Proving Morality

[Pointedstick]

And before we go on, I want to post a question to Kshartle:

Kshartle, is your mind open the the possibility that you might be the one who is wrong, and what you are trying to logically prove is not actually logically provable? Are you open to the chance that we are actually the ones who have it right that this stuff is all social constructions and relative opinions in people's heads?

Because if not, there's really no point in continuing since if you fail to convince us, you'll just conclude that we're ignoring what's right in front of us instead of perhaps questioning your own assumptions the way we have graciously agreed to question ours.

[Kshartle]

And before we go on, I want to post a question to Kshartle:

Kshartle, is your mind open the the possibility that you might be the one who is wrong, and what you are trying to logically prove is not actually logically provable? Are you open to the chance that we are actually the ones who have it right that this stuff is all social constructions and relative opinions in people's heads?

Because if not, there's really no point in continuing since if you fail to convince us, you'll just conclude that we're ignoring what's right in front of us instead of perhaps questioning your own assumptions the way we have graciously agreed to question ours.

PS.....

If I fail to convince you then there will be a sticking point where a contradiction exists or a leap to a premise is being made that's unsupported by what's been agreed upon already. It will be obvious so of course I won't disagree. If you just say "I don't agree" but don't point out where or why well then that's on you. If I tell someone they're wrong it's on me to show them where or just keep my mouth shut.

Open minded to what 99.9% of other people believe? Yeah that's the default position. I came to my conclusions after lots of thought and open-mindedness about the possibility that this stuff isn't impossbile to understand. I was open minded to the idea that this "gut feeling" everyone has isn't just a conincidence. It seemed like too big of a conincidence to me.

[moda0306]

And before we go on, I want to post a question to Kshartle:

Kshartle, is your mind open the the possibility that you might be the one who is wrong, and what you are trying to logically prove is not actually logically provable? Are you open to the chance that we are actually the ones who have it right that this stuff is all social constructions and relative opinions in people's heads?

Because if not, there's really no point in continuing since if you fail to convince us, you'll just conclude that we're ignoring what's right in front of us instead of perhaps questioning your own assumptions the way we have graciously agreed to question ours.

PS.....

If I fail to convince you then there will be a sticking point where a contradiction exists or a leap to a premise is being made that's unsupported by what's been agreed upon already. It will be obvious so of course I won't disagree. If you just say "I don't agree" but don't point out where or why well then that's on you. If I tell someone they're wrong it's on me to show them where or just keep my mouth shut.

Open minded to what 99.9% of other people believe? Yeah that's the default position. I came to my conclusions after lots of thought and open-mindedness about the possibility that this stuff isn't impossbile to understand. I was open minded to the idea that this "gut feeling" everyone has isn't just a conincidence. It seemed like too big of a conincidence to me.

Except you've been very selective about the "gut feelings" to be curious about. You've admitted that you "haven't really though about those things" when we talk about rescuing a drowning child. You've gone into say that there is probably no "moral" aspect to the decision to rescue them... Most people's "guts" would completely disagree, as would mine, and your I think if you saw a child drowning and tried to force yourself to do nothing as a social experiment on "gut feelings" and morality.

Obviously, we can talk about that later, but, politely, I don't think you've been nearly as intellectually curious as you and other ancaps claim to have been when arriving at their "Conclusion."

But we will let this play out and HOPEFULLY one side will be able to concede.

[Stewardship]

Well Kshartle is trying to prove self-ownership, and therefore NAP, as well as private property, using logic. The problem with NAP isn't so much that it's an awful idea... It's that its proponents hold it as logically provable and perfect in ways that every other moral theory have failed, which (IMO) it is not. They then take that supposed logical certainty that we own ourselves and property, and that aggression, or lack thereof, is the only moral measuring stick, and make pretty ballsy assertions about how we should engage ourselves, call us murderers if we don't comply, but if any grey area of not just children, but elderly, property, pollution, mentally-ill, taking risk that could harm others, having any other moral measuring sticks (saving the drowning child is apparently morally neutral), and animals... If you bring up these areas, anarchocaps have a tendency to switch to consequentialism to tell us "of course people will take care of the elderly," or something like that. Rather than applying their supposed logical certainty, they either complain about the tests people try to apply to it (as all philosophers do to all logic), or simply deny the need to worry about it (which is irrelevant) because it'll just work.

So there's nothing wrong with NAP other than it's as flawed as many other theories, but its proponents make ridiculous assertions about its logical consistency, applicability, etc.

I take it we're not talking about the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP)? 

J/K

There's also nothing saying that your neighbors have a higher "claim" on you than you do.

Taxation?

[moda0306]

Stewardship,

You were stating (I think) that denying that self-ownership is either proven or self-evident, by logical extension, is saying that others have a "higher claim" of ownership than you do.

This seems to imply that valid moral ownership must occur in one form or another, and that this indicates that if you don't own yourself, someone else, or some other group, must.

This is not logically deductive.  We haven't proven normative (morally valid) ownership even exists, yet.  Why would saying "you don't own your body" mean that someone else must?  Surely we control our motions, but that's an empirical observation that has to do with how we may choose to affect the world around us or others, but a stolen shovel might also be under our control.  There's nothing moral about the observation that someone controls a thing.  Maybe moral ownership, as a concept defined as "morally valid exclusive control," is simply not morally consistent or correct.

Maybe it's not about "control" of something being morally "good" or "bad," but instead recognizing and defending the intrinsic value of a thing.  For instance, if a human life is intrinsically valuable, and someone tries to commit suicide, a general concept of "self-ownership" might have told us to let him die, while placing an intrinsic value on a human might tell us to save him, even though we're usurping his supposed "rights of ownership" under your theory.  Of course, you'd have to control your body to save him... but that's not making a statement as to whether there is a moral decision there.  I "control" my body to move from my couch to the fridge to grab a beer.  That control is neither good nor bad, IMO, from a moral standpoint.

But this isn't an argument to prove taxation is moral, but to prove (or deem unprovable) whether self-ownership is valid.  If it's not provable, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily a complete waste.  It just means that logic has only taken us so far, and then we have to guess.  Perhaps, as part of that set of Kshartle's premises, we will have to figure out whether "ownership," from a moral standpoint, is even a valid concept... and even if it is, it STILL doesn't go to show one's body MUST be owned by anyone, unless we conclude that everything MUST be owned by someone. We can show that people control things, but there is no logical connection to that fact and moral ownership, which states one OUGHT to have exclusive control over a thing.  It just states that we do, and we often do for completely amoral reasons.

So essentially we have to be careful not to conflate terms, and not to confuse IS logic with OUGHT logic.

[Stewardship]

You were stating (I think) that denying that self-ownership is either proven or self-evident, by logical extension, is saying that others have a "higher claim" of ownership than you do.

I was inquiring as to whether that was your conclusion.  You've shown that it isn't.  Thank you for clarifying.

But this isn't an argument to prove taxation is moral, but to prove (or deem unprovable) whether self-ownership is valid.  Perhaps, as part of that set of premises, we will have to figure out whether "ownership," from a morally valid standpoint, is even a necessity in nature.

Taxation is a claim on ownership, is it not?

[moda0306]

But this isn't an argument to prove taxation is moral, but to prove (or deem unprovable) whether self-ownership is valid.  Perhaps, as part of that set of premises, we will have to figure out whether "ownership," from a morally valid standpoint, is even a necessity in nature.

Taxation is a claim on ownership, is it not?

Not necessarily, and I'll explain why:

Any action taken has a functional/empirical aspect (I returned a mans wallet I found at a park), and a potential normative (moral) aspect (I OUGHT to have returned the mans wallet that I found at the park).  People's individual motivations might be different for different things, and often things are just a general preference.  This isn't necessarily a "moral" decision for people. It's just an action they prefer.  I could buy a beer after work.  I could just drive home.  But if I don't do one or the other it's not because I'm making a moral claim... it's morally neutral... amoral, if you will (unless we're going to dive into pollution, but we'll save that for later).

At least it's amoral to me.

Perhaps, if I'm a tax collector, I don't think of it as moral or immoral... it's just a job.  I don't see myself as having any "right" to the money any more than the guy holding it, or vice versa.  I'm just acting out an amoral behavior.  I'm either getting a beer (collecting taxes), or going home (not collecting taxes).  So by collecting taxes, I am not necessarily establishing an ownership "claim," or challenging yours.  I am just doing. 

What anarchocapitalists try to do is conflate an obvious (leaving out the possibility of determinism for a sec) empirical fact (we control our actions) with a normative concept (morally valid EXCLUSIVE control of ourselves or some object) that they haven't even yet proven the existence of, and just make the jump from an "is statement" to an "ought statement."

We truly have to establish that ownership as a NORMATIVE concept actually exists with certainty, to make a claim that theft has certainly occurred.

Lastly, even if we prove self-ownership, and get that to a direct line to property, it begs the question of an implied contract exists when you do business within a given jurisdiction.... but... like usual... let's hold off on that for now.

I feel like I might be getting things a bit ahead of themselves, but I really hope that my explanations make decent sense, Stewardship, even if you don't agree with them 100%.  Thanks for the good questions.

[Pointedstick]

Amoral?

It's starting to sound like you're veering dangerously close to either nihilism or "the law of the jungle." If it's amoral for the tax collector to take my money, is it amoral if I resist?

Does it then just become about how strong we are relative to one another? That sounds like a concept better suited to animals than rights-holding humans. …Unless of course you're willing to admit that rights are invented opinions that don't really exist, and that we never actually left the law of the jungle, in which case you're not allowed to invoke the assertion that government is necessary to prevent us from re-entering that state!

[moda0306]

I was totally misusing that word.

I meant an action without a moral element to it... Like eat mint ice cream vs vanilla.

What's the word I'm trying to think of?

And I didn't mean that I don't think there is morality. I just don't think it can be proven, especially if the conclusion depends on proving itself with actions taken that it assumes the agent was doing for a certain specific morality-based reason.

Maybe a better example would be that the tax collector may not deem that he "owns" anything he's collecting, and maybe nor does the government, but that he thinks collecting taxes per the law will bring about the best consequences to maximize utility for most people.  A concept of "ownership" might not be his concern.

I'm getting ahead with all this though. I'll wait for Kshartle's premises. I was countering them before they came, which is kind of unfair.

[Kshartle]

The definition of “right”? is: In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct.
The definition of “wrong”? is: Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.

Fact, truth, correctness and the like are objective statements about reality. That doesn’t preclude opinion. Even opinions can be fact, truth, correct etc. as long as they aren’t lies. If I really prefer chocolate then it’s a fact I prefer chocolate and true that I prefer chocolate. That is the reality of the situation.

11. Money shot - Something is “right”? when it’s in accordance with objective reality and “wrong”? when it’s not in conformity with reality and our opinions can’t change that.

12. Humans always make decisions based on their perception (often incorrect) of reality, and expect a certain outcome from their actions.

[moda0306]

The definition of “right”? is: In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct.
The definition of “wrong”? is: Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.

Fact, truth, correctness and the like are objective statements about reality. That doesn’t preclude opinion. Even opinions can be fact, truth, correct etc. as long as they aren’t lies. If I really prefer chocolate then it’s a fact I prefer chocolate and true that I prefer chocolate. That is the reality of the situation.

11. Money shot - Something is “right”? when it’s in accordance with objective reality and “wrong”? when it’s not in conformity with reality and our opinions can’t change that.

12. Humans always make decisions based on their perception (often incorrect) of reality, and expect a certain outcome from their actions.

11) As long as by right and wrong, you aren't including any normative definition (unless you supply another premise(s) that moves "right" into a normative realm. "Right" has lots of definitions. One is to be factually correct. One is to be morally good. For instance:

"It is right that I killed that guy for no reason."  Very different statement depending on what definition you use. 

We can't conflate these definitions or use them interchangably, unless you can prove with more premises that morality is a matter of logic (kinda what we're trying to do here).

12) not to get metaphysical or grey area, but something just rubs me wrong about saying that humans ALWAYS act based on their perception of reality and expect certain consequences.  But I think I can go with that as long as we're leaving out the usual grey areas (children, mentally ill, etc).

But I think some decisions are very subcounscious.  People don't think about reality or consequences consciously all the time.  Some things become just habit from when they were kids or just their inate instincts.

Part of me thinks if a philosopher were here, he'd pick that apart, even for sane adults, but I think I'm willing to accept that for now, with the understanding that it will probably need to be addressed in later gray-area discussions.

Fair on both 11 and 12?

[Kshartle]

The definition of “right”? is: In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct.
The definition of “wrong”? is: Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.

Fact, truth, correctness and the like are objective statements about reality. That doesn’t preclude opinion. Even opinions can be fact, truth, correct etc. as long as they aren’t lies. If I really prefer chocolate then it’s a fact I prefer chocolate and true that I prefer chocolate. That is the reality of the situation.

11. Money shot - Something is “right”? when it’s in accordance with objective reality and “wrong”? when it’s not in conformity with reality and our opinions can’t change that.

12. Humans always make decisions based on their perception (often incorrect) of reality, and expect a certain outcome from their actions.

11) As long as by right and wrong, you aren't including any normative definition (unless you supply another premise(s) that moves "right" into a normative realm. "Right" has lots of definitions. One is to be factually correct. One is to be morally good. For instance:

"It is right that I killed that guy for no reason."  Very different statement depending on what definition you use. 

We can't conflate these definitions or use them interchangably, unless you can prove with more premises that morality is a matter of logic (kinda what we're trying to do here).

12) not to get metaphysical or grey area, but something just rubs me wrong about saying that humans ALWAYS act based on their perception of reality and expect certain consequences.  But I think I can go with that as long as we're leaving out the usual grey areas (children, mentally ill, etc).

But I think some decisions are very subcounscious.  People don't think about reality or consequences consciously all the time.  Some things become just habit from when they were kids or just their inate instincts.

Part of me thinks if a philosopher were here, he'd pick that apart, even for sane adults, but I think I'm willing to accept that for now, with the understanding that it will probably need to be addressed in later gray-area discussions.

Fair on both 11 and 12?

11. Nothing normative....purely objective. I'm going with the objective definition of "right and wrong". It's the other one we're seeking to prove exists in reality but that's a ways away.

12. I think earlier you agreed that people's decisions are ALWAYS influenced by their perception of the possible actions or belief of others. This is no different. We're always perceiving reality. Even crazy people and infants are doing this. If we're always perceiving reality, are decisions are always influenced by our perception of reality. I don't think this needs to be read into more than it is, a very basic obvious statement without any tricks up it's sleeve. Nontheless I think it's important to agree that this is the case.

When you're in water you are perceiving the water and you don't dunk your head and try to breathe, you don't need to think about it.

Does that make more sense? Do you disagree that our perception of reality (regardless if it's accurate) is always influencing our decisions?

From webster's: Philosopher - a person who studies ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life

There are at least a couple of those here as far as I can tell so we need not worry.

[moda0306]

The definition of “right”? is: In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct.
The definition of “wrong”? is: Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.

Fact, truth, correctness and the like are objective statements about reality. That doesn’t preclude opinion. Even opinions can be fact, truth, correct etc. as long as they aren’t lies. If I really prefer chocolate then it’s a fact I prefer chocolate and true that I prefer chocolate. That is the reality of the situation.

11. Money shot - Something is “right”? when it’s in accordance with objective reality and “wrong”? when it’s not in conformity with reality and our opinions can’t change that.

12. Humans always make decisions based on their perception (often incorrect) of reality, and expect a certain outcome from their actions.

11) As long as by right and wrong, you aren't including any normative definition (unless you supply another premise(s) that moves "right" into a normative realm. "Right" has lots of definitions. One is to be factually correct. One is to be morally good. For instance:

"It is right that I killed that guy for no reason."  Very different statement depending on what definition you use. 

We can't conflate these definitions or use them interchangably, unless you can prove with more premises that morality is a matter of logic (kinda what we're trying to do here).

12) not to get metaphysical or grey area, but something just rubs me wrong about saying that humans ALWAYS act based on their perception of reality and expect certain consequences.  But I think I can go with that as long as we're leaving out the usual grey areas (children, mentally ill, etc).

But I think some decisions are very subcounscious.  People don't think about reality or consequences consciously all the time.  Some things become just habit from when they were kids or just their inate instincts.

Part of me thinks if a philosopher were here, he'd pick that apart, even for sane adults, but I think I'm willing to accept that for now, with the understanding that it will probably need to be addressed in later gray-area discussions.

Fair on both 11 and 12?

11. Nothing normative....purely objective. I'm going with the objective definition of "right and wrong". It's the other one we're seeking to prove exists in reality but that's a ways away.

12. I think earlier you agreed that people's decisions are ALWAYS influenced by their perception of the possible actions or belief of others. This is no different. We're always perceiving reality. Even crazy people and infants are doing this. If we're always perceiving reality, are decisions are always influenced by our perception of reality. I don't think this needs to be read into more than it is, a very basic obvious statement without any tricks up it's sleeve. Nontheless I think it's important to agree that this is the case.

When you're in water you are perceiving the water and you don't dunk your head and try to breathe, you don't need to think about it.

Does that make more sense? Do you disagree that our perception of reality (regardless if it's accurate) is always influencing our decisions?

From webster's: Philosopher - a person who studies ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life

There are at least a couple of those here as far as I can tell so we need not worry.

That's all fair enough, K.

Though I wonder now conscious that perception is all the time, that's just a gray area to be handled later.

But just to be sure... You do NOT mean right/wrong as moral statements.... Correct?  You mean them as currently, empirically or provably, correct or incorrect.  Like air weighs less than water, or cows are always purple, respectively.  Nothing like "theft is wrong," yet, correct?

[Kshartle]

That's all fair enough, K.

Though I wonder now conscious that perception is all the time, that's just a gray area to be handled later.

But just to be sure... You do NOT mean right/wrong as moral statements.... Correct?  You mean them as currently, empirically or provably, correct or incorrect.  Like air weighs less than water, or cows are always purple, respectively.  Nothing like "theft is wrong," yet, correct?

Yes on the right vs. wrong

Let's not leave grey areas. The consciousness of the perception is not part of my statement and not a prerequisite to have in order for reality to influence our decisions. Sometimes we are conscious of reality and sometimes we aren't, but we are always perceiving it in some form. That perception influences our decisions, even if we aren't aware of it and can't articulate it.

[moda0306]

That's all fair enough, K.

Though I wonder now conscious that perception is all the time, that's just a gray area to be handled later.

But just to be sure... You do NOT mean right/wrong as moral statements.... Correct?  You mean them as currently, empirically or provably, correct or incorrect.  Like air weighs less than water, or cows are always purple, respectively.  Nothing like "theft is wrong," yet, correct?

Yes on the right vs. wrong

Let's not leave grey areas. The consciousness of the perception is not part of my statement and not a prerequisite to have in order for reality to influence our decisions. Sometimes we are conscious of reality and sometimes we aren't, but we are always perceiving it in some form. That perception influences our decisions, even if we aren't aware of it and can't articulate it.

I don't know if I can agree with that... I just have to be sure of something... and maybe this is just because I'm getting ahead of your arguments...

When you say that humans always "make decisions"... this implies (to me) a conscious choice.  Am I misinterpreting that?  It implies even more-so when you say "expect a certain outcome."  That all seems like it's on a very conscious level.  If not, if we're talking about lots of subconscious stuff, you might be including (inadvertently) animals in your assessment here.  Does a dog "make decisions" when it runs after a squirrel, and "expect a certain outcome" of that action?

If not, can we really allow this premise to apply to subconscious actions?  Isn't most of what happens in our subconscious similar to the thoughts of most low-intelligence animals, most likely?

[Kshartle]

That's all fair enough, K.

Though I wonder now conscious that perception is all the time, that's just a gray area to be handled later.

But just to be sure... You do NOT mean right/wrong as moral statements.... Correct?  You mean them as currently, empirically or provably, correct or incorrect.  Like air weighs less than water, or cows are always purple, respectively.  Nothing like "theft is wrong," yet, correct?

Yes on the right vs. wrong

Let's not leave grey areas. The consciousness of the perception is not part of my statement and not a prerequisite to have in order for reality to influence our decisions. Sometimes we are conscious of reality and sometimes we aren't, but we are always perceiving it in some form. That perception influences our decisions, even if we aren't aware of it and can't articulate it.

I don't know if I can agree with that... I just have to be sure of something... and maybe this is just because I'm getting ahead of your arguments...

When you say that humans always "make decisions"... this implies (to me) a conscious choice.  Am I misinterpreting that?  It implies even more-so when you say "expect a certain outcome."  That all seems like it's on a very conscious level.  If not, if we're talking about lots of subconscious stuff, you might be including (inadvertently) animals in your assessment here.  Does a dog "make decisions" when it runs after a squirrel, and "expect a certain outcome" of that action?

If not, can we really allow this premise to apply to subconscious actions?  Isn't most of what happens in our subconscious similar to the thoughts of most low-intelligence animals, most likely?

You are reading into it. We aren't "always" making decisions, but when we make decisions it's "always" influenced by our perception of reality, whether we are conscious of it or not.

How about - "When humans make decisions it's always influenced by their perception of reality?"

"When humans make decisions, they believe/feel/think/perceive/expect some type of outcome or possible outcome(s)."

[moda0306]

Gotcha!

Totally makes sense.

I'll agree.

[moda0306]

How many total premises do you have?  I'm kind of anxious for one to blow up on us!

[Kshartle]

How many total premises do you have?  I'm kind of anxious for one to blow up on us!

I don't expect it will take more than 30. I know some of them seem very basic but I'm a chessplayer. You can't get to checkmate unless you leave no escape.

Not that the goal here is victory. Checkmate is discovery and learning of a new concept.

[moda0306]

How many total premises do you have?  I'm kind of anxious for one to blow up on us!

...but I'm a chessplayer. You can't get to checkmate unless you leave no escape.

K,

I love that comment.  Not only is it the perfect analogy, but it's EXACTLY why I'm asking you to do all this, thinking that the victory will be mine!

But you are right... Discovery is really the top prize here.  So in a way, if this thing does end in agreement, the true winner may just be the person who "loses" the argument.

I truly wish as many things in my life to be as logically provable as possible.  That, or at least broken down to relatively simple, logical, re-assemblable (if that's even a word) parts.  It's why I love the PP and all the fundamentals behind it.

[Kshartle]

How many total premises do you have?  I'm kind of anxious for one to blow up on us!

...but I'm a chessplayer. You can't get to checkmate unless you leave no escape.

K,

I love that comment.  Not only is it the perfect analogy, but it's EXACTLY why I'm asking you to do all this, thinking that the victory will be mine!

But you are right... Discovery is really the top prize here.  So in a way, if this thing does end in agreement, the true winner may just be the person who "loses" the argument.

I truly wish as many things in my life to be as logically provable as possible.  That, or at least broken down to relatively simple, logical, re-assemblable (if that's even a word) parts.  It's why I love the PP and all the fundamentals behind it.

Then you will love stepping into reality. Lots of things that seem strange will be perfectly clear. I come off jerky and matter-of-fact about things because that's how they really are (to me of course).

Another analogy for those who might tire of these bite sized premises, or rather a saying, also from chess is: "The pawn is the mightiest of peices, for even the queen flees before him".

Don't underestimate the pawn and the importance of these simple statements even though they look like pawn moves. Sometimes it's the quiet pawn move early that makes all the difference in the end.

[moda0306]

...but I'm a chessplayer. You can't get to checkmate unless you leave no escape.

K,

I love that comment.  Not only is it the perfect analogy, but it's EXACTLY why I'm asking you to do all this, thinking that the victory will be mine!

But you are right... Discovery is really the top prize here.  So in a way, if this thing does end in agreement, the true winner may just be the person who "loses" the argument.

I truly wish as many things in my life to be as logically provable as possible.  That, or at least broken down to relatively simple, logical, re-assemblable (if that's even a word) parts.  It's why I love the PP and all the fundamentals behind it.

Then you will love stepping into reality. Lots of things that seem strange will be perfectly clear. I come off jerky and matter-of-fact about things because that's how they really are (to me of course).

Another analogy for those who might tire of these bite sized premises, or rather a saying, also from chess is: "The pawn is the mightiest of peices, for even the queen flees before him".

Don't underestimate the pawn and the importance of these simple statements even though they look like pawn moves. Sometimes it's the quiet pawn move early that makes all the difference in the end.

K,

I've seen anarcho-capitalists attempt to prove self-ownership before, and I've seen it picked apart by real practitioners of logic.

I'm not saying you're all the same, but I think I'm more prepared for your sneak pawn than you think I am.

But, I will TRULY try to do this all in good faith.  Hopefully this will at the VERY least, identify the true specific point of our disagreement.

[Xan]

This has been awfully quiet for a while...

Clearly the sticking point is going to the crossing of the is/ought barrier.  The first premise that includes "should" or "ought" will be assuming the conclusion, and the first statement that includes either of those words will not follow from the premises.

Even just trying to prove that cold-blooded, unmotivated murder is wrong is, well, impossible.  You can lay out all the premises you want, but the minute you say "therefore, you ought not to murder" you've made a leap.

[Kshartle]

This has been awfully quiet for a while...

Clearly the sticking point is going to the crossing of the is/ought barrier.  The first premise that includes "should" or "ought" will be assuming the conclusion, and the first statement that includes either of those words will not follow from the premises.

Even just trying to prove that cold-blooded, unmotivated murder is wrong is, well, impossible.  You can lay out all the premises you want, but the minute you say "therefore, you ought not to murder" you've made a leap.

I sent a message to Moda on this yesterday. I'll get back going. Been very busy and other topics are less taxing. Plus no one except him commented on the last ones.

What is the basis for your belief that it's impossible Xan?

[Xan]

Because there isn't any deductive, logical way to go from non-moral premises to moral conclusions.