It turns out that you are the archetypal objectivist that Iambig is complaining about. 
Oddly enough, the Hall of Heroes is filled with those who gave up their lives for greater goals. 
Which demonstrates that you don’t understand the issues at stake.
Maybe you OUGHT not respond to me.
Not even close.
You would not recognize it or admit anyways. 
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.
Let the white be “is” and black be “ought” then let them jive in a rock and roll dance.
“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”
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. [size=54][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.][/size]
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.
The word ‘murder’ already contains a moral judgement. Is killing wrong?
In the context of self-defense or opposing tyranny?
Depends on what is considered ‘provocation’. What’s the ‘scientific’ definition of ‘provocation’?
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 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.
Some people have no way out of their oppression except by way of armed rebellion.
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, I really like how you’re rocking a Carebear avatar. It definitely suits you.
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!
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.
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.
[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.] [size=50]{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?} 
[/size]
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. [size=82] He passed away when I was 18. From him I learned that Nonviolent direct action works. It really does when tried.[/size]
I see. I’m sorry that I disturbed your lecture on ethics.
( Someone could interpret that response as hostile bullying. :-" )
I see, what has been stopping humanity from embracing the Kantian moral imperative globally thus far?
He already said. It takes 3 to 5 years to understand what Kant was talking about. Who has time for that?
If it takes that long, what’s natural about it? 
Morality and ethics have to be explainable and understandable to a small child.
I definitely agree 
Those who have the talent to write children’s books ought to translate the content of the Hartman/Katz Unified Theory of Ethics into language suitable for kids, and it also ought to be taught in the Second Grade of K-12 schools in an age-appropriate vocabulary. Some day … even in America.
As indicated by the average tone of articles in The Journal of Formal and Applied Axiology, it is first being taught at the university level, then in junior colleges, then in high schools, before it ever gets into the curricula for the second grade.