"Oughtness to Breathe" a Fundamental to Morality is Objective

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

Could you show us somewhere, from within the science-biology FSK where breathing is referred to in moral terms?

I did not claim that directly.

1. It is undeniable there is an "oughtness-to-breathe" within the science-biology FSRC
2. The "oughtness-to-breathe" is related to say, suicide [generally immoral] which is a moral element within a morality-proper FSRC.
3. A constituted FSRC within a collective of subjective is objective of varying degrees, i.e. intersubjective.
4. Since 2 and since 3, morality is objective in varying degrees in the above context.

The above is quite crude by valid.
The argument-proper I have is more refined and more convincing than the above.

[Iwannaplato]

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

Could you show us somewhere, from within the science-biology FSK where breathing is referred to in moral terms?
[/quote]

I did not claim that directly.

I quoted the direct claim. A claim with the word undeniable in it. It is a premise in your argument, not a conclusion.

1. It is undeniable there is an "oughtness-to-breathe" within the science-biology FSRC

And you did it again.

There's nothing indirect about it. Note that it is part of an argument and it is in the position of the premise.
You could certainly start with the fact conditioned on the biology FSK that breathing is necessary for each human's survival. While that is also a conclusion, I think we could easily back it up with, for example, articles is respect scientific journals.

Note the lack of moral language in that assertion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

Could you show us somewhere, from within the science-biology FSK where breathing is referred to in moral terms?

I did not claim that directly.

I quoted the direct claim. A claim with the word undeniable in it. It is a premise in your argument, not a conclusion.

1. It is undeniable there is an "oughtness-to-breathe" within the science-biology FSRC

And you did it again.

There's nothing indirect about it. Note that it is part of an argument and it is in the position of the premise.
You could certainly start with the fact conditioned on the biology FSK that breathing is necessary for each human's survival. While that is also a conclusion, I think we could easily back it up with, for example, articles is respect scientific journals.

Note the lack of moral language in that assertion.

I thought in our current age, that is common sense and more so if we make reference to the science FSRC. It is a bit silly to ask for scientific papers to justify it.

I can change it to the below without any issue on my part;
1. An "oughtness-to-breathe" can be verified and justified within the science-biology FSRC.

'Oughtness' in this case do not necessary imply morality at this stage, but merely a biological drive or imperativeness.

[Iwannaplato]

I thought in our current age, that is common sense and more so if we make reference to the science FSRC. It is a bit silly to ask for scientific papers to justify it.

Well, no it's perfectly reasonable to ask for support for someone making claims about science or any other field.

If I asserted that science shows there is a God. I am quite sure you and others would expect me to produce some support for that statement from within the scientific field.

1. An "oughtness-to-breathe" can be verified and justified within the science-biology FSRC.

No, it can't. You will not find that phrases or it's equivalent there.

'Oughtness' in this case do not necessary imply morality at this stage, but merely a biological drive or imperativeness.

Then replace it with respiratory drive. If that's what you mean, it would be clear and more correct to use the language that scientists use in human physiology.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I thought in our current age, that is common sense and more so if we make reference to the science FSRC. It is a bit silly to ask for scientific papers to justify it.

Well, no it's perfectly reasonable to ask for support for someone making claims about science or any other field.

If I asserted that science shows there is a God. I am quite sure you and others would expect me to produce some support for that statement from within the scientific field.

1. An "oughtness-to-breathe" can be verified and justified within the science-biology FSRC.

No, it can't. You will not find that phrases or it's equivalent there.

'Oughtness' in this case do not necessary imply morality at this stage, but merely a biological drive or imperativeness.

Then replace it with respiratory drive. If that's what you mean, it would be clear and more correct to use the language that scientists use in human physiology.

What wrong with the term 'breathing' in the scientific sense;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathing#

'breathe' and 'breathing' are very common terms within the science-biology FSRC.

'spiration' or 'ventilation', 'respiration' are more technical terms used only when the context warrant it.

If your thinking is more wider and deeper, there would be no need to squabble with the above terms.

[Iwannaplato]

What wrong with the term 'breathing' in the scientific sense;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathing#

'breathe' and 'breathing' are very common terms within the science-biology FSRC.

'spiration' or 'ventilation', 'respiration' are more technical terms used only when the context warrant it.

If your thinking is more wider and deeper, there would be no need to squabble with the above terms.

I am disagreeing with the use of oughtness not breathing. I suggested the actual phrase with respiratory, but drive to breathe doesn't particulary bother me.

[Iwannaplato]

Now we get into the second problem

the moral FSK.

When we talk about the biological, or better here, the human physiological FSK, obviously that is not mind independent. It's dependent on certain minds: biologists/physiologists.

When you talk about the morality FSK, you are not referring any way shape or form to a cohesive group. There are many moral FSKs with many different methodologies (consequentialist, deontological, religious, secular) with different axioms. There is no 'the moral FSK' unless you mean the study of morality. Fine, but then that study has no moral premises. It simply looks at the different (opposed) moralitys to delineate that realm of human activity and belief.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What wrong with the term 'breathing' in the scientific sense;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathing#

'breathe' and 'breathing' are very common terms within the science-biology FSRC.

'spiration' or 'ventilation', 'respiration' are more technical terms used only when the context warrant it.

If your thinking is more wider and deeper, there would be no need to squabble with the above terms.

I am disagreeing with the use of oughtness not breathing. I suggested the actual phrase with respiratory, but drive to breathe doesn't particulary bother me.

There are no absolute rules in the use of terms.
I believe the term 'oughtness' can be used in this case in reference to biology especially if we are to extent this concept of morality.

A scientist can easily used the term, a human ought [modal verb] to breathe if he want to avoid death.
There is an inherent oughtness-to-breathe [noun] function within his brain.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Now we get into the second problem

the moral FSK.

When we talk about the biological, or better here, the human physiological FSK, obviously that is not mind independent. It's dependent on certain minds: biologists/physiologists.

When you talk about the morality FSK, you are not referring any way shape or form to a cohesive group. There are many moral FSKs with many different methodologies (consequentialist, deontological, religious, secular) with different axioms. There is no 'the moral FSK' unless you mean the study of morality. Fine, but then that study has no moral premises. It simply looks at the different (opposed) moralitys to delineate that realm of human activity and belief.

Yes there are many moral FSKs at present, i.e. consequentialist, deontological, religious, secular, tribal, cultural, etc.
What I am proposing is a new and effective morality-proper FSRC [FSK] for the future [not now but next 50, 75 or more] which is none of the above ineffective consequentialist, deontological, religious, secular.

[FlashDangerpants]

As such there is no circularity to the above 1, 2, 3 and the later conclusion.

Not that your talent can determine. I think we've more or less exhausted that resource though.

It is circular, it has been explained, even an AI bot explained as much apparently. But you just don't get it and that's the way things always seem to go.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As such there is no circularity to the above 1, 2, 3 and the later conclusion.

Not that your talent can determine. I think we've more or less exhausted that resource though.

It is circular, it has been explained, even an AI bot explained as much apparently. But you just don't get it and that's the way things always seem to go.

I did go through my abandoned argument [not valid] as in the OP and made suggestions to avoid circularity and AI suggested how it can be revised to be valid but not necessary sound.

As far as I am concerned I got the substance in the OP except the form was invalid.
Your concern is only with the form [technical] but ignorant of the substance.
But now I have already corrected it without circularity.

[Iwannaplato]

There are no absolute rules in the use of terms.

No-one said there was. But you're making stuff up when you refer to it as part of the biology FSK.

I believe the term 'oughtness' can be used in this case in reference to biology especially if we are to extent this concept of morality.

Well, it has no grounding in the biology FSK. Not with that word oughtness included. So what's the point of mentioning an FSK when you ignore that FSK and that FSK does not think of breathing in terms of oughtness.

A scientist can easily used the term, a human ought [modal verb] to breathe if he want to avoid death.

A scientist can be a theist. You wrote an assertion that does not fit the biology FSK. You are misrepresenting the FSK.

There is an inherent oughtness-to-breathe [noun] function within his brain.

.
1) oughtness to breath in that sentence is an adjective.
2) you're free to argue that of course, but once you say this idea is in the biology-science FSK you are making things up or you don't understand your own term FSK. That is not in their framework.

I could just as well say There is a spirit of breathing or God breathes through us and then say that's the biology-science FSK.

But it's not.

Seriously what is the point of the whole FSK business if you can't even follow the application of it yourself?

That OP is all inside your FSRC. It rides on the biology FSRC and the hypothetic moral proper FSRC, but in fact the whole thing is your Framework and System of Cognition. Fine, but present it as such.

Presenting your assertions, not an argument, as somehow the product of the biology FSRC and THE morality FSRC is misleading in the extreme.

[Atla]

Seriously what is the point of the whole FSK business if you can't even follow the application of it yourself?

Gnat!!!

It's FSRC now, not FSK. FSK is totally feb 2024, now it's march 2024, you have to keep up with the development, it's important.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes there are many moral FSKs at present, i.e. consequentialist, deontological, religious, secular, tribal, cultural, etc.
What I am proposing is a new and effective morality-proper FSRC [FSK] for the future [not now but next 50, 75 or more] which is none of the above ineffective consequentialist, deontological, religious, secular.

The future isn't here now. It's as unreal as the star out there that we only see after light travels billions of years. Perhaps the earth will get hit by an asteroid.

It's fine to propose an idea, obviously. But you are acting like your premises are all true and based on existent things. But they are not. The assertion about oughtness to breathe is not supported by the biology FSK, while a respiratory drive is supported. Some future FSK cannot be then used as support for

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.

You are positing a future FSK, that you like, and referring to it as if it is the universal/objective moral FSK. It's not.

further you say it is effective. How could you possibly know that if it will be in place in 50 years?

Your OP is presenting an argument as if it is a deduction based on true premises. The first premise is false when it refers to the biology FSK. Calling what you want, your preference, the morality proper FSK is incorrect since it presents something that you say exists in the future THE morality proper FSK, and further will be effective.

If this was presenter a proposal, as speculation, as a suggestion, fine. And then you could stop pretending in the way that you are with those two FSKs.

[Iwannaplato]

Seriously what is the point of the whole FSK business if you can't even follow the application of it yourself?

Gnat!!!

It's FSRC now, not FSK. FSK is totally feb 2024, now it's march 2024, you have to keep up with the development, it's important.

Oh, nice catch. My whole objection fails. I could go back and change the acronyms, but my shame is too great. It would be as if my objection holds water in relation to the acronym with that added letter.

C = Cognition = VA's intuition which is one of the many types of cognitions available.

It is his intuition. So, I am wrong, wrong, wrong.

Thank you for this correction.