is/ought, final answer

[FlashDangerpants]

Note the oughtness to breathe else death.

That's a hypothetical imperative. And it does nothing to answer the actual question regarding what sort of "existence" you think oughts can be meaningfully said to hold?

The above is not hypothetical which is conditional upon certain specific circumstances.

Yes it is a hypothetical imperative. A goal derived ought. To attain Y (not dying) one is required to X (breathe). If one does not wish to attain Y then X is entirely optional.

None of this makes any difference to the question you are avoiding..

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's a hypothetical imperative. And it does nothing to answer the actual question regarding what sort of "existence" you think oughts can be meaningfully said to hold?

The above is not hypothetical which is conditional upon certain specific circumstances.

Yes it is a hypothetical imperative. A goal derived ought. To attain Y (not dying) one is required to X (breathe). If one does not wish to attain Y then X is entirely optional.

None of this makes any difference to the question you are avoiding..

Optional?
I have asked which normal human would want to stop breathing.

Those who want to stop breathing are not normal humans beings due to their weakened or damage ought-to breathe triggers.
This abnormality is recognized by the psychology and psychiatric FSK.

As such the 'ought-to breathe is a normative of human nature.
In a way, it is categorical imperative which is a standard and a guide within the moral FSK.

If anyone managed to kill himself by not breathing, there is no denying the 'ought-to breathe' neural set up with its physical referent exist as real within the person's brain, albeit it is not working effectively. e.g. a car with damaged-engine is still a car.

[Peter Holmes]

A machine either does or doesn't function 'normally'. But is it coherent to say it should or ought to function 'normally'? Why should it? And if it doesn't function 'normally', is it being naughty or bad? Does it, for example, deserve punishment? Is it responsible and therefore culpable for its behaviour? Is oughtness built into the nature of a machine?

And then, suppose the machine is a human being, programmed to act in certain ways. Is it coherent to say a human being should or ought to function 'normally'? Is 'right' and 'wrong' behaviour merely in line with or contrary to programming? Is that all that moral objectivity means? And if the analogy between humans and machines is false, what does talk about neural programming amount to?

[FlashDangerpants]

The above is not hypothetical which is conditional upon certain specific circumstances.

Yes it is a hypothetical imperative. A goal derived ought. To attain Y (not dying) one is required to X (breathe). If one does not wish to attain Y then X is entirely optional.

None of this makes any difference to the question you are avoiding..

Optional?
I have asked which normal human would want to stop breathing.

So what? Prior to establishing that there is some reason we "ought" to do what is normal, you cannot use normal as a basis for what we "ought" to do.

Remember you cannot use any FSK stuff in this argument - the argument is required for the FSK to have any claim to be a source of truth. You wouldn't want to be dismissed after all this effort for mere circularity.

[Advocate]

>What are the attributes and boundary conditions of a so-called abstract thing? Please take any example you like and describe its attributes and boundary conditions. You can't do it. All you can do is claim and assume it's possible. (And btw, any description is a claim: such-and-such is the case.)

Any dictionary can do that for you. I don't need to. All "what is the nature of" questions are semantic. Semantic answers are absolute; "this is how we use the word".

Love has the boundary condition of being something people approach rather than avoid. It has the attribute of being associated with Valentine's day. It has more songs written about it than any other subject. Which boundary conditions are relevant, at what scale, to a particular scenario is a meaningful question. "Define love" isn't.

>So do you think there should be evidence for the existence of so-called abstract things? Or are they a bit like supernatural things, for which there can't, by definition, be natural evidence?

The only difference between an abstract thing and a material thing is it's level of concrete measurability. To the extent something can be measured it's less abstract. Abstract ideas are equally as real as physical/material/exact ideas but cannot be verified as directly.

[Advocate]

>Yes it is a hypothetical imperative. A goal derived ought. To attain Y (not dying) one is required to X (breathe). If one does not wish to attain Y then X is entirely optional.

It is not hypothetical that not dying is a prerequisite for all other possible goals. We Ought to keep ourselves from dying to the extent we have other goals. Since having other goals is a prerequisite for morality, these points are bedrock - moral absolutes, not speculation.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=498140 time=1613996715 user_id=15099]
A machine either does or doesn't function 'normally'. But is it coherent to say it [i]should[/i] or [i]ought to[/i] function 'normally'? Why [i]should[/i] it? And if it doesn't function 'normally', is it being naughty or bad? Does it, for example, deserve punishment? Is it responsible and therefore culpable for its behaviour? Is oughtness built into the nature of a machine?

And then, suppose the machine is a human being, programmed to act in certain ways. Is it coherent to say a human being [i]should[/i] or [i]ought to[/i] function 'normally'? Is 'right' and 'wrong' behaviour merely in line with or contrary to programming? Is that all that moral objectivity means? And if the analogy between between humans and machines is false, what does talk about neural programming amount to?
[/quote]

There is no other reason for it to exist but to function normally. We created the OUGHT when we created the machine. All OUGHTs come from human intents. There are no Platonic or a priori things. Since machines are not moral agents the OUGHT is to be maintained and repaired by others who have accepted responsibility for doing so.

[Skepdick]

There is no other reason for it to exist but to function normally. We created the OUGHT when we created the machine. All OUGHTs come from human intents. There are no Platonic or a priori things. Since machines are not moral agents the OUGHT is to be maintained and repaired by others who have accepted responsibility for doing so.

There's absolutely no problem with programming a machine to self-terminate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halt_and_ ... computing)

You can argue for and against invoking the HCF instruction. But arguments/contrarianism are cheap. If you are going to argue for hitting the self-destruct button, there's no reason to argue at all. Just hit it. Doxastically commit to your argument.

All sophistry disappears when one has skin in the game.

[FlashDangerpants]

>Yes it is a hypothetical imperative. A goal derived ought. To attain Y (not dying) one is required to X (breathe). If one does not wish to attain Y then X is entirely optional.

It is not hypothetical that not dying is a prerequisite for all other possible goals. We Ought to keep ourselves from dying to the extent we have other goals. Since having other goals is a prerequisite for morality, these points are bedrock - moral absolutes, not speculation.

You are using a vernacular interpretation of a term of art. This is what it means
https://www.britannica.com/topic/hypoth ... imperative

In that spreadsheet where you listed all the books, the only major work of philosophy you list as actually being read is the Critique of Pure Reason
Your comment on it was something to the effect that it was metaphysicaly accurate until blathering on about God.
I would never normally touch the phrase "hypothetical imperative" with a shitty stick because it is liable to be misunderstood, I would normally use the modern phrase "goal derived ought".
I only used it here because it is Immanuel Kant's phrase, and Vaginal Aquafresh is keen to remind us that he spent 3 years doing nothing but read Kant for 8 hours a day, and because he is too stupid to understand what is wrong with goal derivation in this context no matter what phrase we use.

But if you stand by your comment on that book, then you agree with me and you will rescind that post. Otherwise your issues with Kant kick in somewhat earlier than you realised.

[Advocate]

>In that spreadsheet where you listed all the books, the only major work of philosophy you list as actually being read is the Critique of Pure Reason

Yes. It was started only recently more to keep track of what i have than what i've read.

>Your comment on it was something to the effect that it was metaphysicaly accurate until blathering on about God.

Yes. I can show the logical necessity of everything else he said and the logical impossibility of the god bits

I would never normally touch the phrase "hypothetical imperative" with a shitty stick because it is liable to be misunderstood, I would normally use the modern phrase "goal derived ought".

I can work with it either way, but there's no such thing as a non-goal-derived ought. Categorical imperatives are those which are pragmatically universal, not transcendently so. So hypothetical imperatives merely incorporate specific contingencies.

>But if you stand by your comment on that book, then you agree with me and you will rescind that post. Otherwise your issues with Kant kick in somewhat earlier than you realised.

I think you may be crossing wires there. I'm not seeing the relevance of that last paragraph to anything either of us said prior.

[FlashDangerpants]

there's no such thing as a non-goal-derived ought.

Welcome to the is/ought problem.

[Skepdick]

Welcome to the is/ought problem.

It's not a problem.

Define what your problem IS.
Define what your goal IS.
You can use the declarative mood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_programming

Languages that apply this style describe what the program must accomplish in terms of the problem domain.

[Skepdick]

A machine either does or doesn't function 'normally'. But is it coherent to say it should or ought to function 'normally'?

Look, you are still breathing! Why?

Why don't you malfunction already?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes it is a hypothetical imperative. A goal derived ought. To attain Y (not dying) one is required to X (breathe). If one does not wish to attain Y then X is entirely optional.

None of this makes any difference to the question you are avoiding..

Optional?
I have asked which normal human would want to stop breathing.

So what? Prior to establishing that there is some reason we "ought" to do what is normal, you cannot use normal as a basis for what we "ought" to do.

You are too dogmatic with classical logic which is not applicable to a lot of nuances related to the finer things of life and human nature.

1. I did not use normal as a basis for what we 'ought' to do.
2. I have argued 'oughtness' of Xs is a fact of human nature.
3. As such 'oughtness' to-do or not-to-do Xs is a normative.

Morality deal with moral facts [2] justified within a moral FSK.
These moral facts of oughtness are to be used as moral standards and guides, never to be imposed on any individual from external authorities.

Remember you cannot use any FSK stuff in this argument - the argument is required for the FSK to have any claim to be a source of truth. You wouldn't want to be dismissed after all this effort for mere circularity.

I have argued,

What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
A fact is specifically conditioned upon a particular FSK.

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
Moral facts are verified and justified empirically & philosophically via the moral FSK.

Therefore it is necessary for me to use the moral FSK to verify the fact of human nature as a moral fact.
If you ignore FSK, then your are ignoring scientific facts, do you?

Btw, if you agree with Rorty, you will note my approach is not purely for argument sake but for practical sake with an open-ended philosophy.
Your approach which is dogmatically clinging to classical logic is constipated philosophy, i.e. a dead end.

Note Kant's 'the all of philosophy', i.e.;

• 1. What can I know? - know thyself and whatever that is of reality - the Universe
  2. What can I do? - do what is in alignment with the moral law within you.
  3. What can I hope for - towards perpetual peace.

What I am proposing is to meet all the above expectations, thus I cannot be stuck with dogmatic dead end constipated philosophies like yours.

[Veritas Aequitas]

>Yes it is a hypothetical imperative. A goal derived ought. To attain Y (not dying) one is required to X (breathe). If one does not wish to attain Y then X is entirely optional.

It is not hypothetical that not dying is a prerequisite for all other possible goals. We Ought to keep ourselves from dying to the extent we have other goals. Since having other goals is a prerequisite for morality, these points are bedrock - moral absolutes, not speculation.

You are using a vernacular interpretation of a term of art. This is what it means
https://www.britannica.com/topic/hypoth ... imperative

You keep banging at 'hypothetical imperative'.

The moral oughts I proposed are categorical imperatives.
Whatever the circumstances, a human being ought to breathe which is intrinsic to human nature.

Btw, whilst I am Kantian, I do not agree totally with Kant. In philosophy there is no 100% agreement.