Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ought"

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby phyllo » Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:16 am

Perhaps to you. If one has a goal, one ought to go through the steps to get it. For each step, if one has yet to reach that goal, one ought to go to the next step. Rationality is a rationed chain of steps toward a goal.
There is more than one path that leads to Rome.
I am explaining something and you are saying "that is your opinion". Such is a meaningless response.
Given the responses that you have given to me and Magnus, it seems that you don't really understand the issues.
The definition of living involves the pursuit of continuing to live. When one stops trying is when he starts dying. When one has decided to no longer pursue life, he is already dead (as is common rhetoric throughout ancient scriptures).
Death or submitting to rape. Death or supporting a tyrant.

Do you not understand the ethical choice?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12113
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby phyllo » Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:26 am

That is for future states. There can be no choice concerning the exact present state.
Every ought concerns a future state. Nobody is talking about changing the present state ... since that's impossible.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12113
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:27 am

Ought always refers to some future moment, distant or close.

What you ought to be in the present moment is another phrasing of what you ought to be in the immediate future.

There is no necessary connection between what one is and what one ought to be. If one is alive, that does not necessarily mean one ought to be alive.

You can choose to kill yourself, for example. That sort of decision is obviously not grounded in what is. It goes directly against it.

There is, quite simply, no necessary connection between is and ought.

You are trying to salvage the idea of necessary connection by arguing that one who decides to commit suicide is doing so because he is already dead. Which is ridiculous.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby phyllo » Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:33 am

You are trying to salvage the idea of necessary connection by arguing that one who decides to commit suicide is doing so because he is already dead. Which is ridiculous.
One who chooses death may be more consciously alive than one who saves his own life.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12113
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby thinkdr » Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:34 am

phyllo wrote:”The measure of our lives is how much we were of service to others."
Are you implying by this that a slave, say, a chattel slave in the U.S.A. in 1840, cannot be a person of good character possessing such properties as courage, generosity, prudence, truthfulness, humility, etc. :?:

The statement says nothing about qualities such as courage, generosity, etc. It measures a person in terms of the service he does for others.

A master considers a hard working slave to be more valuable that a lazy one. A slave may come to believe that his own personal value is based on how hard he works for his master.
A housewife may come to see herself only as valuable because of the things she does for her husband and children.
The same can be said of workers in general. They become valuable only in terms of the labor that they do - to a company and to themselves.

Several points to clarify here.... One way to gain a good character is by adding value to an encounter; and being of service to others is a way to add value. Friends do it for friends; and in this paradigm, in this new Theory of Ethics I am offering to you for your consideration, once the Inclusivity Principle is understood and practiced,' there are no strangers.' Now our 'tribe' is the human species. To me, adding value is what Ethics is all about. See pp. 28-29 in A Unified Theory of Ethics for details. Here is a link to it: http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNI ... ETHICS.pdf

You write: "... workers in general ...become valuable only in terms of the labor that they do - to a company and to themselves"
The new Ethics theory I propose (when news of its findings is broadcast, and not only scholars but also the public become aware of it) teaches us that it is a mistake to value ourselves (only) Extrinsically. To do so commits the Instrumental Fallacy.... one of the Ethical Fallacies. We are to value ourselves (and others) Intrinsically. Yes, many a slave-master values his slave only as an instrument to serve him, the master. This shows up his cognitive liability. He rates a very low MQ, for as Lincoln pointed out: Slavery is immoral if anything is immoral
:!:


I can't see anything morally wrong with a person who goes to live alone in the wilderness of Alaska. IOW, someone who is of no service to anyone, has a rich and valuable and ethical life.

I do see problems when we define ourselves in terms of others.


You speak of "a rich and valuable ethical life." How do you define "ethical life"?
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you search Bing for the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby James S Saint » Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:37 am

phyllo wrote:
Perhaps to you. If one has a goal, one ought to go through the steps to get it. For each step, if one has yet to reach that goal, one ought to go to the next step. Rationality is a rationed chain of steps toward a goal.
There is more than one path that leads to Rome.

Irrelevant. You really did interact with Bigus too much. :lol:

phyllo wrote:
I am explaining something and you are saying "that is your opinion". Such is a meaningless response.
Given the responses that you have given to me and Magnus, it seems that you don't really understand the issues.

Even if so (and it certainly isn't), "that is your opinion" is a meaningless response (implying that you "don't understand the issue").

phyllo wrote:
The definition of living involves the pursuit of continuing to live. When one stops trying is when he starts dying. When one has decided to no longer pursue life, he is already dead (as is common rhetoric throughout ancient scriptures).
Death or submitting to rape. Death or supporting a tyrant.

When you place a goal above your pursuit of being alive, you are already dead (unless you didn't really succeed). That doesn't necessarily mean that you will not live again later when and if your will changes back to a pursuit of living.

phyllo wrote:Every ought concerns a future state. Nobody is talking about changing the present state ... since that's impossible.

And what I was talking about was only the "most primary ought" (accepting reality). From that point other oughts arise.

Magnus Anderson wrote:Ought always refers to some future moment, distant or close.

See above.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby phyllo » Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:39 am

You speak of "a rich and valuable ethical life." How do you define "ethical life"?
The one who lives off the land in Alaska is not harming anyone. He is not squandering the resources of the Earth. He lives in harmony with his surroundings. He serves nobody and expects nobody to serve him.

Is that not ethical?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12113
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:41 am

Necessity is self-imposed. When you choose one impulse as your dominant (= unconditional) impulse, then necessity follows. It becomes necessary to organize all other impulses such that they serve, rather than sabotage, the dominant impulse.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby James S Saint » Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:42 am

phyllo wrote:
You speak of "a rich and valuable ethical life." How do you define "ethical life"?
The one who lives off the land in Alaska is not harming anyone. He is not squandering the resources of the Earth. He lives in harmony with his surroundings. He serves nobody and expects nobody to serve him.

Is that not ethical?

In the modern USA, it will get you shot (because there are no witnesses).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby phyllo » Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:46 am

Irrelevant. You really did interact with Bigus too much. :lol:
It turns out that you are the archetypal objectivist that Iambig is complaining about. :D
When you place a goal above your pursuit of being alive, you are already dead (unless you didn't really succeed).
Oddly enough, the Hall of Heroes is filled with those who gave up their lives for greater goals. :evilfun:
And what I was talking about was only the "most primary ought" (accepting reality)
Which demonstrates that you don't understand the issues at stake.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12113
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby phyllo » Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:47 am

In the modern USA, it will get you shot (because there are no witnesses).
Maybe you OUGHT not respond to me. :evilfun:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12113
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby James S Saint » Sun Sep 18, 2016 2:35 am

phyllo wrote:It turns out that you are the archetypal objectivist that Iambig is complaining about. :D

Not even close.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby phyllo » Sun Sep 18, 2016 3:02 am

James S Saint wrote:
phyllo wrote:It turns out that you are the archetypal objectivist that Iambig is complaining about. :D

Not even close.
You would not recognize it or admit anyways. :D
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12113
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Sep 18, 2016 8:07 am

I understand the is-ought dilemma raised by Hume was resolved by Kant.
If one were to understand fully both Hume's views and Kant's solution then one would have at least 95% understanding and resolution of the issue.

One cannot expect an "is" to be an "ought" in moral terms.
What is critical is the "is" and "ought" must interact in complementarity without dissolving into each other.

Image
Let the white be "is" and black be "ought" then let them jive in a rock and roll dance.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Sep 18, 2016 7:04 pm

"Is" is necessary and "ought" is Cartesian doubt...

But not all Cartesian doubt is contingent, therefor you can derive ought from is...

*sigh*
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11026
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Sep 18, 2016 7:20 pm

Ecmandu wrote:"Is" is necessary and "ought" is Cartesian doubt...

But not all Cartesian doubt is contingent, therefor you can derive ought from is...

*sigh*


Let me explain this better...

Existence ought to exist

Existence is existant

Existence ought to exist because logic allows no option, so it is an "is" to that regard
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11026
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Sep 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:"Is" is necessary and "ought" is Cartesian doubt...

But not all Cartesian doubt is contingent, therefor you can derive ought from is...

*sigh*


Let me explain this better...

Existence ought to exist

Existence is existant

Existence ought to exist because logic allows no option, so it is an "is" to that regard


Dammit, I keep having to give thorough proofs!!!


There ought be nothing is a logical statement, or else it cannot be a veracity statement ...

This is to refute "there ought be logic or no logic"
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11026
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby thinkdr » Tue Sep 20, 2016 7:38 am

Earlier, in the first post of this thread, I showed how a Moral Ought can be derived from some “is” statements., statements that can be confirmed by observations, by a consensus of trained observers.

We measure our ideas against science, and science measures everything. We can, (given the scientific definition of terms, such as “Ethics”; along with the Axiom of Ethics as science, which reads: Ethical individuals approve of efforts to make things morally better) derive such conclusions as “Murder is wrong.”
We can even derive “unprovoked aggression is wrong” because we have shown [in earlier threads and in the selections linked to below in the signature] how “Do no harm!” is derived. Robert S. Hartman has provided us with a measuring tool, the Hartman Value Profile – which produces as many as 60 scores relevant to moral health concerns.

Science is the measure of all things; it measures the Universe and its parts. It turns black-or-white rigidities into shades of gray. …and “even these shades of gray may at the edges become fuzzy,” Bart Kosko tells us. [To measure those we need to employ decimal fractions, such as is done in dynamic mechanical balancing systems. See the mathematics of – what is unfortunately named – or misnamed -- “Fuzzy Logic”. This math may turn out to be very useful for Ethics.]

There are laws of nature – at the Newtonian level – and, it is the case that humans are a part of nature, and thus subject to those laws. Human laws are subject to natural law, to the law that every effect has a cause. Yet the fact is that the metalanguage for the new Science of Ethics avoids committing what G. E. Moore named “The Naturalistic Fallacy.”

Since the term “wrong” is well-defined in the system, and “Do no harm” is a theorem in that system, what other theorems follow from this? Here are some of them: Hurling insults (personal ad hominem attacks) is wrong. Psychological abuse is wrong. Violence is wrong. War is wrong. Pollution is wrong. Claiming “Everything is permissible!” is wrong. Stealing, shoplifting, cheating and fraud are wrong – for they do harm.

As should be obvious, all of the above derivations DO NOT constitute moralizing and should not be confused with it. They are not telling anyone how to liive, they are simply deuctions awaiting experimental design for many of them are testable. These claims and predictions within the theory of the new paradigm can be matched to facts, to observations. They will correspond to reality. The Coherence Theory of Truth {a mere Systemic value} is not enough. Fairy tales can cohere. In contrast, science, including Ethics as science, prefers {an Extrinsic value} The Correspondence Theory of Truth: match statements and beliefs to facts and evidence.

The theorems of Ethics as science are true by observation, not just derivation from an earlier axiom. The most basic assumption that is made, in the metalanguage for this Ethics paradigm is that every concept has an intension and an extension. The rest, the definitions of “good” and “bad,” as well as the remainder of the theory follows from that premise. See the early pages of ETHICS; A College Course for the details as to how it is managed. Many critical thinkers familiar with Logic, have through the years found that premise to be reasonable and acceptable. It has stood the test of time.
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you search Bing for the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby phyllo » Tue Sep 20, 2016 2:41 pm

“Murder is wrong.”
The word 'murder' already contains a moral judgement. Is killing wrong?
In the context of self-defense or opposing tyranny?
“unprovoked aggression is wrong”
Depends on what is considered 'provocation'. What's the 'scientific' definition of 'provocation'?
“Do no harm!”
People are harmed in the process of day-today living. It's impossible not to harm. There has to be a balancing of harm.
A young family wants low interest rates in order to purchase a house while at the same time a senior wants high interest rates because he depends on income from investments. What is the interest rate which produces no harm? There isn't one.
Pollution is wrong.
Pollution is a by-product of living and production. When a person heats his home, he produces pollution.
What is a reasonable amount of pollution? How do we manage pollution and still satisfy our needs?
A simplistic moral statement like "pollution is wrong" is not useful.
Violence is wrong. War is wrong.
Some people have no way out of their oppression except by way of armed rebellion.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12113
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby phyllo » Tue Sep 20, 2016 3:33 pm

There are laws of nature – at the Newtonian level – and, it is the case that humans are a part of nature, and thus subject to those laws. Human laws are subject to natural law, to the law that every effect has a cause.
How do you use the use the "laws of nature" to determine whether you should help someone who is being accosted or if you should walk away? You risk your own life by intervening.

It seems that the Newtonian laws don't help you in reaching a decision.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12113
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Tue Sep 20, 2016 6:10 pm

Phyllo, I really like how you're rocking a Carebear avatar. It definitely suits you.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Tue Sep 20, 2016 6:13 pm

Killing is only "wrong" when non government sponsored entities or individuals do it.

Immanuel Kant solved things?

Moral theorists clearly haven't read anything beyond 18th century philosophy. Hilarious!
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby thinkdr » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:28 pm

To be wrong is to violate a moral principle. such as "have respect." [Have respect for yourself and for fellow members of your in-group; and continuously strive to widen your in-group.]

To murder is to deliberately kill a conscious individual with malice aforethought.

To have malice is not to have respect. Therefore murder is wrong. ...by definition.

If a majority (or if a judge elected to represent and uphold the culture of the community) judges that "Murder is wrong" when polled, then it is also true by observation. This can be verified, in increasingly more-effective ways, as polling techniques are constantly improved and upgraded.
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you search Bing for the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:38 am

HaHaHa wrote:Killing is only "wrong" when non government sponsored entities or individuals do it.

Immanuel Kant solved things?

Moral theorists clearly haven't read anything beyond 18th century philosophy. Hilarious!
Before any one is critical of others, one must fully understand, not necessary agree with, the theories of the philosophers.

As for Kant, one need hell of a lot of time in reading and understanding his full range of philosophies and theories. Generally one may need 3 years full time or 4-5 years part time to have a good grasp of Kant's philosophy [epistemology, moral, & others].

Not sure if you have achieve the above research to give a reasonable critique of Kant's views?

If one have read and understood [not necessary agree] Kant's theories one will note Kant's moral theories and principles [too advanced for his time] are manifesting naturally within humanity at present, unfortunately slowly and constraint by various negative elements.
If we were to understand Kant's moral theories and principles and apply them systematically, the average MQ of humanity will surely rise speedily, effectively and progressively.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Here's how from "is" statements we can get a "moral ough

Postby thinkdr » Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:11 am

[quote="phyllo" Is killing wrong In the context of self-defense or opposing tyranny?
Yes. There are better ways to defend yourself. [Ask our Moderator. He is a recognized authority on this subject.] And beware that you don't become a tyrant while opposing tyranny.

... What's the 'scientific' definition of 'provocation'?
I don't have one yet. I was hoping you would help supply us with one. [It would require a person to think constructively, and creatively, rather than always seeking the case that is an exception.] {Those who do the latter often have no idea how obnoxious it sounds ! BTW, are you moving out to mid-Alaska soon, so that you can live in isolation, and thus be ethical?} :wink:

“Do no harm!”... What is the interest rate which produces no harm?
This is not a question relevant to Ethics itself, but is relevant to Economics - one of the subsets of Ethics.

Pollution is wrong.
Pollution is a by-product of living and production.
It doesn't have to be that way. Take a course in Ecology, or talk to an Environmentalist.
.
Violence is wrong. War is wrong.
Some people have no way out of their oppression except by way of armed rebellion.

I disagree. This may show a lack of imagination on the part of the oppressed. Sabotage is possible, as well as other techniques of the Danish Underground, and the Indian Independence movement to get free of the British Empire. Read up on M. K.Gandhi and the effective methods he used. He passed away when I was 18. From him I learned that Nonviolent direct action works. It really does when tried.
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS
[NEW] :!:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf


THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018)
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf

LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf


ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

When you search Bing for the following pdf selection you may wish to start with page 20 in order to skip the technicalities:
Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users