• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

HOW TO SHATTER HUME'S GUILLOTINE

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
(IFF) you are capable of understanding this (AND) you value your own existence (THEN) you must value the lives of at least SOME of those on which you directly and indirectly depend (humans, plants, and animals)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IF YOU SPEAK ABOUT ETHICS​

then you must learn to shatter Hume's Guillotine.

Here's the short version.

There are (IS) statements.

And there are (OUGHT) statements.

An (IS) statement is an indisputable fact.

It (IS) raining.

It (IS) one hundred kilometers away.

It (IS) made of steel.

This (IS) the realm of the scientific method.

Science deals EXCLUSIVELY with the realm of the (IS).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1630762473916.png


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most people think they can get an (OUGHT) from an (IS) by simply making a category-error.

For example,

MURDER (IS) EVIL (THEREFORE) ONE (OUGHT) NO MURDERY

This is a category-error because MURDER contains an implicit (OUGHT).

MURDER is generally accepted as "indisputable" (AND MISTAKEN FOR A "FACT") but this cleverly disguises the REALITY that people DISAGREE about what exactly qualifies as MURDER.

For example,

Is MURDER always "intentional" ?

And iff you believe MURDER is always "intentional" then how do you PROVE what someone was thinking at the time of the MURDER ?

ANY LEGAL SYSTEM THAT RELIES ON DIVINING THE MOTIVES AND OR INTENTIONS OF THE ACCUSED IS FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM WITCHCRAFT.​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 6:40 AM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
4,406
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
OK, I am game.
First of all I have no clue what you are talking about in terms of Humes whatever.

Murder! So called Murder does not exist never will unless of course it exists.
Secondly if you do not value the thing that is part of nature that is your problem.
I always will and do.
Of course proof is in the pudding.
I am not in the business of persuasion. Never was never will be.
I know exactly what you mean, and yeah you have no clue what you are talking about.

Intent counts, if you have empirical proof of intent.

I can say with absolute certainty that it is such case, that intent is real in all our actions.

Intent does count, but ones has to distinguish intent of deliberation and intent of passing. For example if I intent to take a thing and put it onto something and change my mind what exactly is the intent? I mean honestly intent is not perfect singular if you know what I mean.

Can you intent and not do something? Obviously. I could intent something a million times over and not do it and then intent it once and do it.

You see my point. Intent is not singular thing. Not unless it is spontaneous.
But then how can you do something spontaneous unless its subconscious.

Also what counts as intent. If I jump you with a knife and you defend yourself is that something?

I can tell you don't bother. You are wasting your time.

I know all and more and its a travesty and lame.

I would not complain were it even close to truth. Its off by a such margin that either I am a zombie or what?

I guess I need brain transplant to make this thing work at this point.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 7:40 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
10,564
-->
Morality is fundamentally a human contrivance and this is plainly obvious the moment you step out of the human perspective, to kill a human is wrong but to kill bacteria is not.

Obviously there's a world of difference in terms of scale and complexity but what is the difference that actually matters? The only moral difference is that one is human and the other is not and we judge every living thing by this standard, the more human-like something is, or the more it benefits humans, or at very least isn't detrimental to humans, the more we empathize with it. Whereas something that's potentially dangerous to humans is considered mere biological automata, even if that thing is far more complex like a poisonous snake many people are in favor of killing it based solely on human bias.

Point is morality isn't universal or logical, it's just a bias and the rule of law is a codified bias enforced by those in power to maintain their base of power.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
Point is morality isn't universal or logical, it's just a bias and the rule of law is a codified bias enforced by those in power to maintain their base of power.

You've just contradicted yourself by laying out a perfectly logical basis for a moral hierarchy.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 7:40 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
10,564
-->
Point is morality isn't universal or logical, it's just a bias and the rule of law is a codified bias enforced by those in power to maintain their base of power.
You've just contradicted yourself by laying out a perfectly logical basis for a moral hierarchy.
Conclusively define "human" in a way I cannot exploit to get away with committing atrocities.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
Conclusively define "human" in a way I cannot exploit to get away with committing atrocities.

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 4:10 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
6,614
-->
Please explain how that has anything to do with being human.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 4:10 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
6,614
-->
What did you have for breakfast?

"WELL FIRST I PROTECTED MYSELF THEN I HAD A SIDE OF PROTECTING MY FAMILY WITH A GLASS OF FRESHLY SQUEEZED PROTECTING MY PROPERTY"
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 12:40 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
10,783
-->
Location
with mama
Moral actions begin as an intuitive understanding of right and wrong. The conscious being that which tells us this. It is our choice to follow a moral action. But it comes from inside us.

An ought can only come from inside. "is" is outside. we have the ability to change the is from an ought, it goes from in to out.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 6:40 AM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
3,074
-->
(IFF) you are capable of understanding this (AND) you value your own existence (THEN) you must value the lives of at least SOME of those on which you directly and indirectly depend (humans, plants, and animals)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IF YOU SPEAK ABOUT ETHICS​

then you must learn to shatter Hume's Guillotine.
If...then is a declarative statement ("is").
You must is a prescriptive statement ("ought").
You're saying that is => ought.
Here's the short version.

There are (IS) statements.

And there are (OUGHT) statements.

An (IS) statement is an indisputable fact.

It (IS) raining.

It (IS) one hundred kilometers away.

It (IS) made of steel.

This (IS) the realm of the scientific method.

Science deals EXCLUSIVELY with the realm of the (IS).
Science is SUPPOSED to deal with the realm of the "is".
Doesn't mean that scientists actually do that.
So that makes it an "ought".
Most people think they can get an (OUGHT) from an (IS) by simply making a category-error.

For example,

MURDER (IS) EVIL (THEREFORE) ONE (OUGHT) NO MURDERY

This is a category-error because MURDER contains an implicit (OUGHT).
You just tried to get an "ought" from an "is", twice.
 

EndogenousRebel

mean person
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,692
-->
Location
Narnia
I personally think we should just fucking mature out of believing any morals are "oughts". Morals are preferences. I value some preferences more than others, some might not even be mine. I for example can admire a moral preference I hate because if that wasn't the dominant preference, I would be dead, as I much prefer being alive.

Preferences are an IS. My preference is X.

IS EQUALS EQUAL. Murdered = ostensibly ultamite irreversible game over for one or more people. People mostly prefer to ≠ murdered. This preference was legislated and became the WILL of American governance. Legislation that is not effective, is shit legislation and defeats the purpose of legislation, so we just ensure that it is constitutionally enforceable and enforce it.

I would prefer that anyone that wants to undermine systems that disincentives making me = murdered not do that, so I'll call them a fucking idiot instead of wrestling with existential dread or entertaining their fantasy of liberty without drawbacks.
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 12:40 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
10,783
-->
Location
with mama
As long as moral preferences are enforceable I guess they are an is. But that would just be on the large scale statistically. They say that God's law applies everywhere yet God never enforces his laws. Man is not a replacement God.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 6:40 AM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
3,074
-->
I personally think we should just fucking mature out of believing any morals are "oughts". Morals are preferences.
Do you think that most people would be happy to say that "not being murdered" and "not being raped" are preferences?

Also, preferences are also "oughts", i.e. choices. So you're really redefining "oughts" as definitions of "oughts", as "is" of "oughts". Doesn't remove the problem that you are still expressing a choice in a descriptive way that doesn't allow for choices.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
Preferences are an IS. My preference is X.

Preferences are QUALIA (unfalsifiable and emotionally meaningful).

An (IS) must be QUANTIFIABLE (empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary and emotionally meaningless).

You have committed a category-error by attempting to categorize a preference as QUANTA.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
Do you think that most people would be happy to say that "not being murdered" and "not being raped" are preferences?

MURDER = UNJUSTIFIED KILLING

RAPE = UNCONSENTING SEXUAL CONGRESS

UNJUSTIFIED = QUALIFIER = QUALIA

UNCONSENTING = QUALIFIER = QUALIA

Neither of these qualifiers are a proper (IS) because they are not QUANTIFIABLE.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
As long as moral preferences are enforceable I guess they are an is.

Preferences are QUALIA (unfalsifiable and emotionally meaningful).

An (IS) must be QUANTIFIABLE (empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary and emotionally meaningless).

You have committed a category-error by attempting to categorize a preference as QUANTA.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
Science is SUPPOSED to deal with the realm of the "is".
Doesn't mean that scientists actually do that.
So that makes it an "ought".

No.

This is actually a TAUTOLOGICAL STATEMENT based on the definition of SCIENCE.
 

EndogenousRebel

mean person
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,692
-->
Location
Narnia
Give me an example of a moral preference that cannot be enforced? If you mean moral preference that is enforced, then to what degree does it have to be enforced?

Humans can be unhappy with a lot of things. The word moral is heavily implicit of some authority almost universally in culture. So yes, I think a lot of people would be unhappy because they would perceive it as demeaning or downgrading their MORALS into preferences, which are more colloquially understood as subjective ideals. But they are the same thing. Saying someone has no morals VS reprehensible morals don't mean the same thing as the former means to say that they are absent of virtue and the ladder is a critique. But this will go over most people's head as the same thing.

Also, I don't believe preferences are necessarily choices. A choice is made via referring to preferences, which I said = morals. Given a sexual orientation and a choice to engage between the 2 genders, ones "choice" aligns with their preference which is not within their control. They can still act against their preferences, it's just that why would they? I don't think many people genuinely can prefer to be murdered unless there are other consequences they wish to avoid.

The only ought's that exist to me are the laws of physics, the past, causality, ect. The law or a computer program is a code that a system mechanizes. This is my interpretation.

Sticking to Hume though.
I prefer candy to vegetables
This is a IS statement.

Refined sugars deteriorate enamels
This is a OUGHT statement. This is where I am at right now. If I am adhering to a code that protects my humans interests and values, then I must do something about refined sugars deteriorating my enamel.

Holy fuck Logiczombie chill with the repeat posting. My goal was mainly contradicting you, as you seem to want to undermine a key determinant in what the legal system uses to convict people many of which are in fact murderers.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
Give me an example of a moral preference that cannot be enforced?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
Sticking to Hume though.
I prefer candy to vegetables
This is a IS statement.

Your candy preference is QUALIA (personal and experiential).

The (IS) in HUME'S GUILLOTINE requires empirical demonstration and or logical necessity.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
Refined sugars deteriorate enamels
This is a OUGHT

The observation that refined sugars deteriorate tooth enamel is empirically demonstrable which makes it a valid (IS) statement.
 

EndogenousRebel

mean person
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,692
-->
Location
Narnia
No. The sensation I get from candy is personal and experiential. Qualia is not that evaluation/preference,

I prefer to fuck men. I have only fucked men. I should only fuck men. How does this deviate from those requirements?

Well that example sounds biblical, and I'm not going to defend that. It is my understanding that the underlying preference there is that envy and selfishness not manifest. If my understanding is correct, coveting something is to be obsessed with attaining it, which has negative outcomes. Oddly enough though, you just discounted me with a claim I used qualia, when your example explicitly hinges on it..
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 12:40 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
10,783
-->
Location
with mama
enforcement strictly hinges on one's preference over another. kill all gays is moral because I can enforce it is a bs reason for moral authority.

moral nihilism without God. (The real god)
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
when your example explicitly hinges on it..

The example was to illustrate that ONLY EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY (QUANTIFIABLE) crimes can be enforced without resorting to witchcraft.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
I prefer to fuck men. I have only fucked men. I should only fuck men. How does this deviate from those requirements?

Can you empirically demonstrate this preference of yours to me ?

Over the internet.

For realz.

Can you prove to me this is a real preference and not some sort of lie ?

If you cannot, then your statement alone is empirically demonstrable and your statement alone is not incontrovertible proof of your claim.

In other words, I can verify you made a claim, but that claim may or may not contain any detectable truth-value.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
No. The sensation I get from candy is personal and experiential. Qualia is not that evaluation/preference,

GREAT.

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO CALL IT ?

WHAT TERMS DO YOU USE TO DISTINGUISH THE VERIFIED FROM THE UNVERIFIED AND OR UNVERIFIABLE ?
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
enforcement strictly hinges on one's preference over another.

ENFORCEMENT HINGES ON EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION AND OR LOGICAL NECESSITY.

YOU CAN'T ENFORCE AN UNDETECTABLE CRIME.

well, of course you can certainly try to, but it all comes out sideways.
 

EndogenousRebel

mean person
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,692
-->
Location
Narnia
Just because context limits our ability to observe IS doesn't make IS not exist. Being over the internet is irrelevant. We can hook me up to a MRI, look at the release of chemicals in my brain and conclusively see if men or women arouse me more. But other than that, if you have personally seen me fucking only men, that serves as evidence no? I don't know why a hypothetical set you off.

In the NBA, there used to be many fights that would break out and interrupt games. Regardless of penalties that players faced, they would get into fights. So what the NBA did is start penalizing behaviors that would escalate to a fight way before it starts.

So, even though a specific outcome isn't intended or desired, why not penalize people who make a situation more likely to manifest and ascribe their behavior as motivation towards something explicit?

Nazi that claim their hate speech is free speech for example. Riddle me this Batman.
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 12:40 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
10,783
-->
Location
with mama
if nothing stops me nothing stops me
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
if nothing stops me nothing stops me

Logic itself stops you.

You can enforce arbitrary and capricious standards and PRETEND they are logically coherent.

But it is literally impossible for you to enforce an unverifiable standard.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
We can hook me up to a MRI

You can claim you were hooked up to an MRI or whatever, but that's still an unverifiable claim.

Most people (myself included) are going to be willing to take you at your word, but that's a courtesy and does not make your claim a FACT.

Still not an (IS).

That's the problem with direct experience.

It seems like an (IS) to you, and only to you (which means it is unverifiable).

This is the difference between GNOSIS and FACT.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
1,110
-->
In the NBA, there used to be many fights that would break out and interrupt games. Regardless of penalties that players faced, they would get into fights. So what the NBA did is start penalizing behaviors that would escalate to a fight way before it starts.

So, even though a specific outcome isn't intended or desired, why not penalize people who make a situation more likely to manifest and ascribe their behavior as motivation towards something explicit?

This is a great example.

What you're pointing out is that INTENTION and MOTIVE are incidental.

BEHAVIOR itself.

Empirically demonstrable BEHAVIOR is the best place to target enforcement.

We should disregard INTENTION and MOTIVE (unless it can be empirically verified).
 

EndogenousRebel

mean person
Local time
Today 1:40 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,692
-->
Location
Narnia
How then do we establish something as fact? If inquiry and analysis is done and submitted where everyone can critique methodology and conclusion is not enough what is? Besides doing this I don't know why you would take someone's word of what they prefer to such skeptical heights. I suppose you can posit a preferable outcome that a person doesn't know exists, but of all conscious choices if someone prefers one of them in that instance, they are in a state of preferring that outcome. Which is an is. If you prefer a static abstract system of thought over practicality, I don't think that entitles you question my preference. This is about reaching ethics is it not? You can doubt my preferences, but you simply CANNOT tell me they are unfalsifiable.

I don't have policy. But at this point it's very clear that freedom of speech is exploitable imo. Misinformation is insane, but at the same time, being incorrect is not a crime. But public speakers are the main drivers of what people think and motive is the upmost importance. There is already conclusive evidence of how incendiary many hollow talking points are, but people aren't informed. Yeah, no I'm in no position to handle such a complex issue.
 
Top Bottom