What “Mad Man P” provided is a general model, i.e.
What IS the circumstance.
What IS the objective.
If the circumstance is to play chess, the objective and the rules are conditioned with the games of chess as understood and agreed upon those who play the game of chess as stipulated within the International Chess Federation. fide.com/
Since there is conditions 1 and 2 within the specific games of chess, the players ought to follow the rules of the game to arrive at the objective, i.e. to win the game.
In the case of moral-oughts, we will have
a Framework and System of Moral and
Moral Objectives.
In the above, I will have to justify what are the above empirically and philosophically.
In terms of transcendental Idealism, the thing-in-itself to Kant is an illusion.
In the above Kant refer to external empirical objects/things which appear in space and in reality.
My original argument;
P1 ‘IS’ [empirical] is conditioned by humans [PAR]
P2 Humans condition OUGHT_ness
C1 Therefore, OUGHT is derived from IS
“What is” is the reality of external objects/things which appear as appearance to the conscious mind.
Appearance is merely a representation of the external objects/things.
“IS” is the reality, i.e. all-there-is.
Thus my P1 should be maintained.
I can change my P1 to be more realistic, i.e.
P1 ‘IS’ [reality - ‘all-there-is’ -empirical] is conditioned by humans [PAR]
Re P2, obligations or oughtness are inherent within the human DNA or psyche.
E.g. humans ought to breathe is inherent from the DNA.
Whatever the ‘ought’ it has to be conditioned from humans and no where else, not God nor Plato’s Forms.
Thus my P2 is valid.
Therefore my conclusion follows from P1 to P2.
There is no need for additional premises, except for the above additional explanation.
Point here is P1 is universal, i.e.
Reality, what-IS is all-there-is.
Human are part and parcel of all-there-is [reality].
The impulse of oughtness from humans are also part and parcel of all-there-is [reality].
Therefore minor premise P1 can qualify to be subsumed with the major Premise P1.
It is all logical.
P1 Framework and System of Knowledge produced facts* conditionally.
P2 Morality is dealt within a Framework and System of Knowledge
C1 The Moral Framework and System thus produced moral facts conditionally.
Moral facts are supposed to be objective thus independent of individual opinions, beliefs, subjectivity and relativity.
Moral facts must be justified empirically and philosophically like what Science is doing with scientific knowledge. [note, not from a God nor Plato’s forms]
Moral relativism exists but these are merely pseudo-morality and not morality-proper.
Analogy:
There are wide range of how food are produced, processed, cooked and consumed all over the world but they are all reduced to the very basic nutrition [carbohydrate [glucose], protein, fats, vitamins, minerals] for the body.
It is the same, within the diversity of moralities/ethics around the world, there are universal principles of morality that are generic to all humans.
Moral facts cannot be objective if moral relativism exists simply because they are mutually incompatible
So either objective morality exists with no moral relativism or vice versa but not together in co existence
What about psychopaths who cannot actually understand the moral difference between right and wrong ?
What about moral nihilists / amoralists who do not even accept the existence of morality / moral codes ?
There’s the mundane world where we imprison people (preferable to killing them)
And then there’s the meta concept/goal… we need to eradicate consent violation in existence as a whole so we don’t have to be bothered or annoyed with the mundane worlds (basically chaotic laws and law enforcement)
I understand in a world like this that people would be amoral or even moral nihilists … that’s how the world mostly works. In all that chaos, it’s the most comforting stance here.
To actually move through this world morally requires tremendous work and dis-ease.
It’s easier to kill than to subdue. It’s easier to break and ruin than it is to fix, build or sustain.
Ahh… but if every possible being agrees with the same thing… it’s morally objective. A lot of people haven’t been shown, so… they have the luxury of disagreeing!! No being in all of existence wants their consent violated. Not one. It’s objective. Every possible being agrees with this. Be thankful you aren’t being shown and stop being so cocky about this!
Another thing, we live forever. People who haven’t had experiences with spirit can understand this simple argument … if we ever cease to exist in the future, us being here right now is a subset of our total existence. The proof that we never die is that we’re here right now. And by “we” I mean a subjective continuity of consciousness. We’re still “us” after we die. If there was no “us” after we die, it’d be impossible for “us” to exist now. There is a great distinction between mind and brain.
The moral is; the goal of life is figuring out how to live forever, not how to die (because we don’t die) many people waste their lives here because they don’t make investments in their forever.
Every possible being does not agree morality in every possible example is objective because our minds are individual not identical
However some examples are objective but most examples will fall under the definition of subjective morality because of free will
Moral beings have the freedom to think differently to other moral beings and also change their own minds whenever they want to
Masochists definitely want their consent violated because that is what actually motivates them psychologically
The worst thing you can do to one is not violate their consent because they want disobedience not conformity
We cannot live forever in this physical body we have but what we are made from can exist forever in some altered state of existence
Nothing in Nature is ever truly wasted and at the most basic level we are energy and energy can only be transformed never destroyed
But consciousness which is what gives us our unique personalities ceases at the point of brain death so that part of us no longer exists
Yeah, I’ve heard these arguments a trillion times.
So here’s the deal. You cause no physical pain in a masochist and it will cause psychological pain (no release) that they cannot endure. But that’s just a small point. (That every possible being has a hell)
Nature is not perfect. You’re espousing a religion here that makes you comfortable.
The definition of religion is the belief that the highest possible state of consciousness sees everything as perfect and necessary. That’s what all religious people do.
I have heard your arguments a trillion times too and I am still waiting to be convinced and so too is everyone else
I never said that Nature was perfect - that is your word not mine - and I am a pragmatist and so I dont do religion
You are actually the religious one - always going on about hell - this imaginary place you claimed to have been to
Like I said, “be thankful you weren’t shown”. “And don’t be cocky about it”. But I must admit, it seems to be a law of existence that anyone not shown hell is cocky. Maybe I’m asking too much of you.
Like I said in my other thread. You’re scared of living forever. You made no investments on your infinite life in this life. You wasted your life here and now you’re scared. It’s understandable.
I cannot be scared of something that is physically impossible - that is the classic definition of irrational
You make this claim all of the time but never ever provide any actual evidence - because there is none
I would be scared of living forever if it was actually true but as it is not then no reason to be afraid
What a waste of mental energy my life would be if I had to worry about it so am glad I dont have to
Life doesn’t play by your rules. I learned that the hard way when I tried to destroy existence with the entire power of my spirit. We have eternal spirits whether you like it or not. It’s fine. Just ignore me. I’ll do the heavy lifting for you. Ultimately though, I can’t make your ultimate decisions for you.