It is said that you can’t derive an ought from an is and this is true; a fact is not the same thing as an ought. But the bridge between facts and values is a goal.
Reality sets the possible actions. A goal determines which actions are right and which are wrong.
ALL value-judgments refer to an objective.
A deranged objective will produce deranged values and judgements.
A fantasy objective will produce unrealized values and nihilistic judgments.
Well said, Silenus.
I agree, Silenus. Not all values/possibilities are oughts. Just because you can/want… doesn’t mean you should. For example, if what you want (your goal) violates informed consent, it would be self-defeating (fact) to give more weight to what you want than to the other’s informed consent. The ought comes in when the facts about personhood order the values (wants, goals, possibilities) determining the actions of each person in the situation.
Radiant rule supercedes.
Banning ALL nukes from EVERY nation, simultaneously, who gives a shit if the nations sign informed consent about it or not?
Derail to here… and try to stay on topic:
If perpetually curious wants their thread to go in your direction, I will leave that up to them.
I had no interest in this thread, until you posted. Needed to let you recognize the superiority of the Radiant rule. We can talk elsewhere if you like…
Don’t get creepy, buck-o.
Feel free to discuss whatever you want here.
It’s OK if you want to sacrifice your own life, but you don’t sacrifice the lives of others. You protect them from aggressors. And you can only do that if you are stronger than the aggressors. Right now, the nukes are distributed such that mutually assured destruction would be the result if anyone tried to aggress on that level. It should be kept that way. Moving forward, as far as it is possible, we should not allow known aggressors to obtain nukes.
That applies to every other technology in existence that puts an aggressor at an advantage over others who are responsible for protecting people from them.
There is a huge imbalance. Don’t get me started.
Dude… its a philosophical point, an abstraction…
It’s mean to defeat your “golden rule is best rule” philosophy nothing more…
It was meant as if aliens, or an ASI, could “beam up” all the nukes and confiscate them all.
…or say there’s some chemical that neutralizes everything so they can no longer be used as weapons, and you can have no nuclear meltdowns? Wouldn’t that be wonderful!
…or maybe we could learn how to solve our problems like rational animals (whether programmed by Nature or humans—we’re all AI…some of us are wet) who acknowledge the sameness of personhood in every one of us? Miraculous apart from…in complete denial of… the whole we’re in. Perfectly natural in alignment with the whole. And that’s the difference between ordinary and extraordinary (be ordinary).
I have bad news. People will never be equal… not in the futurani unicorn world and not in the pages of Immanuel Kant, the bible, or the constitution.
You may, at best, democratize the means of production if you wish to improve man’s lot. All else is useless floundering nonsense.
If we had anarcho syndicalism, I’d get the labor union mob boss in your neck of the woods to keep your mouth in check. Even on your birthday.
One would not need to keep my mouth in check if I were in an anarcho-syndicalism.
Sometimes a fight will go on for so long between a philosopher and the State that spectators will forget who started it and begin blaming the philosopher for being mad.
Your mom is not the state, and anyone who argues with their mother is not a philosopher… unless they leave insults out of it and show due respect like a gentleman. Your ad hominems and constant interruptions (including repeatedly insisting she shut up) are shameful sophistry you use like a crutch in the presence of a strong woman. Puh. You live with someone you could appreciate while she’s alive — an iron who could sharpen you — but you are grating yourself into so much dross instead. A man uses his strength to protect and empower a woman, not wear her down.
On this anniversary of your birth (which was probably very painful for her), I bless you with a new beginning. Don’t squander it.
I really wish i could support you and the other old women at this site who seem to think that the world wouldn’t turn without them, but science does not support that claim.
The second worst thing is to exist at all. The first worst thing is to exist and be a woman.
I dunno i just feel like the mom-power thing is getting out of control with you because you keep thinking you’re talking to a retarded teenager or something when you reply to me.
This woman, my moms, is an embarrassing disgrace that my father had no business with but ended up with because he’s a moron. And i am a product of that unfortunate union. I don’t owe either of them anything.
See, your starting point is all wrong. When life is given to you without your consent, that life owes absolutely nothing to its producers. If anything, it’s the other way around. Parents should almost literally be eaten by their children. That is what they owe their children for bringing them into this circus world.
They have a responsibility to take care of them until they’re old enough to take care of themselves, and then they have a responsibility to help them fly from the nest and give them a little nudge to fall on their ass if they refuse to fly. Her only fault is that she hasn’t booted your ass out or made you pay rent & increased it every damn time you opened your mouth with disrespect.
Sorry I even bothered responding to BriBri, PerpetuallyCurious.
Record scratch back to here:
It is possible for one species to have an objective - an “ought” - that is completely delusional and unattainable.
All value-judgements are in reference to an objective, but not all objectives are realizable, or real.