"Oughtness to Breathe" a Fundamental to Morality is Objective

[Sculptor]

Here is a rough argument justifying "Oughtness to Breathe" as Fundamental to Morality is Objective. ...
Discuss??
Views??

This is without doubt the most desperate bottom of the barrel scrapping nonsense you have yet posted.
You are deduced to giving non moral examples to patch up your failed moral objectivity thesis.

[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.

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.

You are still going to have an argument containing premises that already depend on moral objectivity to support the conclusion: "Therefore morality is objective". It will be a circular failure forever.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

You understand what is a theory? So far my theory is tenable.
[There are loads of theories that were later proven [in future] to be true in practice].
My morality-proper FSRC is a valid model which is in its totality only effective for the future because the majority of humans at present are not competent to practice it.
I have argued, all humans has the potential to adopt the above model and when humanity unfold that potential in the future, my morality-proper FSRC will work in the future.
There are such FSRC models at present, but they are in low degrees of credibility and objectivity.

My OP is based on true premises.
1. How can you deny there is an oughtness [imperativeness, must_ness, and the like] to breathe within all humans.
This is potential and drive is represented by its physical neural correlates.

When 1 above is imputed into my morality-proper FSRC, it then becomes a moral fact qualified to the morality-proper FSRC.
I have explained this many times; it is just you don't read or is unable to grasp it in its true sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Your thinking is too narrow and shallow.

In its effective philosophical sense;

• Cognition is the "mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses".[2]
  It encompasses all aspects of intellectual functions and processes such as: perception, attention, thought, imagination, intelligence, the formation of knowledge, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and computation, problem-solving and decision-making, comprehension and production of language.
  Cognitive processes use existing knowledge and discover new knowledge. -WIKI

In my case, there are prior processes [R] [including Kantian "intuition"] to cognition traceable to our 3.5 years of history to the first unicellular organisms ancestors.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

You are still going to have an argument containing premises that already depend on moral objectivity to support the conclusion: "Therefore morality is objective". It will be a circular failure forever.

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.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

You are still going to have an argument containing premises that already depend on moral objectivity to support the conclusion: "Therefore morality is objective". It will be a circular failure forever.

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.

[Iwannaplato]

You are still going to have an argument containing premises that already depend on moral objectivity to support the conclusion: "Therefore morality is objective". It will be a circular failure forever.

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.

Yeah, next we'll have the Sun's oughtness to emit light and the oughtness of muons to decay, lol.

The only grace note in this thread to me is that VA granted that he could make the same statement without 'oughtness' and it would mean the same thing. But he refuses to do this.

Which a simple, clear lack of integrity.

Not a convoluted lack of integrity, hidden under a mass of not really on point text. Not distraction based lack of integrity.

Direct, simple lack of integrity.

He has declared all these FSKs or now FRSCs or whatever now, but he has NO respect for them. He's happy to put words in the frameworks and systems they would not use, yet appeal to their authority. And he want's oughtness in there for completely transparant reasons.

Adding to this direct lack of integrity he makes up what will be, in his intuitive speculation, a future FSRC, the morality proper one. And he appeals to its authority.

And he is a kind of antirealist, a transcendental idealist. Yet, he gets to appeal to the authority of things that do not exist. Not merely that they are unobervable, but they do not exist.

And as usualy he is digging in and defending things that make his posts utter hypocrisy, when he could in fact do without them.

New, but thankfully obvious lows.

[FlashDangerpants]

The only grace note in this thread to me is that VA granted that he could make the same statement without 'oughtness' and it would mean the same thing. But he refuses to do this.

I swear there was a moment where he seemed on the verge of making a useful discovery about the need for arguments to have a structure such that the premises support the conclusion rather than going the other way round. But then he switched the light off and went with this....

It looks very precious, I won't post it here to avoid plagiarism. You can say what you like.

And he's back to the same oblivious fool he always was. Now with a Canadian Girlfriend of an argument nobody is allowed to see but it really exists and is super special. Witrh that plot armour in place he doesn't need to think about his fantasy being disrupted any more so he won't. He's freed himself up to use AI to tell him what a special clever boy he is, and then he can overrule that same AI when it doesn't agree with him, and tell it to agree that his secret argument is the best ever. It's a mess, he's doomed.

I think I made a tactical mistake though in letting up on the constant demand that he read what we write and answer our actual words instead of randomly segueuing. It was his version of forcing Age to deal in whole paragraphs and it seemed to deliver reasonable results for a while. I should have stuck to it even if it would drive him even more mad. That's my bad.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are still going to have an argument containing premises that already depend on moral objectivity to support the conclusion: "Therefore morality is objective". It will be a circular failure forever.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Yeah, next we'll have the Sun's oughtness to emit light and the oughtness of muons to decay, lol.

Your typical exaggeration and counter for counter sake merely made you very unintelligent.

'Oughtness' in this context is only applicable to humans or other living things, not physical objects.

There is no absoluteness with words and their meanings.
In my particular context, oughtness [synonymous with imperative] and appropriate since the topic is about morality.

[Iwannaplato]

Your typical exaggeration and counter for counter sake merely made you very unintelligent.

That was me having fun. My main objection still stands. I'm disappointed in you. The inclusion of 'oughtness' lacks integrity. It makes a mockery of your whole FSK thing. And you even admit it could be worded in a way that FITS THE DAMN FSK you are appealing to the authority of.

There is no absoluteness with words and their meanings.
In my particular context, oughtness [synonymous with imperative] and appropriate since the topic is about morality.

So, you get to assume the conclusion and betray the FSK whose authority you are using. And it is precisely inappropriate because that step in the deduction is, as you have said in other places, NOT ABOUT MORALITY and you have said the word does not necessarily mean moral oughts.

This is a shameless lack of integrity. You are defending this only based on ego, since you contradict yourself from post to post and in response to different people.

If you could actually learn form others and take criticism, instead of denying obvious contradictions and problems when they are pointed out, you might stand a chance of actually getting somewhere with your ideas in future communication. But keep this up and no one will read your work outside of forums like this one.

'Oughtness' in this context is only applicable to humans or other living things, not physical objects.

Oh, other living things. But you've said only humans are moral agents, but for some reason a word necessary because the topic is morality applies to other living things. Though in other contexts we should not think of them as being moral agents.

A drive to breathe, sure.
Oughtness to breathe, no, that does not fit with the framework and system of science FSKs.

There is no absoluteness with words and their meanings.

Great, then there are no frameworks and systems. It's as if language is not one of the tools used in FSKs, not part of their framework, models, and methodology.

Sure, make up whatever shit you want.

Your at a new low.

Disgusting.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your typical exaggeration and counter for counter sake merely made you very unintelligent.

That was me having fun. My main objection still stands. I'm disappointed in you. The inclusion of 'oughtness' lacks integrity. It makes a mockery of your whole FSK thing. And you even admit it could be worded in a way that FITS THE DAMN FSK you are appealing to the authority of.

There is no absoluteness with words and their meanings.
In my particular context, oughtness [synonymous with imperative] and appropriate since the topic is about morality.

So, you get to assume the conclusion and betray the FSK whose authority you are using. And it is precisely inappropriate because that step in the deduction is, as you have said in other places, NOT ABOUT MORALITY and you have said the word does not necessarily mean moral oughts.

This is a shameless lack of integrity. You are defending this only based on ego, since you contradict yourself from post to post and in response to different people.

If you could actually learn form others and take criticism, instead of denying obvious contradictions and problems when they are pointed out, you might stand a chance of actually getting somewhere with your ideas in future communication. But keep this up and no one will read your work outside of forums like this one.

'Oughtness' in this context is only applicable to humans or other living things, not physical objects.

Oh, other living things. But you've said only humans are moral agents, but for some reason a word necessary because the topic is morality applies to other living things. Though in other contexts we should not think of them as being moral agents.

A drive to breathe, sure.
Oughtness to breathe, no, that does not fit with the framework and system of science FSKs.

There is no absoluteness with words and their meanings.

Great, then there are no frameworks and systems. It's as if language is not one of the tools used in FSKs, not part of their framework, models, and methodology.

Sure, make up whatever shit you want.

Your at a new low.

Disgusting.

You are too pedantic, that is more disgusting.
We are not scientists doing any biological experiments here, rather this is a philosophical discussion.

It is not an issue if the contexts is explained.
It is an imperative drive & need, oughtness, critical to breathe is not an issue if the context is given, even within the scientific-biology FSRC [discussed in a philosophy forum] with a provision of the principle of charity.
If it is merely a drive or a need, that does not convey the criticalness and imperativeness that 'oughtness' does.

Regardless of the terms, what counts is whether the model is workable or not. Of course, I believe my model will work since similar lower quality models are already put into practice.

If you ignorantly stop your son's breathing merely for 5 minutes, you will experience and understand why 'oughtness' is the most relevant word in that circumstances.

[Iwannaplato]

You are too pedantic, that is more disgusting.

Great, you admit you are being disgusting to some degree.

We are not scientists doing any biological experiments here, rather this is a philosophical discussion.

Again, you are going against the language used in the FSK, while appealing to its authority. The language is part of the FSK. I am asking not for some absolute correct use of the words. I am pointing out that inside your model, which my criticism comes from, each FSK has a framework and one that includes langauge. Instead of respecting that framework, when appealing to a specific FSK, you use language in a way that FSK would not. If you were simply presenting this as your view and your way of using language, that would be different.

I actually took your FSK model seriously and noticed that you were not respecting it yourself.
When I do this you accuse me of requiring an absolute definition of words. No. I am actually taking your position seriously about FSKs.

It is not an issue if the contexts is explained.
It is an imperative drive & need, oughtness, critical to breathe is not an issue if the context is given, even within the scientific-biology FSRC [discussed in a philosophy forum] with a provision of the principle of charity.

Manipulative bullshit.
You list three ways of describing breathing as if I have criticized those three, when I have only criticized one. Drive OBVIOUSLY fits the human physiology FSK and I would have no problem with it.

If it is merely a drive or a need, that does not convey the criticalness and imperativeness that 'oughtness' does.

This is simply wrong. Do you think scientists when they describe breathing using the language they do, somehow are not conveying the criticalness of breathing. This is disingenuous. It is sad that you are not aware of how embarrassing your behavior is here.

Regardless of the terms, what counts is whether the model is workable or not. Of course, I believe my model will work since similar lower quality models are already put into practice.

So, you are presenting a low quality model.

Fine. If you are calling your model a low quality model, I am simply agreeing. I pointed out two areas of low quality. You keep disagreeing, but if you are calling it low quality, peachy. I agree.

If you ignorantly stop your son's breathing merely for 5 minutes, you will experience and understand why 'oughtness' is the most relevant word in that circumstances.

Seriously, you just keep getting more infantile. Obviously I know that breathing is necessary for life. This response is as if I have asserted that breathing is not necessary for life. Pathetic. And in defense of using oughtness in relation to the biological FSK, you bring up a personal situation where one does not think in the scientific FSK models and framework, while of course knowing that breathing is necessary. Really crass and cheap to use the implicit accusation that my son would be in harm's way if I disagree with your use of oughtness in relation to the biological science FSK. Perhaps the dumbest thing I've seen in PN and you think I'm being pedantic, lol. Agree with my word use or your son is in danger!!!

You're being a moron. You're not a moron. But because of ego, you'll become one at the drop of a hat.

In a philosophical context where we are talking about the frameworks of specific sciences, obviously the language matters. The idiocy of saying that it doesn't while hanging onto a word you said, earlier, could be replaced by drive to breathe. It is you who have an absolute view of the words, and don't care about the context - in this case the particular FSK.

The pedantic accusation is also moronic. It means that whether I am correct or not doesn't matter, it's that my focus is on unimportant details.

But that detail is obviously very important to you. So, you don't really understand how to use pedantic. Your choice of 'oughtness' matters to both of us. We disagree over it's use. So, the issue of being pedantic is just a distraction.

Disgusting. I'll ignore you for a while, which I am sure will only make you happy. Enjoy your imperviousness to learning from others.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are too pedantic, that is more disgusting.

Great, you admit you are being disgusting to some degree.

We are not scientists doing any biological experiments here, rather this is a philosophical discussion.

Again, you are going against the language used in the FSK, while appealing to its authority. The language is part of the FSK. I am asking not for some absolute correct use of the words. I am pointing out that inside your model, which my criticism comes from, each FSK has a framework and one that includes langauge. Instead of respecting that framework, when appealing to a specific FSK, you use language in a way that FSK would not. If you were simply presenting this as your view and your way of using language, that would be different.

I actually took your FSK model seriously and noticed that you were not respecting it yourself.
When I do this you accuse me of requiring an absolute definition of words. No. I am actually taking your position seriously about FSKs.

It is not an issue if the contexts is explained.
It is an imperative drive & need, oughtness, critical to breathe is not an issue if the context is given, even within the scientific-biology FSRC [discussed in a philosophy forum] with a provision of the principle of charity.

Manipulative bullshit.
You list three ways of describing breathing as if I have criticized those three, when I have only criticized one. Drive OBVIOUSLY fits the human physiology FSK and I would have no problem with it.

If it is merely a drive or a need, that does not convey the criticalness and imperativeness that 'oughtness' does.

This is simply wrong. Do you think scientists when they describe breathing using the language they do, somehow are not conveying the criticalness of breathing. This is disingenuous. It is sad that you are not aware of how embarrassing your behavior is here.

Regardless of the terms, what counts is whether the model is workable or not. Of course, I believe my model will work since similar lower quality models are already put into practice.

So, you are presenting a low quality model.

Fine. If you are calling your model a low quality model, I am simply agreeing. I pointed out two areas of low quality. You keep disagreeing, but if you are calling it low quality, peachy. I agree.

If you ignorantly stop your son's breathing merely for 5 minutes, you will experience and understand why 'oughtness' is the most relevant word in that circumstances.

Seriously, you just keep getting more infantile. Obviously I know that breathing is necessary for life. This response is as if I have asserted that breathing is not necessary for life. Pathetic. And in defense of using oughtness in relation to the biological FSK, you bring up a personal situation where one does not think in the scientific FSK models and framework, while of course knowing that breathing is necessary. Really crass and cheap to use the implicit accusation that my son would be in harm's way if I disagree with your use of oughtness in relation to the biological science FSK. Perhaps the dumbest thing I've seen in PN and you think I'm being pedantic, lol. Agree with my word use or your son is in danger!!!

You're being a moron. You're not a moron. But because of ego, you'll become one at the drop of a hat.

In a philosophical context where we are talking about the frameworks of specific sciences, obviously the language matters. The idiocy of saying that it doesn't while hanging onto a word you said, earlier, could be replaced by drive to breathe. It is you who have an absolute view of the words, and don't care about the context - in this case the particular FSK.

The pedantic accusation is also moronic. It means that whether I am correct or not doesn't matter, it's that my focus is on unimportant details.

But that detail is obviously very important to you. So, you don't really understand how to use pedantic. Your choice of 'oughtness' matters to both of us. We disagree over it's use. So, the issue of being pedantic is just a distraction.

Disgusting. I'll ignore you for a while, which I am sure will only make you happy. Enjoy your imperviousness to learning from others.

I always use the term 'specific', there are always room for words with synonymous meanings.

When I said there other models that are inferior in application, it does not I claim my model of inferior quality.
There are cars of inferior quality, but obviously I will claim the car that I manufactures is the most superior over the others.

By default you are on my ignore list, so the default just applies.

[Iwannaplato]

Not reading your childish bs for a while. I mean it.