It is your discretion to pull back your neck and head into your tortoise shell and be ignorant forever. As I had argued your such-a-move is very psychological and primitive - know thyself!Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 7:06 am Oh, well. You still don't understand that non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. And I can't explain it any more simply. All you manage is this:
'Any rational person will comply with the oughtness to put up an effective lighthouse.'
That's a factual assertion, with a truth-value. It doesn't entail the moral conclusion 'therefore we ought to put up lighthouses'.
I really think you're not able to grasp it. So I'm giving up. Again.
I understand the equivocation and conflation fallacies very well. I had often threw those fallacies with my argument with theists.
Generally it is true one cannot infers an X-premise from a non-X premise, in this case, moral premise from a non-moral premise.
To overcome the above I have introduced the common factor, i.e. conditioned them within a framework and system, i.e. the FSERC.
- 1. A System takes in inputs to generate output [facts in this case] within a Framework.
2. Whatever facts emerging from a FSERC is objective via a collective of subjects, i.e. independent of individual-subject[s].
3. The oughnot_ness not to kill humans is scientific fact via the science-evolutionary_biology-evolutionary_psychology-neurosciences FSERC. [Fs]
4. Fs in inputted into a valid moral-FSERC. [1]
5. The moral FSERC converts Fs into an objective moral fact [1].
6. Since objective moral fact[s] exist from the moral FSERC, morality is objective [as qualified].
