FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:08 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am
Btw, I have not presented the the full, completeness and total of my moral FSK in this forum. There are a tons of materials that I will have to present if I were to convince any one that my FSK is credible.
But you call everybody who doesn't believe it a dogmatist.
You are not getting it.
A typical Framework and System of say a legal framework and system of say a country entails many things from the initiation of the full Constitution, the political FSK, the legislature, the legal profession, the judiciary, the enforcements authorities, etc.
Thus in my Framework and System of morality [proper], like the above example, there is a wide ranges of various sub-FSKs albeit of different contents.
Where I called anyone a 'dogmatist' is not related to the principles of the whole FSK but only to specific elements of the FSK discussed e.g. the specific issue of the existence of real physical moral things in the brain where you invoke your dogmatism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am
What I had argued is what a credible FSK entails and that my model of the moral FSK has all these features.
Well, no, you have been treating your FSK as entirely credible, and you have been calling me a dogmatist for not thinking so. Now it isn't working out, you want to gaslight us with some nonsense that you are just sort of predicting some future knowledge?
I am confident my FULL model of moral FSK is credible based on the principles and features of credibility incorporated in my FSK.
My present position is just like an architect who is very confident his model and plans when executed accordingly will ensure the building will stand an earthquake on the richter scale of 8.0.
But that is an obvious lie VA. You have already used your FSK to validate several big claims, including that all OUGHTS are ISes.
It is like the architect who relied on the material-science-FSK to decide what material to use in his building to withstand a 8.0 earthquake.
When the relevant material are input into the building, it is then a building FSK.
I have done the same as the above.
What I have done with
'ougntness' is "is" is based on the its possibility from scientific FSK and various philosophical arguments. When input into my moral FSK, it will be a moral-physical-thing [avoiding use of moral fact].
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am
So far what I have been arguing [as I had stated many times] is specifically against Peter claims in his thread that challenged
"What could make morality objective?"
where he thinks the platonic and theistic moral realists cannot prove their claims. This I agree with him.
But I am confident there are moral truths that make moral realism true.
Think about it for a second. Be honest here.... Have you been so confident that you got ahead of your argument and started making claims on it that aren't justified?
How many times have you ignored advice to get your shit together properly by going back to first principles?
Generally all the resistance from Peter, Sculptor and you [most likely] are based on dogmatism, driven by psychology which is influenced by the bastardized of the mafia Logical Positivists and the classical analytic philosophers.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am
What I have argued is there are i
nherent physical moral 'ought-not_ness' in the brain. I have already demonstrated why the above is possibly real.
But you used your FSK that isn't credible "yet" to make that case, and then you called anyone who didn't buy that argument a dogmatist. You can't fix that argument before you make this FSK thing actually credible.
Note my explanation above re my overall moral FSK [not presented] vs the individual elements in that FSK.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am
I have also argued how the above is related to morality-proper and that implied an essential process of the moral FSK.
Don't you realise that "morality-proper" isn't credible either yet?
Why not?
I have explained that, i.e. theistic morality, consequentialism, deontological and other current secular morality are not in high alignment with the inherent natural moral function as "programmed" in all humans.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am
When I mentioned a credible moral FSK, that is an enhancement and reinforcement which is not necessary at this stage.
It is just like when scientists present their scientific conclusions they do not mention or refer to any scientific FSK in its explicit details at all.
You need that credible FSK thing. Don't start hoping that any crap you have presented works without your dream of future knowledge. This is your own fault for getting into a circle and trying to ignore it.
I am very confident of what I have presented based on very deep reflection of the issue and exhausting all [if not nearly all] of the topic of morality and ethics plus whatever is related to it.
You tell me, what you do think I would be ignorant off [that you know or whatever there is] re morality and ethics?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am
However I have on hand the full details, the organizations, the structure, the constitutions, the principles, the processes, etc. that qualify as to what is a credible FSK. I have not present such is full details [to do so I will need to explain in hundreds of pages] and I do not intend to go into the full details, but nevertheless I have clued the credibility of my moral system is similar [not exactly] to that of the scientific one.
If you aren't going to make tha argument properly, then stop. Stop telling me and Pete and Terrapin and Sculptor that we are bastard positivists for not believing in your unpresented arguments.
Also, let's be real here, you know every single one of us is going to dismantle this secret hidden argument if you ever do present it.
It was only recently upon Sculptor's insult that prompted me to exhaust what is there to be known re morality and ethics to reinforce my full knowledge of Kantian morality.
It was from my extensive survey that you and gang were influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs. Btw, I did not assert you and gang are bastard positivists by rather influenced by their sort of arrogance, dogmatism and resistance.
Based on the extensive materials and arguments I have supplied.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am
Btw, 56% of philosophers in one poll agreed with moral realism is
a clue [not affirmation] moral realism and objectivity is more tenable than moral subjectivism and I have given detailed arguments to support that.
I don't care. Not one of them agrees with your FSK, and your FSK has no credibility so it's irrelevant.
Note my analogy with credible an architect's plans or engineer's model which are credible objectively.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am
Where did I ever expect or insist Henry, Skepdick, Belinda and IC to agree with me.
We are discussing and arguing on a point to point basis.
I believe Belinda agreed with the concept of FSK [or FS-Beliefs] merely on the principles I presented of what is an FSK and not my personal moral FSK which I have not presented in detail for consideration.
You have been trying to get out the problem that nobody in the world believes in your FSK with some silliness that you don't expect me to believe because I am a dogmatist. I figured you should start by persuading somebody who is already a moral realist. Sooner or later this little cult of yours needs a recruit, right?
I am confident when I present my fully described model or FSK, most who understand it will definitely agree with it.
I am not starting from scratch but mine [of completeness, systematicity, rational] is of significant improvements from existing moral systems that are already working and successful to some degrees.
You cannot deny for example the Christian moral system is very successful in aligning Christians to their natural 'no human ought to kill humans' re their moral maxim 'Thou Shalt not Kill' which agrees with mine in this ONE specific aspect of 'ought-not-to'.
However the Christian moral system whilst manage intuitively to align with this ONE naturally specific moral oughtness, it failed in many other aspects of natural morality, e.g. slavery, etc.
One of the critical feature of my moral FSK is
idiot proofing, i.e. ensuring even an idiot will not make an error.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am
On the matter of circularity, you are ignorant of the difference circularity in the broad sense and the narrow sense.
You say that, but I am right. Your FSK needs itself to support it's own arguments that it should exist. That is problematic circularity. You can deal with it, or you can try to ignore it and call me names for pointing it out. Your FSK will never get better if you make the stupid choice.
Have you researched into what is circularity in the broad sense versus narrow sense?
I am very confident i.e. personal objectivity [also subjective] of my full architectonic moral FSK where I incorporated all known features that will ensure reliability and credibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectonics
Note one of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques besides 'analysis' there is completeness and systematicity, strategic management [Sun Tzu, etc.] which I ensure are covered within my moral FSK.