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.
I know what it was like to be you.
You have never been to hell - stop making this ridiculous claim - no one believes this
Another ridiculous claim - you have absolutely no idea what it is like to be me - stop saying these things
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
What’s irrational is me trying to explain these things to a person like you. But, I still do it.
When everyone quits on you, I’ll still be here joking with you about your youth, and we’ll both get some good laughs. That’s the truth.
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.
As usual we are going round in circles with neither listening to the other so will leave it there as no point in carrying on
At least you are consistent but unfortunately that is the only good thing I can actually say about your ridiculous position
You really don’t get. 10’s of thousands of years people have been talking about the spiritually sighted and the spiritually blind. Explaining the spirit world to you is like explaining the color green (with definitions) to a blind person. You’re the incredulous blind person. Fine by me, you’re not ruining my life.
Were you to adapt a somewhat more credible style of communication then you might have a more captive audience
What lets you down is not merely what you say but the way that you say it so you could consider that if you want to
That’s the problem. Words don’t convey spiritual knowledge, just like they don’t convey what green is to a blind person. The way I form sentences are the best that I can do. Spiritual people look at my messages and go “duh”, non spiritual people see problems with language or concept.
Now don’t get me wrong! I’m always working on language !! Probably always will!
For example, I used to call all human sex rape, people got furious at me, so I learned recently to call the form of rape I was talking about “subtle rape”.
I evolve linguistically for sure.
Unfortunately these are invalid syllogisms.
To understand why, take a look at the grammar being used - specifically the “voice” being used (i.e. active or passive voice).
In P1, “IS” being “conditioned by humans” uses the passive voice. The equivalent sentence using the active voice would be “Humans condition IS_ness”.
P2 uses the active voice and the equivalent sentence using the passive voice would be “OUGHT is conditioned by humans”.
If you were to match the voice for each premise, we’d either have both “IS” and “OUGHT” being conditioned by humans (passive), or humans conditioning both “IS” and “OUGHT”.
So if humans condition “IS” and they condition “OUGHT”, it does not follow that “OUGHT” is derived from “IS”, only that both are derived from humans and could in principle be completely unrelated to one another except in terms of their shared origin. The same goes for saying “IS” and “OUGHT” are conditioned by humans: they’re each derived by humans and could be otherwise unrelated.
The same goes for your second syllogism, which uses the same syntax but simply swaps out “IS” and “OUGHT” for “FACT” and “VALUE” respectively.
As such, neither are valid I’m afraid.
Apart from syntax, more partially cut off considerations need to be consider.
The fear of the fear of the ‘’ has been circumscribed by the shallow look back to a slippery slide unto fascism
Syntax is always definitive, and opinionated. It’s easy to cover the implications with the definitively ascertained , as if all meaning stems from one identifiable circumstance from another just like it.
But that is not how meaning is transmitted, only propaganda.
And this is where the crux of the dilemma lies, and it is similar to the total Nietzchean disqualification, and this sleight of hand purported non objective inference mixed with a faux referentiality, that put N away into the bedlam of undisputed finality.
Interpretation is constantly revised, but the problem with intuition is that it can descend to myth- good and/or bad.
Such transiting vision that can only occur sparsely, can be regressed toward a choice between good and bad, and only those to whom evil is merely an unintended occurance based on the thought processes of those to whom such understanding is undisclosed, clashes with those who are beyond good and evil.
After all , did nor the Christ say, “Forgive Them Father, for they do not know ?”
As stated, moral relativism is pseudo-morality, not morality-proper.
It is just like Science-proper versus pseudo-science.
Morality-proper with objective moral facts are the essence of morality while moral relativism are the forms of morality-proper.
Moral relativism are justified by anthropologists and social scientists who observed people from different cultures and traditions has different ‘moral’ values relative to their circumstances.
For example, the certain primitive tribes, Christians, Muslims, various group has different sets of moral values.
But the problem with moral relativists is they are too superficial and do not dig deeper to understand the underlying generic principles of human nature related to good and bad.
I am not against the forms of moral-relativism which is my views are the APPLIED aspects [Ethics] of universal moral principles of PURE morality.
I had stated, DNA wise, ALL humans has the inherent potential of a generic moral function. Unfortunately this moral function is not very active in the majority of humans at present. But fortunately this inherent potential is unfolding very slowly and the results of moral increment is evident since 100,000 years ago to the present.
Whilst the inherent moral function is not very active in the majority, there is a small percentile where the moral function neural algorithm is not connected properly at birth or later.
Note for example, DNA wise, the 5 senses are programmed to function according to their specific purpose, but then there is synaethesia where there wrong connections between the senses and their trigger. E.g. a person when tasting will see colors and other wrong combinations of the senses.
For psychopaths, the problem is their inherent moral function is damaged either during birth [nature] or during his nurturing period.
For others, as Boyd stated, they have a deficit-moral-cognitive-function in recognizing the existence of moral facts, i.e. the moral fact deniers.
As I had stated elsewhere, it is too late to do much improvement to the current generations in terms of improving their moral competence.
Humanity’s hope is to establish fool proof self-development programs to increase the moral competence of the average person for future generations [next 50, 75 > 100 years].
In addition, for outliers like psychopaths and other moral nihilists, humanity will have to find ways to prevent them at birth or to find ways to manage their psychopathy.
Very reasonable critique.
As raised by Fuse, there is something missing, perhaps a missing premise or terms.
viewtopic.php?p=2771554#p2771554
I added the following points to the premises.
P1 ‘IS’ [empirical] is being conditioned by humans [PAR]
P2 Humans condition and derive OUGHT_ness from IS
C1 Therefore, OUGHT is derived from IS
P1 is prevailing, thus ‘being conditioned’ is grammatically correct [??].
P2 is active, i.e. humans are deriving ought from IS.
The above is a general model.
As specifically for moral ought and moral facts [Justified True Moral Beliefs], they are derived, conditioned and justified from a Moral Framework and System via empirical and philosophical means, just like how scientific facts are derived and conditioned from the Scientific Framework and System with its scientific method, peer review, etc.
Welcome more comments where necessary.
The separation of is and ought is abstraction.
It’s like saying 2 clouds are separate.
It seems to make sense, but in reality,
the clouds are transient.
They intermix, and appear, and disappear.
A cloud is not an individual thing.
It is many small things.
Philosophical errors.
I hope you don’t mind me pointing out logical flaws - I understand it can come across as patronising and some people find it difficult. Not my intention.
Your coloured additions unfortunately introduce another one to premise 2:
If we separate P2 by its logical conjunction (the “and”) into the subject “Humans” with two different predicates “condition OUGHT_ness from IS” and “derive OUGHT_ness from IS”, we note the latter predicate is equivalent to the conclusion.
(Humans) “derive OUGHT_ness from IS” is semantically identical to “OUGHT is derived from IS”. This is known as “begging the question”, which just means “assuming the conclusion” - i.e. a kind of circular reasoning where the conclusion is already in the premises. This is an informal logical fallacy - because of course your conclusion will follow from the premises if you’ve already stated it in a premise from which your conclusion is derived.
Deriving “ought” from “is”, and “ought” derived from is", use the active and passive voice respectively to mean the same thing - as I brought up in my last post.
I don’t want you to misunderstand me - using either voice is entirely valid grammatically: “being conditioned” is indeed grammatically correct, and so is (humans) “deriving ought from is”. The only thing that’s different is the “point of view”, if you like.
“The dog followed the human” and “the human was followed by the dog” describe identical situations, only the former (active voice in this case) is the point of the view of the dog, and the latter (passive voice in this case) is the point of view of the human. The dog is doing an action in the former, and the human is passively involved in what the dog’s doing in the latter, but the two statements are logically interchangeable as the semantic value carried by either voicing is identical.
As a suggestion: try to make the voices you’re using consistent throughout your argument if that helps you more easily assess the validity of its progression, because I think grammar is tripping you up here.
For your P1, you have the element “IS” being part of the set “things that are conditioned by humans”. This is fairly tautologous, because the property of existence is a pre-condition for being acted on in any way (e.g. being conditioned (by humans)).
For your P2, you state that “humans condition oughtness” as a fact, which seems fine to me.
If your conclusion is to be that “ought is derived from is”, perhaps it’s first necessary to establish that “conditioning” amounts to the object of conditioning being “derived” from the subject doing the conditioning. This would allow P2 to state that “oughtness is derived from humans”, or “humans derive oughtness” (same thing, different voice).
In this case, for P2 to validly lead to C1, P1 would have to be something like “humans are derived from IS_ness”. This would allow the form:
P1: B <= A
P2: C <= B
C1: C <= A
where A denotes “IS_ness”, B denotes “humans”, and C denotes “OUGHT_ness”. I wrote the arrows backwards to mimic the passive voice that makes the argument easier to read:
“Humans” derived from “is”, ought derived from “humans”, therefore “ought” derived from “is”.
And I guess humans are indeed derived from “IS_ness”, given objective existence independent of the human perception of it - as most people believe it to be.
But as sound as this syllogism now is, all it really says is that “ought” is a thing that exists that comes to existence via the existence of humans. This seems fairly uncontroversial.
“You can’t get an is from an ought” is getting at something different. “Ought” is an element of the set “Is”, because oughtness “exists”. But there is nothing necessarily “ought” as a result of what “is”.
It’s possible to assert an ought “within” the scope of what “is”, about something that “is”, as something that “is”. This invokes the realm of modal logic:
P1: “Is” possibly derives humans (
A → ◇B)
P2: Humans possibly derive oughts (◇B → ◇C)
C1: It is possible that “is” derives “ought”, but it is not necessary that “is” derives “ought”. (A → ◇C ∧ ¬:white_medium_square:C)
Basically, you can derive “ought” from “is”, but to do is is arbitrary and unjustified by virtue of any necessity. So unfortunately it’s not pseudo-science that justifies moral relativism, it’s logic.