What you call redundancy, is the fabric of logical validity.

The animals name is Cleo, therefore it is a cat-is a non seq.

The animals name is Cleo, all animals named Cleo are cats, there Cleo is a cat.....is valid.

Honestly, it’s not -my- problem that your moral schema relies on unstated premises that you refuse to own for completely batshit evangelical reasons™....now is it?

Tighten your shit up.

(August 29, 2019 at 8:22 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: What you call redundancy, is the fabric of logical validity.

The animals name is Cleo, therefore it is a cat-is a non seq.

The animals name is Cleo, all animals named Cleo are cats, there Cleo is a cat.....is valid.

Honestly, it’s not -my- problem that your moral schema relies on unstated premises....now is it? Tighten your shit up.

It’s redundant because the meaning of bad in a moral sense, contains the I ought not do bad. In fact the term badness and goodness are meaningless without it.

Still not my problem that you see logical validity as “redundant”.

Never will be.

Believing that we ought not do bad is additional to believing that bad exists.

FWIW, none of us actually believe that we ought not do bad anyway. There’s always a provision for bad in service to good. There are a million silent premises and caveats to that statement.

But go ahead, continue to argue against the accurate statement of realist oughts until you’re blue in the face.

(August 29, 2019 at 8:28 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Still not my problem that you see logical validity as “redundant”.

Never will be.

Of course it’s your problem, because you want to imply good and bad mean something other than how everyone recognizes it.

When people recognize something is bad, they recognize they shouldn’t do it, it’s part of the same recognition.

Blue, in the face.

Your Christ based ticks are yours, not mine. You have Christ based objections to realist oughts that fly in the face of simple and incontrovertible demonstration.

So what? That will always be a you-problem.

(August 29, 2019 at 8:33 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Blue, in the face.

Your Christ based ticks are yours, not mine. You have Christ based objections to realist oughts that fly in the face of simple and incontrovertible demonstration.

So what? That will always be a you-problem.

Thank you for the verbal diarrhea.

Still not my problem.

(August 29, 2019 at 8:09 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Ofc John should be hit means that you should hit John....

.....unless we add a specific caveat. That just because someone should be hit, that doesn’t license you as the hitter.

Hmm that seems backwards to me for some reason. Going from specific to broad its clear that if I should hit him then he should be hit. But it seems to me that something needs to be added if we're going from broad to specific; from saying he should be hit to I should be hitting him.

I don't understand why a caveat is needed. For example. It should be clear that just because I live in New York, doesn't mean I live in Brooklyn, in much the same way that if he should be hit doesn't mean I should be hitting him.

(August 29, 2019 at 6:40 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 29, 2019 at 5:59 pm)Objectivist Wrote: Hi Acrobat,

The is/ ought problem is a result of a deontological view of ethics.  But that view is flawed.  A duty based ethics is a contradiction in terms.  The moral it the chosen, but a duty is something you must perform regardless of what your judgment says.  There are no categorical imperatives. Nature does not place duties on you.   But there are hypothetical imperatives.  If you want x you must do y.  If you want to live you must eat, if you want to live you must obtain cloths, shelter, tools, etc.  The bridge between an is and an ought is values.  If you value your life and want it to continue, you must take certain actions. Those actions are not arbitrary but are based on your nature.  Your nature and the actions it requires are facts.  Facts are objective.

I see the duty as the judgement. The duty is to do good, and not to do bad.

When I judge something my friend did as bad, I’m saying it’s something he ought not have done.

Im not referring to some sort of duty that’s separable from good, but inseparable from it.

Yes, judgment is a duty, but only if you have made the choice to live.  It's a self-imposed duty.  Nature doesn't force you to judge or to live, it's a choice. But once you've made that choice, you must judge everything and everyone on the basis of your life and the values it requires.  What things should I eat, what food should I avoid, what people should I trust and which not, what kind of work should I do, should I work or just sit on the porch with a beer?  What type of woman or man should I seek, what kind of friends, what kind of business partner, lover, etc.  what will it mean for my life and my happiness? You have to do this with absolutely everything, which is why I think so many people look for someone to tell them what to do, you know like an ancient book supposedly authored by a wise and all-loving being, or a guru or what have you.  Because, thinking is hard, hard work and so people want ready-made, canned answers.  

That's what an objective morality looks like, something in reality (an object) as judged by a mind (a subject)  by an objective method (one that adheres to facts) and by an objective standard.  

"When I judge something my friend did as bad, I'm saying it's something he ought not to have done." *if he wants to live and have a good life*

(August 30, 2019 at 12:24 am)Objectivist Wrote: Yes, judgment is a duty, but only if you have made the choice to live.  It's a self-imposed duty.  Nature doesn't force you to judge or to live, it's a choice.

Good and Bad seem to be like color. To recognize that stealing is bad, is more like recognizing that stealing is yellow, than deciding what color I should color stealing. I see yellow not because reality forces me to see yellow, rather because it is yellow. If I wanted to close my eyes and refuse to see that x is yellow, I could.

One of the properties of this moral color (good) is that it carried with it some compelling quality of I ought to do it, and the color of badness as something I ought not do. If good is like light, then it’s a direction I ought to move towards, and badness is like darkness, it’s a directions I should move away from.

Now I don’t know about you, but I grew up poor, and in bad part of town, and done a lot of things that where bad, stolen things and stuff.

Even in the act of stealing, I was fully aware that what I was doing is wrong, and that i ought not do it, as liking a breaking of an obligation.

I recognized that as a truth, a fundamental truth, and not as like societies, my family, community, friends, would disprove of my actions, or be disappointed by them. Or some rule that I made for myself

It also doesn’t seem to be the case that this was something I was indoctrinated into believing. If I tried to say to myself this is just some indoctrinated false belief, or that it’s a thing of my own creation, I would just be lying to myself, like trying to convince myself the earth is flat.

I don’t know about your insistence on a choice to live, but this perception wouldn’t have changed if I made the choice to die or commit suicide instead, anymore so that I’d believe that 1+1=5, in welcoming death.

Quote:"When I judge something my friend did as bad, I'm saying it's something he ought not to have done." *if he wants to live and have a good life*

And if he said I wanted to have a bad life, we’d tell him that ain’t right, you ought to want a good life.

Wittgenstein:

Quote:“ But this is not how Ethics uses them.

Supposing that I could play tennis and one of you saw me playing and said "Well, you play pretty badly" and suppose I answered "I know, I'm playing badly but I don't want to play any better," all the other man could say would be "Ah then that's all right."

But suppose I had told one of you a preposterous lie and he came up to me and said "You're behaving like a beast" and then I were to say "I know I behave badly, but then I don't want to behave any better," could he then say "Ah, then that's all right"?

Certainly not; he would say "Well, you ought to want to behave better."
Here you have an absolute judgment of value, whereas the first instance was one of a relative judgment.