-based ignorance.

The clarification of the nature of the relationship between knowledge and belief
would ultimately collapse the "believer vs. unbeliever" crises that is the embodiment
of the MADNESS that people suffer due to a fear/belief in god.

It almost leads me to say: if morality exists, "believing" in an all-knowing god is the most immoral act possible.

As I had stated, God is not an element in the equations of Morality and Ethics.

[nothing]

The requirement for explanation/justification is basic.
What the moral-fact deniers are insisting more precisely and ideologically, there cannot be any moral-ought from any "is".

The point at which I drop out is acknowledging there even is such a thing as a "moral fact" and/or "moral ought".
I find any/all problems related to so-called "morality" are rooted in the ignorance(s) associated with people
unable to see others as a part of themselves and/or there is no such thing as "this is my life, that is your life".

I agree if you meant we need to understand [scientifically] the psychological and neural basis why a person behave as in such and such a manner.

This is a more compassionate approach than enmity-based rivalry, and tends to be more "human" than not.

I do not believe [as I do now consciously] all beliefs are unconscious.
I view 'unconscious' as any act one acted out without being conscious of it, e.g. breathing naturally, a spontaneous act, various instinctual driven actions and the likes.

For clarity: I suggest that belief itself (rather than particular 'beliefs') is not a conscious process.
A conscious process implies movement, succession of inquiry, whereas belief implies the absence of - to be resolutely fixed to a position.
Now subjecting belief to trial/testing/falsifying is a conscious process, as it implies a premise: what one believes may not be true.
Otherwise, one is liable to believe the opposite of what is true for an indefinite amount of time. This is why science must exist.
This is also how/why I see the "believer vs. unbeliever" division as integral to understanding the problem:
it highlights the attempt of "belief" to undermine/destroy the scientific process itself.

Actually you have to believe [not know directly] the Sun is 93 million miles because you did not do the measurements yourself, but rather you rely [consciously] on trust, faith and other basis to believe [consciously] what the scientists who did the measurements has concluded.

I actually do not believe in mainstream Western science at all, as I know they have stellar evolution backwards (like many things).
There are other theories besides GR which are able to more accurately measure such things as the AU. Unfortunately, mainstream
science actually does not know how to properly measure a circle, and the same deficiency is reflected in all calculations.

However I take the point: people who do not check for themselves are invariably in a state of belief. Irregardless: any belief which acknowledges degrees of uncertainty is a kind of knowledge of self: to know one knows not, which is a conscious knowledge - something a resolute "believer" has not.

Many times accepted scientific 'knowledge' had be rejected upon new evidences.
What scientists do is justifying Justified True Beliefs directly via the Scientific Framework and System.

Every time it happens, it is a reminder of what not to believe. How long until science realizes they can't measure a circle?
I do not endorse the "Justified True Belief" paradigm as it merely aims to place a stamp of approval on what is actually ignorance.

Btw, there is no question of 'absolute' [100% certainty] accuracy, scientific knowledge are at best 'polished conjectures' [Popper] conditioned upon available evidence.

Presently yes, but this is not because it is not attainable - again, this humanity can not measure a circle properly.
If there were a more advanced civilization somewhere, one of the ways they could measure the development of an intelligent species
is whether or not they know the universal constants. This entails knowing how to measure a circle and having a precise measure of pi.

An opinion to be precise is a crude unprocessed thought and view on the go.

A belief is personal and can range from something that has credible truths [the Sun will rise tomorrow - but note problem of induction] to none at all [God exists]. Theists, especially theologians do put a lot of conscious effort and rely on 'logic' to prove to themselves God exists.

Opinions may be informed - the real factor of concern is the honesty as it lies behind motive/will/intent.

A belief can be personal, but most are not. Shared/collectivist belief systems are overwhelmingly dominant. The sun rising tomorrow is not merely a belief, as it would take a believer to believe it won't do the same thing it has done since we have all been alive.

What is knowledge is only when there is inter-subjective consensus, i.e. peer reviewed and consensus obtained within scientists for any confirmed scientific knowledge or theory.
Note my point above re belief which flow within a continuum from,
opinion to belief to knowledge which is dependent on the degree of justifications, thus subjectivity or objectivity.

I do not agree that knowledge has anything to do with consensus. Knowledge begins/ends locally with one's own self.
If one does not know themselves, they can't know anything in relation to themselves, including the existence (or not) of god(s).

Western philosophy has done an embarrassingly terrible job of distinguishing between knowledge and belief.
Knowledge implies the absence of belief, whereas belief implies the absence of knowledge. They are antithetical
however the desire to hold onto dear "belief" is highlighted by "Justified True Belief", a new-age religion.

I do agree: the falsification of belief constitutes a knowledge (of what not to believe).

There is no need to bring in consciousness [whilst a critical subject by itself] in this case.

Consciousness is essentially integral/relevant to everything.

Morality and Ethics are often used interchangeably by various people.
I would term Morality as the PURE and Ethics the APPLIED aspect of the management of right and wrong in terms of "good and evil."

Morality is a social construct in my view and has no basis in the existential reality.
Ethics, on the other hand, actually follows from the same laws that govern the physical universe.
For example space and time are reciprocal aspects of motion, thus reciprocity is a property of the physical universe.
Consciousness is important because one is either conscious of the nature of this relation or not.

The problem with good and evil is: it doesn't matter what they are,
it would anyways take a "believer" to "believe" one is the other
and/or the other is the one. Thus like morality, good and evil
are socially constructed, the same is true with belief in general.
None of it has anything to do with any real knowledge.

Morality as in the above case, are to abstract PURE principles to guide human behaviors regarding good and evil within Ethics -the applied and practices.
It is obvious, "No human ought to stop another from breathing till he die" as justified empirically and philosophically, as a principle and maxim is a good guide [note GUIDE only not something to be enforced] for all humans.

First one must believe good and evil exist. This happens to be the tree the Abrahamic god warned of: if one eats, one will die. I actually find this true: people who " believe " in such a dichotomy and/or to even know what good and evil are, are bound to be in conflict with others who " believe " they know. Your example is valid under general reciprocity: do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you. Such a "golden rule" is immutably valid, as the golden ratio is the only number in the universe with the properties that it has, and is contained in/as 1.

Anything to do with God, i.e. theology and also politics are independent of Morality/Ethics, albeit they overlap incidentally.

I'm not sure about this being the "consensus" - religious believers take their morality/ethics from their belief in god almost exclusively.

As I had stated Morality/Ethics deal with the rights and wrongs within good & evil.

Suppose these are actually false dichotomies? My argument is simple: it doesn't matter what right/wrong and/or good/evil are, it would anyway take a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true, thus the only relevant dichotomy is knowledge and belief wherein all knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum. In this sense, good and evil may as well be knowledge and belief respectively.

Stopping another human from breathing till he die" is immoral in principle, surely such a maxim as guide is good for humanity to strive for.
There is no need for a God nor politics [which has their own fundamental objectives] to be involved because Morality/Ethics are fundamentally a voluntary personal development exercise of one's inherent moral potentials.

There is not only no need for a god, this principle is actually already embedded in the physical universe. This was/is the point I have been making: the golden ratio is the only number in the universe which has the properties it has. It is thus no surprise that it is found in the expression of unity or simply '1' as Φπ²/16. The problem is this equality can not be realized until humanity realizes their mistake and corrects π which will lead to the solving of e = MC² as 16 = Φπ². The problem is the hubris of human beings who can not admit they are wrong. In this case, have been wrong for over 2000 years. This is all that needs to be transcended: the ignorance of man.

As I had stated, God is not an element in the equations of Morality and Ethics.

But the reality is: it is in the minds of the "believers". Rather than take "morality" and ethics from the laws that govern the physical universe, they take the same from their belief in god, according to a book and/or a male central figure idol that serves as a model of moral conduct. This kind of idol worship has destroyed so much life on this planet, yet human beings still can not account for their own actions/ignorance.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The requirement for explanation/justification is basic.
What the moral-fact deniers are insisting more precisely and ideologically, there cannot be any moral-ought from any "is".

The point at which I drop out is acknowledging there even is such a thing as a "moral fact" and/or "moral ought".
I find any/all problems related to so-called "morality" are rooted in the ignorance(s) associated with people
unable to see others as a part of themselves and/or there is no such thing as "this is my life, that is your life".

If everything can be so ideal and good as you expect, then there will be no 'problems' at all for humanity. Obviously you cannot expect all humans to be omniscient, thus not ignorant.

But the fact and reality at present and for a long time into the future is, all humans are stuck with DNA that they are ignorant and contribute to problems of evil for humanity for a long time.

As such, we humans has to be realistic and dealing with 'morality' is imperative until all are intelligent, wise, moral, good, etc.
To deal with morality, especially the problem of evil, we have to establish the facts of morality, i.e. moral facts.

If you deny there is such thing as 'morality' i.e. dealing with good and evil, it would be off topic from the OP which is a moral issue.

I do not believe [as I do now consciously] all beliefs are unconscious.
I view 'unconscious' as any act one acted out without being conscious of it, e.g. breathing naturally, a spontaneous act, various instinctual driven actions and the likes.

For clarity: I suggest that belief itself (rather than particular 'beliefs') is not a conscious process.
A conscious process implies movement, succession of inquiry, whereas belief implies the absence of - to be resolutely fixed to a position.
Now subjecting belief to trial/testing/falsifying is a conscious process, as it implies a premise: what one believes may not be true.
Otherwise, one is liable to believe the opposite of what is true for an indefinite amount of time. This is why science must exist.
This is also how/why I see the "believer vs. unbeliever" division as integral to understanding the problem:
it highlights the attempt of "belief" to undermine/destroy the scientific process itself.

There are no absolute meaning to any word, etymology is based on popularity and consensus.
As such it is your discretion to define 'belief' as not conscious, but I disagree.

When I look deeper, beliefs are generated from believing [verb] and there are tons of micro-movements within the 100 billion of neurons, each with up to 10,000 synapses.
As such I cannot ignore beliefs from believing do not involve movements in this case.

Actually you have to believe [not know directly] the Sun is 93 million miles because you did not do the measurements yourself, but rather you rely [consciously] on trust, faith and other basis to believe [consciously] what the scientists who did the measurements has concluded.

I actually do not believe in mainstream Western science at all, as I know they have stellar evolution backwards (like many things).
There are other theories besides GR which are able to more accurately measure such things as the AU. Unfortunately, mainstream
science actually does not know how to properly measure a circle, and the same deficiency is reflected in all calculations.

However I take the point: people who do not check for themselves are invariably in a state of belief. Irregardless: any belief which acknowledges degrees of uncertainty is a kind of knowledge of self: to know one knows not, which is a conscious knowledge - something a resolute "believer" has not.

Science do not measure circles, it is geometry that measures a circle.
Within geometry a perfect circle is defined with specific measurements.
A perfect circle is an impossibility in reality, but it is a useful guide, e.g. for Science and other fields of knowledge.

Science has its pros and cons and it would not be pragmatic if you reject Western Science on a wholesale basis.

If you want a circle that is more perfect than what is defined within geometry, then you will have to state the field of knowledge it is defined and what its its uses and benefits.

Many times accepted scientific 'knowledge' had be rejected upon new evidences.
What scientists do is justifying Justified True Beliefs directly via the Scientific Framework and System.

Every time it happens, it is a reminder of what not to believe. How long until science realizes they can't measure a circle?
I do not endorse the "Justified True Belief" paradigm as it merely aims to place a stamp of approval on what is actually ignorance.

What is important with Science and JTB is whether their pros outweigh their cons.
I stated 'measurement of a circle' is dealt by geometry.
As I asked above, why do you need a circle that is more perfect than what is defined within geometry as present?

What is knowledge is only when there is inter-subjective consensus, i.e. peer reviewed and consensus obtained within scientists for any confirmed scientific knowledge or theory.
Note my point above re belief which flow within a continuum from,
opinion to belief to knowledge which is dependent on the degree of justifications, thus subjectivity or objectivity.

I do not agree that knowledge has anything to do with consensus. Knowledge begins/ends locally with one's own self.
If one does not know themselves, they can't know anything in relation to themselves, including the existence (or not) of god(s).

Western philosophy has done an embarrassingly terrible job of distinguishing between knowledge and belief.
Knowledge implies the absence of belief, whereas belief implies the absence of knowledge. They are antithetical
however the desire to hold onto dear "belief" is highlighted by "Justified True Belief", a new-age religion.

I do agree: the falsification of belief constitutes a knowledge (of what not to believe).

You seem to be very dogmatic with your views.
Point is reality can be viewed from many perspective and they are to be optimized to the specific conditions in terms of efficiency.
Generally, one may use an axe to chop down a tree but don't use an axe to do brain surgery.

There is no need to bring in consciousness [whilst a critical subject by itself] in this case.

Consciousness is essentially integral/relevant to everything.

True, so is breathing.
We need to take note, whether they are critically related to the topic or not.

Morality and Ethics are often used interchangeably by various people.
I would term Morality as the PURE and Ethics the APPLIED aspect of the management of right and wrong in terms of "good and evil."

Morality is a social construct in my view and has no basis in the existential reality.
Ethics, on the other hand, actually follows from the same laws that govern the physical universe.
For example space and time are reciprocal aspects of motion, thus reciprocity is a property of the physical universe.
Consciousness is important because one is either conscious of the nature of this relation or not.

The problem with good and evil is: it doesn't matter what they are,
it would anyways take a "believer" to "believe" one is the other
and/or the other is the one. Thus like morality, good and evil
are socially constructed, the same is true with belief in general.
None of it has anything to do with any real knowledge.

It is a matter of definition and consensus.
Morality and Ethics are generally accepted meant, e.g. no human ought to kill another human and the management of other evil acts [as defined].
Since you are denying morality and ethics in the above sense as I had presented, are you implying, anyone can kill another human any time at their discretion? or any one can commit any evil act [as defined] without restraint?

Morality as in the above case, are to abstract PURE principles to guide human behaviors regarding good and evil within Ethics -the applied and practices.
It is obvious, "No human ought to stop another from breathing till he die" as justified empirically and philosophically, as a principle and maxim is a good guide [note GUIDE only not something to be enforced] for all humans.

First one must believe good and evil exist. This happens to be the tree the Abrahamic god warned of: if one eats, one will die. I actually find this true: people who " believe " in such a dichotomy and/or to even know what good and evil are, are bound to be in conflict with others who " believe " they know. Your example is valid under general reciprocity: do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you. Such a "golden rule" is immutably valid, as the golden ratio is the only number in the universe with the properties that it has, and is contained in/as 1.

To believe good and evil exist, one must established moral facts empirically and philosophically, thus my intended point within the OP.
As I had stated, such moral facts which are objective has nothing to do with a God nor politics. Note my point below.

Anything to do with God, i.e. theology and also politics are independent of Morality/Ethics, albeit they overlap incidentally.

I'm not sure about this being the "consensus" - religious believers take their morality/ethics from their belief in god almost exclusively.

[nothing]

If everything can be so ideal and good as you expect, then there will be no 'problems' at all for humanity. Obviously you cannot expect all humans to be omniscient, thus not ignorant.

I don't look at anything in terms of "good" and/or "evil".
I acknowledge that any/all 'problems' are rooted in one man's "belief" vs. another man's "belief"
rather than universal roots of so-called "good" and "evil".

It is obvious to me that "eating" from this good-and-evil tree (equivalent: dichotomy),
that is: "believing" to know such universal roots (as it involves so-called "objective morality")
is the very practice which brings suffering and death into the world.

The point is: it doesn't actually matter what so-called "good" and "evil" actually are,
it would anyways take a "believer" to "believe" one is the other and/or the other is the one.

This, in light of "believer vs. unbeliever" allows one to make accurate predictions (ie. scientifically)
given one can try/test for a degree(s) of inversion (ie. upside-down / backwards nature)
on the side of the "believers". In reality, this is exactly what we find: the "believers"
are up to 180-degrees upside-down. This is a product of "belief" as it takes a "believer"
to "believe" the opposite of what is true, hence the nefarious utility of "belief".

But the fact and reality at present and for a long time into the future is, all humans are stuck with DNA that they are ignorant and contribute to problems of evil for humanity for a long time.

The real problem is humanity has not comprehended the nature of the problem itself:
to believe to know all rather than know all not to believe. An all-knowing god must know
who/what/where/why/when/how and/or ultimately if: not to believe, else not all-knowing.
Thus endeavoring to know all not to believe must approach the same 'state' as an all-knowing god.

The evident blunder in/of armchair philosophy is found in the utterance:

"All knowing is belief (?), but not all belief is knowing."

which conflates belief with/as knowledge. In reality, they are antithetical:

"All knowing is by way of consciously trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of consciously trying to know all."

This correction clarifies the nature of the relationship between knowledge and belief
while revealing a basic framework for ongoing scientific inquiry:

___________________________________________________
TRUTH-by-WAY-of-NEGATION
to:
o. ...ad infinitum... consciously acknowledge and address all BELIEF(s) such:
i. to TRY both: {TO} and {NOT} to BELIEVE
ii. to TEST both: {TRUE} and/or {NOT} (necessarily)
iii. to FALSIFY all BELIEF(s) NOT (necessarily) TRUE
...ad infinitum ...

This methodology approaches all-knowing, and is practically equivalent to the truth of the way of the living.

As such, we humans has to be realistic and dealing with 'morality' is imperative until all are intelligent, wise, moral, good, etc.
To deal with morality, especially the problem of evil, we have to establish the facts of morality, i.e. moral facts.

The problem with morality is it is a social construct, thus defined by and limited to the same.
Transcending morality entails acknowledging that morality is only a factor if/when certain existential truths are not conscious.
For example, seeing each life as a part of one's self effectively negates the need for a basis in so-called "morality".
No such idea would pervade the fallible minds of individualized automatons if they knew their life and the life of others
is the same life.

If you deny there is such thing as 'morality' i.e. dealing with good and evil, it would be off topic from the OP which is a moral issue.

It would actually be entirely on-topic given the root of any/all problems associated is in the mistaken notion that there is an existential basis for objective morality (equivalent: so-called good and evil). Transcending the problem thus entails transcending the "belief" that such things exist.

There are no absolute meaning to any word, etymology is based on popularity and consensus.
As such it is your discretion to define 'belief' as not conscious, but I disagree.

I spent a great deal of time digging at the roots of the Hebrew language (for the purposes of reading the book of Genesis in the original Hebrew) and found that the original 22 letters are actually 22 different perspectives of the same form. This form fits in/as the human hand, thus the book of Genesis is actually a single shape motioning from one position to another to form an inter-related string. These motions correspond directly to hand gestures that preceded even the evolution and application of spoken language.

As such, the etymology of all words is rooted in these gestures, thus it can not be said that etymology is based on "popularity" and "consensus".
The Hebrew letters which form roots are discrete motions which, when combined/permuted, yields a discrete conditions whose meaning is inductively rooted in the gesture itself.

Belief if/when not subject to trial/testing/falsification is not a conscious process.
Belief if/when subject to the same implies a conscious process is occurring: the same is the science outlined above.

When I look deeper, beliefs are generated from believing [verb] and there are tons of micro-movements within the 100 billion of neurons, each with up to 10,000 synapses.
As such I cannot ignore beliefs from believing do not involve movements in this case.

Anything that takes a curve will return to its own point of origin given a period of time such to do so.
In fact this is what the atom to the cosmos is based on: cyclic motion (we live in a universe of motion).
Believing something to be true when in fact not (necessarily) generates the same condition the cosmos does:
going around in circles. This is thus what binds an individual to the physicality of creation such to become identified
with either body or mind. In reality, being transcends these entirely and the acknowledge of the same brings with it
the cessation of suffering, for fear of suffering mandates a soilbed of "belief".

Science do not measure circles, it is geometry that measures a circle.

Geometry means "earth measure". It requires a scientific method as does any/all measurements.
In any event: science is to be taken as any faculty of inquiry, individual or otherwise.

Within geometry a perfect circle is defined with specific measurements.
A perfect circle is an impossibility in reality, but it is a useful guide, e.g. for Science and other fields of knowledge.

The problem is academia has not actually measured a circle, they have only approximated it.
Here is a website showing several "geometric" proofs of π being 4/√Φ (3.144605511029693144...)
http://measuringpisquaringphi.com/geome ... ofs-of-pi/
this approximation error is catastrophic for the measurement of circles in general.

In reality, each 1/4 circle is 1/√Φ such that
1/√Φ + 1/√Φ + 1/√Φ + 1/√Φ = 4/√Φ
and the golden ratio is this a universal constant:
π = 4/√Φ
π² = 16/Φ
e = MC²
16 = Φπ²
1 = Φ(π/4)²

And this is what Western science can not see because of their "approximation" error of π.
Truly in reality, the correction of π will certainly provoke the emergence of a "golden" age
given the golden ratio is to be found as a universal constant, thus the "golden rule"
' do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you '
is a product of the same given the clarification of space and time themselves
as being multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion.

Science has its pros and cons and it would not be pragmatic if you reject Western Science on a wholesale basis.

Certainly: science has a compulsory pro of employing a faculty of inquiry to come to know what was/is not known.
Science is thus the engine driving the conscious evolution. The associated con here is whereas science is a vehicle,
the driver is the 'con' in conscience, thus any/all scientific endeavors are as fallible as the one driving the vehicle.

Thus Western science fails by focusing exactly 0 attention on the inner sciences of a human being
and instead has people learning just about everything about everything except how to be a human being.

It is thus hard to allow Western science to designate itself as a "science" because the fundamentals of what science is, is absent.
This is reflected in/as fundamentals such as... how to properly measure a circle. This ignorance reflects the fallibility of our species
and is a big wake-up call to those who are so willing to "believe" just about anything/everything embedded in 'establishment science'.

The truth is stranger than fiction, indeed. One could hardly imagine humanity having the wrong value of pi
if not for it being the reality within which we live. This one correction would be decisive for humanity.

If you want a circle that is more perfect than what is defined within geometry, then you will have to state the field of knowledge it is defined and what its its uses and benefits.

There is not more than one field of knowledge - all knowledge begins/ends with one knowing themselves, as the seat of any/all experience of life is from within, thus one may only come to "know" anything according to how well they know themselves.

In any event: each 1/4 circle being 1/√Φ effectively uses a curve to measure a curve, instead of the approximation method of exhaustion using straight lines. This effectively clarifies the nature of the relationship between space and time as relying on a ratio composed of one rational and one irrational. This is reflected in Φ as a rational 1 in addition to an irrational √5, and further in π as 4/√Φ (rational/irrational). This relationship carries all the way up into complex analysis wherein real and imaginary elements correspond directly to rational and irrational numbers.

What is important with Science and JTB is whether their pros outweigh their cons.
I stated 'measurement of a circle' is dealt by geometry.
As I asked above, why do you need a circle that is more perfect than what is defined within geometry as present?

The approximated circle is not near perfect, the polygon method of exhaustion effectively misses an entire constituency of the circle.
Precisely measuring the circle reveals that the circle is intimately related to the golden ratio. This is otherwise overlooked, as
from Φ's own side is derived π (biblical equivalent: from Adam's own rib is derived Eve). The clarification of the nature of the relation
between the line (radius) and the curve (circumference) is needed to understand how they are united. Present-day approximations of pi
sever this relationship, ultimately resulting in the severance of space and time as if they are two autonomous aspects. They are not.

1 = Φ(π/4)² shows how all such apparent binaries are actually one. The same is true for any binary, including good/evil (real and/or imagined).

There are a great number of clarifications which follow from the correction of pi to what it actually is, many of which I highly doubt humanity will even be able to see/appreciate should the endeavor to correct it become a focus - it is mine nonetheless, as it entirely undermines the "believer vs. unbeliever" conflict.

You seem to be very dogmatic with your views.

The product of dogmatism is reflected in the "believer vs. unbeliever" crisis.
The solution to this problem is a matter of belief vs. knowledge wherein
all knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum.

It is for this reason the "believers" are, once again, the ones dogmatically upside-down
"believing" that war is a means to peace - perhaps this kind of dogmatism is of more concern.

Point is reality can be viewed from many perspective and they are to be optimized to the specific conditions in terms of efficiency.
Generally, one may use an axe to chop down a tree but don't use an axe to do brain surgery.

Some perspectives are clearer than others - the entire basis of yoga is enhancing perception such to see the reality just the way it is.

True, so is breathing.
We need to take note, whether they are critically related to the topic or not.

Consciously acknowledging what actually 'is' can not not be related to deriving anything from the same 'is'.

It is a matter of definition and consensus.
Morality and Ethics are generally accepted meant, e.g. no human ought to kill another human and the management of other evil acts [as defined].
Since you are denying morality and ethics in the above sense as I had presented, are you implying, anyone can kill another human any time at their discretion? or any one can commit any evil act [as defined] without restraint?

There are "belief"-based ideologies whose morality/ethics involves killing other human beings. Again: it is socially constructed.

I do not deny ethics, as ethics follows from the same laws that govern the physical universe: namely, reciprocity.
I do not do unto others as I would not have them do unto me, and further see all beings as a part of myself.

I can not speak for others, as each is accountable to their own. However if human beings consciously understood the nature of the relationship between space and time (such that it governs our own existence) there would be no need for a socially constructed morality - acknowledging the nature of the existence as it 'is' is precisely what is needed before deriving anything. This is how/why one may derive an 'ought not' from an is if given what really is. The is-ought problem begins/ends with acknowledgement of what actually is, and the barrier to this is "believing" what is not, is and/or what is, is not. Only "belief" can make the conflation, hence the ability to predict "believers" tend to be upside-down.

This is not limited to religion: Western philosophy is also generally upside-down. "I think, therefor I am..." captures this very well. Is it because one thinks, one exists? Or is it because one exists, one may think? "I think because I am..." is right-side-up: being precedes thinking.

To believe good and evil exist, one must established moral facts empirically and philosophically, thus my intended point within the OP.
As I had stated, such moral facts which are objective has nothing to do with a God nor politics. Note my point below.

To believe good and evil exist implies just the opposite: absence of knowledge, thus any/all so-called "moral facts" derived thereby are of the same: lacking knowledge. It can not be said therefor that there is such a thing as a moral "fact" outside of particular social constructs believing some such moral stance to be a "fact". Empirical deductions can not overlook reciprocity as integral (else it is not empirical), thus any true/valid ethical (re)form(s) (effectively filling the same need for so-called "morality") 'ought' to be inductively rooted in the same laws which govern the physical existence. This would minimize conflict to the same degree(s) to which these laws are acknowledged and exercised consciously. In such a case, "believer vs. unbeliever" would have no basis in reality thus recognized: humanity ought not to be divided. The problem is there are "believers" who militarily "believe" a problem is a (the only) solution. If/when problem militarily "believes" itself to be a solution, people die. This has occurred in the past and is still occurring because human beings still have not realized what 'is' let alone deriving anything therefrom.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If everything can be so ideal and good as you expect, then there will be no 'problems' at all for humanity. Obviously you cannot expect all humans to be omniscient, thus not ignorant.

I don't look at anything in terms of "good" and/or "evil".
I acknowledge that any/all 'problems' are rooted in one man's "belief" vs. another man's "belief"
rather than universal roots of so-called "good" and "evil".

It is obvious to me that "eating" from this good-and-evil tree (equivalent: dichotomy),
that is: "believing" to know such universal roots (as it involves so-called "objective morality")
is the very practice which brings suffering and death into the world.

The point is: it doesn't actually matter what so-called "good" and "evil" actually are,
it would anyways take a "believer" to "believe" one is the other and/or the other is the one.

This, in light of "believer vs. unbeliever" allows one to make accurate predictions (ie. scientifically)
given one can try/test for a degree(s) of inversion (ie. upside-down / backwards nature)
on the side of the "believers". In reality, this is exactly what we find: the "believers"
are up to 180-degrees upside-down. This is a product of "belief" as it takes a "believer"
to "believe" the opposite of what is true, hence the nefarious utility of "belief".

I can agree we need to strive to reach a point of 'there is no such thing as good or evil.' It is likely there are a small percentile of highly 'enlightened' people who are able to transcend and good and evil.
But meanwhile in reality there are 7++ billion people who are trapped in the world of 'good' and 'evil.' Thus to be a pragmatic person, regardless of who you are, you need to recognize what is good and what is evil in the most rational and practical basis.
Those who failed to recognize what is evil will succumb to evil in the practical world, i.e. killed by those who are evil.
Note: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

But the fact and reality at present and for a long time into the future is, all humans are stuck with DNA that they are ignorant and contribute to problems of evil for humanity for a long time.

The real problem is humanity has not comprehended the nature of the problem itself:
to believe to know all rather than know all not to believe. An all-knowing god must know
who/what/where/why/when/how and/or ultimately if: not to believe, else not all-knowing.
Thus endeavoring to know all not to believe must approach the same 'state' as an all-knowing god.

The evident blunder in/of armchair philosophy is found in the utterance:

"All knowing is belief (?), but not all belief is knowing."

which conflates belief with/as knowledge. In reality, they are antithetical:

"All knowing is by way of consciously trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of consciously trying to know all."

This correction clarifies the nature of the relationship between knowledge and belief
while revealing a basic framework for ongoing scientific inquiry:

___________________________________________________
TRUTH-by-WAY-of-NEGATION
to:
o. ...ad infinitum... consciously acknowledge and address all BELIEF(s) such:
i. to TRY both: {TO} and {NOT} to BELIEVE
ii. to TEST both: {TRUE} and/or {NOT} (necessarily)
iii. to FALSIFY all BELIEF(s) NOT (necessarily) TRUE
...ad infinitum ...

This methodology approaches all-knowing, and is practically equivalent to the truth of the way of the living.

I agree the problem at present is not comprehending the root of the present problem.

What is all knowing can be at best a GUIDE which is an ideal thus impossible to be achieved in reality.
At stated above, one need to understand the real situation at present and to find ways to align the present towards the impossible-to-achieve-ideals.
This is what I am doing with Morality-proper, i.e. using justified moral facts [absolutes] to GUIDE those in the present on the trend of continuous improvement towards the impossible-to-achieve-ideals.

As such, we humans has to be realistic and dealing with 'morality' is imperative until all are intelligent, wise, moral, good, etc.
To deal with morality, especially the problem of evil, we have to establish the facts of morality, i.e. moral facts.

The problem with morality is it is a social construct, thus defined by and limited to the same.
Transcending morality entails acknowledging that morality is only a factor if/when certain existential truths are not conscious.
For example, seeing each life as a part of one's self effectively negates the need for a basis in so-called "morality".
No such idea would pervade the fallible minds of individualized automatons if they knew their life and the life of others
is the same life.

I don't agree morality is purely a social construct.
ALL humans are "programmed" with an inherent moral function.
The objective to get all humans to align with this inherent moral function efficiently and expeditiously.
To do so, we need to establish moral facts and a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to manage morality effectively.

As I had stated you are too dogmatic with ideals but do not provide for approaches as to how to reconcile the present situation to the GUIDES [the impossible ideals].

If you deny there is such thing as 'morality' i.e. dealing with good and evil, it would be off topic from the OP which is a moral issue.

It would actually be entirely on-topic given the root of any/all problems associated is in the mistaken notion that there is an existential basis for objective morality (equivalent: so-called good and evil). Transcending the problem thus entails transcending the "belief" that such things exist.

As I had stated, the above approach is necessary to reconcile the present to the ideals via the continuous improvement mode.

There are no absolute meaning to any word, etymology is based on popularity and consensus.
As such it is your discretion to define 'belief' as not conscious, but I disagree.

I spent a great deal of time digging at the roots of the Hebrew language (for the purposes of reading the book of Genesis in the original Hebrew) and found that the original 22 letters are actually 22 different perspectives of the same form. This form fits in/as the human hand, thus the book of Genesis is actually a single shape motioning from one position to another to form an inter-related string. These motions correspond directly to hand gestures that preceded even the evolution and application of spoken language.

As such, the etymology of all words is rooted in these gestures, thus it can not be said that etymology is based on "popularity" and "consensus".
The Hebrew letters which form roots are discrete motions which, when combined/permuted, yields a discrete conditions whose meaning is inductively rooted in the gesture itself.

Belief if/when not subject to trial/testing/falsification is not a conscious process.
Belief if/when subject to the same implies a conscious process is occurring: the same is the science outlined above.

Ultimately, etymology is reduced to consensus and in the present due to popularity and consensus [this is so evident with the annual list of new words introduced say by the various popular dictionaries'.

When I look deeper, beliefs are generated from believing [verb] and there are tons of micro-movements within the 100 billion of neurons, each with up to 10,000 synapses.
As such I cannot ignore beliefs from believing do not involve movements in this case.

Anything that takes a curve will return to its own point of origin given a period of time such to do so.
In fact this is what the atom to the cosmos is based on: cyclic motion (we live in a universe of motion).
Believing something to be true when in fact not (necessarily) generates the same condition the cosmos does:
going around in circles. This is thus what binds an individual to the physicality of creation such to become identified
with either body or mind. In reality, being transcends these entirely and the acknowledge of the same brings with it
the cessation of suffering, for fear of suffering mandates a soilbed of "belief".

The point is you believe 'belief' do not entail movements [B1].
I have show your 'belief' [B1] is not true.

Science do not measure circles, it is geometry that measures a circle.

Geometry means "earth measure". It requires a scientific method as does any/all measurements.
In any event: science is to be taken as any faculty of inquiry, individual or otherwise.

Nope. Fundamentally Geometry do not need Science-proper but more likely it need philosophy-proper.

Within geometry a perfect circle is defined with specific measurements.
A perfect circle is an impossibility in reality, but it is a useful guide, e.g. for Science and other fields of knowledge.

The problem is academia has not actually measured a circle, they have only approximated it.
Here is a website showing several "geometric" proofs of π being 4/√Φ (3.144605511029693144...)
http://measuringpisquaringphi.com/geome ... ofs-of-pi/
this approximation error is catastrophic for the measurement of circles in general.

In reality, each 1/4 circle is 1/√Φ such that
1/√Φ + 1/√Φ + 1/√Φ + 1/√Φ = 4/√Φ
and the golden ratio is this a universal constant:
π = 4/√Φ
π² = 16/Φ
e = MC²
16 = Φπ²
1 = Φ(π/4)²

And this is what Western science can not see because of their "approximation" error of π.
Truly in reality, the correction of π will certainly provoke the emergence of a "golden" age
given the golden ratio is to be found as a universal constant, thus the "golden rule"
' do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you '
is a product of the same given the clarification of space and time themselves
as being multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion.

What you proposed [if true] can only be an approximation-to-the-truth as well, perhaps at best a more refine approximation. because there is no absolutely-absolute truth.

Science has its pros and cons and it would not be pragmatic if you reject Western Science on a wholesale basis.

Certainly: science has a compulsory pro of employing a faculty of inquiry to come to know what was/is not known.
Science is thus the engine driving the conscious evolution. The associated con here is whereas science is a vehicle,
the driver is the 'con' in conscience, thus any/all scientific endeavors are as fallible as the one driving the vehicle.

Thus Western science fails by focusing exactly 0 attention on the inner sciences of a human being
and instead has people learning just about everything about everything except how to be a human being.

It is thus hard to allow Western science to designate itself as a "science" because the fundamentals of what science is, is absent.
This is reflected in/as fundamentals such as... how to properly measure a circle. This ignorance reflects the fallibility of our species
and is a big wake-up call to those who are so willing to "believe" just about anything/everything embedded in 'establishment science'.

The truth is stranger than fiction, indeed. One could hardly imagine humanity having the wrong value of pi
if not for it being the reality within which we live. This one correction would be decisive for humanity.

Point is the acquisition of knowledge progress in baby-steps, thus Science is doing the same and have been doing so ever since Science gained independence from philosophy.
Physically, Science has progress knowledge from crude solid physical matter to the 'weird' Quantum world.
Science continues to progress and it is now digging into the inner world of human nature via genomics, the neurosciences and other advance scientific pursuit, i.e. consciousness. You cannot insist Science is not doing that.
Note the advances in Neurotheology, Neuro-spirituality and the likes. Example,

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/
Dr. Andrew Newberg is a neuroscientist who studies the relationship between brain function and various mental states. He is a pioneer in the neurological study of religious and spiritual experiences, a field known as “neurotheology.” His research includes taking brain scans of people in prayer, meditation, rituals, and trance states, in an attempt to better understand the nature of religious and spiritual practices and attitudes.

There are loads of such research going on at present.

If you want a circle that is more perfect than what is defined within geometry, then you will have to state the field of knowledge it is defined and what its its uses and benefits.

There is not more than one field of knowledge - all knowledge begins/ends with one knowing themselves, as the seat of any/all experience of life is from within, thus one may only come to "know" anything according to how well they know themselves.

In any event: each 1/4 circle being 1/√Φ effectively uses a curve to measure a curve, instead of the approximation method of exhaustion using straight lines. This effectively clarifies the nature of the relationship between space and time as relying on a ratio composed of one rational and one irrational. This is reflected in Φ as a rational 1 in addition to an irrational √5, and further in π as 4/√Φ (rational/irrational). This relationship carries all the way up into complex analysis wherein real and imaginary elements correspond directly to rational and irrational numbers.

Question is how can it be related to the present everyday reality and bring the present towards the ideal on the question of good or evil [re OP].

What is important with Science and JTB is whether their pros outweigh their cons.
I stated 'measurement of a circle' is dealt by geometry.
As I asked above, why do you need a circle that is more perfect than what is defined within geometry as present?

The approximated circle is not near perfect, the polygon method of exhaustion effectively misses an entire constituency of the circle.
Precisely measuring the circle reveals that the circle is intimately related to the golden ratio. This is otherwise overlooked, as
from Φ's own side is derived π (biblical equivalent: from Adam's own rib is derived Eve). The clarification of the nature of the relation
between the line (radius) and the curve (circumference) is needed to understand how they are united. Present-day approximations of pi
sever this relationship, ultimately resulting in the severance of space and time as if they are two autonomous aspects. They are not.

1 = Φ(π/4)² shows how all such apparent binaries are actually one. The same is true for any binary, including good/evil (real and/or imagined).

There are a great number of clarifications which follow from the correction of pi to what it actually is, many of which I highly doubt humanity will even be able to see/appreciate should the endeavor to correct it become a focus - it is mine nonetheless, as it entirely undermines the "believer vs. unbeliever" conflict.

I am not into the "believer vs. unbeliever" conflict in terms of theology and God and the likes of 'the Earth is flat' etc.

In my case, I will not believe a belief until it is justified as knowledge within a Framework of Knowledge for the use in practical life and development.

You seem to be very dogmatic with your views.

The product of dogmatism is reflected in the "believer vs. unbeliever" crisis.
The solution to this problem is a matter of belief vs. knowledge wherein
all knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum.

It is for this reason the "believers" are, once again, the ones dogmatically upside-down
"believing" that war is a means to peace - perhaps this kind of dogmatism is of more concern.

You are dogmatic in the sense of being stuck with 'ideals' but not reconciling them with what is real at the present.

Point is reality can be viewed from many perspective and they are to be optimized to the specific conditions in terms of efficiency.
Generally, one may use an axe to chop down a tree but don't use an axe to do brain surgery.

Some perspectives are clearer than others - the entire basis of yoga is enhancing perception such to see the reality just the way it is.

I am very familiar with 'yoga' i.e. to yoke[union] the atman to ultimate reality [Brahman].
If this is what you mean, I do not agree with it - I was once into advaita vedanta for a long time.
As for reality just the way it is, if you meant unconditional reality, i.e. reality-in-itself, I note that is an illusion [Kant].

True, so is breathing.
We need to take note, whether they are critically related to the topic or not.

Consciously acknowledging what actually 'is' can not not be related to deriving anything from the same 'is'.

Point is there is 'no other is' i.e. is-in-itself, which is an illusion.
Note "is" is just a copula to join 'the subject' to 'the predicate'.
What is critical is the identification of the 'subject' and the 'predicate' which ultimately entail beliefs [btw not religious ones] and justified knowledge.

You think there is something more true than justified knowledge, but that is only illusory and wishful thinking.

Getting to tedious.
Anyway of cutting short your responses to the critical points?

[nothing]

Getting to tedious.
Anyway of cutting short your responses to the critical points?

It depends on what I have to work with, however will try.

I can agree we need to strive to reach a point of 'there is no such thing as good or evil.' It is likely there are a small percentile of highly 'enlightened' people who are able to transcend and good and evil.
But meanwhile in reality there are 7++ billion people who are trapped in the world of 'good' and 'evil.' Thus to be a pragmatic person, regardless of who you are, you need to recognize what is good and what is evil in the most rational and practical basis.
Those who failed to recognize what is evil will succumb to evil in the practical world, i.e. killed by those who are evil.
Note: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

In order to derive anything from an 'is', one must have the capacity to acknowledge what 'is' to-begin.
Anything less and one will be subject to/of their own internal/local distortions (as projected).

Concerning good and evil, one may transcend the problem in the following way.
Begin with two discrete conditions:
All (that which is),
(that which is) Not
All∞Not

By acknowledging it doesn't matter what good and evil are (should they exist),
it would anyway take a "believer" to "believe" one is the other and/or the other is the one.
What might prevent such a conflation? How does one come to know what not to believe?
Earlier I suggested the right answer will be contained within the right question(s) asked.
Set these two as roots preceding 'All' allowing one to negate the other:
to know all (thus) not to believe... (approaches all-knowing)
to believe all (thus) not to know... (captures any/all belief-based ignorance causing/sustaining suffering/death).

The closest one can come to a practical understanding of good and evil
is understanding how they might become confused/conflated in the first place
which entails the clarification of the nature of the relationship between knowledge and belief
as being antithetical: all knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum viz.

All knowing is by way of consciously trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of consciously trying to know all.

The 'trying' here implies a practical scientific methodology already outlined:
truth-by-way-of-negation (to know all thus not to believe).

This is how/why humanity will not ever transcend the current state of affairs
until they clarify the nature of the relationship between knowledge and belief
such to render the is-ought problem as being relatively meaningless.

I don't agree morality is purely a social construct.
ALL humans are "programmed" with an inherent moral function.
The objective to get all humans to align with this inherent moral function efficiently and expeditiously.
To do so, we need to establish moral facts and a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to manage morality effectively.

As I had stated you are too dogmatic with ideals but do not provide for approaches as to how to reconcile the present situation to the GUIDES [the impossible ideals].

I acknowledge the presence of an innate substrate of integrity, however do not associate this with any kind of real "moralism".
The closest a "moral" framework I can conceive of is the pursuit of knowledge at the expense of belief-based ignorance as provided.
Ultimately, the problem is "belief" and reflects the same Edenic dilemma of people who "believe" to know good and evil
such that one may practically correlate the following:

"Good": to know all (thus) not to believe... approaches all-knowing (god-or-no-god)
"Evil": to believe all (thus) not to know... approaches all belief-based ignorance(s) incl. of god

It is funny you should suggest the opposite of what is true: I actually do offer a fully practical solution to this problem.


Apex: I am
Arms: the Alpha and the Omega (operators concerning ALL∞NOT)
Legs: the Beg and the End (roots concerning TO KNOW∞TO BELIEVE)

The mathematics which underlies this solution is also inductively rooted in the physical universe as-is.
However this humanity is still "approximating" π and does not realize that π is in relation to Φ
via π = 4/√Φ. The correction of π clarifies the nature of the relationship between space and time as
π is just that: a terminating rational (radius) in relation to a non-terminating irrational (circumference).

The problem is, once again: human beings can not acknowledge what is
let alone derive an ought and/or ought not. Human beings ought not
to "approximate" a circle using straight lines, rather ought to measure
a curve with a curve. There is only one naturally-occurring curve:
the one which is produced by the Φ relationship (1+√5)/2, hence
Φ (and π as 4/√Φ) are universal constants (immutable).

Ultimately, etymology is reduced to consensus and in the present due to popularity and consensus [this is so evident with the annual list of new words introduced say by the various popular dictionaries'.

This is true, but this is the first step in acknowledging what is before deriving an ought / not.
For example I could attempt to clarify what the word 'satan' implies being a conjunction of three discrete letters:



however because there are literally billions of people whose own state satisfies this condition,
they are not able to confront the reality as it is, such to "religiously" deny their own being bound
to "believe" that which is not necessarily true in an ongoing state.

The point is you believe 'belief' do not entail movements [B1].
I have show your 'belief' [B1] is not true.

I actually do not believe this at all - I did say belief is not a conscious process.
If one is going around in circles, they are "moving" but only to return to the place they started.
Belief is like that (hence "time" being of the same nature - cyclical).

The whole point of liberation is to cease the cycle of birth/death (fear of suffering).

Nope. Fundamentally Geometry do not need Science-proper but more likely it need philosophy-proper.

Geometry requires rationalization, hence a faculty of inquiry.
Philosophy has no rational basis whatsoever and has proven to be nothing short of useless.
Science, by contrast, actually produces measurable results.

What you proposed [if true] can only be an approximation-to-the-truth as well, perhaps at best a more refine approximation. because there is no absolutely-absolute truth.

It matters not what truth is, what matters is where it is searched for: in that which is not (negation).
The ratio 4/√Φ is a precise ratio - it only ever becomes "approximated" if/when done so by someone,
otherwise the ratio may be left as-is. This ratio re-couples space and time (Φ and π) by clarifying
the nature of the relationship between the two kinds of numbers: rationals and irrationals.
Ultimately this underlies all of complex analysis and underlines the need to understand
the importance of the golden ratio (universal constant) as this humanity (still) does not.

Science continues to progress and it is now digging into the inner world of human nature via genomics, the neurosciences and other advance scientific pursuit, i.e. consciousness. You cannot insist Science is not doing that.

It is endeavoring to do so, but whether or not it is actually accomplishing this is another matter.
The barriers in/of science will always be reflected in their (in)ability to reconcile space and time.

Question is how can it be related to the present everyday reality and bring the present towards the ideal on the question of good or evil [re OP].

Alpha/Omega/Beg/End is the '4' in/of 4/√Φ. All material bodies are thus subject to/of this same Alpha/Omega/Beg/End:
Alpha/Omega governs the "direction" of a particle (or being as it concerns unity/not),
Beg/End governs the "location" of a particle (or being in relation to unity/not) hence
one can not know both at the same time because collapsing one renders the other indefinite.

All of the laws that govern the physical creation also govern the metaphysical, thus
by knowing the laws which govern the physical, one may infer a bases for existence
esp. as it serves the so-called "moral" fabric. In reality, these same "morals" are actually
axiomatic principles that reflect in the creation itself, such as space and time being
multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion. Reciprocity implies much in light of "morality".

I am not into the "believer vs. unbeliever" conflict in terms of theology and God and the likes of 'the Earth is flat' etc.

In my case, I will not believe a belief until it is justified as knowledge within a Framework of Knowledge for the use in practical life and development.

This "believer vs. unbeliever" division practically underlies the Left vs. Right division respectively.
There is no corollary division that does not concern the long-standing "believer vs. unbeliever" division
and this includes geopolitical. All this despite it taking a "believer" to "believe" themselves superior to others
and/or others are inferior to themselves. Which side are all Nazis pinned on if all Nazis are "believers"?

Knowledge implies the absence of belief, not presence of. It is not possible to both know something and believe it, as belief becomes redundant.
For example I do not believe I have two hands, I know I have two hands, thus belief is relatively meaningless.

You are dogmatic in the sense of being stuck with 'ideals' but not reconciling them with what is real at the present.

Is this a quality of mine, or your own? The reason I ask is because you may be drawing this from yourself instead of me.
"Morality" is strictly ideal, not something rooted in the fabric of existence.

I am very familiar with 'yoga' i.e. to yoke[union] the atman to ultimate reality [Brahman].
If this is what you mean, I do not agree with it - I was once into advaita vedanta for a long time.
As for reality just the way it is, if you meant unconditional reality, i.e. reality-in-itself, I note that is an illusion [Kant].

By yoga I simply mean union - not any of the traditions associated.

Point is there is 'no other is' i.e. is-in-itself, which is an illusion.
Note "is" is just a copula to join 'the subject' to 'the predicate'.
What is critical is the identification of the 'subject' and the 'predicate' which ultimately entail beliefs [btw not religious ones] and justified knowledge.

That which is and that which is not are a basic binary ± "to be or not to be"
but I take the point that they have no implicit meaning outside of a context
however the nature of the relation between is/not is conjugation, hence
"belief" being the factor which conflates any two of a dichotomy, including
so-called good/evil and/or matters relating to so-called "morality" ie. right/wrong.

You think there is something more true than justified knowledge, but that is only illusory and wishful thinking.

I don't know what "justified knowledge" is - I don't take to the expression.

Regardless, consciousness transcends knowledge entirely - knowledge may only apply locally to the being (ie. to know of one's own self, or not) otherwise one is liable to believe themselves to be something they are not. If/when a person believes themselves to be something they are not, the root of their own impetus will reflect any/all such degrees of ignorance in/as their own conduct. Being conscious entails knowing not to believe either one's self or another to be something it is not, and this includes "justified" in some mere belief as if knowledge.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Getting to tedious.
Anyway of cutting short your responses to the critical points?

It depends on what I have to work with, however will try.

I can agree we need to strive to reach a point of 'there is no such thing as good or evil.' It is likely there are a small percentile of highly 'enlightened' people who are able to transcend and good and evil.
But meanwhile in reality there are 7++ billion people who are trapped in the world of 'good' and 'evil.' Thus to be a pragmatic person, regardless of who you are, you need to recognize what is good and what is evil in the most rational and practical basis.
Those who failed to recognize what is evil will succumb to evil in the practical world, i.e. killed by those who are evil.
Note: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

In order to derive anything from an 'is', one must have the capacity to acknowledge what 'is' to-begin.
Anything less and one will be subject to/of their own internal/local distortions (as projected).

Concerning good and evil, one may transcend the problem in the following way.
Begin with two discrete conditions:
All (that which is),
(that which is) Not
All∞Not

By acknowledging it doesn't matter what good and evil are (should they exist),
it would anyway take a "believer" to "believe" one is the other and/or the other is the one.
What might prevent such a conflation? How does one come to know what not to believe?
Earlier I suggested the right answer will be contained within the right question(s) asked.
Set these two as roots preceding 'All' allowing one to negate the other:
to know all (thus) not to believe... (approaches all-knowing)
to believe all (thus) not to know... (captures any/all belief-based ignorance causing/sustaining suffering/death).

The closest one can come to a practical understanding of good and evil
is understanding how they might become confused/conflated in the first place
which entails the clarification of the nature of the relationship between knowledge and belief
as being antithetical: all knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum viz.

All knowing is by way of consciously trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of consciously trying to know all.

The 'trying' here implies a practical scientific methodology already outlined:
truth-by-way-of-negation (to know all thus not to believe).

This is how/why humanity will not ever transcend the current state of affairs
until they clarify the nature of the relationship between knowledge and belief
such to render the is-ought problem as being relatively meaningless.

Noted your other points but I believe there is no need to dig deeper into what 'those who believe there can be no ought from is' understand what they meant by 'is'.

The 'no ought from is' [NOFI] was introduced by Hume in his Treatise Book III Part I Section 1.
As such what we need to establish is what is the context "is" Hume was using then.
Hume was an Empiricist, thus the 'is' that is referred to is in the context of pure empiricism, i.e. reality is that is verifiable by experience and Science.

In this case, 'Speech Acts' in the OP are also relevant to empiricism.

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.
Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasises evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

In the case of the OP,
the empiricists argued what is empirical cannot be evaluative or
what is descriptive cannot be followed with something prescriptive.

The point of the OP is 'Speech Acts' statements comprised both descriptive [is] and prescriptive [ought] elements.
Therefore if the major premise has is & ought elements, and the minor premise contain 'ought' elements, therefore the conclusion can have ought elements.

What you are introducing is too deep for this issue, thus off topic.
We can discuss that elsewhere in another thread.

[nothing]

Noted your other points but I believe there is no need to dig deeper into what 'those who believe there can be no ought from is' understand what they meant by 'is'.

Ultimately the depth of the problem reaches the bedrock of philosophy:
clarifying the nature of the relationship between knowledge and belief
would accomplish much for not only philosophy, but humanity as a whole.

If it takes a "believer" to "believe" what is, is not and/or what is not, is,
it must take "knowledge" to know all thus: not to "believe" to avoid such conflation.

It seems to me humanity needs to grow up and move from "belief"-based religion to "knowledge"-based responsibility
given all knowledge must negate all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum such to satisfy any possible all-knowing state,
god-or-no-god.

The 'no ought from is' [NOFI] was introduced by Hume in his Treatise Book III Part I Section 1.
As such what we need to establish is what is the context "is" Hume was using then.
Hume was an Empiricist, thus the 'is' that is referred to is in the context of pure empiricism, i.e. reality is that is verifiable by experience and Science.

In this case, 'Speech Acts' in the OP are also relevant to empiricism.

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.

The word "karma" means "action" because one's own doing (action) is one's own karma, thus
approaching an empirical 'is' may have something to do with being conscious of one's own action.
I am still myself unsure as to the need to invent 'speech acts' at all - ultimately
actions speak louder than words anyways, thus why drag a limiting factor such as speech in?
One may employ language(s) which are not rooted in mundane speech accomplishing the same.

What is interesting is, according to philosophy, the notion that
"empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience"
is fundamentally wrong. If this is what philosophy holds to be true, it explains much.

Philosophy needs a transformation - such a theory is self-defeating and imposes limitations on the faculty itself from-the-onset.
This generally holds with human beings "believing" there is nothing beyond the physical, which is also fundamentally wrong.

In the case of the OP,
the empiricists argued what is empirical cannot be evaluative or
what is descriptive cannot be followed with something prescriptive.

The point of the OP is 'Speech Acts' statements comprised both descriptive [is] and prescriptive [ought] elements.
Therefore if the major premise has is & ought elements, and the minor premise contain 'ought' elements, therefore the conclusion can have ought elements.

I see the problem should descriptive be taken to be as 'is'. A description can not possibly capture any/all of what 'is' as
one may merely be describing something as it appears through the mundane sense organs. This relates back
to the underlying deficiency of philosophy: empiricism relying on sensory experience. In reality empiricism
must transcend the limitations of sensory experience while simultaneously giving rise to.

What you are introducing is too deep for this issue, thus off topic.
We can discuss that elsewhere in another thread.

If the problem is deeply-rooted, one should expect the need to penetrate as deep.
Perhaps the is-ought problem is a product of a more fundamental oversight hitherto unrecognized.
This is how/why perhaps we 'ought' to look for new ways to approach the problem viz.
questioning some of the fundamental premises upon which philosophy attempts to stand.

With that I will take my leave having enjoyed the discourse - much appreciated.

[Sculptor]

The concept of 'Speech Acts' is relevant to the 'Is-Ought' Problem.

In Searle's derivation of 'Ought from Is' argument he relied on the concept of 'Speech Acts' to support his justifications.
viewtopic.php?p=462615#p462615

If you like, then, we have shown that "promise" is an evaluative word, but since it is also purely descriptive, we have really shown that the whole distinction needs to be re-examined.
The alleged distinction between descriptive and evaluative statements is really a conflation of at least two distinctions.

On the one hand there is a distinction between different kinds of speech acts, one family of speech acts including evaluations, another family including descriptions.
This is a distinction between different kinds of illocutionary force.9
On the other hand there is a distinction between utterances which involve claims objectively decidable as true or false and those which involve claims not objectively decidable, but which are "matters of personal decision" or "matters of opinion."

It has been assumed that the former distinction is (must be) a special case of the latter, that if something has the illocutionary force of an evaluation, it cannot be entailed by factual premises.

Part of the point of my argument is to show that this contention is false, that factual premises can entail evaluative conclusions.

If I am right, then the alleged distinction between descriptive and evaluative utterances is useful only as a distinction between two kinds of illocutionary force, describing and evaluating,
and it is not even very useful there, since if we are to use these terms strictly, they are only two among hundreds of kinds of illocutionary force; and utterances of sentences of the form (5) "Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars" would not characteristically fall in either class.

Re what is Speech Act,

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act
In the philosophy of language and linguistics, speech act is something expressed by an individual that not only presents information, but performs an action as well.

Speech acts serve their function once they are said or communicated. These are commonly taken to include acts such as apologizing, promising, ordering, answering, requesting, complaining, warning, inviting, refusing, and congratulating.

The concept of speech acts is contrasted to the views held by Peter Holmes, Sculptor, Pantflasher and their gangs who insist a statement of fact is purely descriptive and never prescriptive like the Logical Positivists insisted, i.e. fact is state of affairs blah, blah, blah,

For much of the history of the positivist philosophy of language, language was viewed primarily as a way of making factual assertions, and the other uses of language tended to be ignored, as Austin states at the beginning of Lecture 1, "It was for too long the assumption of philosophers that the business of a 'statement' can only be to 'describe' some state of affairs, or to 'state some fact', which it must do either truly or falsely."

Therefrom;

Wittgenstein came up with the idea of "don't ask for the meaning, ask for the use," showing language as a new vehicle for social activity.[5] Speech act theory hails from Wittgenstein's philosophical theories. Wittgenstein believed meaning derives from pragmatic tradition, demonstrating the importance of how language is used to accomplish objectives within specific situations. By following rules to accomplish a goal, communication becomes a set of language games. Thus, utterances do more than reflect a meaning, they are words designed to get things done.[6]

And;

The work of J. L. Austin, particularly his How to Do Things with Words, led philosophers to pay more attention to the non-declarative uses of language. The terminology he introduced, especially the notions "locutionary act", "illocutionary act", and "perlocutionary act", occupied an important role in what was then to become the "study of speech acts". All of these three acts, but especially the "illocutionary act", are nowadays commonly classified as "speech acts".

And it was further developed by John Searle;

The speech act theory was introduced by Oxford philosopher J.L. Austin in How to Do Things With Words and further developed by American philosopher J.R. Searle. It considers the degree to which utterances are said to perform locutionary acts, illocutionary acts, and/or perlocutionary acts.
https://www.thoughtco.com/speech-act-theory-1691986#:

Peter Holmes, Sculptor, Pantflasher and gang, what do you have to say to the above and don't keep blaring and clutching to your dogmatic 'fact is fact' and 'value is value' never the twain shall meet, without taking the above into consideration.

View from others?

Cut all the flim flam and the copy&pasting.

There is one way to solve this problem. Give one solid example!
Just one!
And we'll try to show how the argument relies on more than just a set of ises.