"Oughtness to Breathe" a Fundamental to Morality is Objective

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a rough argument justifying "Oughtness to Breathe" as Fundamental to Morality is Objective. So there is a lot of explanations to do.

• 1. It is undeniable there is an "oughtness-to-breathe" within the science-biology FSRK [thus objective].
  
  2. This is critical to ensure survival till the inevitable.
  
  3. To ensure no harm to ensure survival is a moral issue within the morality-proper FSRK.
  
  4. To kill humans is to suppress their "oughtness-to-breathe" thus terminate survival.
  
  5. Humans are programmed with an inherent moral function "oughtnotness-to-kill humans"
  
  6. This "oughtnotness-to-kill humans" is a moral element within the morality-proper FSRK.
  
  7. Whatever is conditioned within an embodied human-based FSRK is objective.
  
  8. Therefore morality is objective [6, 7]

The details of the above premises are presented in other threads.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
see:
ALL Humans Ought To Breathe is a Moral Objective
viewtopic.php?t=28561

[Iwannaplato]

Or one could continue the thread with the same topic, present the updated argument, if it is updated. This leads to potentially less repetition of the same arguments.

viewtopic.php?t=28561

[FlashDangerpants]

Here is a rough argument justifying "Oughtness to Breathe" as Fundamental to Morality is Objective. So there is a lot of explanations to do.

• 1. It is undeniable there is an "oughtness-to-breathe" within the science-biology FSRK [thus objective].
  
  2. This is critical to ensure survival till the inevitable.

There you are. That's a hypothetical imperative. A goal-derived ought. It could only be true if the goal is already known to be true. But you are only assuming that survival is a good goal. This is what I referenced in the other thread as the incurable and very obvious weakness of this particular argument.

3. To ensure no harm to ensure survival is a moral issue within the morality-proper FSRK.

4. To kill humans is to suppress their "oughtness-to-breathe" thus terminate survival.

5. Humans are programmed with an inherent moral function "oughtnotness-to-kill humans"

6. This "oughtnotness-to-kill humans" is a moral element within the morality-proper FSRK.

7. Whatever is conditioned within an embodied human-based FSRK is objective.

8. Therefore morality is objective [6, 7][/list]

The details of the above premises are presented in other threads.

Discuss??
Views??

Overall I'm not at all sure you didn't make this argument worse with this rebranding.

1. is ridculous. 2 is the one that I chose as the most importantly weak link, but the overall piece is a chain made of weak links. 3 is meangingless, 4 is pointless, 5 is amoral, 6 is a repeat of 3. 7 is an assertion, unsupported within the given argument and pointless. 8 ... is unjustified.

[Atla]

1. is ridculous. 2 is the one that I chose as the most importantly weak link, but the overall piece is a chain made of weak links. 3 is meangingless, 4 is pointless, 5 is amoral, 6 is a repeat of 3. 7 is an assertion, unsupported within the given argument and pointless. 8 ... is unjustified.

I've been thinking, what if we all got VA wrong all this time, what if all these years he has been using us to improve his skill to commit as many fallacies in a short text as humanly possible? Maybe he's training for a Guinness record?

[FlashDangerpants]

1. is ridculous. 2 is the one that I chose as the most importantly weak link, but the overall piece is a chain made of weak links. 3 is meangingless, 4 is pointless, 5 is amoral, 6 is a repeat of 3. 7 is an assertion, unsupported within the given argument and pointless. 8 ... is unjustified.

I've been thinking, what if we all got VA wrong all this time, what if all these years he has been using us to improve his skill to commit as many fallacies in a short text as humanly possible? Maybe he's training for a Guinness record?

Nothing we have learned via experience so far contradicts this hypothesis. It passes the sniff test.

[Harbal]

5. Humans are programmed with an inherent moral function "oughtnotness-to-kill humans"

I can't imagine where you've got that idea from when it is glaringly obvious that it isn't true.

4. To kill humans is to suppress their "oughtness-to-breathe" thus terminate survival.

You say that as if it is a deterrent to killing, when, in reality, it is usually the reason for it.

6. This "oughtnotness-to-kill humans" is a moral element within the morality-proper FSRK.

Surely, morality "proper" is the actual morality that manifests itself in actual human beings, not what some random bloke on an internet forum says it is.

Views??

My views haven't changed in all the time I've been reading your nutty posts; philosophy just isn't your strong point.

[Iwannaplato]

5. Humans are programmed with an inherent moral function "oughtnotness-to-kill humans"

I can't imagine where you've got that idea from when it is glaringly obvious that it isn't true.

This has been pointed out to him countless times.
The really odd thing is that he appeals to biology as the determiner of morality. IOW we look to biology to determine what is moral. OK, fine, let's where this goes. We have mirror neurons which lead to empathy so it's more to be empathetic. OK fine. And that might lead to urges not to kill even when angry. But we have other parts of the brain associated with aggression that have an oughtness to kill urge.

For a long time VA talked about enhancing the oughtness not to kill parts of the brain. However sympathetic I am with the goal, that is throwing biology out as the authority determining what is moral. It's saying that the current urge to kill is too high and we should enhance the urges or resistance to killing.

Well, then one is dissatisfied with where biology leads us. It is not what (should) determine our behavior.

He wants his morality to be science based, so he looks at physiology in connection to behavior.

Then just on his own authority decides what's wrong with biology without openly saying that.

4. To kill humans is to suppress their "oughtness-to-breathe" thus terminate survival.

You say that as if it is a deterrent to killing, when, in reality, it is usually the reason for it.

And to imprison murderers is to suppress their oughtness to kill they clearly feel.

6. This "oughtnotness-to-kill humans" is a moral element within the morality-proper FSRK.

Surely, morality "proper" is the actual morality that manifests itself in actual human beings, not what some random bloke on an internet forum says it is.

Precisely. And he's not satisfied with actual human beings, which is fine, who is? On the other hand he doesn't seem to notice that he is, yup, just some guy telling us what is objectively moral and for a while he was planning to use technology to make people better according to his values.

[Veritas Aequitas]

4. To kill humans is to suppress their "oughtness-to-breathe" thus terminate survival.

You say that as if it is a deterrent to killing, when, in reality, it is usually the reason for it.

And to imprison murderers is to suppress their oughtness to kill they clearly feel.

You are so desperate to counter for countering sake.
This glaringly expose your simple minded thinking with your physical restraint. Prisoners can still kill prisoners and prison guards.

If you understand psychology, there is the topic of natural neural inhibitors, 'impulse control' and the likes within one's brain and mind.
One can establish impulse controls with drugs, but what I am interested is the natural development of the neural inhibitors within to modulate and suppress the inherent 'oughtness to kill' being extended to humans.
As for morality the establishment of such modulations and control [is definitely possible as evident] will take time for the individual[s] and even within humanity.
This is common in anger management exercise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a rough argument justifying "Oughtness to Breathe" as Fundamental to Morality is Objective. So there is a lot of explanations to do.

• 1. It is undeniable there is an "oughtness-to-breathe" within the science-biology FSRK [thus objective].
  
  2. This is critical to ensure survival till the inevitable.

There you are. That's a hypothetical imperative. A goal-derived ought. It could only be true if the goal is already known to be true. But you are only assuming that survival is a good goal. This is what I referenced in the other thread as the incurable and very obvious weakness of this particular argument.

3. To ensure no harm to ensure survival is a moral issue within the morality-proper FSRK.

4. To kill humans is to suppress their "oughtness-to-breathe" thus terminate survival.

5. Humans are programmed with an inherent moral function "oughtnotness-to-kill humans"

6. This "oughtnotness-to-kill humans" is a moral element within the morality-proper FSRK.

7. Whatever is conditioned within an embodied human-based FSRK is objective.

8. Therefore morality is objective [6, 7][/list]

The details of the above premises are presented in other threads.

Discuss??
Views??

Overall I'm not at all sure you didn't make this argument worse with this rebranding.

1. is ridculous. 2 is the one that I chose as the most importantly weak link, but the overall piece is a chain made of weak links. 3 is meangingless, 4 is pointless, 5 is amoral, 6 is a repeat of 3. 7 is an assertion, unsupported within the given argument and pointless. 8 ... is unjustified.

Point is your knowledge base is too narrow and shallow.
If you study evolution carefully, you will note 1 and 2 is true.

Re 1, try covering your whole head with a plastic bag and you will soon realize the truth of 1.
As for 2 it is so obvious all [with rare exceptions] do not want to die especially in the peak of their life. Those who commit suicide has sort of damage to the will-to-survive and the % of the world population is a small % per year of the 8 billion on Earth.

What is missing [TBA] is I have no time now to present the details in support of all the above premises. So it is fair if you are in doubt. Others may have different views.

The potential of the above OP is there is room for the targetted development and unfolding of the inherent moral potential and thus moral progress within all humans.
It is not possible at present but in the future [next 50, 75, 100 or > years] when humanity knowledge base is expanded to understand more the complexity of the neural connectivity of the brain together with other advance knowledge in the neurosciences, IT, AI etc.
Are you aware of the Connectome Project now that humanity has completed the once thought impossible human genome project.
https://www.humanconnectome.org/

What potential has your moral skepticism in improving morality or goodness [no evil, harm nor violence] for humanity? At most you are groping aimless and blindly without any standard ideal to guide you for moral [goods] improvement.

As stated the above OP is open for discussion.

[FlashDangerpants]

Here is a rough argument justifying "Oughtness to Breathe" as Fundamental to Morality is Objective. So there is a lot of explanations to do.

• 1. It is undeniable there is an "oughtness-to-breathe" within the science-biology FSRK [thus objective].
  
  2. This is critical to ensure survival till the inevitable.

There you are. That's a hypothetical imperative. A goal-derived ought. It could only be true if the goal is already known to be true. But you are only assuming that survival is a good goal. This is what I referenced in the other thread as the incurable and very obvious weakness of this particular argument.

3. To ensure no harm to ensure survival is a moral issue within the morality-proper FSRK.

4. To kill humans is to suppress their "oughtness-to-breathe" thus terminate survival.

5. Humans are programmed with an inherent moral function "oughtnotness-to-kill humans"

6. This "oughtnotness-to-kill humans" is a moral element within the morality-proper FSRK.

7. Whatever is conditioned within an embodied human-based FSRK is objective.

8. Therefore morality is objective [6, 7][/list]

The details of the above premises are presented in other threads.

Discuss??
Views??

Overall I'm not at all sure you didn't make this argument worse with this rebranding.

1. is ridculous. 2 is the one that I chose as the most importantly weak link, but the overall piece is a chain made of weak links. 3 is meangingless, 4 is pointless, 5 is amoral, 6 is a repeat of 3. 7 is an assertion, unsupported within the given argument and pointless. 8 ... is unjustified.

Point is your knowledge base is too narrow and shallow.

You open with the pointless posturing - as usual.

If you study evolution carefully, you will note 1 and 2 is true.

I didn't tell you it was unture, I told you it is a hypothecated imperative. And it is a hypothecated imperative, that is obviously true.

Do you remember what question you were dealing with when I mentioned this argument? If so, you should realise that by not dealing with the actual counter argument at all (the hypothetical imperative problem) and just trying to railroad me with your pointless claim that I lack knowledge and then just ignoring the issue I raised....

...You are repeating the pattern of not reading other people's words properly, and you are showing why Pete was right in that other argument. You post hundreds of threads, but you don't even notice that your bad arguments are getting torn apart in hundreds of threads.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There you are. That's a hypothetical imperative. A goal-derived ought. It could only be true if the goal is already known to be true. But you are only assuming that survival is a good goal. This is what I referenced in the other thread as the incurable and very obvious weakness of this particular argument.

Overall I'm not at all sure you didn't make this argument worse with this rebranding.

1. is ridculous. 2 is the one that I chose as the most importantly weak link, but the overall piece is a chain made of weak links. 3 is meangingless, 4 is pointless, 5 is amoral, 6 is a repeat of 3. 7 is an assertion, unsupported within the given argument and pointless. 8 ... is unjustified.

Point is your knowledge base is too narrow and shallow.

You open with the pointless posturing - as usual.

If you study evolution carefully, you will note 1 and 2 is true.

I didn't tell you it was unture, I told you it is a hypothecated imperative. And it is a hypothecated imperative, that is obviously true.

Do you remember what question you were dealing with when I mentioned this argument? If so, you should realise that by not dealing with the actual counter argument at all (the hypothetical imperative problem) and just trying to railroad me with your pointless claim that I lack knowledge and then just ignoring the issue I raised....

...You are repeating the pattern of not reading other people's words properly, and you are showing why Pete was right in that other argument. You post hundreds of threads, but you don't even notice that your bad arguments are getting torn apart in hundreds of threads.

You wrote;

FDP: There you are. That's a hypothetical imperative.
A goal-derived ought.
It could only be true if the goal is already known to be true.
But you are only assuming that survival is a good goal.
This is what I referenced in the other thread as the incurable and very obvious weakness of this particular argument.

You are accusing me of ASSUMING, thus assuming it it true.
Thus my response it is not an assumed truth but an FSRC-ed truth.

I did not take it as a hypothetical imperative [conditional] which is irrelevant to the point.

Rather the above is a FSRC-ed biological fact [..] will support the categorical imperative.

Point is you are too arrogant based on ignorance.
Referring to various complains by yourself and others is not a valid and sound argument.

You need to show solid justifications to your claims.

You post hundreds of threads, but you don't even notice that your bad arguments are getting torn apart in hundreds of threads.

This is very immature and merely handwaving.
I am very interested, show me the precise evidence?
I even raised this thread to get into the detail where I am charged with 'Contradiction'
viewtopic.php?t=41858

[FlashDangerpants]

You are accusing me of ASSUMING, thus assuming it it true.
Thus my response it is not an assumed truth but an FSRC-ed truth.

Well now you can't have 8. Therefore morality is objective [6, 7] because that would make your argument circular.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are accusing me of ASSUMING, thus assuming it it true.
Thus my response it is not an assumed truth but an FSRC-ed truth.

Well now you can't have 8. Therefore morality is objective [6, 7] because that would make your argument circular.

As stated, the above argument need some more details and explanation;

Rearranging the order;

• 7. Whatever is conditioned within an embodied human-based FSRK is objective.
  6. This "oughtnotness-to-kill humans" is a moral element within the morality-proper FSRK.
  8. Therefore, morality is objective [7, 6]

How it is circular?

My argument why the FSRC-ed objectivity is most realistic;

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

[FlashDangerpants]

You are accusing me of ASSUMING, thus assuming it it true.
Thus my response it is not an assumed truth but an FSRC-ed truth.

Well now you can't have 8. Therefore morality is objective [6, 7] because that would make your argument circular.

As stated, the above argument need some more details and explanation;

Rearranging the order;

• 7. Whatever is conditioned within an embodied human-based FSRK is objective.
  6. This "oughtnotness-to-kill humans" is a moral element within the morality-proper FSRK.
  8. Therefore, morality is objective [7, 6]

How it is circular?

My argument why the FSRC-ed objectivity is most realistic;

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Your opening to the arg supposedly doesn't assume the imperative to survive is a universal good, that seemingly comes from a KFC.
The conclusion of that KFC must be both moral and objective for your opening in this arg -- which is not assumed after all -- to be true ... that truth is necessary for the whole argument to be sound. Without it, the whole arg is disposable and pointless.
The conclusion of this argument is "Therefore, morality is objective" and now we must consider what the word therefore does in a philosophical argument.
So this argument has the purpose of demonstrating that morality is objective, but it has a claimed objective moral fact as in input to that.


So yeah, you were better off with the opener being a smuggled assumption, because tightening it up definitely makes the whole piece circular. Now you have to drop the conlcusion, but that makes the whole argument just nothing.


But also remember, this was explained to you several years ago. The reason it came back is because you have been oblivious to the problems with your basic argument structures for all those years. Your other arguments that you have relied on all this time, and that you keep linking back to as proof your work is good are all similarly broken.