"Ought" Derivable from "Is"

And what I already told you. In a consent violating reality such as ours, ‘law’ enforcement is reasonable.

But you’re not looking at the bigger picture here: the macro

Nobody ultimately wants to live in a reality where consent can possibly be violated. Not Hitler, not the allies… everyone hates that shit!

It’s a macro law of existence.

I’m the type of being that when any beings consent is violated, it violates my consent.

You should be thankful beings like me exist, because I can guarantee every being on earth will and would be sent to hell. You’re as bad a Hitler, you just don’t understand it yet. Consent violating realities spare nobody. You’re in a hell realm right now. Almost every possible decision you make here will send you to an even worse hell. In a zero sum reality, you must proactively regret ALL of your memories to be spared.

I certainly agree that objective facts inform, and that they can precede an “ought”.

My point is that they merely temper the translation of one “ought” to another. An “ought” that’s informed by an “is” comes after this “is”, but it doesn’t originate in this “is”. The “is” can certainly be significant in this process, but it’s just the decoration (the style/way) from one “ought” to another “ought” - it’s not where the latter “ought” came from. The “ought” came from a previous “ought”, and the “is” just tells you how. Not why.

A good “is” can describe how one “ought” to go about achieving an objective better than a bad “is”. That bad “is” can in turn describe how one “ought” to go about achieving that same objective better than a worse “is”. One “ought” to pick the best “is” that’s on offer, but only provided the best “is” was what is valued in the first place. Maybe you want a challenge, maybe you want to self-destruct, maybe you ought not to pick the best way for whatever reason - an “is” can build on the mechanics of how to get anywhere, but without an initial ought to direct it, it has nothing to build upon. “How” needs a “why” - an “is” needs an “ought”. You can’t derive an “is” without first having an “ought”.

I agree that people tend to not want their consent violated - because this is basically the same as saying everyone wants what they want. This is most apparent in babies who know nothing more than to express distress whenever they aren’t getting what they want, which just so happens to manipulate the parents into providing it. Gradually they learn to cope with not getting what they want sometimes and in certain ways - adapting to the environment and the parenting. They might eventually even learn the value of self-sacrifice, delaying gratification, and taking on difficult challenges instead of choosing an easier path. It’s easy enough to frame these more advanced behaviours in terms of them consenting to a certain degree of “not getting what they want” in order to attain a certain degree of “getting what they want” in another way. But even if you do this, you recognise a relativity to “consent” that isn’t as absolute as “nobody wants their consent violated” - it looks like more of a trade-off where there’s a definite overall aversion to consent violation, but not clearly and cleanly - not devoid of some degree of consent to have one’s consent violated. It’s not black and white, and shouldn’t be considered and phrased in a black and white way.

This is always going to be the case in a universe where there is entropy, competition, and where planning is effective. A universe without these things would perhaps eradicate consent violation and you’d exist like a kind of pleasure-amoeba constantly wishing for more and more pleasure, and getting your wish over and over without any hint of obstacle. A bizarre existence, certainly without higher purpose - but I guess you wouldn’t care if “getting what you want” was constant regardless of what you did.

Onto syllogisms - unfortunately any attack you can possibly mount against them will be self-contradictory.
“Syllogisms don’t work.”
“Why is that anything more than a claim interchangeable with its opposite or anything else?”
“Because…” - and you’ve already begun to construct a syllogism whether you realise it or not.

If you have a “statement” because of “reasons”, the statement is contingent upon said reasons such that “if reasons, then statement”.
Your premises are your reasons, your conclusion is your statement. Your reasoning can be reduced to a syllogism.
So, “syllogisms don’t work” relying on the syllogistic is a contradiction.

The only way around this would be to dodge all reasoning and logic, and simply “claim”.
Blindly following your intuition can certainly precede this, and you can simply deny reason citing said intuition. You’d be impossible to argue with, and any and all interaction with you would be irrational and without purpose - except for you to simply express your intuition.

If however you intended to be reasonable/rational instead, every argument you make could be reduced to syllogisms that would either be valid or invalid and maybe even sound (or unsound). Trying to complain about syllogisms is to try and deny the exercise of thoroughly and precisely breaking down your reasoning, presumably to let through any prejudice and fallacies that you merely intuit without explicit reason. I’m not going to let you or anyone else off that easily.

Silhouette,

My argument is simple:

The IS from a syllogism cannot be proven (sound) (I’m going to turn the argument of circularity against you!)

The inference (the ought) can also not be proven.

We have a higher brain function that performs these tasks for us.

How can you prove 1,2,3,4,5,6… is an infinite sequence? You can’t count all of them to PROVE it!!!

We have higher cognitive functions than syllogisms!

Even accepting this argument is a higher cognitive function.

We prove it via syllogism.

P1: A sequence that starts at “1” is possible
P2: It is possible to repeatedly add one to any sequence without stopping
C1: Repeatedly adding one to a sequence that starts at “1” doesn’t stop

Everything logical can be reduced to syllogism. Higher cognitive function is all you need to weed out anything illogical to your intuitions and the intuitions of others, and to succeed in reducing them to syllogisms that are either valid or not, and either sound or not. Intuitions that turn out to be illogical can thereby be thrown out in favour of those that are - or better yet, logically corrected. You can logically correct all your intuitions via syllogism, or you can irrationally simply claim intuition is just “higher”.

Back on topic, you really can choose either - there isn’t any objective reason to do one rather than the other. First you have to value (to “ought”). Only accepting this “ought” can “is” be applied to this reason to determine how best you “ought” to make this choice. “Ought 1” → via “is” → “Ought 2”.

You missed my whole point. I can write a syllogism that states that:

1.) “repeatedly adding one to a sequence a 1 that doesn’t stop”

2.) if you can’t count it, then you can’t be sure it doesn’t stop

I know silhouette, I know the way your mind works with your ego. I know this is anathema to you. Syllogisms don’t work. It’s all intuition. Me, being an objectivist, understands how frustrating that is to you.

You’re equivocating, the motive force in our existence is not a matter of “ought”… It just IS.
An ought cannot exist, where there are no options… and there is no option in what IS.

But what IS provides us goals and options and that’s where every “ought” comes from.

You seem to have distorted ‘what is’ to the extreme.

The ‘is’ in the Hume’s IS-OUGHT problem basically refers to reality and existence.
Reality in this case is all-there-is in existence.
In another sense, "is’ is just the copula in connecting the subject with the predicate within reality.

In the above case, there is no question of an “ought” preceding “is” which is reality itself.

‘Ought’ only arises when humans introduce various specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] and impose or conditioned it upon “is” i.e. reality.
It is by default these FSKs has their specific ‘objectives’ which then generate ‘oughts’ to drive actions or inhibitions.
For example, the Scientific FSK imposes upon reality and generate Scientific Facts from what are originally ‘conjectures’ [Popper].
This is what Searle meant by Constitutional facts.

Thus a moral framework and system with its moral objectives imposing on reality, generate moral ought[s] as moral facts. [nb: moral facts has nothing to do with “fact” of Analytic Philosophy].

I ) Consent violation is a feature of the Universe so is both natural and inevitable - whether it be in the laws of physics or in the laws of man
2 ) The greatest consent violation is the first one - being born - so the logical solution is suicide but that is not actually a very popular choice
3 ) Consent violation is ubiquitous because everything is subject to some type of restriction and so it is either accept it or fight it all your life
4 ) Given the general unpopularity of suicide the next most practical option is for everyone to keep consent violation to an absolute minimum
5 ) Consent violation will eventually be eradicated but only when we become extinct - we cannot make it happen - we must leave it to Nature

Birth is neutral consent. Consent occurs later in life. Without birth we can’t even have a consent to be violated or not.

If we die forever after this: suicide is the most rational choice.

You dont have to count every single integer to prove the number line is infinite - as you know very well - so your question is simply unnecessary
The positive integers are an infinite set as is the number line itself that is infinite in both directions - and is also something you know very well

That’s completely my point and not my point at all!

Syllogisms cannot infer like the higher level mind constantly does! The “ought“ in this Example is that we know we can’t prove it by counting all the numbers (the “is”) but we derive an “ought” by knowing they go on forever sequentially (inference).

There is no such thing as neutral consent which is an oxymoron - you cannot consent to being born - so its negative consent not neutral
No birth means no existence which will only come with death which is the end of all consent violation - so peace will come eventually
A billion years - when all life will cease once the ocean temperatures rise - is nothing at all compared to the eternity of non existence

That example is entirely irrelevant because ought and is pertain to moral philosophy rather than to mathematics
Morality is subjective not deductive like math is and objective morality is not truly objective - merely consensual

It’s the same thing. Morality can ONLY be derived from inference! Just like math.

Everyones consent is violated.
Nobody likes their consent violated.
The goal of everybody (morally) is to completely eradicate consent violation.

Just like math, all of this is inference (perfectly sound inference) from the is to the ought.

All of this (just like math) requires higher cognitive functioning than the premises and conclusion

It is more realistic and practical to state,
-the goal of everybody [morally] is to completely flow spontaneously & positively with consent [as defined] that are good and avoid those that are evil.

Your post is off topic (that there are higher cognitive functions than syllogisms) but I’ll answer it anyways!

We live in a negative zero sum reality. All goods have / are evils as well. Being awake is knowing this for a fact and not tolerating it.

I didn’t miss the point, I disagreed with it and logically proved the grounds of my disagreement. Just because you don’t like my disproof of your point, doesn’t mean I missed the point or that I’m wrong.

I think you ought to learn a bit about syllogisms before you trash them for getting in the way of your “intuitions”. You don’t just state a couple of claims and call it a syllogism - there’s a specific form that a syllogism follows. E.g. you could have said:
P1. It is possible to repeatedly add 1 to a sequence
P2. Not being able to complete repeated addition is insufficient proof that it goes on infinitely
C1. Repeated addition of 1 to a sequence can’t be sufficiently proven to go on infinitely
At least then you’d have a valid syllogism - but it still wouldn’t be sound because premise 2 isn’t true.

It might be the case that you personally will only regard “what you can directly experience” as proof, but the conclusion I provided relies on the notion of “don’t stop”. You could be strictly pragmatic and claim that in practice nobody can live forever to successfully perform “not stopping”, but if you accept the theoretical possibility of “not stopping” aside from practical limitations of actually doing it (and empirically confirming the reasoning), then the conclusion is necessarily true by virtue of the valid logic structured in my syllogism.

But humans already had the Empiricism vs Rationalism bout a few hundred years ago.
Personally I acknowledge the importance of the experience of “intuition” as a kind of “internal check” as to whether something really is or isn’t logical. The experience is a kind of familiar feeling based on previous experience of logic. On a psychological level, this is in fact the best that humans can do on a maximally individual level with regard to logic, but the sociological experience of dialectically refining your intuitions of “logic” cannot be ignored - because it distinguishes “I’m right because of the experience of intuition alone” from “I’m right because of sociologically tempered experience of intuition”. The latter is how everyone learns the language and thought processes to mentally encompass “logic” and “intuition” in the first place, and is ultimately the only way to best intuit the effectiveness of your own intuitions with regard to logic. There’s a basic failure on your part to constructively participate in the social refining of your intuitions in relation to logic.

Being able to confidently and competently disassemble someone’s point, to highlight the flaws that make it wrong, doesn’t mean you have an “ego” - no matter how resentful you might feel for having it done to you.

It would be possible for someone to be motivated to try and prove you wrong because they had an ego, but there are many other motivations to want to do this. As such, concluding that an “ego” is involved is known as “abductive reasoning”, which is basically just “jumping to conclusions”. I’m sure this fits in just fine with your “intuitionism”, where basically anything goes as long as you suspect it. Convenient, huh?
It would also be possible for someone to have such faith in their own intuitions as you do because they have an “ego”. Observe as I do not now jump to this conclusion before logically verifying it - i.e. completely casting off anything to do with my own “ego” in favour of being impartial and objective.
An “intuitionist”, such as you are modelling yourself to be, is basically the opposite of an “objectivist”. Objectivism (n.b. not the Ayn Rand nonsense) is what I’m doing - being objective. I don’t want to downplay the value of intuition - intuitions often turn out to be correct, but to stick to the scientific method to confirm if they turn out to be correct or not, you can only draw upon intuitions as far as your hypothesis. From then on, you devise an experiment to isolate independent variables against which to measure your hypothesis objectively, acknowledging as many caveats as you can as to the accuracy and reliability of doing so. You then take nothing more than the data you’ve gathered to inform your conclusions. Only in your evaluation can you then compare your objective findings to your intuitions to detemine whether they really were correct or not.

All of the above is cold hard fact. Any injection of “ego” into the mix is on your part alone. It’s your right to indulge in “psychological projection” if that’s what you’re doing, but as for me - if I could get everyone else to focus only on the contents of my arguments instead of me as a person, I would. “Me” is 100% irrelevant, if I may have so much of an ego to claim such an egotistical sentiment.

Anyway - it’s a stretch, but I’m gonna claim this is all still on topic to the extent that it challenges the form of syllogisms themselves, and addresses attitudes towards syllogisms, when syllogism was a main feature of the OP… :-"

Silhouette,

To your entire post! I’m debating post modernists in another thread. Words are just words talking about more words and they don’t mean shit! Ever.

How the fuck are you going to come into this debate with syllogisms?!?!

You’re not. You have to appeal to a cognition that’s higher than syllogisms.

You didn’t put me in my place at all. It’s impossible to defend an infinite sequence with a syllogism, impossible. The human mind is so much, so much greater that what a puny syllogism can offer/provide.

I can call it intuition, or simply a higher cognition we all possess.

Point is, syllogism should be the core of any argument.
You cannot simply dismiss the effectiveness of syllogism but has to use it along with other tools qualifying its limitation.
Since syllogism has limitations, you need to support your argument with other philosophical tools that are useful to support the argument.

Note two tools among others;
Reflective Equilibrium,
Reflective equilibrium is a state of balance or coherence among a set of beliefs arrived at by a process of deliberative mutual adjustment among general principles and particular judgments.

Coherentism
Coherentism is a theory of epistemic justification. It implies that for a belief to be justified it must belong to a coherent system of beliefs. For a system of beliefs to be coherent, the beliefs that make up that system must “cohere” with one another.

In the above approaches, one can bring all all relevant justifiable information to support one’s argument.

When you bring in anything that is supposedly intuitive, you still have to ensure it have some degree of reasonableness.
Your ‘consent’ theory may be intuitive, but as I have shown it is not solidly sound by the counters I provided.

I will agree with my consent [as defined] rejected if anyone can prove convincingly that what I consented to has evil elements which I may have been ignorant or not-aware of.

“My consent theory” is not counterable, it’s true by definition. I can’t remember your argument to counter it. Did you use the birth example like everyone does? I can’t remember. Birth is always neutral consent. You need to be born to have or not have consent.

Anyways… I’d like to again see how you ‘proved’ this is not a sound idea (apologies - but if it really means something to you, and it’s on the ‘tip of your tongue’ then it shouldn’t be much of an imposition! Me? I have to re-read the whole thread!

Reflective equillibrianism and coheretism are bullshit.

These concepts don’t prove soundness. Truth in all logic is and only is visceral, is a feeling about words.

Have you ever heard of “boo/yeah theory“. We as primates either boo something or we cheer for it. Funny theory by the way!

Something can be perfectly true, but animals like us always have the option of “booing” it.

I find this on YouTube … I look at a great number of songs on it, sure as shit, the definitively one of the coolest songs ever has thumbs down. The only exception is very specific performances of classical music that almost everyone on earth is not in the know. Then you’ll find no thumbs down. There are probably at least a million people on earth who hate ALL music.

It’s insane, but that’s their gig in life, so they boo everything.

In the same way, logic bothers at least a million people, they just boo it no matter what.

So you’re going to tell me a syllogism is going to work on these people if you add the spices of coherentism and equilibrianism ? They don’t give a shit. All they care about is using meaningless words to their advantage in a might makes right dominance concept of existence. Their words and logic never worked for them as children when mommy and daddy, life, existence used to beat the shit out of them everyday for ‘being smart’

They don’t give a fuck about reference!

You come on this board with a syllogism etc… thinking that you actually solved something. You didn’t solve shit. Yes, people know what your words mean, they just don’t care… their higher brain doesn’t care. To talk to people like this, you have to make sense appealing to their higher brain. It’s not easy work.