Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:24 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:36 am
The fundamental of 'well-being' is to survive well.
So re this stuff being an opinion, the above is the case per what? Would you say something other than opinion/other than choices about how to use the term "well-being" etc.?
I have already stated a '1000' times,
whatever I claimed must be verified and justified empirically & philosophically within a credible FSK.
As such whatever is claimed within a FSK cannot be an opinion but rather it is an objective statement.
Survival of the fittest aside, the striving to be fit [well-being] is a general principle of all living things, thus human beings.
How can the need to survive by all human [till inevitable mortality] be matters of opinion.
Needs hinge on wants/desires. There are no needs aside from that, unless you're simply talking about preconditions, but when we're talking about preconditions, preconditions obtains for multiple options. For example, breathing is a precondition for remaining alive, but not breathing is a precondition for dying from suffocation.
I have been stating justified true moral facts are inherent preconditions as 'programmed' via evolution and embedded as codes in the DNA/RNA.
Your "breathing is a precondition for dying from suffocation" is very weird and evasive.
No normal human would want to be suffocated because of the precondition to remain alive, thus the need to breathe.
I have argued the obvious, ALL humans are "programmed" to survive [till inevitable mortality]. This is an objective fact that is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, thus objective.
It's not actually an objective fact that all humans are programmed to survive--at least not without far better clarifying just what that's supposed to amount to.
Anyone familiar with basic modern biology, one will understand that.
Note, ALL humans are "programmed" with the potential for puberty which naturally unfolds and manifest after their 'child' phase to be an adult. Do you deny the inherent 'puberty' as programmed and embedded in the DNA/RNA.
It is the same for the not-so-obvious moral function inherent within all humans.
Btw, my definition of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.
Which means that if you were to say something like, "That's objectively incorrect," with an implication of a normative--that the person should correct something, you're forwarding the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
100% of all normal people
By this, as you've stated before, you simply mean what's statistically common.
will agree in consensus they strive to survive to avoid death at least till inevitable mortality.
The idea that most or even all people think or do x, therefore x is correct or true or anything like that is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
There you go again with your rhetorical 'people think or do'.
It is the justified universal principles that I am referring to, not what subjective people think or do.
The ad populum fallacy only applies to claims that are not verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK. Otherwise all scientific knowledge would succumb to the ad populum fallacy.
Note my point above [repeat],
"I have already stated a '1000' times,
whatever I claimed must be verified and justified empirically & philosophically within a credible FSK."
The point is you are suffering from cognitive blindness and confirmation bias due to the fact that some part of your brain are atrophized by some terrible infections from viruses from the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophy.
Suggest you read Rorty's Mirror of Nature to detoxify your brain.