"Oughtness to Breathe" a Fundamental to Morality is Objective

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

That's an interesting point. He's obscuring the directedness of the ought in either case. So instead of if one wishes to be good, one ought to be nice to kittens (the basic morla ought), or in order to continue enjoying cream cakes for a long time, one ought to eat no more than one per day (a basic prudential ought), VA just doesn't mention the objective and tries to not deal with it. In VA arguments, if something is usual then that is enough to establish one of these oughtnesses. But that leaves him in a dog-legged situation where he still needs to deal with the motive and whether it is moral or prudential and how it makes for the ought part of the oughtness. His plan appears to be to just wish it away.

Simon Blackburn calls that the "regress-or-elephant problem". VA can only explain oughtness with one of these KFC-buckets, by leaving motivation out of this one he needs to create another KFC to expain the missing motive, but to not break the "objective" part of this one, he must leave out anything that isn't objective there, leading to the next FSCK also not including motive but rather kicking hte can down the line again .... and thus we have elephants all the way down.... OR, he will have to stop it here, at the first elephant, either by properly accounting for motive (but that will put him back in the circle) or by a more radical reductivist strategy that asserts motive is irrelevant/illusory/epiphenomenal.

Those are all terrible choices. He should have just abandoned the bad argument.

[Iwannaplato]

That's an interesting point. He's obscuring the directedness of the ought in either case. So instead of if one wishes to be good, one ought to be nice to kittens (the basic morla ought), or in order to continue enjoying cream cakes for a long time, one ought to eat no more than one per day (a basic prudential ought), VA just doesn't mention the objective and tries to not deal with it. In VA arguments, if something is usual then that is enough to establish one of these oughtnesses.

Yes, which means that oughtness is precisely not objective, since that which is usual changes over time. Further as he used to do with mirror neurons vs. neuronal patterns that lead to aggression, he chooses which things will become usual.

When I pointed out that there is no THE morality proper, he conceded that, but said that he was sure that in the future what he thinks of as morality proper will be THE morality FSK. So, the usual, now, doesn't meet his criteria, but something possible in the future, somehow leads to his current proposal being objective.

And let's put this in the context of his other beliefs. He has argued that realism is problematic because of stars, their great distance, when we look at them and see them, they may in fact no longer be there - having gone nova, for example.

But he founds his objectivity of morals on a future then accepted morality proper. Antirealists and transcendental idealists should be turning over in their graves. At least there was a star there, his future earth with a general acceptance of what he calls morality proper may never exist. And why isn't he satisfied with what is now?

I have thought for a long time that he is primarily tactics. Someone makes objection X and he finds a solution on the internet - they may not even be solutions, but at least they possibly are - whether or not it fits with other positions he has.

But that leaves him in a dog-legged situation where he still needs to deal with the motive and whether it is moral or prudential and how it makes for the ought part of the oughtness. His plan appears to be to just wish it away.

Yes, even 'prudential' suggestions or guidelines are an application of knowledge from the biological FSK. They are not from within it. And he specifically refuses to use the language of the FSK he is arguing his premise comes from. He says his 'oughtness to breathe' is the same as 'respiratory drive'. If so, he should have no problem using the latter, given that it does come from the FSK he is citing as the authority.

He's betraying his own system. Hell, I probably take it more seriously than he does. I don't think the FSK idea, in and of itself, is off. Yes, each discipline has its methodologies, models and epistemology. Conclusion in those fields are accepted if they have been arrived at according to those 'things' (all going well, that is).

But when he actually wants to apply this idea, suddenly he's ignoring the framework. Why? I don't think he realizes, himself, why he is doing that. But it couldn't be more obvious to anyone else why.

Simon Blackburn calls that the "regress-or-elephant problem". VA can only explain oughtness with one of these KFC-buckets, by leaving motivation out of this one he needs to create another KFC to expain the missing motive, but to not break the "objective" part of this one, he must leave out anything that isn't objective there, leading to the next FSCK also not including motive but rather kicking hte can down the line again .... and thus we have elephants all the way down.... OR, he will have to stop it here, at the first elephant, either by properly accounting for motive (but that will put him back in the circle) or by a more radical reductivist strategy that asserts motive is irrelevant/illusory/epiphenomenal.

Agreed.

Those are all terrible choices. He should have just abandoned the bad argument.

Yes. I don't even think it's a necessary battle. In the end he could form allegiances with people who don't believe in moral realism. They may well have similar values, even if they don't consider them objective.

He actually said to me that there are no absolute uses for words. When it's pointed out that his words are misleading and do not fit the FSK he is using as the authority, he says that doesn't matter because we can use words any way we want.

I could ask 'According to which FSK?' but then I am sure it would be THE linguistic FSK and later Wittgenstein who will suddenly be the only linguistic FSK.

Unless of course you or PH are using later W and he'll dismiss all OLP as idiotic.

I can understand that it's hard for him to even keep track of his own trail of slab dab positions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

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?

I cannot understand your point.
I have stated the below which you missed or unable to understand.

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.

The oughtness in 1 is not a moral nor prudential ought, it is a biological ought.
Prudential oughts are not universal oughts but refer to oughts that individuals need to do in exercising their wisdom.

Why is the above wrong?

[FlashDangerpants]

The oughtness in 1 is not a moral nor prudential ought, it is a biological ought.

Lol. What the fuck is a "biological ought" supposed to be?

[Iwannaplato]

The oughtness in 1 is not a moral nor prudential ought, it is a biological ought.

Lol. What the fuck is a "biological ought" supposed to be?

It's not a biological ought. In the biology framework.....
There is a drive to breathe or a respiratory drive.
There are descriptions of things that happen if an organism that breathes stops breathing.
X leads to Y.
No oughts of any kind.

We can apply these facts or descriptions when arguing for things and that means moving away from the biology FSK into other types of discourse. We won't find biological oughts in the biology FSK.
Unless VA gets a PHD in biology and somehow develops an international following. Then maybe.
But man, that's an uphill battle.

We have the VA FSK.

There are a few philosophers who talk about biological oughts. However they are not biologists and they are a minority faction, very minor, in philosophy. So there FSK would be something like

Neo-Kantian philosophy subgroup 46 FSK.¨

Appeals to that groups authority and their FSK are a lot less appealing to VA, so he claims the support, inaccurately, of the biology FSK.
¨
He is now, these days, with consistency, betraying his own FSK FSK.

He pretend to follow it, by pretending to condition conclusions on FSKs that do not use that language or have that conclusion and refuses to use their framework.

This is a misunderstanding of his own framework.

As a Neo-Veritas Aequitasian, I am outraged.

[FlashDangerpants]

There are a few philosophers who talk about biological oughts.

I find it difficulkt to process. If the ought is neither goal directed nor the result of duty or a similar brand of moral direction, how is it directed towards something? By what means is it a source of motivation?

The way VA decribes these "biological oughts" seems to be a matter of digestion, breathing, or pumping blood, none of which is motivated. These aren'tthings that tell us how we ought to proceed with our lives, thay are things which are ineitable while we are alive and largely look after themselves.

[Iwannaplato]

There are a few philosophers who talk about biological oughts.

I find it difficulkt to process. If the ought is neither goal directed nor the result of duty or a similar brand of moral direction, how is it directed towards something? By what means is it a source of motivation?

Well, first off it doesn't matter. He's essentially lying when he attributes these to the biology FSK. He can mention the philosophers that use the phrase and perhaps try to support an argument with their help. But really there's no FSK that uses that phrase. Neither the philosophy FSK, in which there are thousands of positions, nor in the biology FSK, which doesn't frame (as in framework, the respiratory drive that way). Then from there I don't even know if he's using it like those few philosophers who use it, use it.

The way VA decribes these "biological oughts" seems to be a matter of digestion, breathing, or pumping blood, none of which is motivated. These aren'tthings that tell us how we ought to proceed with our lives, thay are things which are ineitable while we are alive and largely look after themselves.

Yes. Is there a biological oughtness for neurons to release neurotransmitters? and who (what?) is the moral agent or any agent involved? Is there an oughtness to fall downward (due to gravity)? An oughtness to have volume based on the biology FSK (since in biology it's pretty much a given that any life form has some volume)?

He justs wants science and morals in one deduction, even if really he didn't manage to correctly use either one.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The oughtness in 1 is not a moral nor prudential ought, it is a biological ought.

Lol. What the fuck is a "biological ought" supposed to be?

Your intelligence and knowledge is limited.
Remember you mentioned 'meta-ethics' - the study of ethical theories and terms.

While actual biologists do not use the term "biological ought" in their work and language-games, in meta-ethics the use of the term "biological ought" i.e. "biological ought_ness" [syn. imperative, necessity, normativity] can be effective within the specified context of the specific moral language games.
Note there are no absolute universal rules in language-games.

You are bewitched under the spell of language [W] and you are too pedantic and dogmatic.
You need to find a way out of the 'bottle' quickly [W].

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are a few philosophers who talk about biological oughts.

I find it difficulkt to process. If the ought is neither goal directed nor the result of duty or a similar brand of moral direction, how is it directed towards something? By what means is it a source of motivation?

Well, first off it doesn't matter. He's essentially lying when he attributes these to the biology FSK. He can mention the philosophers that use the phrase and perhaps try to support an argument with their help. But really there's no FSK that uses that phrase. Neither the philosophy FSK, in which there are thousands of positions, nor in the biology FSK, which doesn't frame (as in framework, the respiratory drive that way). Then from there I don't even know if he's using it like those few philosophers who use it, use it.

The way VA decribes these "biological oughts" seems to be a matter of digestion, breathing, or pumping blood, none of which is motivated. These aren'tthings that tell us how we ought to proceed with our lives, thay are things which are ineitable while we are alive and largely look after themselves.

Yes. Is there a biological oughtness for neurons to release neurotransmitters? and who (what?) is the moral agent or any agent involved? Is there an oughtness to fall downward (due to gravity)? An oughtness to have volume based on the biology FSK (since in biology it's pretty much a given that any life form has some volume)?

He justs wants science and morals in one deduction, even if really he didn't manage to correctly use either one.

You have a lot of thinking, reading and growing up [philosophically] to do.
You are just like a toddler who learned something new and apply it literally everywhere.

[FlashDangerpants]

The oughtness in 1 is not a moral nor prudential ought, it is a biological ought.

Lol. What the fuck is a "biological ought" supposed to be?

Your intelligence and knowledge is limited.
Remember you mentioned 'meta-ethics' - the study of ethical theories and terms.

While actual biologists do not use the term "biological ought" in their work and language-games, in meta-ethics the use of the term "biological ought" i.e. "biological ought_ness" [syn. imperative, necessity, normativity] can be effective within the specified context of the specific moral language games.
Note there are no absolute universal rules in language-games.

You are bewitched under the spell of language [W] and you are too pedantic and dogmatic.
You need to find a way out of the 'bottle' quickly [W].

Yawn, please answer the question. What is a biological ought at all? How, given that it "is not a moral nor prudential ought" is whatever you offer as an answer to that question to be seen as a causal agent via motivation to make a certain choice?

To restate that because you are probably confused.... Apparently it doesn't motivate us to pursue an objective (as hypothetical imperatives do) and it doesn't provide moral obligation, but it represents some ought, which means it provides a reason of some sort to choose something of some sort. What sort of reason does it provide?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Lol. What the fuck is a "biological ought" supposed to be?

Your intelligence and knowledge is limited.
Remember you mentioned 'meta-ethics' - the study of ethical theories and terms.

While actual biologists do not use the term "biological ought" in their work and language-games, in meta-ethics the use of the term "biological ought" i.e. "biological ought_ness" [syn. imperative, necessity, normativity] can be effective within the specified context of the specific moral language games.
Note there are no absolute universal rules in language-games.

You are bewitched under the spell of language [W] and you are too pedantic and dogmatic.
You need to find a way out of the 'bottle' quickly [W].

Yawn, please answer the question. What is a biological ought at all? How, given that it "is not a moral nor prudential ought" is whatever you offer as an answer to that question to be seen as a causal agent via motivation to make a certain choice?

To restate that because you are probably confused.... Apparently it doesn't motivate us to pursue an objective (as hypothetical imperatives do) and it doesn't provide moral obligation, but it represents some ought, which means it provides a reason of some sort to choose something of some sort. What sort of reason does it provide?

A 'biological ought' is synonymous with a 'biological imperative'.

Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. Include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking, and group forming.
https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Biol ... imperative#:

E.g. humans has a biological imperative or "biological oughtness" to drink water.
This will drive humans to actions but that is not a moral action.

However, within a moral FSRC, depriving a human of drinking water would be a moral issue.
The objective moral fact within the moral FSRC would be;
"For a human to deprive another human of water is immoral"
(details to be explained).

[FlashDangerpants]

Your intelligence and knowledge is limited.
Remember you mentioned 'meta-ethics' - the study of ethical theories and terms.

While actual biologists do not use the term "biological ought" in their work and language-games, in meta-ethics the use of the term "biological ought" i.e. "biological ought_ness" [syn. imperative, necessity, normativity] can be effective within the specified context of the specific moral language games.
Note there are no absolute universal rules in language-games.

You are bewitched under the spell of language [W] and you are too pedantic and dogmatic.
You need to find a way out of the 'bottle' quickly [W].

Yawn, please answer the question. What is a biological ought at all? How, given that it "is not a moral nor prudential ought" is whatever you offer as an answer to that question to be seen as a causal agent via motivation to make a certain choice?

To restate that because you are probably confused.... Apparently it doesn't motivate us to pursue an objective (as hypothetical imperatives do) and it doesn't provide moral obligation, but it represents some ought, which means it provides a reason of some sort to choose something of some sort. What sort of reason does it provide?

A 'biological ought' is synonymous with a 'biological imperative'.

Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. Include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking, and group forming.
https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Biol ... imperative#:

E.g. humans has a biological imperative or "biological oughtness" to drink water.
This will drive humans to actions but that is not a moral action.

However, within a moral FSRC, depriving a human of drinking water would be a moral issue.
The objective moral fact within the moral FSRC would be;
"For a human to deprive another human of water is immoral"
(details to be explained).

So your hair has a bilogical oughtness to grow, and your fingernails have a biological oughtness to be fingernails, and the door has a doorness oughtness to swing open when pushed.

You've stopped using the word ought to signify anything much.

[Iwannaplato]

The objective moral fact within the moral FSRC would be;
"For a human to deprive another human of water is immoral"
(details to be explained).

And again he calls it 'the moral FSRC' when that is A moral FSRC.
The tired playing out of another moral realism that calls itself, always in its own jargon, THE moral FSRC.

And if pointing this out to VA leads to him saying 'Oh, well, see how you feel if someone deprives you of water'...he's confused or a few levels.

Of course we can use knowledge of human needs to inform our preferences, laws, etiquette, behavior and morals. And so will people who have different goals, preferences, etiquette, etc.

But that will kill him.
Yup. But he's a __________________ or He did _____________________

Some people would think that VA should be sending whatever money he has that he spent on a computer to help feed people who don't have food or get water to people who don't have that. He opted not to prioritize their needs. (and so did we).

We can generate all sorts of morals from physiology + values. And then call it objective because we have a majority or our own country or whatever. Because objectivity is intersubjectivity - according to VA. So, a large group's values + physiology leads to objective morals.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yawn, please answer the question. What is a biological ought at all? How, given that it "is not a moral nor prudential ought" is whatever you offer as an answer to that question to be seen as a causal agent via motivation to make a certain choice?

To restate that because you are probably confused.... Apparently it doesn't motivate us to pursue an objective (as hypothetical imperatives do) and it doesn't provide moral obligation, but it represents some ought, which means it provides a reason of some sort to choose something of some sort. What sort of reason does it provide?

A 'biological ought' is synonymous with a 'biological imperative'.

Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. Include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking, and group forming.
https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Biol ... imperative#:

E.g. humans has a biological imperative or "biological oughtness" to drink water.
This will drive humans to actions but that is not a moral action.

However, within a moral FSRC, depriving a human of drinking water would be a moral issue.
The objective moral fact within the moral FSRC would be;
"For a human to deprive another human of water is immoral"
(details to be explained).

So your hair has a bilogical oughtness to grow, and your fingernails have a biological oughtness to be fingernails, and the door has a doorness oughtness to swing open when pushed.

You've stopped using the word ought to signify anything much.

Yours ..cheap points.
You are really ignorant of what morality is about.

Oughtness or Oughtnot-ness refer to what individual[s] ought to do in alignment with the inherent moral functions in the brain expressed as coded in the DNA.
What correlates with morality is anything that has the potential of premature deaths and serious harms leading to death committed & certain severe mental sufferings by humans only.

In contrast to eating, drinking, breathing, avoiding fatal threats, and the like, fingernails and hair has nothing to do with the moral function with the moral FSRC.

Doors and other non-human things do not have an inherent moral function.

[FlashDangerpants]

A 'biological ought' is synonymous with a 'biological imperative'.



E.g. humans has a biological imperative or "biological oughtness" to drink water.
This will drive humans to actions but that is not a moral action.

However, within a moral FSRC, depriving a human of drinking water would be a moral issue.
The objective moral fact within the moral FSRC would be;
"For a human to deprive another human of water is immoral"
(details to be explained).

So your hair has a bilogical oughtness to grow, and your fingernails have a biological oughtness to be fingernails, and the door has a doorness oughtness to swing open when pushed.

You've stopped using the word ought to signify anything much.

Yours ..cheap points.
You are really ignorant of what morality is about.

It's a serious point not a cheap shot. This version of "ought" that you are peddling contains little to no oughting and is describing nothing but basic biological functions that will happen or not happen irrespective of sourcers of motivation to act in certain ways.

Oughtness or Oughtnot-ness refer to what individual[s] ought to do in alignment with the inherent moral functions in the brain expressed as coded in the DNA.
What correlates with morality is anything that has the potential of premature deaths and serious harms leading to death committed & certain severe mental sufferings by humans only.

That's utter gibberish. Please explain what a "biological ought" is. To be an ought at all it must provide a reason for making a choice of some sort. That is why we have prudential oughts (where the reason for making this choice over that choice is some sort of desire we are pusuing, a goal) and moral oughts (where the reason for making this choice over that choice is some sort of duty, rule, or obligation).

Your "biological oughts" don't seem to be explaining choices, which renders them irrelevant to the matter of ethics, which is about what choices to make and how to reason about them.

In contrast to eating, drinking, breathing, avoiding fatal threats, and the like, fingernails and hair has nothing to do with the moral function with the moral FSRC.

Doors and other non-human things do not have an inherent moral function.

Breathing has no inherent moral function. Inherent moral functions are not a thing anyway.