"Oughtness to Breathe" a Fundamental to Morality is Objective

[FlashDangerpants]

Of course, I will have separate argued premises on 'what is morality' and 'what is objective' where their combination will be 'morality is objective' without any circularity.

Initially, AI stated the 'oughtness' in P1 already implied 'morality' [begging the question] but I countered it is not.

But it is.

AI agreed 'oughtness' do not imply morality, if in the right context.
I posted that somewhere.

The options are a moral ought or a prudential ought, right? What other sort of ought do you have on offer?

Your argument is circular with a moral ought in any of the premises and cannot be fixed.
With only prudential oughts, it doesn't support a moral conclusion that therefore morality is objective.

So how do you want your argument to fail?

[Skepdick]

So how do you want your argument to fail?

And even if it doesn't fail - you'll make it fail, right?

If the shoe always fits it's probably because you are a shoe-maker.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But it is.

AI agreed 'oughtness' do not imply morality, if in the right context.
I posted that somewhere.

The options are a moral ought or a prudential ought, right? What other sort of ought do you have on offer?

Your argument is circular with a moral ought in any of the premises and cannot be fixed.
With only prudential oughts, it doesn't support a moral conclusion that therefore morality is objective.

So how do you want your argument to fail?

1. I started off with 'oughtness' [imperativeness, necessity, critical] which is related and inherent in human which can be any FSRC.
In my argument I mentioned the Science-Biology FSRC. The resultant is a science-biological fact in essence in whatever ways one were to word it.

2. A FSRC dictates or grounds objectivity [intersubjectivity]. [validly argued elsewhere]

3. When the above science-biological fact is inputted into a moral-proper F-System-R-C, it 'follows' and becomes a moral fact or oughtness [imperativeness, necessity, critical] by definition. [note 'System' input -> process - output <-> feedback.

What is wrong with the above?

[FlashDangerpants]

AI agreed 'oughtness' do not imply morality, if in the right context.
I posted that somewhere.

The options are a moral ought or a prudential ought, right? What other sort of ought do you have on offer?

Your argument is circular with a moral ought in any of the premises and cannot be fixed.
With only prudential oughts, it doesn't support a moral conclusion that therefore morality is objective.

So how do you want your argument to fail?

1. I started off with 'oughtness' [imperativeness, necessity, critical] which is related and inherent in human which can be any FSRC.
In my argument I mentioned the Science-Biology FSRC. The resultant is a science-biological fact in essence in whatever ways one were to word it.

2. A FSRC dictates or grounds objectivity [intersubjectivity]. [validly argued elsewhere]

3. When the above science-biological fact is inputted into a moral-proper F-System-R-C, it 'follows' and becomes a moral fact or oughtness [imperativeness, necessity, critical] by definition. [note 'System' input -> process - output <-> feedback.

What is wrong with the above?

Part 1 is a prudential ought. It is a hypothetical imperative. It is an IF you want to live you ought to breathe sort of an ought. It serves no purpose.
Part 2 has its own issues and your arguments for that are not valid at all.
Part 3 is magical. It just assumes that there is a moral fact engine that creates moral facts, and then backfills to accept as inputs some other thing. It doesn't need or use any of the stuff from the premises. It stands alone.

An argument is supposed to have a conclusion that is either true or false by virtue of whether the premises are true or false. Your premises have nothing to do with the conclusion. You have managed to make a bad argument so much worse that it isn't even an argument any more.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The options are a moral ought or a prudential ought, right? What other sort of ought do you have on offer?

Your argument is circular with a moral ought in any of the premises and cannot be fixed.
With only prudential oughts, it doesn't support a moral conclusion that therefore morality is objective.

So how do you want your argument to fail?

1. I started off with 'oughtness' [imperativeness, necessity, critical] which is related and inherent in human which can be any FSRC.
In my argument I mentioned the Science-Biology FSRC. The resultant is a science-biological fact in essence in whatever ways one were to word it.

2. A FSRC dictates or grounds objectivity [intersubjectivity]. [validly argued elsewhere]

3. When the above science-biological fact is inputted into a moral-proper F-System-R-C, it 'follows' and becomes a moral fact or oughtness [imperativeness, necessity, critical] by definition. [note 'System' input -> process - output <-> feedback.

What is wrong with the above?

Part 1 is a prudential ought. It is a hypothetical imperative. It is an IF you want to live you ought to breathe sort of an ought. It serves no purpose.
Part 2 has its own issues and your arguments for that are not valid at all.
Part 3 is magical. It just assumes that there is a moral fact engine that creates moral facts, and then backfills to accept as inputs some other thing. It doesn't need or use any of the stuff from the premises. It stands alone.

An argument is supposed to have a conclusion that is either true or false by virtue of whether the premises are true or false. Your premises have nothing to do with the conclusion. You have managed to make a bad argument so much worse that it isn't even an argument any more.

It is 'oughtness' [noun] not 'ought' [modal verb] in 1.
It is an oughtness [aka imperative, necessity, evolutionary adaptation] which is a potential represented by its physical neural correlates.
This is similar to the puberty potential which in inherent in all humans, but this potential is not as obvious but rather subliminal and its effects not easily deciphered by the ignoramus.

2 and 3 are beyond you because your groundings are illusory.
You are just like theists who will never ever understand [not necessary agree] non-theistic views and explanation why God is a false belief.

[FlashDangerpants]

1. I started off with 'oughtness' [imperativeness, necessity, critical] which is related and inherent in human which can be any FSRC.
In my argument I mentioned the Science-Biology FSRC. The resultant is a science-biological fact in essence in whatever ways one were to word it.

2. A FSRC dictates or grounds objectivity [intersubjectivity]. [validly argued elsewhere]

3. When the above science-biological fact is inputted into a moral-proper F-System-R-C, it 'follows' and becomes a moral fact or oughtness [imperativeness, necessity, critical] by definition. [note 'System' input -> process - output <-> feedback.

What is wrong with the above?

Part 1 is a prudential ought. It is a hypothetical imperative. It is an IF you want to live you ought to breathe sort of an ought. It serves no purpose.
Part 2 has its own issues and your arguments for that are not valid at all.
Part 3 is magical. It just assumes that there is a moral fact engine that creates moral facts, and then backfills to accept as inputs some other thing. It doesn't need or use any of the stuff from the premises. It stands alone.

An argument is supposed to have a conclusion that is either true or false by virtue of whether the premises are true or false. Your premises have nothing to do with the conclusion. You have managed to make a bad argument so much worse that it isn't even an argument any more.

It is 'oughtness' [noun] not 'ought' [modal verb] in 1.

That changes nothing, the question is one of goal not of grammar.

It is an oughtness [aka imperative, necessity, evolutionary adaptation] which is a potential represented by its physical neural correlates.
This is similar to the puberty potential which in inherent in all humans, but this potential is not as obvious but rather subliminal and its effects not easily deciphered by the ignoramus.

Whatever, this establishes that it has no moral component at this stage.

2 and 3 are beyond you because your groundings are illusory.
You are just like theists who will never ever understand [not necessary agree] non-theistic views and explanation why God is a false belief.

This is that handwaving you like to talk about? Did you choose to type those words or did you just bounce your face on the keyboard for a while?


You obviously are not able to fix the circularity of this argument. Just give it the shot to the head it deserves. This whole "oughtness to breathe" argument has never done anything except make you look foolish.

[Peter Holmes]

The options are a moral ought or a prudential ought, right? What other sort of ought do you have on offer?

Your argument is circular with a moral ought in any of the premises and cannot be fixed.
With only prudential oughts, it doesn't support a moral conclusion that therefore morality is objective.

So how do you want your argument to fail?

1. I started off with 'oughtness' [imperativeness, necessity, critical] which is related and inherent in human which can be any FSRC.
In my argument I mentioned the Science-Biology FSRC. The resultant is a science-biological fact in essence in whatever ways one were to word it.

2. A FSRC dictates or grounds objectivity [intersubjectivity]. [validly argued elsewhere]

3. When the above science-biological fact is inputted into a moral-proper F-System-R-C, it 'follows' and becomes a moral fact or oughtness [imperativeness, necessity, critical] by definition. [note 'System' input -> process - output <-> feedback.

What is wrong with the above?

Part 1 is a prudential ought. It is a hypothetical imperative. It is an IF you want to live you ought to breathe sort of an ought. It serves no purpose.
Part 2 has its own issues and your arguments for that are not valid at all.
Part 3 is magical. It just assumes that there is a moral fact engine that creates moral facts, and then backfills to accept as inputs some other thing. It doesn't need or use any of the stuff from the premises. It stands alone.

An argument is supposed to have a conclusion that is either true or false by virtue of whether the premises are true or false. Your premises have nothing to do with the conclusion. You have managed to make a bad argument so much worse that it isn't even an argument any more.

Nicely put. The 'moral fact engine' is excellent. And I think it comes from the delusion that KFCs produce facts, so any KFC can produce facts, and any old codswallop can be a KFC. Hence the astrology KFC, whose facts, sadly, have minimal credibility - for some unexplained reason.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Part 1 is a prudential ought. It is a hypothetical imperative. It is an IF you want to live you ought to breathe sort of an ought. It serves no purpose.
Part 2 has its own issues and your arguments for that are not valid at all.
Part 3 is magical. It just assumes that there is a moral fact engine that creates moral facts, and then backfills to accept as inputs some other thing. It doesn't need or use any of the stuff from the premises. It stands alone.

An argument is supposed to have a conclusion that is either true or false by virtue of whether the premises are true or false. Your premises have nothing to do with the conclusion. You have managed to make a bad argument so much worse that it isn't even an argument any more.

It is 'oughtness' [noun] not 'ought' [modal verb] in 1.

That changes nothing, the question is one of goal not of grammar.

It is an oughtness [aka imperative, necessity, evolutionary adaptation] which is a potential represented by its physical neural correlates.
This is similar to the puberty potential which in inherent in all humans, but this potential is not as obvious but rather subliminal and its effects not easily deciphered by the ignoramus.

Whatever, this establishes that it has no moral component at this stage.

Where did I claim there is a moral element [Moral FSRC-ed] at this stage.
I stated, it is only that the scientific facts is inputted into the moral system that it becomes a moral fact.

You obviously are not able to fix the circularity of this argument. Just give it the shot to the head it deserves. This whole "oughtness to breathe" argument has never done anything except make you look foolish.

For rigor and serious sake, to justify your point show in detail [re the corrected argument not the one in the OP] where is the circularity?

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. I started off with 'oughtness' [imperativeness, necessity, critical] which is related and inherent in human which can be any FSRC.
In my argument I mentioned the Science-Biology FSRC. The resultant is a science-biological fact in essence in whatever ways one were to word it.

2. A FSRC dictates or grounds objectivity [intersubjectivity]. [validly argued elsewhere]

3. When the above science-biological fact is inputted into a moral-proper F-System-R-C, it 'follows' and becomes a moral fact or oughtness [imperativeness, necessity, critical] by definition. [note 'System' input -> process - output <-> feedback.

What is wrong with the above?

Part 1 is a prudential ought. It is a hypothetical imperative. It is an IF you want to live you ought to breathe sort of an ought. It serves no purpose.
Part 2 has its own issues and your arguments for that are not valid at all.
Part 3 is magical. It just assumes that there is a moral fact engine that creates moral facts, and then backfills to accept as inputs some other thing. It doesn't need or use any of the stuff from the premises. It stands alone.

An argument is supposed to have a conclusion that is either true or false by virtue of whether the premises are true or false. Your premises have nothing to do with the conclusion. You have managed to make a bad argument so much worse that it isn't even an argument any more.

Nicely put. The 'moral fact engine' is excellent. And I think it comes from the delusion that KFCs produce facts, so any KFC can produce facts, and any old codswallop can be a KFC. Hence the astrology KFC, whose facts, sadly, have minimal credibility - for some unexplained reason.

Your insulting in not referring to my point re FSK or FSRC indicate you are aware that you are losing the argument subliminally.
If you are certain, confident and mature with your argument, you would present your case in the most rational manner instead of resorting to insults.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is 'oughtness' [noun] not 'ought' [modal verb] in 1.

That changes nothing, the question is one of goal not of grammar.

It is an oughtness [aka imperative, necessity, evolutionary adaptation] which is a potential represented by its physical neural correlates.
This is similar to the puberty potential which in inherent in all humans, but this potential is not as obvious but rather subliminal and its effects not easily deciphered by the ignoramus.

Whatever, this establishes that it has no moral component at this stage.

Where did I claim there is a moral element [Moral FSRC-ed] at this stage.
I stated, it is only that the scientific facts is inputted into the moral system that it becomes a moral fact.

Please. Please, please... read what other people write. I am willing to beg for you to just pay attention for a short while.
I raised the issue of whether that was a prudential or a moral ought... you have that bit still in your quote right there. You repsonded pointlessly that it is a noun not a verb, so I am just restating the fact that it is not a moral ought either way.

I did not say you had written that there was a moral ought, why would I say that? The point of your argument is to quietly equivocate between prudential and moral oughts, not to say it out loud. That's why you can't make the argument work.

You obviously are not able to fix the circularity of this argument. Just give it the shot to the head it deserves. This whole "oughtness to breathe" argument has never done anything except make you look foolish.

For rigor and serious sake, to justify your point show in detail [re the corrected argument not the one in the OP] where is the circularity?

The "corrected" argument doesn't even have a line, nothing links the premises to the conclusion at all. You broke the circle by discarding the argument entirely. It's nothing but 3 unrelated assertions now.

[Peter Holmes]

Part 1 is a prudential ought. It is a hypothetical imperative. It is an IF you want to live you ought to breathe sort of an ought. It serves no purpose.
Part 2 has its own issues and your arguments for that are not valid at all.
Part 3 is magical. It just assumes that there is a moral fact engine that creates moral facts, and then backfills to accept as inputs some other thing. It doesn't need or use any of the stuff from the premises. It stands alone.

An argument is supposed to have a conclusion that is either true or false by virtue of whether the premises are true or false. Your premises have nothing to do with the conclusion. You have managed to make a bad argument so much worse that it isn't even an argument any more.

Nicely put. The 'moral fact engine' is excellent. And I think it comes from the delusion that KFCs produce facts, so any KFC can produce facts, and any old codswallop can be a KFC. Hence the astrology KFC, whose facts, sadly, have minimal credibility - for some unexplained reason.

Your insulting in not referring to my point re FSK or FSRC indicate you are aware that you are losing the argument subliminally.
If you are certain, confident and mature with your argument, you would present your case in the most rational manner instead of resorting to insults.

Flash has been preternaturally patiently explaining why your argument magics moral facts from non-moral premises. And you have no cogent response to this criticism: that non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. In my opinion, I don't think you understand what those words mean.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That changes nothing, the question is one of goal not of grammar.

Whatever, this establishes that it has no moral component at this stage.

Where did I claim there is a moral element [Moral FSRC-ed] at this stage.
I stated, it is only that the scientific facts is inputted into the moral system that it becomes a moral fact.

Please. Please, please... read what other people write. I am willing to beg for you to just pay attention for a short while.
I raised the issue of whether that was a prudential or a moral ought... you have that bit still in your quote right there. You repsonded pointlessly that it is a noun not a verb, so I am just restating the fact that it is not a moral ought either way.

I did not say you had written that there was a moral ought, why would I say that? The point of your argument is to quietly equivocate between prudential and moral oughts, not to say it out loud. That's why you can't make the argument work.

This is a contentious issue, thus one can easily misunderstand the other.
Thus precisions and details are required.
You think I am "quietly equivocate between prudential and moral oughts".
I don't see that at all.

1. I started with a scientific-biological FSRC "oughtness" not 'ought'.
2. Then I input 1 into a morality-proper FSRC, which then it becomes a moral oughtness.
3. Since a FSRC dictates objectivity, the moral oughtness is objective which leads to morality in that perspective is objective.

Where did I equivocate between prudential and moral ought?
The most you can accuse me is equivocating between science and moral FSRC, but in this case, it is tenable.
Btw, the oughtness and/or ought I am referring to are normative to and inherent all humans first as a biological function with the biological FSRC and then the same within the moral FSRC.

I believe we are talking pass each other somewhere?
As such, there is a need for patience to clarify and unentangle whatever the knot.

You obviously are not able to fix the circularity of this argument. Just give it the shot to the head it deserves. This whole "oughtness to breathe" argument has never done anything except make you look foolish.

For rigor and serious sake, to justify your point show in detail [re the corrected argument not the one in the OP] where is the circularity?

The "corrected" argument doesn't even have a line, nothing links the premises to the conclusion at all. You broke the circle by discarding the argument entirely. It's nothing but 3 unrelated assertions now.

You have to give me the precise reasons and simpler explanation.
Perhaps you could have misinterpret my point?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nicely put. The 'moral fact engine' is excellent. And I think it comes from the delusion that KFCs produce facts, so any KFC can produce facts, and any old codswallop can be a KFC. Hence the astrology KFC, whose facts, sadly, have minimal credibility - for some unexplained reason.

Your insulting in not referring to my point re FSK or FSRC indicate you are aware that you are losing the argument subliminally.
If you are certain, confident and mature with your argument, you would present your case in the most rational manner instead of resorting to insults.

Flash has been preternaturally patiently explaining why your argument magics moral facts from non-moral premises. And you have no cogent response to this criticism: that non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. In my opinion, I don't think you understand what those words mean.

We have gone through this a 'million' times.
That is because you are grounding your argument on an illusion.

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577


My point is;
When a scientific fact from the scientific FRSC [non-moral] is inputted into and processed in another Framework and System, e.g. a morality-proper, it then becomes the latter fact.
Example:
1. Mercury has physical properties of such and such, -science-physics FSRC
2. Mercury is a metal within a science-chemistry FSRC
3. Mercury beyond a certain quantity is poisonous to living things [science-biology-FSRC]
4. No one ought to feed mercury above certain limit [it is immoral] to any human -this is a morality-proper FSRC fact as inputted from the scientific FSRC.

This is how a non-moral element transition into a moral element via its respective FSRC.

[FlashDangerpants]

Where did I claim there is a moral element [Moral FSRC-ed] at this stage.
I stated, it is only that the scientific facts is inputted into the moral system that it becomes a moral fact.

Please. Please, please... read what other people write. I am willing to beg for you to just pay attention for a short while.
I raised the issue of whether that was a prudential or a moral ought... you have that bit still in your quote right there. You repsonded pointlessly that it is a noun not a verb, so I am just restating the fact that it is not a moral ought either way.

I did not say you had written that there was a moral ought, why would I say that? The point of your argument is to quietly equivocate between prudential and moral oughts, not to say it out loud. That's why you can't make the argument work.

This is a contentious issue, thus one can easily misunderstand the other.
Thus precisions and details are required.
You think I am "quietly equivocate between prudential and moral oughts".
I don't see that at all.

1. I started with a scientific-biological FSRC "oughtness" not 'ought'.
2. Then I input 1 into a morality-proper FSRC, which then it becomes a moral oughtness.
3. Since a FSRC dictates objectivity, the moral oughtness is objective which leads to morality in that perspective is objective.

Where did I equivocate between prudential and moral ought?
The most you can accuse me is equivocating between science and moral FSRC, but in this case, it is tenable.
Btw, the oughtness and/or ought I am referring to are normative to and inherent all humans first as a biological function with the biological FSRC and then the same within the moral FSRC.

I believe we are talking pass each other somewhere?
As such, there is a need for patience to clarify and unentangle whatever the knot.

For rigor and serious sake, to justify your point show in detail [re the corrected argument not the one in the OP] where is the circularity?

The "corrected" argument doesn't even have a line, nothing links the premises to the conclusion at all. You broke the circle by discarding the argument entirely. It's nothing but 3 unrelated assertions now.

You have to give me the precise reasons and simpler explanation.
Perhaps you could have misinterpret my point?

In that case, you have to give a precise reason why an "oughtness" and an "ought" are importantly different. Then you have to explain whether the oughtness comes from an prudentialness or a moralness.

And you will need to write whatever this fixed thing is supposed to be as an actual argument. Perhaps you should include some detail of what is the question it answers. And then you might want to explain how that question hasn't already been answered if you are in a position to use that second premise.

Any paragraph which begins withe the question "Where did I equivocate between prudential and moral ought?" But then moves to the suggestion that "the oughtness and/or ought I am referring to are normative to and inherent all humans first as a biological function" to make that exact equivocation again must be written for satirical purposes because it cannot be intended as serious?

[Iwannaplato]

In that case, you have to give a precise reason why an "oughtness" and an "ought" are importantly different.

and given that he presents this oughtness like this...

1. It is undeniable there is an "oughtness-to-breathe" within the science-biology FSRK [thus objective].

It really is quite deniable. He is choosing not to use the words that would be used in science and biology. He's not satisfied with their words, so he uses his own word. He opts not to use respiratory drive.

Then you have to explain whether the oughtness comes from an prudentialness or a moralness.

Even prudentialness isn't coming from that framework.

X leads to Y. Description and causation. That something is prudent, even something so radically obviously prudent as breathing, is application. It would be using science, not that anyone needs to in relation to breathing, which people struggled to do, except when suicidal, long before science arose.

So, it's a game. Instead of using language from the Framework of science, he uses a word with moral nuances.

And then it becomes objective when used in morality proper, which he himself says doesn't really exist now.

So, it's objective.

And you will need to write whatever this fixed thing is supposed to be as an actual argument. Perhaps you should include some detail of what is the question it answers. And then you might want to explain how that question hasn't already been answered if you are in a position to use that second premise.

It doesn't even matter. If oughtness is actually covered, his version of oughtness, within the Biology FSetc, then he can use the word or phrase they use. His reluctance to do that

to actually, himself, respect his own FSK thing, is missing. He appeals to the authority of an FSK (sorry I don't have the energy to get the new acronym right) while not trusting its framework.

IOW I think your suggestion makes sense, but it's just asking him to produce more silliness. He doesn't respect the FSK he is using as an authority enough to use its framework and language.

And it would probably be obvious to even non-verbal primates why.